Science and rationalism vs God's providence

[adamjthompson]

How do we reconcile these factors when viewing day-to-day happenings?

1. Scientific/rational explanations
2. God's sovereignty
3. Man's will
4. Other factors (eg angels, demons, Satan)

At a high level, we can say God is sovereign over all, including secondary causes and man's will. That's good, but applying that to daily events gets much more complex, I think.

1) The rationalist/atheist says everything can be explained rationally. (example.) At one level, I agree with them. I have never seen anything which couldn't be explained naturally - even things I would consider answers to prayer can be explained rationally without mentioning God (unless/until you ask where the rational forces, universe, etc. came from). I believe the previous sentence is essentially deism. We might say that God works *through* the secondary means, yet how exactly should we see God in and through the secondary means? How might one encourage an atheist or even ones self to "see God" in daily events that can be explained rationally? (I'm looking for an argument I can grapple with while staying inside the box of what we can see/experience - going outside the box to offer an explanation for where the box came from is the easy out.) In other words, can a person be certain they see God in daily events without presupposing God's existence?

2) The Bible teaches that God is sovereign, yet the Bible also teaches that man is allowed to make his own choices (man's will is corrupt, but that is a discussion for another day). Even spiritual facts can be explained rationally based on man's will - for example, there are rational reasons for why there are more believers in America than there are in Japan. Even in salvation (where we would emphasize the initiative is 100% of God) the results we see are rational. In other word's, they can largely be explained within secondary causes, aka rational/scientific observation. How should we view/understand this? What does the Bible say about the Holy Spirit working outside of secondary causes, vs secondary causes in the salvation process, especially regarding *who* comes to Christ? Why is it that most of the people who believe are those we would rationally expect to do so (from Christian homes, from Christian school, from a Christian culture, rational reason their culture accepts Christianity, etc.)? When you look at the response rate to the gospel in various countries, it seems to follow rational expectations.

3) Lastly, people like to say certain events were "a God thing". If God is sovereign, isn't everything "a God thing"? Yet, man is responsible. What should we attribute directly to God, and what should we attribute to man, or to coincidence or other rational explanations? Furthermore, most things we see in the world, even in the church are a mixture of right and wrong - they are imperfect at best. How much wrong has to be mixed in before we can no longer ascribe the act to God? How much should we give God direct credit for *creating/initiating* events, and how much should we merely say he rules over all and will *use* this act?

4) If we say God works through the secondary means, how can we give God credit for the secondary means that lead Bob to end up at church on Sunday, but not give God the credit for the secondary means that lead Joe to end up a strip club? Some would say God is equally and fully to be credited for both, but that is dangerously close to attributing sin to God.

This is an issue (the Reformed view of God's sovereignty) I've felt pretty comfortable with since I was about 15 years old, but I've lately realized that the details of how it works out are more complex than I previously realized. Once you start to rationally deal with the nitty gritty issues, there are some tough questions to wrestle with. Thanks for any input, especially any Bible passages that might better illuminate my understanding.

 

[Afterthought]

For one thing, with respect to empirical science, I wonder whether we can say it is merely a matter of perspective. At least, that's how I've been dealing with it in my various classes lately. That is, view empirical science not as explanatory of reality but rather descriptive. While one could say it is explanatory relative to itself ("Why X?" "Because natural cause Y."), absolutely view it as descriptive of reality, as viewing reality from the perspective of natural causes (i.e., second causes under ordinary Providential government). So while one could say that the reason more believers are in the US rather than in Japan is because of God's working, one could also bend down and look at reality from the perspective of natural causes and give an explanation in terms of them, while realizing that such an explanation is really just a description, since it can only work with what it is given.

From there, it would seem one could acknowledge that God, as the "All-Conditioner" (to borrow Van Til's language) does indeed work through second causes to bring more believers in the US rather than Japan (I think Augustine has an excellent quotation on marveling at God's "ordinary Providence" in raising him from infancy). That is, so far as I understand, the second causes are His work, not something independent of Him but His own work (the work of Providence is the governing of all His creatures and all their actions; God makes the grass to grow and gives the lions their prey; in him we live, and move, and have our being: you may find this post helpful); and since He governs the world in an ordinary manner, one can expect to see these second causes repeatedly used in bringing about His will, but one must again be careful here to recognize that empirical science can only receive what is given, so some of these supposed causal connections might not actually be causes but coincidences or causes of events that God has happened to bring together, and so the commonality between these events is due to some other cause, or gives rise to causes rather than being an effect of them. (though it is a bit odd to speak of the human will as a "rational explanation" unless one is a determinist; from what I've seen, the will is usually believed to give that element of "uncertainty" and "chance" to events; Turretin defines it as "rational appetite")

Also from there, one will quickly realize that science is quite limited, and that using it to provide an actual rational explanation will make it come up short (e.g., one can describe conversion as chemicals in the brain reacting in a particular way, but if such is seen as the absolute cause of conversion, it is inadequate because it assumes either a materialism or that the natural is causing a change in the spiritual rather than the other way around, and such will need to be proved not assumed if that explanation is to be adequate)

There might be more I could wonder and say, but I think I'd rather see the answers of more knowledgeable members.

