“Come and See”: A Christological Invitation for Science, Part 5
"The BioLogos Forum" is pleased to feature essays from various guest voices in the science-and-religion dialogue. Please note the views expressed here are those of the author, not necessarily of The BioLogos Foundation. You can read more about what we believe here.
Today's entry was written by Mark Noll. Mark Noll is a historian, essayist and professor specializing in the history of American Christianity. Since 2006 he has been the Francis A. McAnaney Professor of History at the University of Notre Dame. His books include America’s God: From Jonathan Edwards to Abraham Lincoln; God and Race in American Politics: A Short History and The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, which has been widely recognized for making a strong appeal for a better approach to intellectual life among American evangelicals.
We conclude this series today with an honest look at current problems raised by the attempt to harmonize Scripture and science. The author explains that some find claim that observing randomness in nature excludes the possibility of a creator God. This claim, however, is a fallacy similar to the argument that Jesus could not be the Son of God because he breathed and experienced hunger. Rather, as 13th century thinkers like Barron concluded, God and humans possess different natures; they are metaphysically different. Thus, what looks to people like complete and unguided randomness is, to God, purposeful and planned. Nolls sums up the series with a hopeful glance at the future of science and Scripture. The conflict between these two entities, although difficult to overcome, can be resolved through humble and Christ-centered reasoning.
A Chalcedonian Perspective
The multiplication and intensification of such questions are, however, no cause for despair. For those with Christ these questions present instead a golden opportunity for returning to first principles. Almost the very first of those first principles is the Chalcedonian definition of Christ as fully divine and fully human in one integrated person.
If the mystery of divinity and humanity fully inhabiting a single being is at the heart of Christian faith, and if this faith offers Christ as the definite answer to the deepest mysteries of existence itself, then there is a way forward. It is not a way forward along the path of latemedieval univocity when it was assumed that a natural explanation for any phenomenon was a fully sufficient explanation. It is not a way forward along the path of William Paley’s natural theology where it is assumed that humans may have God-like knowledge about the final purpose of physical phenomena. And it is not a way forward that either trivializes the Scriptures or distrusts modern science for ideological reasons. It is instead a way forward that tries to give both the study of nature its proper due as made possible because of Christ’s creating work, and the interpretation of Scripture its proper due as revealing the mercy of redemption in Christ.
On specific questions concerning evolution, promising recent suggestions resting on classical Christology have come from Catholic scientists and theologians who draw on the insights of Thomas Aquinas. In particular, Thomas resisted the push toward univocity as he defended the complexity of the divine-human mystery at the heart of the universe. In his own day, as we have seen, Duns Scotus treated God and humanity as existing on a common metaphysical plane; God was infinitely greater than humans, but in quantity, not quality. No, said Thomas Aquinas, since humans are creatures and the triune God was the creator, humanity and deity do not share the same metaphysical plane. Hence, there must always be separation between human knowledge about existence and divine knowledge. Robert Barron states Thomas’s position carefully: “Aquinas maintained consistently throughout his career that God is inescapably mysterious to the human intellect, since our frame of reference remains the creaturely mode of existence, which bears only an analogical resemblance to the divine mode of being. . . . The ‘cash value’ of the claim that God exists is that there is a finally mysterious source of the to-be of finite things.”1
One of the payoffs in the twenty-first century from this thirteenth century insight is relevant to debates about evolution, where the consensus in several scientific specialties posits a key role for “randomness” in describing physical changes over time. Thomas Aquinas offered what amounts to a prescient response when he described the contingency of much that transpires in the world (his contingency may be taken as roughly our randomness): “The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency.”2 God, in other words, never works capriciously, even though some providentially determined actions may look to humans like pure contingency. The metaphysical difference between God and humanity explains this difference in perspective.
A very recent Catholic statement has applied this type of reasoning to arguments between those who advocate Intelligent Design and those defending a purely unguided evolutionism. According to its authors, because this debate concerns “whether the available data support inferences of design or chance,” the debate “cannot be settled by theology.” That is to say, when empirical results are in view, the way to solve the questions is to “come and see.” But the statement goes on with sophisticated attention to broader contexts: “It is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation.”3 Questions of chance and randomness exist on two levels, the empirical and the philosophical/theological. Each level deserves its own serious attention.
