As far as “The Divine Consistency Objection” goes, I see this as a mission/purpose issue. If God’s purpose for this universe is for it to obey the natural laws without exception, then God is being inconsistent. If God’s purpose for this universe is, let’s say, to bring glory to Himself, then God should use the natural laws and whatever other means necessary to fulfill that purpose. If God’s purpose is the latter, then miracles actually make God more consistent since they fulfill his purpose.
An example of this idea in a simpler context would look like this: my stated purpose for eating food is to give my body healthy energy, yet I spend the day eating chocolate. I am acting inconsistent with my stated purpose. If my stated purpose for eating food is for my own (short-term) enjoyment, there is no inconsistency with my purpose. Personal consistency (probably better defined as integrity) always depends on purpose.
So, what is God’s purpose, and what role do the natural laws play in that purpose?
If we accept the Two Books point of view, the purpose of God through the Bible and Nature is to reveal God’s Self. That is what the miracles in the NT do along with everything else through Jesus Christ and the Bible. The laws of nature also reveal God’s Self, when we take the time to understand them.
I appreciate your willingness to engage on this. No, I don’t think the science-religion conversation is well suited at convincing the ‘unconvinced’. When theistic philosophers and scientists suggest that divine action might be hiding within the uncertainties of quantum physics, they are indirectly acknowledging that their hand is pretty weak. Even the tremendous evidence of fine-tuning of the natural world is readily dismissed (eg. via multiverses) since it can’t be proved. And as one who is convinced that divine action is ongoing and ever-present in the natural world and in our lives, this ‘hiddenness’ appears intentional. Could it be that God doesn’t want to be ‘outed’ by the tools of science? You brought up the question of ‘why’. I would love to see this explored. Perhaps the main value of the science-religion conversation is as a support to all truth-seekers who are struggling and have honest questions. Biologos has provided this type of support so well I think.
This is an interesting point of view - God’s purpose is the salvation of humanity through Christ - the NT shows that everything is done to serve God’s will and purpose. To include purpose in “laws of nature” would, I suppose, be made reasonable by arguing the entire universe was created for that purpose. However, if people take a point of view such as, for example, Hume, we are back to some humanly disscovered regularities that have a hold over the creation, and these are termed laws that determine the way the creation is and continues. It is this error that I think we may fall into; in a humorous way, it may be said that “laws of science” are deified and are worthy of worship, so much so, that God is somehow put in His place. It is even more humorous when we realise that these laws are also without purpose, but everything must be subject to them; yet it is all accidental, random, non-reproducible etc etc, and yet they regulate the entire show. Illogical by any measure. I suggest that error is derived from this illogical view, be it a view of a determined/clockwork creation, or one of a purposeless pointless accidental nature.
Could it be that God doesn’t want to be ‘outed’ by the tools of science?
I happen to agree that that is exactly what is going on… God intentionally “hides” in the sense that He ensures that our public evidence remains ambiguous. But we can’t simply stop there because it is very reasonable to think that God would want to supply us with as much evidence for His existence/actions as possible. But clearly He has not done that. So we do need a counter-reason, some plausible explanation for why He has not in fact supplied us with overwhelming evidence for His existence/actions. I think the answer must lie in a special value of coming to know God from within an ambiguous evidential condition. This value may be hard to specify, but we can glimpse it when we contemplate the apparent dis-value of believing when our evidence is overwhelming. Blessed are they who have not seen, yet believe.
You’re absolutely right that this should be explored further.
I appreciate the discourse between you two. I actually think that the science and religion discussion can be suited for apologetics. Remember Romans 1:20, “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.” The immediate context is not seeing God science, of course, it’s seeing God in nature. However, some people think that God can be seen through science. Visit Richard Dawkins’ home page some time, his followers go on and on about the utter joy it brings them in discovering the beauty and complexity in nature, - to the point that their discourses are almost, if not literally, acts of worship. Dawkins says that he basically worships nature and said Einstein (both including science) did as well (The God Delusion). They just at this point can’t see, for some reason, the one who created this wonderful creation. I agree with Tom’s point that that looking for God’s actions in the uncertainties in quantum mechanics is lame (I studied quantum mechanics in undergrad and I find it hard to see any other reaction than being laughed out of the classroom had tried to suggest that). But Tom I think you let the multiverse off the hook way too easily. What Dawkins and other popular skeptic writers fail to mention is that the multiverse, if it exists, is not guaranteed to produce universes with different physical constants and laws. The multiverse to do that would have to be in 9 dimensions, and they would have to be, “fine tuned” (simplified) for it to have the characteristics of producing an unlimited number of universes, each with a new set of laws and constants that would produce life in a few of them. Considering that, and the fact that there is literally no physical evidence of other universes, we can present intellectually curious people with 3 real options: That the beauty and wonder of this universe appeared out of nothing, that we got lucky with a fine-tuned multiverse (of course this calls for an explanation) or an intelligent creator initiated the creation. We don’t need magical acts (I’m not arguing that there isn’t) to show people God’s presence. In summarization, for myself, even a, “naturalistic” creation, taken in it’s proper context is more than enough have apologetic value.
Very well put. By ‘dis-value’ you lead me think of persons with fame, fortune or power who can never truly know who their friends are… and even of their friends who can never be completely sure even of their own motivations. How could this ever be avoided? Perhaps an intentional ‘ambiguous evidential condition’ is an absolute necessity. Perhaps ‘perfect humility’ demands it as well. Thank you!
I actually agree with you. You used the word ‘lame’ in reference to using the uncertainties of quantum physics to point to divine action. And I would use the same word in reference to using multiverses in an attempt to avoid the powerful evidence of design. For believers, the apparent design of the universe is convincing scientific evidence of a Creator. It is to me. However, for those who are ‘unconvinced’, ‘multiverses’ readily allows them to remain unconvinced because ‘luck’ is an acceptable, rational alternative. And this is what I was acknowledging. So God continues to be hidden for all intents and purposes.
Seems to me this might hinge (at least in part) on whether one believes God to be temporal or not. If God exists outside of space and time, which the singularity of the Big Bang suggests must be the case, then every action within space and time, must by definition be an intervention.
Depends on what is meant by that. When I describe God as existing outside of space and time I mean that space and time are created things from which God is wholly distinct.
Paul said quoting a pagan poet, “In Him (God) we love and move, and have our being.” and of course Jesus is God, so I do not think that God is outside of or separate from,space and time. Thus God does not intervene in God’s universe. ,
And this is my point. God is distinct from the things He creates. Since space and time are created things, any action taken within the fabric of those things is inherently an intervention.
The death of Lazarus was a natural event, as with any disease process that runs it’s course to whatever condition people find themselves in. This event occurs within space and time. If God acts within space and time to undo the event or transform the result, that is an intervention.
To say God does not intervene is to assert the miracles of Jesus did not occur. And we might as well all be deists.
A miracle is by definition a sign or a “message” from God. An intervention is an event. When we focus on the event/intervention we overlook the message, which is the purpose of the miracle.
A miracle cannot send a message without being unexpected. The miracle of the loaves and fishes was certainly an intervention… otherwise, there would have been an ordinary day with only enough food to feed a handful.
I suggest that error is derived from this illogical view, be it a view of a determined/clockwork creation, or one of a purposeless pointless accidental nature.