Divine Causality and Natural Causality

[JJM]

I'd like to start a discussion about the relationship between divine causality and natural causality. To that end, it seems to say that God interacts with us through the occurrences in our lives can only mean one of four things without being largely tautological regarding our state as subjects or otherwise prescribing to some form of Pan- or Panentheism.

1. God is acting through creation directly but not in a manner which is ostensibly overt, e.g. God causes a string to loosen in a pocket such that a penny falls from someone's pocket which distracts someone else keeping them from getting hit by a piano.


2. Some action occurs by natural means and God acts in manner 1 or in a more overt manner in relation to that action for some purpose, e.g. a small boy is perchance singing something like “Take up and read” and God manipulates another person's cognitive apparatus such that he feels compelled to read Romans.


3. God has designed the world in such a manner the natural consequences of certain actions suit His purposes in a generic manner, e.g. nuclear winter is a natural consequence of wide spread use of nukes, thus adding an extra incentive not to engage in an activity which is highly likely to be otherwise immoral. I say in a generic manner because if this were done for individual situations this would be simply a very extended form of 1.


4. One can engage with a person by engaging with their work as I can in a sense engage with the author of a novel or designer of a video game by reading or playing their creation.

Moreover, with the exception of the situation described in the caveat to number 3, 1 and 2 always entail a miracle (except that the opportunity for it may be built into the laws of the universe given the insistence of many particle physicists that the position of certain particles is entirely “random”). Unless perhaps one wants to posit some sort of Enpantheism, if we are going to say that 3 or 4 is not only the in fact most widespread way of interacting with God but also our primary meaning when we speak of interacting with God, then we are bordering on Deism to too far of an extent to accept something like an incarnation especially one built on things like the call of Abraham and the the choosing of Israel.

Any thoughts?

 

[True Scotsman]

I'd like to start a discussion about the relationship between divine causality and natural causality. To that end, it seems to say that God interacts with us through the occurrences in our lives can only mean one of four things without being largely tautological regarding our state as subjects or otherwise prescribing to some form of Pan- or Panentheism.

1. God is acting through creation directly but not in a manner which is ostensibly overt, e.g. God causes a string to loosen in a pocket such that a penny falls from someone's pocket which distracts someone else keeping them from getting hit by a piano.


2. Some action occurs by natural means and God acts in manner 1 or in a more overt manner in relation to that action for some purpose, e.g. a small boy is perchance singing something like “Take up and read” and God manipulates another person's cognitive apparatus such that he feels compelled to read Romans.


3. God has designed the world in such a manner the natural consequences of certain actions suit His purposes in a generic manner, e.g. nuclear winter is a natural consequence of wide spread use of nukes, thus adding an extra incentive not to engage in an activity which is highly likely to be otherwise immoral. I say in a generic manner because if this were done for individual situations this would be simply a very extended form of 1.


4. One can engage with a person by engaging with their work as I can in a sense engage with the author of a novel or designer of a video game by reading or playing their creation.

Moreover, with the exception of the situation described in the caveat to number 3, 1 and 2 always entail a miracle (except that the opportunity for it may be built into the laws of the universe given the insistence of many particle physicists that the position of certain particles is entirely “random”). Unless perhaps one wants to posit some sort of Enpantheism, if we are going to say that 3 or 4 is not only the in fact most widespread way of interacting with God but also our primary meaning when we speak of interacting with God, then we are bordering on Deism to too far of an extent to accept something like an incarnation especially one built on things like the call of Abraham and the the choosing of Israel.

Any thoughts?

On what objective basis do you make such a dichotomy. What evidence is there of "divine causality"?

 

[Tree of Life]

The line between miracle and providence is indeed fuzzy. Dr. John Frame defines miracle as: "an extraordinary manifestation of God's lordship" and providence as: "ordinary manifestations of God's lordship". In other words, God is constantly and intimately involved in every event that happens in his creation. He is the ultimate and immediate cause of every event. That's his providence. But he also sometimes acts in unusual ways to demonstrate that there is indeed a provident God upholding and directing the course of nature. These are miracles.

Yahweh brought Israel out of Egypt with a "mighty hand" and "outstretched arm" so that they would know that He is the Lord. The miracles of God teach us about the Lordship of God over all creation - His Lordship which is always present and at work.

 

[JJM]

On what objective basis do you make such a dichotomy. What evidence is there of "divine causality"?

It is possible to have a discussion even about something one believes to be false in the abstract assuming it is true in order to better ascertain what the nature of the reality would be were it to exist.