Under the assumptions promoted by medieval univocity, early modern theories of harmonizing Scripture and nature, and natural theology in the era of the Enlightenment, it has become customary to think that scientifically demonstrated randomness in nature counts as knockdown evidence against the existence of God. But this is both a logical and an ontological error. As phrased recently by the philosopher Alvin Plantinga, it is a logical error to move from asserting, “We know of no irrefutable objections to its being biologically possible that all of life has come to be by way of unguided Darwinian processes,” to concluding: “All of life has come to be by way of unguided Darwinian processes.”4 It is an ontological error for the same reason that it is erroneous to think that if Jesus hungered and thirsted, he could not be the Son of God.
Satisfactory resolution of problems stemming from responsible biblical interpretation brought together with responsible interpretations of nature will not come easily. Such resolution requires more sophistication in scientific knowledge, more sophistication in biblical hermeneutics, and more humility of spirit than most of us possess. But it is not wishful thinking to believe that such resolution is possible. It is rather an expectant hope that grows directly from confidence in what has been revealed in Jesus Christ. If, therefore, humbly responsible thinkers, properly equipped scientifically and hermeneutically, conclude that the full picture of human evolution now standard in many scientific disciplines fits with a trustworthy interpretation of Scripture, that conclusion can be regarded as fully compatible with historic Christian orthodoxy as defined by the normative creeds.
Notes
1. Barron, The Priority of Christ, 13.
2. A Summa of the Summa, ed. Peter Kreeft (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1990), 174 (from Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica I.22.4).
3. The Roman Curia: Pontifical Commissions, “Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God” (July 23, 2004); published in La Civiltà Cattolica, 2004, I, 254-86. Available on the Web at www.vatican.va/roman_curia/
congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion Dstewardship_en.html (accessed May 18, 2010).
4. Alvin Plantinga, “The Dawkins Delusion,” Books & Culture, March/April 2007, 22.
September 7th 2011
Thank you for this hopeful and uplifting essay. Perhaps, one way forward is to re examine the concept of random chance. When a mutation occurs in a particular locus of a genome, (or for that matter, when a strong gust of wind blows a tree down) we say this was the result of chance, and leave it there. We know that the universe is stochastic at a quantum level, and even many deterministic events (like the weather, like the error of a DNA replicating enzyme) follow the laws of chaos, and appear to be unpredictable and random. But where does this randomness come from? Or a better question is simply why? Why does chance exist? One could imagine laws of physics where there is no such thing as chance, either real or apparent.
The effect of chance is to give God freedom to act. We can assume that God is ever present and active always in the world. How does God act, without violating His own created laws of nature? Through chance. The “random” mutation that led to an evolutionary advance (take your pick) was not random at all, but a creative act of God. The climate changes that altered the environment enough to select for the phenotypic variant coded for by that mutation, did not arise from magic, but from God’s deliberate will. God created our universe, and His creation included all of the beautiful laws of physics, the fine tuning of all the constants needed to bring forth human life, and the existence of random chance to allow Himself the freedom to act at all times, and in all circumstances.
Reply to this commentSeptember 7th 2011
Amen, Sy.
Reply to this commentThis view has the advantage of being consistent with historical Christianity, and indeed with a number of places in Scripture that show God to be sovereign over chance.
It also avoids the rather strange idea of randomness being a power or cause independent of God, which is dualism.
I’m not sure, though, that everybody wants God to have that sovereignty - I think they feel he’s cheating - as if he had ever said that randomness was outside his control.
September 7th 2011
I would like to suggest that thinking of chance as giving God the “freedom to act” may not really be the best way to think about natural contingency from a philosophical and theological perspective. The reason for this is that this view portrays chance as an “excuse” or a “trump card” that God can use to enact His purposes while still satisfying the “constraints” of natural law. But I would argue that it was God who imposed and defined natural law in the first place. It would seem to almost reflect a lack of foresight on God’s part to design a system and be like, “Oh hey, let’s build in some natural variation just in case we encounter some extreme cases to ‘make room’ for us to act.” A human designer might need to do that because we are subject to the laws of nature and can’t predict everything, but I could scarcely see why God in His wisdom would need to do that because it would almost reflect a creation that is not well “thought-out.”
