Loren wrote
>
>Several posters have suggested the idea that God usually achieves his
>purposes through natural mechanisms in order to hide his activity from
>humans.
The "in order to hide his activity..." part bothers me too. I have argued
that God appears to be quite subtle in his oversight of nature, and have
speculated that one reason might be that he does not want to put men in a
position in which they have no choice but to believe in him. He even gave
us an outline of the possible consequences of a fairly explicit revelation
in Exodus: When he spoke to the people from Mt Sinai the people begged
Moses to ask God to talk to him only, and then they would listen to Moses.
They could not bear listening directly to God. Perhaps, though, I have
been too emphatic on the theme of God not wanting to force himself on
unbelievers.
>Some have extended this principle to progressive creation,
>suggesting that God designed and created new lifeforms with genetic
>homologies to existing lifeforms, in part at least, to allow humans room
>to doubt his existence.
And this certainly bothers me, because it smacks of the "appearance of age"
arguments. What I have argued is that God has given us a consistent,
"real" nature that we can study. And we can have a reasonable degree of
confidence that what we are studying are real mechanisms by which things
happen, not a "story" God has made for unbelievers to consume and be
mollified by.
>
>The idea that "God uses natural mechanisms to hide himself" is very
>troublesome to me. I think it puts the emphasis in entirely the wrong
>place. It almost implies that the reason God used natural mechanisms in
>the formative history of the world is just so that 20th century
>Western educated humans could have a crisis of faith!
On the other hand, it wouldn't be the first time God has provided a
stumbling block for the proud. Many of the Jews had (and still have)
considerable difficulty with Jesus. With you, I doubt that God's sole
purpose in keeping some of his actions veiled was to create a crisis of
faith. But that is one of the consequences of the mode God has chosen
(mostly) to oversee nature, and I doubt it's a surprise to him.
>
>I would rather say, "God typically uses natural mechanisms to achieve his
>purposes." Period. End of sentence.
>
>Pause.
Somehow, this is humorous. I totally agree, though, and I guess that's
humorous too.
>
>NOW we can speculate on several reasons why God would do this.
>I would suggest:
>
>
>1. FOR THE SAKE OF HIS CREATION ITSELF. The joy which we humans
>experience when we create something complex and functional -- which can
>accomplish what we desire with only minimal and subtle input (e.g. an
>automatic loom; a computer program which can perform many useful tasks
>with minimal input, instead of needing to re-write the operating system
>each time) -- may reflect something of our Creator's nature. Also, God
>may in some sense respect his creation, as he respects us, as something
>_other_ than himself, a respect which implies granting it a certain degree
>of freedom to be itself.
I would add: for the love of beauty. God is an artist. At the same time I
want to be very careful to reiterate that I don't believe God sacrifices
truth for beauty(if indeed that is possible). To do so would be a
violation of his nature.
>
>
>2. FOR THE SAKE OF BELIEVERS. If God's providential care over our daily
>lives occurred via specific and obvious supernatural acts, we would be
>strongly tempted to think of God as a "quid pro quo" god. (Job's friends
>seemed to think about God this way. This also seems to be the basis of
>most ancient and modern idolotries.) God did miraculously provide for his
>people's physical needs on certain occasions (manna for the Israelites in
>the desert, Jesus' feeding of the 5000). While they rationally
>acknowledged the miracles as coming from God, their spiritual responses
>were hardly ideal. I wonder if we would have done any better.
>Rationality is only ONE important aspect of our human nature. By
>providing for nearly all our needs via the natural order of his creation,
>I believe God is inviting us to realize that ALL things, big and small,
>come from him. He is inviting us to stop running after what we eat,
>drink, and wear, and instead to seek first his kingdom and his
>righteousness.
>
>This, I would argue, is NOT the same is "hiding." While God cares for us
>through "natural" processes, he also _reveals_ to believers, in clear
>words, that he is acting through these natural processes. I believe that
>God is teaching us that he is present in everything which happens to us,
>not just the obviously supernatural events.
Agreed.
>
>
>3. FOR THE SAKE OF UNBELIEVERS. Now, at last, we can speculate that one
>reason God acts natural processes is to "hide" his actions. Others have
>written eloquently about how God wants a response of true faith and
>commitment, not of rationality, and about how God might have mercy on
>those who are determined to reject him. I won't repeat it here.
The dichotomy "God wants a response of true faith and commitment, not of
rationality" bothers me. Yes God wants us to trust him, and that's faith.
But I don't believe he's asking us to check our rationality at the door.
>
>------------
>
>Why would God use (or appear to use) natural mechanisms over billions of
>years in the formative history of the physical and biological world? I
>think that "hiding his actions from humans" must be an extremely tertiary
>factor -- if it is part of the reason at all.
It certainly could be merely a natural result of the fact that His ways are
higher than our ways. Young-Earth Creationists and naturalists both seem
to me to have trouble with the idea that God's ways may simply be
inaccessible to study by us. The naturalist seems to be saying, "I can't
observe Him, so He must not exist." Instead of observing that we shouldn't
expect to be able to observe many of God's actions, the young-earth
creationists take the naturalist's bait. That is, they accept the
assumption that _if_ God's actions could not be seen in nature, then it
would indeed be correct to conclude that God doesn't exist. I think that
reasoning is incorrect, and Christians shouldn't let naturalists get away
with it.
>(Remember that for most of
>history, the existence of the world seemed a profoundly SUPERnatural fact
>to almost everyone. Depending on where and when they lived, they
>attributed it to the God of Abraham or to their own pantheon.) Moreover,
>I believe that the recorded accounts of God's historical acts of
>revelation, as well as God's personal response to any genuine seeker,
>should more than offset any skepticism induced by God's use of natural
>processes in creation.
>
>Why would God use (or appear to use) natural mechanisms over billions of
>years in the formative history of the physical and biological world? I
>would RATHER emphasize God's delight in his creation for its own sake, and
>God's invitation to believers to see his care and providence in
>EVERYTHING.
>
It's always good to emphasize the positive. However, my rationale for
harping on the "not forcing himself on unbelievers" theme is that God has
prescribed means that we are to use to know him. While we may be able to
learn some interesting facts about how he does things by the study of
nature, the way he has ordained for us to truly know him is through faith,
especially through faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross.
If I know God in that way and then go study nature, then I am going to see
him in everything I study. I know, because I do. On the other hand,
putting on naturalistic blinders and studying strictly nature is not likely
to lead to a true knowledge of God. So it seems to me that young-earth
creationists are putting the cart before the horse when they assume, as
some of them do, that they can use flood geology as a witnessing tool.
Bill Hamilton | Vehicle Systems Research
GM R&D Center | Warren, MI 48090-9055
810 986 1474 (voice) | 810 986 3003 (FAX)
hamilton@gmr.com