God and "natural"

[lucaspa]

Key to understanding a theistic view of science is understanding the relationship of God and "natural". Typically, creationists object because science is "naturalistic" or that the theories of science are talked about as "natural". Atheists typically use science to beat theists by saying that the "natural" explanations of science will "explain God away".

The Judeo-Christian understanding of God is that God created the universe and that God is outside the universe. God sustains the universe and everything in it. This is seen in several verses in the Old Testament:

Neh 9:6 "You alone are the LORD. You made the skies and the heavens and all the stars. You made the earth and the seas and everything in them. You preserve them all, and the angels of heaven worship you."

Psalm 36:6: "Your righteousness is like the mighty mountains, your justice like the great deep. O LORD, you preserve both man and beast."

Jer 51:16 "The LORD made the earth by his power, and he preserves it by his wisdom. With his own understanding he stretched out the heavens. "

God preserves the universe instant to instant. The universe was created by the will of God and only the will of God keeps it in existence and keeps it running.

This idea is also expressed in the New Testament. The difference is that Jesus is God, so the sustenance is attributed to Jesus:

Col 1:16-17 "For through him God created everything in the heavenly realms and on earth. He made the things we can see and the things we can't see -- such as thrones, kingdoms, rulers, and authorities in the unseen world. Everything was created through him and for him. He existed before anything else, and he holds all creation together."

Heb 1:3 "The Son radiates God's own glory and expresses the very character of God, and he sustains everything by the mighty power of his command."

2 Pet 3:11 "But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire, and the earth and the works that are upon it will be burned up."

In 2 Peter, that "dissolved" can also be translated from the Greek as "loosed", implying that God is holding the elements (air, earth, fire, and water to the author) together by His will.

This understanding can even be found stated explicitly by creationists in their websites:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/06/26/why-does-the-universe-continue

as well as by mainstream Christians:
http://www.ldolphin.org/cohere.shtml
http://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/stewart.cfm?id=1368

This means that God is not absent from "natural". This is stated explicitly by Christian thinkers thru history:

"A Law of Nature then is the rule and Law, according to which God resolved that certain Motions should always, that is, in all Cases be performed. Every Law does immediately depend upon the Will of God." Gravesande, Mathematical Elements of Natural Philosophy, I, 2-3, 1726

The emphasis is in the original. So, when an object in motion stays in motion, this is Newton's First Law of Motion. BUT, this is because God wills the object to stay in motion. Each and every time.

When an apple falls from a tree, yes, it is due to the Law of Gravity. However, each and every time God wills gravity to work. We Christians believe the "natural" laws simply do not work without God.

Here's another way of saying the same thing:

"The only distinct meaning of the word 'natural' is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once." Butler: Analogy of Revealed Religion.

Again the emphasis is in the original. So, "natural" require God in order to happen. When hydrogen and oxygen react to form water, God doesn't put the individual molecules together, but He does will the reaction to take place for each and every molecule.

Because God does this each and every time, it becomes easy for some people to think that "natural" happens without God. We don't ever see God not make gravity work so an apple does not fall or you don't drift off the ground. This allows atheists and deists to believe that "natural" happens on its own. But that is a belief and not what science says. But God is still there even tho it looks to some people like He is not.

When science, studying God's Creation, finds that evolution is the origin of new species, what this means is that God does not have to do anything extra to get new species. As long as God sustains evolution, new species will happen. God does not need to perform a miracle and make a new species. Just like God does not need to perform a miracle for the apple to hit the ground. God did not need to perform a miracle to put together the first cell or the first DNA molecule. Sustaining chemistry was sufficient for both to happen. God was (is) still involved, but the involvement is in sustaining the "natural" processes, not performing miracles.

 

[miamited]

Hi Lucaspa,

I can't imagine any born again believer not agreeing with this statement:

This means that God is not absent from "natural".

However, what separates evolution from creationists is that:

Neither is He beholden to the "natural".

Even Paul agrees that God is in the natural. He proclaimed that men have no excuse just in what they see in the natural beauty and symmatry of the earth and the universe. The heavens declare the glory of God!

The problem is that science can only deal with the natural. It is beholden to the natural. Therefore, while science can give us understanding of much of the natural world around us and in the heavens, it cannot give us any understanding of the supernatural. It is not within the confines of the sciences to do that.

And Paul also warns us to be careful of those explanations that are based on the natural, when it comes to explaining the ways and work of God.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[shernren]

Lucaspa, would you call yourself an occasionalist?

Occasionalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[juvenissun]

When science, studying God's Creation, finds that evolution is the origin of new species, what this means is that God does not have to do anything extra to get new species. As long as God sustains evolution, new species will happen. God does not need to perform a miracle and make a new species. Just like God does not need to perform a miracle for the apple to hit the ground. God did not need to perform a miracle to put together the first cell or the first DNA molecule. Sustaining chemistry was sufficient for both to happen. God was (is) still involved, but the involvement is in sustaining the "natural" processes, not performing miracles.
[/SIZE]

Science only "suggests" that, or "interpreted" that. Put God aside, science has never convinced me that it is true.