Reply to this commentInstead, I would like to propose that the reason why chance exists in nature is more to express the richness of God’s wisdom and “creativity,” to borrow a human concept. It is rather appealing to think of a universe that is not completely static yet nevertheless lies completely under God’s sovereignty than one that is completely deterministic. I think such a notion views the greater richness of creation that results as more fully reflecting the vast extent of God’s glory. Just my two cents.
Cheers,
-Open Circle
September 7th 2011
Hello Jon, good to see you.
Reply to this commentOpen Circle, you might be right. We might actually be saying the same thing, in our own very limited human sense. I think that when we talk about God’s plans and God’s ways of doing we are about as out of our depth as two dogs barking about the meaning of an esoteric poem. So either way, what really matters is that chance is not the enemy of the faithful. It is clearly part of God’s universe, and what we call random events (like the role of mutations in evolution) should not be thought of as something outside of God’s all encompassing power.
September 7th 2011
Agreed.
Reply to this commentSeptember 7th 2011
OC
Reply to this commentI agree that the idea of randomness as leaving God wriggle room to interfere invisibly is a wrong view. But it arises from a false metaphysical assumption that randomness is something that “ought” to be independent.
Remember that the determinacy of natural law was only a discovery based on a refinement of the same kind of observation that people had always noted - that the sun rises every day, that red sky at night usually means fine weather and so on.
Similarly, people have always observed that some things seem not to be determined in the same way - the cast of a lot, the way chips fly from an axe. That was refined into an understanding of the patterns of probability. But that no more justifies saying that such individual events have no cause, or that (assuming belief in God) that God does not cause them, than the sun rising justifies saying that God is not involved because “law” determines it.
My beef through this whole question is the frequent assumption that “randomness” (meaning things random with reference to God) has any correlate in freedom, creativity or richness. I don’t know any less creative activities than dice or roulette.
Even the simplest prose is an information string of huge improbability, but zero randomness. Its richness derives from the fact that it is purposive and semantically meaningful - that’s where its freedom, creativity and richness lie.
Prose looks like random Shannon information except to the mind that conceived it or those that can understand it. Its creativity lies in its positive ideas, not its lack of deterministic constraint. If somebody suggested to a writer that his tailoring of the text to a specific semantic purpose was some kind of excuse to manipulate random strings, he would rightly roll on the floor laughing. Good writers don’t do random.
The main thing in prose, surely, is that one attributes the freedom and creativity to the writer, not to the letters and words themselves. And in creation, what matters is that God’s infinite imagination and wisdom (and indeed his creative freedom) are expressed and recognised, rather than that the creation itself is autonomous and independent of God.
September 7th 2011
Hi Jon,
You make interesting points (and I agree with them to some extent),
but I think you might have misunderstood what I meant by “creativity”
and “richness.”
First of all, by “richness” I simply mean diversity. Natural contingency
helps to enable diversity, and I think that in some sense we can view
the
diversity of creation due to randomness as more glorifying of God,
compared to a creation that is more monolithic.
Secondly, by “creativity” I basically mean this: in order to achieve His
desired ends, God could have simply front-loaded nature and determined
the course of reality through somewhat “flat-footed” deterministic means, which can be viewed as a naive, straightforward approach.
However, the incorporation of contingency simply suggests that God uses
alternative, non-straightforward means to achieve the same desired ends, which can then be viewed from a human perspective as more “creative.”
Your usage of creativity and richness is tied in with purpose and
meaning - that is not what I am trying to get at here. The notions I’m
suggesting are far less complicated.
Cheers,
-Open Circle
Reply to this commentSeptember 8th 2011
OC
Reply to this commentIt’s words like “monolithic” that, when I look at them closely, seem to be use as buzz words in these discussions rather than having real content. I hear that “design” is stultifying, constricting and autocratic, whereas “randomness” brings freshness and originality.
I simply question whether we’d ever say that about any human activity. I visited an art gallery yesterday, and loved the sheer diversity of vision of our world of the different artists. Yet each work was the result of careful execution of human purpose. If an artist worked by leaving canvasses scattered around the floor for random stuff to happen to, it would not produce anything except visual noise, and pretty uniform noise at that… that would be a literally flat-footed approach to creativity.
