Redeeming Science: Poythress Divine Attributes of Scientific Law

[Afterthought]

What do you all think about the giving of divine attributes (e.g., eternity, omnipotence, omnipresence, immutability, incomprehensibility, infallibility, etc.) to scientific law as Poythress does in Redeeming Science? I can't quote the entire portion because it is too drawn out and not easy to summarize, but here is a small part of the section in which he responds to objections to the view he sets forth.

Are we Divinizing Nature?

But now we must consider an objection. By claiming that scientific laws have divine attributes, are we divinizing nature? That is, are we taking something out of the created world, and falsely claiming that it is divine? Are not scientific laws a part of the created world? Should we not classify them as creature rather than Creator?

I suspect that the specificity of scientific laws, their obvious reference to the created world, has become occasion for many of us to infer that these laws are a part of the created world. But such an inference is clearly invalid. The speech describing a butterfly is not itself a butterfly or a part of a butterfly. Speech referring to the created world is not necessarily an ontological part of the world to which it refers.

In addition, let us remember that we are speaking of real laws, not merely our human guesses and approximations. The real laws are in fact the word of God, specifying how the world of creatures is to function. So-called "law" is simply God speaking, God acting, God manifesting himself in time and space. The real mistake here is not a matter of divinizing nature, but of refusing to recognize that the law is the law of God, nothing less than God speaking. We are confronting God.

From Redeeming Science, p. 21 located here.


I also wonder whether viewing scientific law in this manner gets rid of second causes for "scientific law" and so views all "scientific law" as first, direct causes by God?

 

[whirlingmerc]

We live in a fallen broken world.... a fallen broken world groaning for redemption is crtainly not a divininzed world

The world is an echo of the original shout and speaks fo Gods majesty and power,
The word of God in its originality is infallible and will point to salvation in ways the physical world can't

 

[Afterthought]

Bumping. Further thoughts?

 

[JimmyH]

1 Corinthians 2:2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

 

[Afterthought]

Could you elaborate some?

 

[MW]

Are we Divinizing Nature?

The alternative to divinizing nature is naturalizing the divine, as in the Gnostic Demiurge. We should reject any notion that God communicates His divinity to creation. God's attributes are God Himself and God ever remains infinitely distant from creation. By means of covenantal condescension He gives Himself in communion to His creation.

 

[Afterthought]

I'm not following how this connects to Poythress. Are you agreeing with him? Poythress seems to agree because he doesn't view the law as part of the created order. Instead, he views the law as God or the manifestation of God (God speaking, God acting, etc.).

 

[MW]

I'm not following how this connects to Poythress. Are you agreeing with him? Poythress seems to agree because he doesn't view the law as part of the created order. Instead, he views the law as God or the manifestation of God (God speaking, God acting, etc.).

I was reflecting on the idea that the laws of science have divine attributes. This must be rejected on the basis that God's attributes are God Himself.

 

[Afterthought]

Ah, I see. That's a good point. But what can we call scientific laws then? I suppose we must distinguish between God acting, speaking, and manifesting Himself from God Himself, or else understand scientific laws to be something else? Because otherwise, the laws would be God?

 

[MW]

But what can we call scientific laws then?

Condescension.

 

[Afterthought]

Huh. I'm going to need to give this one a think. Thanks for the comments!

 

[Peairtach]

I agree with Poythress that the laws of nature are the manifestation of how God works in the world and are a clear revelation of the God of the Bible, as Poythress demonstrates. But the fact of the laws of nature not being in place before the creation (Gen 1:1-2), and the fact of miracles, show that these laws are not themselves e.g. eternal or immutable.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

 

[InSlaveryToChrist]

 

[Afterthought]

I agree with Poythress that the laws of nature are the manifestation of how God works in the world and are a clear revelation of the God of the Bible, as Poythress demonstrates. But the fact of the laws of nature not being in place before the creation (Gen 1:1-2), and the fact of miracles, show that these laws are not themselves e.g. eternal or immutable.

Yes, I agree that is a difficulty of this view. Thanks for the comment.