That is one, and may be the only one problem in your idea.

 

[lucaspa]

Lucaspa, would you call yourself an occasionalist?

Occasionalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Doesn't look like it. Occasionalism has God causing the events. I am saying Christian theology has God sustaining the processes. God does not "cause" each 2 hydrogen molecules to react with an an oxygen molecule to give 2 molecules of water. Instead, God sustains that reaction. Thus God does not "cause" the designs in a new species, natural selection does. This gets God off the hook for all those sadistic and stupid designs in living things. Natural selection does th designing. But God is not absent in that God sustains all the processes involved in natural selection.

In effect what this means is that there are 2 components to a cause: the "natural" component and the "supernatural" component. Creationism says that the "natural" component is not sufficient as the natural component. The natural component, according to creationism, needs an additional part: manufacture by God.

 

[lucaspa]

Hi Lucaspa,

I can't imagine any born again believer not agreeing with this statement:

This means that God is not absent from "natural".

However, what separates evolution from creationists is that:

Neither is He beholden to the "natural".

First, my OP was never about the separation of evolution and creationism. Instead, it is about how Christianity thinks. So we are talking about what separates Christians from creationists. The "separation" you mention is a strawman. Christians also believe that God is not "beholden" to the "natural". God can obviously perform miracles. After all, by scripture God has performed miracles! It's just that God is not required to perform miracles to connect members of the physical universe. Do you see the difference? God chooses to sustain the processes ("natural") discovered by science. He is not "beholden" to. He can stop any time He chooses. I though I had made that clear when I said:
"When an apple falls from a tree, yes, it is due to the Law of Gravity. However, each and every time God wills gravity to work. We Christians believe the "natural" laws simply do not work without God." and
"God does not need to perform a miracle for the apple to hit the ground. God did not need to perform a miracle to put together the first cell or the first DNA molecule. Sustaining chemistry was sufficient for both to happen. God was (is) still involved, but the involvement is in sustaining the "natural" processes, not performing miracles."

Creationism has God "beholden" to miracles. But God tells us in His Creation, and in scripture, that this is not the case.

Creationism holds that God is required to perform a miracle to get each species. Essentially, God becomes part of the physical universe because He is required to manufacture each species. If God does not do that, then the new species never appears.

But Christian theology is that God is not part of the physical universe. He is separate from it. So creationism violates Christian belief.

BTW, as a MethodistI am "born again".

Even Paul agrees that God is in the natural. He proclaimed that men have no excuse just in what they see in the natural beauty and symmatry of the earth and the universe. The heavens declare the glory of God!

We'll probably need to discuss these passages from Romans 1 in more detail. Remember, Paul also wrote Colossians.

What is key to Romans is to remember the context. Paul is comparing Yahweh to pagan gods. This is seen in Romans 1:23: "And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things."

What Paul is saying is that the universe is so big and so diverse that the god that created that universe cannot be a creature OF the universe. God cannot be a man, or a bird, or any other animal. Why? Because such a limited creature could not possibly have the power to create the universe. As Paul says "worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever."

The problem[ is that science can only deal with the natural. It is beholden to the natural. Therefore, while science can give us understanding of much of the natural world around us and in the heavens, it cannot give us any understanding of the supernatural. It is not within the confines of the sciences to do that.

Pretty much correct, except for that "beholden to the natural". Yes, because of how we conduct experiments, science cannot directly test for the supernatural. In order to determine that God is necessary to sustain the physical processes, we would have to have a test tube where we know God is present and compare it to a test tube where we know God is absent. If the process (say the combustion of hydrogen and oxygen to water) happened in the test tube where God was absent, then we would know that God does not sustain the process.

But we can't do that. We can't keep God out of a test tube, and we can't put Him into one. So we can't perform the experiment.

What science can do is tell us whether the natural component of the cause is sufficient. Creation says it is not. Are the processes studied by geologists sufficient to account for the natural component of the explanation for the geology of the planet? Or do we need an extra natural cause -- a world-wide Flood -- to do that? Are the natural processes of evolution by natural selection sufficient to account for the natural component of the cause for the living species we see on th planet? Or do we need an extra "natural" process of God directly manufacturing each species? Are the processes of chemistry sufficient to account for the natural component of abiogenesis, or do we need God to directly manufacture the first cell?

And Paul also warns us to be careful of those explanations that are based on the natural, when it comes to explaining the ways and work of God.

And which verses do you think do this?

 

[lucaspa]

Science only "suggests" that, or "interpreted" that. Put God aside, science has never convinced me that it is true.