In the field of technology, too, we inhabit a world where the brightest and most original minds work hard to produce inventive and creative solutions to problems - and randomness is the restrictive enemy they have to overcome every time.
Separating the creation from God’s intended purpose for it in any sense is, in my view, to rob it of the entire content of the word “creation.” Creation is purpose and meaning.
I agree with Sy that second guessing exactly why God would work by any specific means is risky and presumptuous, but we can go by what God has told us: any determinism that bypasses human moral accountability is simply wrong, and any view of randomness that implies God himself plays dice is a denial of his stated control of chance.
September 8th 2011
Hi Jon,
Reply to this commentThis may not be a very productive discussion, because I get the feeling that we are simply imposing our aesthetic preferences in discussing what “format” glorifies God. As you said, that would indeed be second guessing the means by which God acts, a risky and presumptuous manner.
My point in advocating some measure of randomness arises simply out the idea that certain random variables possess interesting probability distributions. But I do see and agree with your notion that precise execution is also very valuable. Obviously, both “styles” of creation do possess purpose and meaning from God’s “point of view,” even if it is impossible for us to know or detect what that may be.
Not too interested in further belaboring the point, because at the end of the day the ultimate goal is that God is glorified through all of creation, over which He has sovereign control, by whatever means they may have come to exist.
Cheers,
-Open Circle
September 7th 2011
First of all, natural selection is not random, and therefore evolution cannot be said to be unguided. Maybe scientists cannot say or do not want to say to what end it is guided, but according to Darwin the goal of natural selection was the “perfection of the species (plural.)”
Second, Nothing is really random as far as we can tell in the non-quantum. Everything has a cause. In the quantum world this may not be true, since we cannot measure it properly we cannot say how it works.
Third, “Random“ closely related to “diversity.” If everyone and everything were uniform and simple, there would be no randomness and no diversity, but God created a complex and diverse universe as the home for complex and diverse human beings. Reductionism does not like complexity and diversity, so it tries to eliminate both God and humanity, and make Reality monist and materialist.
Fourth, Reality is not univocal, it is not just physical, or just mental. Nor is it dualistic, both physical and mental. Reality is complex and one, both diverse and unified, so it is physical, mental (rational), and spiritual (teleological.)
Reply to this commentSeptember 8th 2011
“Natural selection is not random” - careful, Roger, you’re beginning to pick up the mantra!
Reply to this commentThe newer views on evolution are, it seems, relegating natural selection to the sidelines. It’s a commonplace that neutral or slightly deleterious mutation, non selectable, is a bigger factor than natural selection in evolution. Purifying selection is much talked about - that is, preventing the worst disasters rather than perfecting anything.
Eugene Koonin’s review (he’s now got a book about it out on Kindle) denies that evolution has any tendency towards complexity, progress or perfection. Indeed, he attributes most evolution in complex organisms to the failure of purifying selection to keep up with mildly deleterious mutations in small populations. Here’s a quote from his conclusion: “These models either do not include selection at all or give selection a new interpretation.”
As far as I can see that makes for an inevitable increase in reliance on randomness as the “creative” power in evolution (unless someone comes up with a viable theory on determininistic laws or self-organisation). That’s fine if “randomness” really is a synonym for “diversity”. But in the world of human creativity, randomness does not produce diversity but insanity.
September 8th 2011
“But in the world of human creativity, randomness does not produce diversity but insanity.”
Reply to this comment...in the world of human prose, you are no doubt right. But if we generalize expressions to include fractal creations we can see how complex beauty can arise making use of random parameters.
—Merv
September 8th 2011
Hi Merv
Reply to this commentFractals are not complex in the same way that life is. They can be reduced to a mathematical expression - indeed, they are the product of a mathematical expression, not randomness. The complexity arises from organised simplicity, not from chance. Wonderful, for all that.
DNA, and any of the other information systems of life, however, is not reducible below the length of the sequence itself. It is complex (or random) in the Shannon sense, like prose. But like prose, or computer code, it also is non-random in the sense of having semantic meaning - it codes for highly organised life-forms..