For the purposes of this discussion then I do not need to prove the existence of divine causality merely assert that within our social framework it is a notion which exists. I here feel that I have asserted by reference to our common reason that the relationship between this notion and another which our social framework shares must exist in dichotomy. More on that in my reply to Tree of Life

 

[JJM]

The line between miracle and providence is indeed fuzzy. Dr. John Frame defines miracle as: "an extraordinary manifestation of God's lordship" and providence as: "ordinary manifestations of God's lordship". In other words, God is constantly and intimately involved in every event that happens in his creation. He is the ultimate and immediate cause of every event. That's his providence. But he also sometimes acts in unusual ways to demonstrate that there is indeed a provident God upholding and directing the course of nature. These are miracles.

Yahweh brought Israel out of Egypt with a "mighty hand" and "outstretched arm" so that they would know that He is the Lord. The miracles of God teach us about the Lordship of God over all creation - His Lordship which is always present and at work.

That is a helpful distinction but I wish to push the issue further. If providence is not a series of minute "supernatural" deeply intertwined with the natural laws of the universe then do we not head to deeply into Deism?

This is a dichotomy between God's activity as that of a free agent and the activity of the universe principally as a determined reality. This notion is of necessity dichotomized.

To what degree is this providence something which God has built into the system and what degree his direct action involved?

 

[Tree of Life]

That is a helpful distinction but I wish to push the issue further. If providence is not a series of minute "supernatural" deeply intertwined with the natural laws of the universe then do we not head to deeply into Deism?

This is a dichotomy between God's activity as that of a free agent and the activity of the universe principally as a determined reality. This notion is of necessity dichotomized.

To what degree is this providence something which God has built into the system and what degree his direct action involved?

From a biblical standpoint everything that happens is a direct act of God. There are no impersonal "laws of nature" that govern creation. There is a person that governs creation. We're not flying off into space right now because of the law of gravity, but because of God's covenant with Noah - God's covenantal love toward us.

 

[Colter]

In my philosophy or theology The Most Highs rule in the kingdoms of men through many celestial forces and agencies but chiefly through the ministry of seraphim. God delegates authority in his subordinates.

In terms of personal spiritual guidance in the life of the believer, the Father in the heart of the believer is the guide.

 

[JJM]

From a biblical standpoint everything that happens is a direct act of God. There are no impersonal "laws of nature" that govern creation. There is a person that governs creation. We're not flying off into space right now because of the law of gravity, but because of God's covenant with Noah - God's covenantal love toward us.

Are you suggesting that regularity we see in the world is simply the result of God deciding to act in established patterns?

I recognize for example Amos 3 but need that utterly remove agency from creatures, which is what you are suggesting?

I wish to present you with three apparent consequences of what you are saying.

1. If I hold a match to a cloth, the match does not light the cloth, but rather God does, and the fire does not burn the cloth; rather God does. For there is no agency in the fire.

2. Likewise (though I usually hate Holocaust examples, this one seems fitting), your position means that Hilter did not kill anyone during the Holocaust. A) Because he has no agency as an individual it is impossible for him to have caused the deaths of anyone. God killed them simply put. B) Because even if we attribute agency to Hitler, you're requirement for the proximity of God's actions means that he didn't kill any of them because I imagine he never pulled a lever, turned a valve, or fired a trigger himself, but always by means of some subordinate.

3. Thirdly (here I assume the traditional definition of human being though ultimately I reject the definition) does this not also suggest that my reality of being an animal endowed with reason not actually make me a human? For this requires a certain agency on the part of my qualities. Nor could we claim the opposite that because I am a human that as a result I am a rational animal.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

From a biblical standpoint everything that happens is a direct act of God. There are no impersonal "laws of nature" that govern creation. There is a person that governs creation. We're not flying off into space right now because of the law of gravity, but because of God's covenant with Noah - God's covenantal love toward us.

The problem I have with this viewpoint is that it becomes simply a matter of labels and words.

For example, if you drop a brick on your toe, you could say, "The brick fell because of gravity and I felt it hit my toe because nerves fired and sent electrical signals to my brain and it hurt because my brain interpreted those signals as pain."

You could also say, "The brick fell because of God's providential action and I felt it hit my toe because of God's providential action and it hurt because of God's providential action."

It is merely labelling something differently. Its like if you label an apple in your right hand as a "banana" and a banana in your left hand as an "apple". The label does not change the outcome: a round, red fruit in your right hand and a long, yellow fruit in your left hand.

