Yep… this is my position, @jongarvey, with the proviso that free will introduces another factor, but it is a factor that God works with (via omnisicience) to accomplish his goals.
I suppose this is where your use of “Special Providence” would kick in, @jongarvey? [see quote from your post below)]
I agree with Newton’s general assertion… though there is probably still a valid form of Christianity that would exists even without Special Providence. He was certainly right about Christianity - - as we generally conceive of it!
George, how on earth could you possibly conclude that to be my view? I’m genuinely curious, having written extensively on the incoherence of the idea of “freedom” in the natural realm here, on the Hump, at BioLogos, on Uncommon Descent and in my book, and even before all that in Christian magazines.
If there’s one thing that people know about me, it’s that I’m one of those damned Calvinists.
Yes, except that I’m not so keen on the word “intervention” if one believes that the operation of the laws of nature is as much God’s work as his contingent acts. Analogy - if I usually feed my dog at 6pm, and one day choose to do it at 5.30, I’m not “intervening” but just doing stuff differently.
I also prefer another word other than “intervene”. Dr. Collins, if memory serves correctly, uses the term in this context: “to intervene in [the midst of naturally lawful events]”.
I have begun using the term “engaged” and “engaging” …regarding God’s two (2) different modes of engaging with the Universe of his own making!:
1] God either engages the Universe with his “naturally lawful chains of causation”, or
2] God engages the Universe with his “supernatural” actions… actions that cannot happen by normal operation of natural laws.
Can you explain what you meant by that Calvinist comment? Or perhaps you initially thought I was calling you a Calvinist?
No, I don’t state that insistently, or in fact at all. You may, perhaps, have taken some statement of mine that there are people who believe in such a thing within theistic evolution, but (as I have already said) I’ve spent the last 8 years calling their view incoherent. And (as I have also already said) I have Lord knows how many articles on chance on The Hump, all avialable at the touch of a button.
Calvinists, of course, believe in free will subsumed, like all things in Creation, under the providence of God. That means (for example) that like Paul they pray to God for people to believe. However, we don’t believe that God’s providence misses out bits of creation.
In fact, you spend so much time talking about randomness, that it was my reading through your discussions that I came away with the idea that you believe in more randomness than anyone I had ever encountered.
Save us all some time … just point to one of your sentences where you state, without alot of rigamarole and qualifications heaped upon qualifications… that from God’s perspective, there is no randomness at all.
Can you even find a sentence of yours so delightfully succinct? I couldn’t.
But once you identify it, I’ll be sure to cling to it like a mother’s apron!
Yes, that seems clear enough. What it does in effect is to theologise (correctly) the idea of the “natural” in the way I do when I speak of science studying “regularity”. After all, what is lawful causation but regular or repeatble causation? The laws remain the same, as far as we currently know, at all times.
In other words, unlike some you’re not saying that “supernatural” is God’s action and “natural” is… well, stuff happening on its own.
Try this from “The impossibility of ontological chance”
Posted on 27/04/2018 by Jon Garvey (Isn’t that title alone sufficient?)
“I want, again, to critique the notion that “God uses chance” in evolution, off the back of my last piece, whose main burden was that admitting such chance into the picture utterly destroys the already dubious ability of the laws of nature to achieve divine aims, such as the evolution of mankind.”
Or this, from “The nerve of some people”
Posted on 19/12/2016 by Jon Garvey
“Chance can never be a cause of anything because it is not a thing, but just an acknowledgement of incomplete knowledge of causation (and, as I reminded one poster on the BL thread, probability distributions do not determine events either – it’s events that determine probability distributions).”
Let’s add the concluding sentence from Further reflection on chance
Posted on 14/09/2017 by Jon Garvey
“…there is therefore no randomness in God’s frame of reference as Creator.”
An excellent compendium of the Top Five Non-Random Quotes on Non-Randomness!
Now, you and I can send each other signals when we read another Christian Evolutionist floundering around with inconsistent notions of randomness!
I was surprised to see that when I first arrived at BioLogos! Some seemed to be worried about Calvinist repercussions… and others didn’t seem to know why they held their position on divine randomness!
You and me both - but it got worse when I started reading the academic champions of Evolutoionary Creation like Howard Van Till and John Polkinghorne. The same confusion of chance and freedom, and yet somehow linked in the same breath with God’s ability to make a perpetual motion machine that exactly executes his will.
As for anti-Calvinism, that’s a strand of argument used against me years ago by several prominent BioLogians basking in the warm kindness of their “Wesleyism” - a strand still much alluded to by Eddie, bless him, who is no Calvinist.
I see people referring to Molinism (or at least a variety of it!) … so that there is no randomness in God’s eyes (regarding biological processes that touch on human volition)… AND which allows for human free will.
I do agree. Though, some would say it is not “guidance.”
That is right, which is why I strongly prefer “providence” to “guidance.” The two are not equivalent terms, and “providence” is more theologically grounded. Guidance might be real too, but that is by no means a foregone conclusion from evidence or theology.
I define Christianity by those who are “in Christ” in that they follow Jesus, the One who rose from the dead. Among those people, there are some that do not affirm providence, though they do seem to follow Jesus (e.g. Oord). Empirically speaking, that seems to be “valid” Christianity that does not affirm Special Providence. I’d also say that seems wrongheaded, and I do not agree with with them, and find it incoherent with the Resurrection of Jesus. I suppose we can be wrong, and still follow Jesus. I’m thankful for this fact.
I totally agree. “Intervene” is a loaded word, and “providence” is much more grounded.
That is a very strong position, philosophically and theologically and scientifically.
Gosh… the one time I mindlessly use the term “intervene” …I’m jumped by a bunch of Philosophy Ninjas!
Right… the word “intervene” has lots of baggage.
So… how do you use the term “providence” in connection with God controlling/effecting/making all mutations, but still allowing for human free will?
I’d love to see a well crafted sentence on that, @swamidass ! This is where @jongarvey says the term “Special Providence” gets to carry water for us, yes?
I affirm evolution as God’s providentially governed process of common descent, by which He created all of us. As with all things that are governed by providence, at times we can personally discern His providence, but confident understanding of the details of His providential work are usually hidden from view. He may or may not intervene or guide in evolution at different times and in different ways. We cannot be sure, because Scripture does not tell us the detailed mechanisms of His providential work.
That statement, of course, can be condensed or quoted in part. It is solidly rooted in several centuries of theological language of thought.
Why do you doubt that, in purely theological terms and/or a theological frame of reference, that God specifies the genetic codes of all the species of animals he creates through evolution?
@jongarvey appears to think it is perfectly safe and sensible to hold to such a view (and so I do!).