The big question is whether it is unlike prose or computer code in that its semantic meaning arose by chance. That’s why, in theistic terms, it makes a great deal of difference if God does or does not have sovereignty over randomness.
September 8th 2011
Hi Jon,
Reply to this commentTo quickly address your point, I think that your view of genetic information in the semantic, Shannon sense is an incomplete understanding. Genetics functions within a chemical context - it is as much constrained by thermodynamics and kinetics, by the rules of organic chemistry, as it is by informatics, if not more so. For example, consider wobble base pairing or DNA instability. The former permits non-Watson/Crick base pairing (enabling greater variation in the genomic DNA sequence), while the latter leads to lower G/C content over time (leading again to changes in genomic DNA sequence). For other examples, see: RNAi, microRNAs, and non-canonical DNA structures.
Modern research in genetics encompasses both the chemical and informatics contexts. I get the distinct impression that the ID places too much emphasis on the latter while completely ignoring the former. And so in this sense, DNA is quite unlike prose and computer code, because it does not directly have semantic meaning. But of course, that does not mean that God doesn’t have sovereignty over it, for all of its randomness.
Cheers,
-Open Circle
September 9th 2011
OC Even quicker response (from ignorance!). In general, I’m not sure that the chemical constraints of the genetic medium works against it being a true code, any more than the foibles of paper and ink or electronic transmission do in language or computer code. My reading of the stuff on chemistry is that attempts to show significant bias in the mapping of nucleic acids to amino acids have been largely unsuccessful, so that Yockey’s firm claim that DNA/RNA function as true Shannon codes has not been confuted.
Reply to this commentSurely the existence of non-canonical codes can be seen as evidence FOR a semiotic code rather than against? It argues for a convention rather than a necessity.
Wobble base pairing (new to me - isn’t life wonderful?)seems to me an exploitation of the medium for greater versatility - the actual effect is still symbolic mapping.
Be that as it may, surely you must agree that the genetic code is more than an inevitable product of chemistry, like snowflakes or Merv’s triangular mountains?
September 11th 2011
This discussion might benefit from looking at a thread on ASA Voices back in 2010.
September 11th 2011
PNG, I’m not sure how much this actually says - though it says at least two separate things. The question of “meaning” being restricted to the human brain is a philosophical or merely semantic issue, not a scientific one
Reply to this commentThe question of the nature of DNA information could surely equally be rephrased to address human meaning, along the lines: “Meaning in the human brain is specified by an arrangement of atoms in sensory neurones which, by a series of electrochemical potential interactions specifies other arrangements of atoms in the cortical neurones.” What does that add to our understanding?
Isaac’s definition is only useful if it means that the “analogy” of DNA as code falls short of being able to apply information theory to it in terms of things like Shannon entropy, channel capacity and so on, which is by no means obviously so. Yockey points out that conclusions based on information theory can be, and have been, successfully used for prediction and practical application in genetics. It may be an analogy but it quacks like a duck.
September 8th 2011
While many (most?) fractals are purely mathematical expressions like the Mandelbrot set, some fractals do make use of randomness—I can’t give their specific names; but randomized rearrangements of certain geometric forms (a triangle) end up producing a mountain-scape of convincing texture. Or coastlines manipulated by processes we would call random are also kinds of fractals—stochastic processes happening within bounds.
Reply to this commentAll that said, I don’t dispute your claim that fractals are not complex in the same way life is. I’m just pointing out that randomness can be a tool in a creative process that may appear complex in some contexts.
—Merv
September 9th 2011
And I agree it’s an interesting example - as are the classical example of snowflakes. In the context of our discussion I suppose the key question is whether the “random” element is random to God himself, or just to the created realm.
Reply to this commentIf an artist (or programmer) here sets up a function which produces diverse beautiful results by inputting a random number, part of the joy is the surprise of it. But a lot of the fun is the wow factor of getting multiple results from one algorithm. That’s true even if you have tried every possible input and know the results.
So in God’s case, when he’s invented not only the algorithms of ice chemistry etc, but the maths behind it, and the chaotic weather system in which the ice freezes, then it’s surely God, not the randomness, that’s the creative agent? He’s maybe delighted, but not necessarily surprised, at the shapes. And the example isn’t incompatible with his complete knowledge and even planning of which snowflake forms when. Certainly the general configuration of snowflakes can make the difference between a good snowball fight and a catastrophic avalanche.