 

[adamjthompson]

Thanks for your thoughts and input!

view empirical science not as explanatory of reality but rather descriptive

I saw this video a few days ago which presents the same idea. I find it helpful.

the second causes are His work, not something independent of Him but His own work

This line of thinking is what lead me to items 2-4 in my original post. If secondary causes are one and the same as God, we're stuck with God being the author of sin, among other problems.

I feel a bit stuck between a rock and a hard place when I try to work these concepts out in practical application - too little emphasis on God's control of everything and you only see the secondary causes and you end up with rational naturalism...too strong of an emphasis on God's control of everything and you get God as the author of sin and no responsibility left for man. I'm sure there is a biblical, rational balance and understanding, but it's eluding me...

 

[Theogenes]

Adam,
I recommend reading Gordon Clark's book on Predestination. I think its very helpful regarding your questions.
Jim

 

[Afterthought]

I saw this video a few days ago which presents the same idea. I find it helpful.

Very cool. But just a note, it seems to me there is a related idea to science being descriptive, and if one tried presenting the view that science is descriptive with some physics professors, it will eventually be pointed out that one is viewing science as mathematics, with axioms that can easily be changed so as to fit the math to anything, rather than as getting at something real. No doubt, such appeals to mathematicians, but scientists usually believe reality is involved in some manner.

What this all means and the implications of it, I am not sure. I'm not even entirely sure that there is more than one view that sees science as descriptive, but perhaps the best stab I could make at it (taking language from a different philosophical debate), it might be the difference between a "nominalistic" view of science as descriptive and a "realist" view of science as descriptive. I'm promoting the latter (the descriptions are based on realities), while the former (the descriptions are arbitrary categorizations that have their basis in ideas rather than reality) might be what such physics professors think is being presented and instinctively react to. (Edit: Come to think of it, this might be related to, if not reducing to, the difference between kinematics and dynamics, or mathematical models and physics)

This line of thinking is what lead me to items 2-4 in my original post. If secondary causes are one and the same as God, we're stuck with God being the author of sin, among other problems.

It is possible I overstated the case a bit (since the causes are not one and the same as God; when a person does some action, God isn't acting for the person), but the post I linked to better gives the idea I was trying to convey (that second causes aren't indirect causation), and it may answer your question here too: God concurs with and causes all actions, but the evil of any action belongs to the actor. That is my understanding of the matter, and I think I'll leave it to someone more knowledgeable to further explain how that works out.

 

[adamjthompson]

Adam,
I recommend reading Gordon Clark's book on Predestination. I think its very helpful regarding your questions.
Jim

That would be this book?

 

[adamjthompson]

I saw this video a few days ago which presents the same idea. I find it helpful.

Very cool. But just a note, it seems to me there is a related idea to science being descriptive, and if one tried presenting the view that science is descriptive with some physics professors, it will eventually be pointed out that one is viewing science as mathematics, with axioms that can easily be changed so as to fit the math to anything, rather than as getting at something real. No doubt, such appeals to mathematicians, but scientists usually believe reality is involved in some manner.

Unless I misunderstood the video, he was saying that science is descriptive of reality, but not causative of reality.

 

[Afterthought]

Unless I misunderstood the video, he was saying that science is descriptive of reality, but not causative of reality.

Yes, that's what I understood him to be saying too (well, technically, he was saying that mathematical law does not cause or create reality), and I agree. The quoted paragraph was just a note of something I recalled, which recalling was in part due to the person being a mathematician.

 

[GloriousBoaz]

I feel a bit stuck between a rock and a hard place when I try to work these concepts out in practical application - too little emphasis on God's control of everything and you only see the secondary causes and you end up with rational naturalism...too strong of an emphasis on God's control of everything and you get God as the author of sin and no responsibility left for man. I'm sure there is a biblical, rational balance and understanding, but it's eluding me...

This is my exact dilemma. But to bring out some further issues I am struggling with i think your #3 hits it the best in my life. My old church circles I hung out with are swinging more into a philosophy that they used to have more primary issues than secondary issues in their beliefs but this is counter productive to interdenominational Christian unity, so they are downplaying the importance of secondary issues. Now also they are minimal on confronting sin in others. They do church discipline for major things, but everyday sharpening doesn't occur by the Holy Spirit's using you to directly speak conviction to them, only indirectly for instance "Hey I noticed you play a lot of video games and don't read your bible." would be unacceptable, accusatory, and judgmental. but during a bible study you could say "I used to have a problem with playing too many video games." as a general statement, indirectly.