This viewpoint renders "divine cause" and "natural cause" essentially the same thing except with a change of labels whereby the "divine cause" is a catch-all label which is thus meaningless and conveys no information while the "natural cause" is more descriptive and contains information.

 

[Tree of Life]

The problem I have with this viewpoint is that it becomes simply a matter of labels and words.

For example, if you drop a brick on your toe, you could say, "The brick fell because of gravity and I felt it hit my toe because nerves fired and sent electrical signals to my brain and it hurt because my brain interpreted those signals as pain."

You could also say, "The brick fell because of God's providential action and I felt it hit my toe because of God's providential action and it hurt because of God's providential action."

It is merely labelling something differently. Its like if you label an apple in your right hand as a "banana" and a banana in your left hand as an "apple". The label does not change the outcome: a round, red fruit in your right hand and a long, yellow fruit in your left hand.

This viewpoint renders "divine cause" and "natural cause" essentially the same thing except with a change of labels whereby the "divine cause" is a catch-all label which is thus meaningless and conveys no information while the "natural cause" is more descriptive and contains information.

It's not a purely semantic difference. The immediate "outcome" may be the same but the way that we think about the experience, our personal experience of the experience, and the meaning we assign to the experience totally changes.

Let's say, for instance, that I am diagnosed with cancer. Should I view that situation as a totally impersonal series of events - bad luck so to speak? Or should I view that event as something ultimately orchestrated by a God who loves me and cares for me?

Depending on how I view the event the way that I feel about it and the meaning that I assign to it totally changes. This changes how I respond to the event. It changes everything.

 

[JJM]

The problem I have with this viewpoint is that it becomes simply a matter of labels and words.

For example, if you drop a brick on your toe, you could say, "The brick fell because of gravity and I felt it hit my toe because nerves fired and sent electrical signals to my brain and it hurt because my brain interpreted those signals as pain."

You could also say, "The brick fell because of God's providential action and I felt it hit my toe because of God's providential action and it hurt because of God's providential action."

It is merely labelling something differently. Its like if you label an apple in your right hand as a "banana" and a banana in your left hand as an "apple". The label does not change the outcome: a round, red fruit in your right hand and a long, yellow fruit in your left hand.

This viewpoint renders "divine cause" and "natural cause" essentially the same thing except with a change of labels whereby the "divine cause" is a catch-all label which is thus meaningless and conveys no information while the "natural cause" is more descriptive and contains information.

Tree of Life very adequately responded to this, however I wanted to add a point which you may not be seeing. If he is right there is nothing in the bodies of the earth and the brick which causes them to attract. God merely moves them. There is no connection other than incidental between the firing of your neurons and your brain receiving signals. God made the neurons fire; He made the brain be signaled. The neurons caused nothing. It did not hurt because your brain interpreted it. You interpreted it; you hurt, but only passively, God actively caused you to do those things.

Forget the legitimate psychological consequences for the act of faith which Tree of Life mentioned, this alone is a dramatic difference.

 

[JJM]

It's not a purely semantic difference. The immediate "outcome" may be the same but the way that we think about the experience, our personal experience of the experience, and the meaning we assign to the experience totally changes.

Let's say, for instance, that I am diagnosed with cancer. Should I view that situation as a totally impersonal series of events - bad luck so to speak? Or should I view that event as something ultimately orchestrated by a God who loves me and cares for me?

Depending on how I view the event the way that I feel about it and the meaning that I assign to it totally changes. This changes how I respond to the event. It changes everything.

But Tree of Life, if the immediate outcome is the same then it seems that there is little difference between what you are describing and a "a totally impersonal series of events" because God is acting in an entirely impersonal way. Always doing the same things in conformity when certain situations arise. You must be at least suggesting that His providence contains some irregularity such that He is truly acting in your interests.

If you want to say that God set this series of psuedo cause-effect chains in order at the moment of creation precisely in a manner in which this regularity will result in your interest then why the need for the direct causality on God's part. Could He not have simply does the same thing by providing real causality to creatures, so long as they were determined? Is it simply so that He would have the personal touch in the matter? If so then I do think that for my purposes your providence and my natural causation have more in common than I realized. Perhaps we could discuss further?

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

It's not a purely semantic difference. The immediate "outcome" may be the same but the way that we think about the experience, our personal experience of the experience, and the meaning we assign to the experience totally changes.

Sure. But the way we think something is doesn't make it so.