Agreed, though, he’s used the stochastic features of his creation for diversity, which is clearly also the case in any form of random mutation.
September 9th 2011
Jon
I think you have posed the critical question. Is what we see as random chance, random to God. I believe the answer is clearly no. While quantum stochastic events, (like the decay of a radioactive particle) is truly random, most of what we see as random is actually quite deterministic, but simply impossible for us to predict because of the complexity of the system.
But for God, that is not an issue. We cannot count how many butterflies are fluttering their wings, but God can. We cannot know the precise molecular events that occur at every particular instant during the replication of a DNA strand, but God can. We cant measure every air current that affects the way a coin tossed in the air will land, but God can. The omniscience of God is hard for us to fathom, but I think it must include a complete knowledge of all that happens, and what we call complexity is simply the nature of His own created universe.
For God, most of what we see as random is clearly predictable. And who is to say that the Lord in his creative majesty cannot intervene at any point in any of these events, outside of our knowledge or possible observation. Perhaps some of all of these events, and all the billions of consequences of them are truly acts of God.
If this is true, then some mutations, while appearing to be random to us, are not. Some may have been designed for a purpose. This would imply that evolution, while easily thought of as a directionless, non teleological process, actually does have a direction. There is no scientific evidence for this. But there is evidence. Which is us. We worship God, our creator, and our existence shows the purpose of God in the creation of life.
Reply to this commentSeptember 9th 2011
“We cannot count how many butterflies are fluttering their wings, but God can.”
Reply to this commentLove it!
September 9th 2011
Our human perspective has ‘surprise’ as one of the possible elements of our delight. While I like and agree with Sy’s description of a God who, while delighted, is not necessarily surprised; I still find it interesting that our anthropomorphizing of God (which has thoroughly Biblical roots) still speaks of God as occasionally ‘surprised’ (among other human things as well)—especially in the person of Jesus, but I think even in the O.T. as well. Being social (and patterned after God in this) we live to be in relationship to others. I think of my family enjoying a TV episode. We may watch something we’ve already seen in order to enjoy it with other family members who had not yet seen it. Part of our joy in watching what we already know will unfold is to vicariously enjoy other people’s enjoyment of the same. It’s no fun to watch a comedy alone. But laugh tracks are introduced to enhance the feeling that you are enjoying it with many others.
Reply to this commentI can easily imagine God taking pleasure in our own surprised pleasure at his work, and “getting into” our surprise with us.
—Merv
September 9th 2011
Merv
Love this, too!
Reply to this commentIt seems to refer back with some relevance to the second post in the series, on Thomas Aquinas and God’s anagogical relationship to creation, to ourselves and to Scripture.
September 8th 2011
Jon,
Thank you for your comment.
The main thing I take from your observation is the fluidity and diversity of views within the evolutionary world view. This is not new. I have said repeatedly that Darwin’s Theory is not Darwin’s, because most of what Darwin said is not longer accepted, nor is it a theory, but instead a series of rationalizations of the changes found in nature.
Certainly no scientist as I said would dare to suggest that evolution has a purpose or direction, but I would suggest that diversity is that direction and purpose. No one as far as I see has examined this point and rejected it.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that your primary concern is the Telos, the Purpose or End of Life or History. It seems to me that John 1 clearly says that Jesus Christ is the LOGOS, Who God the Father built into the Creation. Jesus is the A and Z, the Beginning or Source and the End or Telos of all things. Thus the Bible says that YHWH built God’s creative purpose and will into the universe. It does not come only directly from God on the outside, but also from the Logos on the inside, since the universe is good.
Evolution of life forms is the result of the creative interdependence of Life in its complexity and diversity and the physical environment with all its complexity and diversity. God created all of this through the Logos, and God’s Telos as expressed by the Logos will find fruition in God’s salvation history as revealed by the Logos.
Reply to this commentSeptember 8th 2011
Hi Roger
Reply to this commentThough I disagree with you on (many!) details, I’m one with you on the question of the Universe as expressing the Father’s will through the Logos. To that extent, the relationship of God to the Universe is, in essence, the relationship of the Logos to the Universe. “I and the Father are one” - there are distinctions to be made between them and their work, but no absolute separation.