That is one, and may be the only one problem in your idea.

I was talking about Christian theology, not science. If you are not convinced by God in what He tells us, then that is your problem. A BIG problem, IMO. I hope you will find God.

 

[juvenissun]

I was talking about Christian theology, not science. If you are not convinced by God in what He tells us, then that is your problem. A BIG problem, IMO. I hope you will find God.

The content on this piece of Christian theology is based on science. If the basis is not certain or is wrong, then your theology is not certain or is wrong. You can not make up something and mixed it with other theological contents and claim it as a new understanding in theology. In this case, you suggested that God sustains the process of evolution. What if the idea of evolution is not true?

 

[Keachian]

The content on this piece of Christian theology is based on science. If the basis is not certain or is wrong, then your theology is not certain or is wrong. You can not make up something and mixed it with other theological contents and claim it as a new understanding in theology. In this case, you suggested that God sustains the process of evolution. What if the idea of evolution is not true?

And here I was thinking that Lucaspa had thoroughly built up a Christian theological view of naturalism and was applying that view to the question of whether we can accept evolution. So glad that you can clear it up and demonstrate that the body of his argument rests on his conclusion and not the other way round.


BTW that was a good in depth post Lucaspa thank you for it.

 

[miamited]

Hi lucaspa,

You responded: First, my OP was never about the separation of evolution and creationism.

Oh, I understand that, but it is exactly the distinction I am making. Evolution, whether one claims it is theistic or atheisitic, as an understanding of how you and I came to be living upon the earth today, is false. Yes, I understand that most will respond, "Well, you can't know that! And therefore cannot make that claim." I accept that rebuke, but stand by my understanding.

You posted: It's just that God is not required to perform miracles to connect members of the physical universe.

No, to be honest, I'm missing your point in that.

You further wrote: God did not need to perform a miracle to put together the first cell or the first DNA molecule. Sustaining chemistry was sufficient for both to happen.

Really? Have you, or any scientist, been able to copy what God has done? When you can create a living creature from absolutely nothing, I'll reduce my understanding of what God has done to: Not a miracle. You have to be able to do it from nothing.
After all, if we use the DNA strand or any of the procreative parts such as sperm or egg, then we have to have had a creature before to get that from.

Friend, I would challenge you to even create an amoeba out of nothing. When you can, let's talk.

Finally, you asked: And which verses do you think do this?

See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy,http://www.biblestudytools.com/colossians/2.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-14 which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this worldhttp://www.biblestudytools.com/colossians/2.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-15 rather than on Christ.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[shernren]

You further wrote: God did not need to perform a miracle to put together the first cell or the first DNA molecule. Sustaining chemistry was sufficient for both to happen.

Really? Have you, or any scientist, been able to copy what God has done? When you can create a living creature from absolutely nothing, I'll reduce my understanding of what God has done to: Not a miracle.

Some atheistic scientists think that all that was needed to give birth to me was for my parents to have had sex.

Really? Have they, or any other scientists, been able to copy what God has done? When they can make another 25-year-old shernren from mere mechanical intercourse, then I'll reduce my understanding of what God has done to: Not a miracle. Doesn't require supernatural intervention.

Not all past events need to be repeated to be verified, and not all the things God has done require that He suspend or overturn His laws of nature.

 

[Anthony Puccetti]

deleted

 

[miamited]

Hi shernren,

You wrote: and not all the things God has done require that He suspend or overturn His laws of nature.

I looked back through all of the posts and was unable to find anyone's position that you were refuting with this claim. Care to give a heads up?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Anthony Puccetti]

So, "natural" require God in order to happen. When hydrogen and oxygen react to form water, God doesn't put the individual molecules together, but He does will the reaction to take place for each and every molecule.

Because God does this each and every time, it becomes easy for some people to think that "natural" happens without God. We don't ever see God not make gravity work so an apple does not fall or you don't drift off the ground. This allows atheists and deists to believe that "natural" happens on its own. But that is a belief and not what science says. But God is still there even tho it looks to some people like He is not.

When science, studying God's Creation, finds that evolution is the origin of new species, what this means is that God does not have to do anything extra to get new species. As long as God sustains evolution, new species will happen. God does not need to perform a miracle and make a new species. Just like God does not need to perform a miracle for the apple to hit the ground. God did not need to perform a miracle to put together the first cell or the first DNA molecule. Sustaining chemistry was sufficient for both to happen. God was (is) still involved, but the involvement is in sustaining the "natural" processes, not performing miracles.

There is a difference between natural and naturalistic. Naturalism does indeed exclude God as cause,and methodological naturalism is a principle of science. It is intended to explain all things in nature as if only natural causation exists. This leads scientists to attribute abilities to natural things that are illogical,when they explain the origins and causes of life,species,order,matter. It is misguided to put a theistic spin on a naturalistic theory that does not allow for God to be doing anything.

