The Bible vs. God-of-the-gaps

[wgreen]

I am not satisfied with a "God of the Gaps" approach in which we invoke God to explain phenomena which have not been successfully explained yet by science. It seems that whenever people have done this, science eventually comes up with a satisfactory explanation.

The problem with the approach is that it is materialistic. When we Christians use the God of-the-gaps defense, we betray our underlying materialistic assumption: that nature has the power to operate on its own. Materialism is defined as “The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena (American Heritage Dictionary, 1994).”

According to materialism, nature has the power to operate on its own. When we focus on the “gaps” in scientific understanding, we show that we think that there is no need for God if there is a scientific explanation invoking “natural” processes. We think that as long as there is an explanation that keeps with physical laws, then no divine involvement is necessary.

The Scriptures present a different picture.

Amos 4:13
For behold,
He who forms mountains,
And creates the wind,
Who declares to man what his thought is,
And makes the morning darkness,
Who treads the high places of the earth—
The Lord God of hosts is His name.

Note the present tense. He controls erosion and plate tectonics. He controls the wind (which involves solar radiation and the rotation of the earth).

Psalm 147:8—9
Who covers the heavens with clouds,
Who prepares rain for the earth,
Who makes grass to grow on the mountains.
He gives to the beast its food,
And to the young ravens that cry.

He controls the weather. He makes grass grow. Wait, I thought we knew what made grass grow. Plant hormones induce cell division according to the pattern dictates by DNA. But we are talking about fundamental cause here. Chemistry and biology describe, not explain.

Because the universe is controlled by a God of order, it functions in an orderly, predictable manner. It is no surprise that it appears to be “governed” by physical laws, and functions like “clockwork.”

It follows also that the same evidence for a self-contained, self-sustaining, cause-effect universe (proposed by materialists) can be just as easily taken as evidence of control by an orderly God.

It “seems” obvious to us that physical objects and events have their own “causal powers,” but this is only because of our experience. It does not arise from logic or necessity. David Hume has shown (plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume/) that our idea of cause comes only from our experience. We have experienced the correlation of certain events, and expect that they will happen in certain sequences and relations in the future as they have in the past. This is “cause.” Of course, this is not what we often mean by cause. We usually mean that an event causes another when that event necessitates the other. The second event must happen when the first occurs. This cannot be proven by logic or science. Much less can it be proven that a given object or event is a sufficient cause of another.

The Biblical view is one of God as Cause. The materialistic view is one of Universe as its own Cause. Neither view can be proven. Both are accepted by their proponents as “brute fact.”

Which is more reasonable, that there exists a self-caused, self-sustaining, self-contained universe, or that there exists a universe created by an orderly God?

Of course, the question need not hang unanswered. We can bring other considerations to bear at this point.


Thanks for the opportunity to discuss these issues.
This looks like a great forum.

Sincerely,

Bill Green

[harvey1]

Which is more reasonable, that there exists a self-caused, self-sustaining, self-contained universe, or that there exists a universe created by an orderly God?

Great post and great subject. I guess what I've always wondered is how a materialist can even say there is such a thing as cause. How can there be any kind of necessity in nature if you are a materialist? Necessity is a concept, not an atom, quark, etc. For materialism to work properly, it seems to me it should talk in terms of probabilities, but what necessitates a probability? If the materialists treat certain kinds of probability as primitive to their conception of the world, that's all fine and good, but what keeps the primitive rule from being broken a day after tomorrow? If the Universe is eternally old, then that means that there is an event E which happened an eternity ago and a temporal event following, E+1 (also an eternity ago). However, E and E+1 cannot be accessed by counting backward in time since you can't reach an "eternity ago." Therefore, how can the events of today be causally related to E or E+1? Many questions seem to haunt the materialist version of causality.

The Christian view is much more conducive to a simple explanation. God exists outside of time, and in that case, God caused the world at E. Causal chains are real (i.e., there is no requirement that material things play this causal role).

[Jose]

Welcome, wgreen!

The Biblical view is one of God as Cause. The materialistic view is one of Universe as its own Cause. Neither view can be proven. Both are accepted by their proponents as “brute fact.”

Which is more reasonable, that there exists a self-caused, self-sustaining, self-contained universe, or that there exists a universe created by an orderly God?

I wouldn't say that both views are accepted by their proponents as brute fact. Rather, I'd say that one is Received Wisdom, and the other is the conclusion reached from studying the world.