There still needs to be an allowance for a distinction between Logos and Creation, as well as a permeation of the latter by the former. The Universe is by, through and from Jesus, but he is not himself the Universe (hence in his incarnate life, his relationship to the storm on the lake was of command and rebuke, not of identity). So both immanence and transcendence are true in relation to God, whether one is considering the Father or the Son.
You’re absolutely right in saying my principle concern is Telos. To seek to understand creation without the Logos who underlies it is like trying to understand prose without reference to the writer’s intention. To ask of this post (or yours), “Which parts embody the writer’s thought (logos) and which are a string of letters of random complexity” is meaningless.
September 9th 2011
Jon,
I am glad that we agree on the basics. I wish we could have a better understanding of how we differ on the details. I certainly agree that evolution is not random in the dictionary sense of that term. It is certainly guided in the sense that God created and designed it for God’s purposes.
On the other hand while God manages and controls the overall process, that does not necessarily mean that God micromanages and determines every individual situation. God is no respecter of persons, God does not play favorites, so just because I am a Christian I do not get sick, even though I believe that if I live right I will be less likely to get sick.
Another example of this is the fact that I believe that God wants all marriages to flourish and prosper, however clearly many do not. God wants my marriage to flourish and prosper, but if it does not, even though I am a Christian, this does not mean that my life is a failure and certainly not that God has failed.
The Christian Telos is the Kingdom of God, closely identified with the Second Coming of Christ. This is an important doctrine, even though Paul and Peter try to “demythologize” it a bit. The Second Coming points to the fact that God will bring about the Telos, but the timing and exact method is left open, counter to efforts to pin that down.
The role of humans is to be ready, which is every important, esp. since we never know when our end will come. Readiness is indicated by our relationship to God and others, which cannot be defined in a legalistic manner.
Reply to this commentSeptember 10th 2011
Of all the commentary here, there is little evidence of ‘bio-logos’ dialogue other than forlorn attempts to shoehorn religious nonsense into the crevices of science remaining. Teleological intentionality writ large, everywhere, and for the most arcane reasons and onto the most mundane of situations.
September 10th 2011
Papalinton
The comment of mine you quoted (the jejeune one) was meant for people of faith who already believe in God. I can understand its lack of appeal to you. But I think we might look at your example a bit more closely.
when a child is asked, ‘Why are some rocks sharp?’ They would say, ‘the purpose of sharp rocks are so that animals can scratch an itch on them.’
The child’s answer is not wrong. This reminds us of Polkinghornes famous question “Why is the water in the kettle boiling?”, to which there are two (at least) answers. It is boiling because 1. the kettle is being heated on a fire and 2. In order to make tea.
The reason your example seems childish is because you have the child asking a question related to mechanism, and the answer related to purpose. For example, if I found an arrowhead and asked why the rock on the arrow head is sharp, the answer “so it can kill animals” is perfectly rational. Answers related to purpose are not trivial or meaningless in all circumstances, unless the current view of new atheism is to remove ALL purpose from existence, but I don’t believe you have gotten there quite yet.
I think you make the same mistake in characterizing my comments about random chance. I am actually aware of the underlying mechanisms behind the appearance of random events, both truly stochastic and deterministically chaotic. But I was speaking of the purpose of chance in a universe I believe was created by God. This is a teleological argument, which I would never expect you to agree with, since it has no bearing on the sort of universe you believe we inhabit. An atheist cannot argue theology.
Reply to this commentSeptember 12th 2011
“The effect of chance is to give God freedom to act. We can assume that God is ever present and active always in the world.”
42,
I do not agree fully with that statement either, but it is true that if the universe were only physical, if it were controlled only by the mechanistic laws of physics, then there would be no freedom, and all things would be predetermined.
Therefore chance as some people have defined it gives humans, nature, and God the freedom to act, to change and develop, because the universe is not monistic, but relational. Change only makes sense through Telos, Purpose and Meaning. If can prove that the universe has no purpose and meaning fine, but your straw person argument doe not fly.
Reply to this comment