Before we go along with the idea that God creates species through evolution,we should first analyze the theory of evolution itself to see if it even makes sense. We are not obliged to accept a theory if it is not logical,that is,if the causes and effects don't correspond and if the conclusions do not necessarily follow the observations. It does not make sense to believe that natural selection and genetic mutation have produced the variety of species. These processes do not themselves produce anything. The former is a process of elimination,not a creative process,and the latter affects only a few traits,not nearly enough for change above the species level. It is reproduction that produces variety of species.

And it does not make sense to believe that God works through evolution to creates species because we know that living creatures come into being immediately as individuals. That is how God creates living creatures. Species exist as individual creatures,which have specific beginnings. Theistic evolution attributes to God the creation of all species but it does not acknowledge any specific points of creation. But if there are no points of creation,then God does not create anything at all.

The immediate creation of a species is not,properly speaking,a miracle,because it is not contrary to the laws or normal ways of nature. If your idea of a miracle is simply an event or effect caused by divine intervention,then that would include God sustaining evolution.

 

[shernren]

Hi shernren,

You wrote: and not all the things God has done require that He suspend or overturn His laws of nature.

I looked back through all of the posts and was unable to find anyone's position that you were refuting with this claim. Care to give a heads up?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

When you can create a living creature from absolutely nothing, I'll reduce my understanding of what God has done to: Not a miracle.

Why should my understanding of what God has done be "reduced" if it's not a miracle? Unless, of course, miracles are somehow a little more "godly" than non-miracles - i.e. that all the things God has done require that He suspend or overturn His laws of nature.

Let's say I have a dire disease, and I pray, and I get better. I learn that God is really great and mighty and awesome. But then when I do get to heaven, and I ask God how He did it, He says "Oh you silly person! That's what I gave you antibodies for!"

Would that reduce my understanding of God's healing me? Should I get disappointed and frustrated and say to Him "You mean it wasn't You who did it?"

 

[miamited]

Hi shernren,

You wrote: Let's say I have a dire disease, and I pray, and I get better. I learn that God is really great and mighty and awesome. But then when I do get to heaven, and I ask God how He did it, He says "Oh you silly person! That's what I gave you antibodies for!"


Then you ask, Should I get disappointed and frustrated and say to Him "You mean it wasn't You who did it?"

Did I miss something here. God told you that that's why He gave you antibodies. Why would you then turn around and say, "You mean it wasn't you who did it?"

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[KTskater]

Then you ask, Should I get disappointed and frustrated and say to Him "You mean it wasn't You who did it?"

Did I miss something here. God told you that that's why He gave you antibodies. Why would you then turn around and say, "You mean it wasn't you who did it?"

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

I believe that's his point exactly.

 

[shernren]

Well, I personally believe that when some people get to heaven and ask God how He made all the different species of animals, He might just turn to them and say, "Oh you silly person! That's what I made evolution for!"

And if they protest that God didn't ever tell them that, He'll even add on, "Well, what do you think I made evolutionists for?"

And all the glory will go to God, even (unbelievably) for evolution, and even (more unbelievably) for evolutionists.

 

[shernren]

Before we go along with the idea that God creates species through evolution,we should first analyze the theory of evolution itself to see if it even makes sense. We are not obliged to accept a theory if it is not logical,that is,if the causes and effects don't correspond and if the conclusions do not necessarily follow the observations.

Anthony Puccetti, I don't know if you've ever answered this question of mine: should we believe that the Moon maintains its orbit around the Earth due solely to the force of gravity?

After all, I've only ever observed gravity make things crash down to the Earth, and since the Moon isn't crashing down to the Earth, gravity clearly isn't what keeps it in place. The causes and effects don't correspond, and the conclusions (the Moon is crashing down to the Earth) do not necessarily follow the observations (it isn't).

 

[Anthony Puccetti]

Anthony Puccetti, I don't know if you've ever answered this question of mine: should we believe that the Moon maintains its orbit around the Earth due solely to the force of gravity?

After all, I've only ever observed gravity make things crash down to the Earth, and since the Moon isn't crashing down to the Earth, gravity clearly isn't what keeps it in place. The causes and effects don't correspond, and the conclusions (the Moon is crashing down to the Earth) do not necessarily follow the observations (it isn't).

Since gravity does not cause the moon to crash down to earth,it doesn't make sense to say that the causes and effects don't correspond. I know you're being facetious,but why would you even think that gravity might have the power to pull down the moon? There earth never pulled down anything that size. So the possibility of gravity making it happen is out of the question. Your conclusion does not follow your observation because it is a fake,illogical conclusion.

The moon cannot crash into earth because firstly it is kept in its orbit by God. And secondly,the gravitational force of the earth cannot pull the moon down into earth,because of the moon's great size and mass,and its great distance from the earth's atmosphere.