I'd say the way to decide is to look at the world--at God's Creation--and see what clues he left in it. Logic says that if God created the world, there should be some kind of evidence. There might, say, be clear evidence of older and older rocks, up until the moment of creation. No rocks should be older than that. Since God gave His Creation a number of different kinds of yardsticks to measure age, you'd think we are supposed to use them. When we do, we come up with about 6 billion years more than Bishop Ussher suggested we should. This doesn't deny God As Cause. It just puts a time limit on His initial creation, or suggests that we should take his words in the Bible rather metaphorically, or suggests that he's playing tricks on us.

[juliod]

It just puts a time limit on His initial creation, or suggests that we should take his words in the Bible rather metaphorically, or suggests that he's playing tricks on us.

Or suggests your god doesn't exist. <== Don't leave that one out.

DanZ

[Gollum]

Which is more reasonable, that there exists a self-caused, self-sustaining, self-contained universe, or that there exists a universe created by an orderly God?

More reasonable?

Old Irish Joke:

Do you believe in faries?
Yes.
Have you ever seen one?
No.
Then why do you believe?
Well, it stands to reason.

The presumption of an "orderly" God as the ultimate creator and causal agent of all that exists, sticks in the craw of many of us precisely because it does not stand to reason. It may be the most comfortable or require the least effort but any proposal that has no supporting evidence beyong conjecture cannot be called reasonable.

With all due respect to David Hume, certainly causality may be viewed as exceptionless correlation but even that seems preferable to causality attributed to forces, methods and reasons unknown and unknowable.

[wgreen]

What are your reasons for believing in a materialistic universe?

[Jose]

What are your reasons for believing in a materialistic universe?

Well, you know, there are lots of materials in the universe. These various materials seem to interact in various ways that can be described fairly reliably. It is possible to derive some apparent laws that govern some of the interactions. It is possible to use the descriptions of the interactions to predict, sometimes with very high accuracy, things that will happen after certain types of manipulations of the materials.

In short, in all of the ways that we have been able to measure, we find that the stuff in the universe behaves as if it follows a set of natural laws, some of which we have been able to describe.

Now, it may be that all of this is bunk, and there is some supernatural entity causing everything to work the way it does. However, said entity has been very cagey about it, and has kept his efforts hidden very well, as if he wants us to conclude that he's not actually causing things to work the way they do. Since he has given us no clues about his existence, or how he works, we pretty much have to work things out on our own, based on what we can discover about how the world works.

That is, I don't "believe in" a materialistic universe. "Belief" is a matter of faith. Rather, I look at the world around me, and try to figure out what it's telling me. If it turns out that the information the world gives me points to a particular type of interpretation, then, well, it looks like that interpretation is the best one.

[Titan]

wgreen, from your Christian perspective it would seem that a God of the Gaps would make sense.

Consider it, if the universe is billions of years old (~15 billion) and the entire purpose of this ancient universe is so that man can see God in a way that no other can then it appears that God cares deeply for man.

[rjw]

I am not satisfied with a "God of the Gaps" approach in which we invoke God to explain phenomena which have not been successfully explained yet by science. It seems that whenever people have done this, science eventually comes up with a satisfactory explanation.

The problem with the approach is that it is materialistic. When we Christians use the God of-the-gaps defense, we betray our underlying materialistic assumption: that nature has the power to operate on its own. Materialism is defined as “The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena (American Heritage Dictionary, 1994).”

According to materialism, nature has the power to operate on its own. When we focus on the “gaps” in scientific understanding, we show that we think that there is no need for God if there is a scientific explanation invoking “natural” processes. We think that as long as there is an explanation that keeps with physical laws, then no divine involvement is necessary.

The Scriptures present a different picture.

Amos 4:13
For behold,
He who forms mountains,
And creates the wind,
Who declares to man what his thought is,
And makes the morning darkness,
Who treads the high places of the earth—
The Lord God of hosts is His name.

Note the present tense. He controls erosion and plate tectonics. He controls the wind (which involves solar radiation and the rotation of the earth).

Psalm 147:8—9
Who covers the heavens with clouds,
Who prepares rain for the earth,
Who makes grass to grow on the mountains.
He gives to the beast its food,
And to the young ravens that cry.

He controls the weather. He makes grass grow. Wait, I thought we knew what made grass grow. Plant hormones induce cell division according to the pattern dictates by DNA. But we are talking about fundamental cause here. Chemistry and biology describe, not explain.