Believing that fairies controlled the brick which landed on your toes would have the exact some epistemological value and would also influence how you experience and interpret the events.

Does that mean fairies controlled the brick?


I don't see how one can say God acts upon the world unless it is:

1) The first cause or;
2) A truly and utterly miraculous event with absolutely no feasible physical explanation.

But even then, saying that God acted or God is the "first cause" seems to be an explanation which offers no information. Its a cop out. Its the end of the road of enquiry.

For example, pretend you are a person living thousands of years ago and you see lightning strike. One explanation is "God caused the lightning to strike". But does that explanation actually offer any meaningful information about the situation? Would it not be more honest to say, "Gee, I don't really know what caused that lightning strike, maybe I should find out." Doesn't that style of response inspire more curiosity? Doesn't that approach begin the road of enquiry?


\derail

 

[Tree of Life]

The way that I'll try to defend my position is with scripture. Later tonight I'll try to get on and make an adequate Biblical case that God is the Lord of creation. By "Lord", I mean that he has authority over every event, he has complete control over every event, and he is personally present in every event.

This does not mean that "secondary causes" are meaningless. I agree with the Westminster Confession of Faith when it says:

God the great Creator of all things does uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by His most wise and holy providence, according to His infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of His own will, to the praise of the glory of His wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy.

Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first Cause, all things come to pass immutably, and infallibly; yet, by the same providence, He orders them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.

But, again, I'll attempt to make this case Biblically. If this is somehow logically confusing I'm not personally concerned. If the Bible teaches that this is the case then I must defer to scripture.

 

[JJM]

Sure. But the way we think something is doesn't make it so.

Believing that fairies controlled the brick which landed on your toes would have the exact some epistemological value and would also influence how you experience and interpret the events.

Does that mean fairies controlled the brick?

First this is not true. A belief in fairies who happen to be controlling a falling brick and an all powerful beneficent God who cares for you individually very deeply ordering all things including the brick for the general good and most importantly your own personal good are immensely different from an interpretive standpoint and while your use of 'epistemological' is somewhat vague I assume completely different from that as well. Second Tree of Life was not suggesting that this difference meant that is was so, at least not in the sense you mean. He was countering your claim that belief in natural law and a particularly provident God who directly controls all things are very different, and they are.

I don't see how one can say God acts upon the world unless it is:

1) The first cause or;
2) A truly and utterly miraculous event with absolutely no feasible physical explanation.

At the risk of substantially derailing my own thread (not that is it otherwise going anywhere), this is only because you adhere to Ockham's razor. On the basis of what do you hold to that principal? It is only a practical guideline and is by no means proven as a law.

But even then, saying that God acted or God is the "first cause" seems to be an explanation which offers no information. Its a cop out. Its the end of the road of enquiry.

For example, pretend you are a person living thousands of years ago and you see lightning strike. One explanation is "God caused the lightning to strike". But does that explanation actually offer any meaningful information about the situation? Would it not be more honest to say, "Gee, I don't really know what caused that lightning strike, maybe I should find out." Doesn't that style of response inspire more curiosity? Doesn't that approach begin the road of enquiry?


\derail

And yet just like the statement about providence or fairies this does not mean that there is anymore of an explanation than that God simply did it. Your argument seems to run that if we do not assume there is something more to find out we will never discover it, therefore there is something more to find out. It is as best a practical guideline based on your own psycologico-epistemelogical desires and and worst terribly circular.

 

[JJM]

The way that I'll try to defend my position is with scripture. Later tonight I'll try to get on and make an adequate Biblical case that God is the Lord of creation. By "Lord", I mean that he has authority over every event, he has complete control over every event, and he is personally present in every event.

This does not mean that "secondary causes" are meaningless. I agree with the Westminster Confession of Faith when it says:



But, again, I'll attempt to make this case Biblically. If this is somehow logically confusing I'm not personally concerned. If the Bible teaches that this is the case then I must defer to scripture.

If you admit there are secondary causes, then isn't there a difference between saying "he has complete control over every event" and "everything that happens is a direct act of God"?

Could He not be in control of the situation but indirectly acting?

If so then the questions of the OP still present themselves to some degree.

Additionally, could He not to some degree stay in control of the situation and very much have the capacity to control the situation completely but let us run our own course and in order to do so have certain regularities so that there can be actual consequences to our actions? I feel that there is somewhere is Scripture that I don't have the time to find at the moment where it says that God is not the author of sin. Doesn't your position negate that? I want to say it was more direct than James 1 but that conveys a similar message.