How much wrong has to be mixed in before we can no longer ascribe the act to God?

Now like I said they will use church discipline if someone is committing adultery or something of that caliber, but if it is anything lower it is "It isn't your responsibility you have to let God be God, quit acting like the Holy Spirit. You do your christian walk and worry more about what God is trying to tell you" but I have been seeing ecumenical moderate laditudinarianism creeping in more and more because nothing is ever directly confronted. There is a level rising of this and they would say it is no big deal, God has it all under control. The hard part for me right now is that maybe if this plays out for 2 or 5 or 10 more years the effects of this creeping liberalism will infect everything and will be out in the open. As it is right now there is still time for them to repent of their current mindset and head back to the straight and narrow path, which is the end I am praying for. But I don't know how to adequately explain this to them at this point because they will say: "Stop worrying about it, don't you trust God?"

Now this is an imbalanced view of God's sovereignty that is allowing for human irresponsibility. Now if orthodoxy (right thinking) leads to orthopraxy (right living) then the quote I started this with, quoting you, needs to be riddled out, and then perhaps I can explain it to them, or at least know what to believe myself.

 

[adamjthompson]

Peter, on the surface level I think some of the issues you describe can be dealt with by going to Bible verses that show how a) we're supposed to prod and push another to righteousness and b) we're told to *do* stuff, not just sit around and let God. A few verses that come to mind are Hebrews 10:24, Hebrews 3:12-13, Galatians 6:1, etc.

At a deeper level, it sounds like the issue is similar to what I'm wrestling with. I actually expected this thread would get more answers, but maybe others are like me - understanding certain principles and teachings but uncertain exactly how they work out in all the fine details. These are doctrines I've been taught since I was knee-high to a grasshopper, but I'm realizing my understanding is not as complete and air-tight as I thought it was.

 

[py3ak]

I like Warfield's little article on the topic:

http://livingwatercc.org/images/VarArticles/God's Providence Over All - Warfield.PDF

Saying that God does everything and saying that God does nothing brings about almost the same result in regard to secondary causation, namely, that they are free to be investigated and explored for the nature of their working; but the difference that remains is profound. Call it piety or reverence or what have you, but there is an entire difference of standpoint.

God concurs in every act; it could not take place without his concurrence. But he concurs with the good of the act, not with its deformity. The only thing that is truly ours, is our sin.

 

[GloriousBoaz]

At a deeper level, it sounds like the issue is similar to what I'm wrestling with. I actually expected this thread would get more answers, but maybe others are like me - understanding certain principles and teachings but uncertain exactly how they work out in all the fine details. These are doctrines I've been taught since I was knee-high to a grasshopper, but I'm realizing my understanding is not as complete and air-tight as I thought it was.

Yeah I certainly am struggling with predestination. If you lump it in with soteriology as Calvin did then I get it. We have to be predestined to be saved/regenerate because our wills are in bondage and no one can choose God. I get that. But when we talk about

God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass

and if you just stop there in the confession (even though yes it goes on to say "yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established. " but it doesn't say how so it is not helpful to our problem at hand) and say that you agree with this statement that God ordains everything (not just soteriological events which perhaps this is the context, soteriology, that the WCF had in mind in article 3, I do not know) which to me would make sense because God is omnipotent and omniscient so how could anything stray from His gaze and His causality (the only argument against this would be that God is so powerful He can create creatures and time and space in such a way as to influence them as a chess master does, forcing His opponents pieces to move where He wishes them without actually putting His hands to the pieces. Also to create man to function in this world independently, that is, without direct cause, but by their own causes, only being manipulated as second causes; i.e. opponents chess pieces.)

So if we view predestination (in a non~soteriological sense) as an Omnipotent Omniscient Omnipresent being who cannot let anything happen aside from His direct orchestration. My question is how are we not left with determinism and God also being the author of evil, and also there not truly being second causes?

Now we still haven't brought this down to a practical level, because if we can't understand it doctrinally, is there hope to understand how it works itself out practically?

Reuben, I havent gotten to the Warfield article yet, I will try to though, thanks for posting it.

 

[THE W]

I'll just throw this out there and see what happens.

The LORD preordained every action and event in time but does not force anyone to do anything contrary to their own will.

 

[Mushroom]

I'll just throw this out there and see what happens.

The LORD preordained every action and event in time but does not force anyone to do anything contrary to their own will.

Yep.

Our will is free, compatabilistically.

I'm free to touch the ceiling with my nose,
But I'm not able, even standing on my toes.

All I do, I plan and act,
That God ordains it is also fact.

What ever shall I do with this conundrum?
Accept that before God's wisdom I'm just dumb.

And be grateful for the fact that He
Condescended to save a wretch like me...