Because the universe is controlled by a God of order, it functions in an orderly, predictable manner. It is no surprise that it appears to be “governed” by physical laws, and functions like “clockwork.”

It follows also that the same evidence for a self-contained, self-sustaining, cause-effect universe (proposed by materialists) can be just as easily taken as evidence of control by an orderly God.

It “seems” obvious to us that physical objects and events have their own “causal powers,” but this is only because of our experience. It does not arise from logic or necessity. David Hume has shown (plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume/) that our idea of cause comes only from our experience. We have experienced the correlation of certain events, and expect that they will happen in certain sequences and relations in the future as they have in the past. This is “cause.” Of course, this is not what we often mean by cause. We usually mean that an event causes another when that event necessitates the other. The second event must happen when the first occurs. This cannot be proven by logic or science. Much less can it be proven that a given object or event is a sufficient cause of another.

The Biblical view is one of God as Cause. The materialistic view is one of Universe as its own Cause. Neither view can be proven. Both are accepted by their proponents as “brute fact.”

Which is more reasonable, that there exists a self-caused, self-sustaining, self-contained universe, or that there exists a universe created by an orderly God?

Of course, the question need not hang unanswered. We can bring other considerations to bear at this point.


Thanks for the opportunity to discuss these issues.
This looks like a great forum.

Sincerely,

Bill Green

Gidday Bill,

Large chunks of your posting make sense. But there are parts that leave me puzzled. I am unsure as to whether you posted this from the perspective of a theistic naturalist (a sensible point of view) or a YEC/OEC (a non-sensible point of view – IMHO).

Bill:- I am not satisfied with a "God of the Gaps" approach in which we invoke God to explain phenomena which have not been successfully explained yet by science. It seems that whenever people have done this, science eventually comes up with a satisfactory explanation.


Essentially I agree. However, note your use of the word “explanation”. This comes up later.


Bill:- The problem with the approach is that it is materialistic. When we Christians use the God of-the-gaps defense, we betray our underlying materialistic assumption: that nature has the power to operate on its own.

[(snip)]

According to materialism, nature has the power to operate on its own. When we focus on the “gaps” in scientific understanding, we show that we think that there is no need for God if there is a scientific explanation invoking “natural” processes. We think that as long as there is an explanation that keeps with physical laws, then no divine involvement is necessary.


I see what you are arguing. However, if science does catch up then why abandon God in his direct role?

I am an atheist, however theistic evolution or theistic naturalism make sense. What I do not understand however is why creationists invoke God directly in some natural (material?) processes – e.g. the origin of life, the origin of stars and planets etc., yet they do not invoke him directly in other natural processes – e.g. the origin of rain, the origin of wind, the origin of the sun’s energy etc. So, with respect to GoG, why abandon God as a direct explanation even when science does catch up?

I guess my question is, what are the rules and what is the rationale by which God is invoked directly in some scenarios but not others?


Bill:- The Scriptures present a different picture.

Amos 4:13
For behold,
He who forms mountains,
And creates the wind,
Who declares to man what his thought is,
And makes the morning darkness,
Who treads the high places of the earth—
The Lord God of hosts is His name.

Note the present tense. He controls erosion and plate tectonics. He controls the wind (which involves solar radiation and the rotation of the earth).

Are you not putting a modern interpretation on an ancient text here? Did the original author mean it in the way you interpret it? I get the impression that “controlling” is not being talked about here, rather “forming”, “making”, “creating” are. Thus God decides that he wants wind and so he blows it in – in the sense that Job talks about meteorological phenomena in chapter 37 of the book named after him.

Bill:- He controls the weather. He makes grass grow. Wait, I thought we knew what made grass grow. Plant hormones induce cell division according to the pattern dictates by DNA. But we are talking about fundamental cause here. Chemistry and biology describe, not explain.

Chemistry and biology both explain and describe. Refer back to your opening remark. In essence, what is the difference between a description and an explanation? I can describe how atoms are bonded together and in that I provide an explanation for a process of chemical bonding.

Bill:- Because the universe is controlled by a God of order, it functions in an orderly, predictable manner. It is no surprise that it appears to be “governed” by physical laws, and functions like “clockwork.”

The converse is also true. The universe is governed by physical laws and functions like clockwork and so it is no surprise that we humans attribute to it, the design by an intelligence. However just because we imitate nature, that is create orderly and complex things, it does not mean that nature imitates us, that is, needs an intelligence to have made it.

