Musing on Crichton's book has prompted me to float an idea that occurred
to me while having lunch with Art Battson last week.
After reading Reason in the Balance I wasn't comfortable with how Phil
depicted naturalism vs. theism. Perhaps I just missed that he was
saying this, but it seems to me that the issue is whether we see
the cosmos as *ruled* by God or *ruled* by nature. (Phil seemed
to suggest it was what we *believed* in, and that just replaces one
set of laws by another).
If the cosmos is *ruled* by God, then He Himself is not subject to any
kind of law. He is best understood as being: He who is who He is.
The naturalist instead believes that the cosmos is governed by laws.
(Science argues that it *must* assume this).
I have met many Christians who are naturalists at heart. The Christian
naturalist believes that God, though titular ruler, is bound by some kind
of transcendent principle or law. (This is a belief with roots in our
English heritage -- the notion that the sovereign is subject to law).
I listened to a local pastor from a Word of Faith church a couple of
years ago preach that God could be understood in terms of certain
`supernatural laws'. This seems anathema to me. I believe that God
can only be understood in terms of His character. What appear to be
`laws' are only the reflection of His consistency.
Many Christians seem to have a hybrid world view. We see God as
ruling the universe *through* law. He may override law from
time-to-time (supernatural events and miracles), but apart from His
intervention it is law that governs. (We are then left with only to
dispute over how much He intervenes versus just sitting back and watching).
The view that God rules through law seems to contradict an incredible
amount of Scripture. I read the Scripture as teaching that He rules directly
in the affairs of men, the instincts of animals, the limits of evil, and
even the astronomical order -- and everywhere else.
Matt 10:29-31, Acts 17:25-28, James 4:13-16, Job 38-39, Daniel 2:21-22,
Daniel 4:25, Jer 1:5-10, Job 1:12, Deu 8:2-5,11-18, Isa 40:21-40,42:5
Exodus 4:11, Matt 5:45, Col 1:15-17
I grew up in the church, but I grew up believing that naturalism was true.
Peter pegged me in 2 Peter 3:4-5. I believed that ever since the fathers
(e.g. of the Church) fell asleep, that all continues just as it was from the
beginning of creation. God was mostly irrelevant to the tangible realities
of day-to-day life.
The evidence of my naturalism comes whenever I attempt to analyze
a problem. Do I try to understand based on principles? Or by turning
my attention to God to understand what it is that *He* is doing?
What was the OJ verdict all about? Why is abortion rampant?
Why is Bill Clinton President? Why is Newt Ginrich speaker?
Why are children starving in Ethiopia or Los Angeles?
Why do I experience conflict in relationships? Why are the
stars in the sky? Why doesn't my computer program work like
I think it should?
When I am in my right mind, the starting point to answer all
questions is wisdom. Wisom is what tells us which issues are
controlling. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
To gain any true insight, we must begin with the wisdom that
comes from Him [1 Cor 2:6,12-14].
--Dave