Do naturalistic / materialistic explanations diminish God?

[Late_Cretaceous]

It seems that many people in this forum believe that searching for natrualistic and materialistic explanations into observed phenomenon somehow diminish God. I believe just the opposite. Since God created nature and reality, any naturalistic explanation (scientific thoery) actually is testament to God's creation.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

their fear/worry/idea is stronger than that. it is that if science practices MN then it will be unable or ill prepared to see the fingerprints that God leaves in the universe. Thus missing the best part.

 

[Willtor]

Most of you know I've become fairly enthralled by Barth's work. If I come off it, and am convinced in another direction, my answer may change. But I said "other" because my theology legitimizes scientific inquiry in my mind, and natural science will never identify anything besides natural phenomena.

 

[Willtor]

As an addendum, this goes just as well for abiogenesis. I tend to think life began through natural processes. I could be mistaken.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

I agree. Since the processes of life violate no laws of physics or chemistry then it is perfectly natural. Therefore there is no reason why life cannot begin through natural processes.

 

[gluadys]

I am a little disappointed in the question. Had it stopped at the word "God" I could answer "No, quite the opposite". However, with the addition "in peoples' eyes" I have to think of how people do react, not how they (IMHO) ought to react.

In many peoples eyes the answer is an unequivocal "yes". I personally think they are misguided, but it is very common reaction.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

I am a little disappointed in the question. Had it stopped at the word "God" I could answer "No, quite the opposite". However, with the addition "in peoples' eyes" I have to think of how people do react, not how they (IMHO) ought to react.

In many peoples eyes the answer is an unequivocal "yes". I personally think they are misguided, but it is very common reaction.

I put some thought into the "in peoples' eyes" part of the question. My reason is that I wanted to see how people's perception was influenced.

 

[Jadis40]

It seems that many people in this forum believe that searching for natrualistic and materialistic explanations into observed phenomenon somehow diminish God. I believe just the opposite. Since God created nature and reality, any naturalistic explanation (scientific thoery) actually is testament to God's creation.

This is exactly my sentiment...just take a good look up at the sky on a clear night...that's the time when I truly feel closest to God. It was an experience like that back when I was 10 or so - I can't remember now how old I was, but I felt led to go outside and just look up at the stars. It was in that moment, that I felt something in my soul and knew beyond a doubt in that moment that there was a God. I think that's why I have such a deep appreciation for astronomy.

 

[chaoschristian]

Seeking understanding from the revelation of Creation through science and reason can only increase our awe of God, so long as we, in each step along the way, choose to keep God at the heart of our inquery.

However, there are those who see this particular kind of inquery as a means of diminishing or even defeating God. Some do it with that intent, material atheism for example. Some fear it out of a, in my opinion, misunderstanding of scripture.

 

[Dannager]

This is exactly my sentiment...just take a good look up at the sky on a clear night...that's the time when I truly feel closest to God. It was an experience like that back when I was 10 or so - I can't remember now how old I was, but I felt led to go outside and just look up at the stars. It was in that moment, that I felt something in my soul and knew beyond a doubt in that moment that there was a God. I think that's why I have such a deep appreciation for astronomy.

Some, confronted with a beautiful starry night, could say "How incredible that God has designed this evening!"

Others, staring at the same image, might remark, "Amazing, that such a sight has come about naturally!"

I subscribe to a third position, and would exclaim, "How marvellous, that God has planned for this evening's view since time began!"

 

[Silent Bob]

Before you start wondering I voted yes.

The reason I did so is that in reality they do. The more we discover about nature the further away we put God from the causality of our day to day lives. There was a time that rain, fire, lightning, earthquake were all manifestations of a very angry and very directly involved God. There was a time when God was believed to be waving sticks at us from the unknown and if we did not follow His commands VERY real and bad thing were going to happen to us not in the next life but on this one!

God sent disease and killed people's children, He burned forests and cities, He sent tsunamies and made the earth shake. Now that we explained these things away, God is becoming more and more an abstract concept. He didn't cause Katrina to happen (sorry televangelists) combinations of warm and cold currents etc etc did. He didn't cause the tsunami in Thailand a big earthquake did.

One can argue that this is not the case and can offer philosophical explanations that prove that science actually elevates God. But in the people's eyes naturalistic explanations DO diminish God.