Bill:- It follows also that the same evidence for a self-contained, self-sustaining, cause-effect universe (proposed by materialists) can be just as easily taken as evidence of control by an orderly God.

To an extent I agree with what you say. However the materialist generally argues for cause and effect at all levels. Are you arguing for it at:-

1) no levels,
2) some levels,
3) all levels?

And is your notion of cause and effect here the same as the materialists?

Refer back to your statement that we know how plants grow. You write that “Plant hormones induce cell division … Chemistry and biology describe but not explain.” So are you arguing that hormones (cause) do induce cell division (effect) or are you arguing instead that God induces it, just like he creates the wind?

Bill:- It “seems” obvious to us that physical objects and events have their own “causal powers,” but this is only because of our experience. It does not arise from logic or necessity. David Hume has shown (plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume/) that our idea of cause comes only from our experience. We have experienced the correlation of certain events, and expect that they will happen in certain sequences and relations in the future as they have in the past. This is “cause.” Of course, this is not what we often mean by cause. We usually mean that an event causes another when that event necessitates the other. The second event must happen when the first occurs. This cannot be proven by logic or science. Much less can it be proven that a given object or event is a sufficient cause of another.

If you push this too hard then I wonder why you appear to argue that hormones cause cell division? Prove it? In essence this goes back to my earlier assertion. Why not, as a creationist, invoke GoG, and stick to it even though science does catch up. This paragraph is your rationale for doing so.

Bill:- The Biblical view is one of God as Cause. The materialistic view is one of Universe as its own Cause. Neither view can be proven. Both are accepted by their proponents as “brute fact.”

I agree.

Bill:- Which is more reasonable, that there exists a self-caused, self-sustaining, self-contained universe, or that there exists a universe created by an orderly God?

I do not think either is reasonable. Cause and effect are things which occur in time and space. Both were created at the Big Bang. If a self sustaining, self caused, self contained universe is unreasonable, then why is a God who presumably has these attributes, reasonable?

Yet your question is reasonable – nevertheless. It is related to “why is there something rather than nothing?” etc. Such questions we are compelled to answer in some meaningful way.

Hence forums such as this.

Regards, Roland

[wgreen]

Dear rjw,

Thanks for your reply. I'm sorry. I guess I wasn't entirely clear. I would say that hormones and cell division are both descriptions of God's action.

I define "explanation" as "To offer reasons for or a cause of; justify: explain an error(American Heritage Dictionary, 1994)." I don't believe that hormones are an explanation of plant growth in this sense. Both hormonal action and plant growth are descriptions of certain cases of God's predictable action in the natural world.


I don't think I'm reading into the Biblical texts here. I think theses verses say that God is the cause of natural processes. These verses don't describe these processes in detail (e.g. Amos 4:13--He who drives plate tectonics and causes thrust faulting), but they present God as cause of ongoing processes.

Psalm 104:10—15 (NKJV)
He sends the springs into the valleys;
They flow among the hills.
They give drink to every beast of the field;
The wild donkeys quench their thirst.
By them the birds of the heavens have their home;
They sing among the branches.
&#65279;He waters the hills from His upper chambers;
The earth is satisfied with &#65279;the fruit of Your works.
&#65279;He causes the grass to grow for the cattle,
And vegetation for the service of man,
That he may bring forth &#65279;food from the earth,
And &#65279;wine that makes glad the heart of man,
Oil to make his face shine,
And bread which strengthens man’s heart.


Another particularly strong verse on this topic is Prov 16:33 (NAS), "The lot is cast in the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord.”

He controls the outcome of the roll of a die.

Eph. 1:11 says that God works all things according to the counsel of His will (note the present tense).

God is the cause in the sense that he is the one who necessitates or determines what will happen in natural processes. I am also saying that he has an active role in this, beyond just "winding up" the "celestial clock" as it were. I would also say that His role goes beyond maintaining the properties of physical entities, because I think the cited verses are stronger than that.

If we are speaking of "cause" in the sense of correlation between events, or in the sense that I can predict a second event when I see a first event, then I have no problem saying that the rock caused the window to break, for example. However, I understand, while I am saying that, that I really do not mean that the rock has any power of its own to cause an event. The arrival of the rock at the window does not sufficiently explain the breaking of the window.

Thanks again for your input.

Sincerely,

Bill Green