Why do you think Creationists attack almost every aspect of natural science and not only evolution? Do you think it is fun being shown every 10 minutes that you are wrong? They fear that without the fire and brimstone of a litteral Genesis and OT in general, God will no longer be feared and respected. In a way they are right. It IS easier to be an Atheist when almost every natural phenomena has been explained without the need for a supernatural entity. But to try and stop science is definately the wrong way of bringing back spirituality in the world. Let's face it God is not sitting in the clouds waving sticks and throwing lightning bolts, He never was.

 

[artybloke]

The reason I did so is that in reality they do. The more we discover about nature the further away we put God from the causality of our day to day lives. There was a time that rain, fire, lightning, earthquake were all manifestations of a very angry and very directly involved God. There was a time when God was believed to be waving sticks at us from the unknown and if we did not follow His commands VERY real and bad thing were going to happen to us not in the next life but on this one!

God sent disease and killed people's children, He burned forests and cities, He sent tsunamies and made the earth shake. Now that we explained these things away, God is becoming more and more an abstract concept. He didn't cause Katrina to happen (sorry televangelists) combinations of warm and cold currents etc etc did. He didn't cause the tsunami in Thailand a big earthquake did.

I voted "other". I think it diminishes certain ideas about who we think God is. The imperialist picture of a God who causes earthquakes, lightening etc. which seems to dominate a lot of fundamentalist thinking has to go. In its place, we have a God who creates a world of freedom, where we are free to choose good or evil, one which isn't ruled by a control freak, but is made by somebody who gives the universe freedom to develop itself.

Personally, the YEC God holds no attraction for me. That God seems small and selfish and self-obsessed. Why would you worship a God who got angry and zapped you with lightning at the drop of a hat? Isn't that like staying with an abusive husband?

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

I am inclinded to agree with Artybloke.

I would even venture to say that it requires stronger faith in God to accept modern scientific discoveries (like evolution) as opposed to insulalting yourself from the wealth of knowledge available to us and rejecting science in order to cling to a set of believes.

Why be afraid that changing your view of the world would change you view of God. Maybe a lot of YEC's are really afraid that they will lose thier faith. That could be why so many of them ask us TE's "how can you believe in Jesus but not a literal genesis" or "how can you be a Christian and accept evolution". Its easy. All you have to do is believe in spite of what the world throws at you.

 

[gluadys]

I am inclinded to agree with Artybloke.

I would even venture to say that it requires stronger faith in God to accept modern scientific discoveries (like evolution) as opposed to insulalting yourself from the wealth of knowledge available to us and rejecting science in order to cling to a set of believes.

Why be afraid that changing your view of the world would change you view of God. Maybe a lot of YEC's are really afraid that they will lose thier faith. That could be why so many of them ask us TE's "how can you believe in Jesus but not a literal genesis" or "how can you be a Christian and accept evolution". Its easy. All you have to do is believe in spite of what the world throws at you.

I think it is also because YECs do tend to identify faith as a "set of beliefs" instead of as a relationship with God. If one understands that faith is placing oneself in the hands of God, trusting God through all appearance and experience, then a set of beliefs is not what one trusts for salvation. It is who one believes in that is all-important for salvation.

 

[shernren]

Or tend to consider faith as being an intellectual allegiance. I think that's why their chief question is always something along the lines of "How can you then believe that the resurrection really happened?" Yes, the fact of whether or not it 'really happened' is important, but given that it really happened what comes next?

Faith isn't just (in this case) believing that it "really happened" but allowing the "really happened"-ness of the resurrection to change behaviour and life. And when it comes to YEC arguments against naturalism (whichever kind, ontological or methodological) I don't really think that there is any living to go with it. What - am I going to pray for my computer to start up properly each time I press the button because I trust God more than I trust science?

 

[relspace]

It seems that many people in this forum believe that searching for natrualistic and materialistic explanations into observed phenomenon somehow diminish God. I believe just the opposite. Since God created nature and reality, any naturalistic explanation (scientific thoery) actually is testament to God's creation.

There are those who see God and those who do not. Those who see God can see God in both their lives and in the results of scientific investigation. I studied physics and I see the purpose of God in the laws of physics. I look at the process of evolution and I see the same love and care of God in raising all of life up to realize its greatest potentialities, as I see in my own life. The atheist does not see God in science for the same reasons that he does not see God in his own life.

For those people who think of God as an explanation, scientific explanations may seem opposed to God. But explanation is not the proper role or purpose of God in our lives.