Posts
Steve's Primordial Soup: Teleology
[This post is a continuation of a discussion (begun here) of Crawling Out of the Primordial Soup: A Step toward the Emergence of an LDS Theology Compatible with Organic Evolution" (PDF), by BYU biologist Steven Peck.]
That God created some features of the earth and life upon it through acts of direct intervention cannot be disproved. We have such limited information relative to the size and age of the planet that we cannot definitively exclude God's intervention. However, as scientists have come to understand the composition of this earth, life upon it, and the processes that occur in both, the apparent need for God's intervention has diminished, and positive evidence for such has not been forthcoming (Intelligent Design notwithstanding). Further, the picture we get from natural history differs markedly from the picture painted by Genesis. These considerations have led many to conclude that God's direct influence on the character of this planet has been minor, if such influence exists at all. However, if God's direct intervention has been minimal, how is he able to achieve his purposes?
Steve speculatively suggests that God acts in the physical world by communicating with the minds of conscious beings, who carry out the physical work.When I read the scriptures, I see a God who makes arrangements for irreplaceable records to be kept, preserved, and maintained through conscious effort. He implies that, if they are not, this knowledge will be lost and not brought back through His intervention. I see the Lamanites languishing in unbelief until the sons of Mosiah are inspired to go among them. Angels bear messages to other consciousnesses but do not seem to manipulate the world in interventionist ways. Almost all of the scriptures can be reinterpreted as acts of consciousness acting in the world.
This view of God's actions seems consistent with President Spencer W. Kimball's statement that, "God does notice us, and he watches over us. But it is usually through another person that he meets our needs." It also complements the view expressed by Hugh Nibley that most miracles are simply a matter of timing. In this view, God anticipates natural events and directs his prophets in a way that capitalizes on the circumstances. It is a view of miracles that appeals to the rational part of me.
However, although Steve acknowledges that the miracles of Jesus seem to be an exception, when I read the scriptures I also see disciples who cannot be kept in prison, prophets who can initiate and end drought, people who are healed from disease, and men who stand in a furnace but remain unharmed. It may be true that God generally acts through consciousness-mediated action (in order, I suppose, to maximize the use of personal agency), and I am not suggesting that every miracle should be taken at face value, but the apparent exceptions keep the underlying questions alive. And surely God has access to technology at least as advanced as ours!
Some of the difficulty may yet again lie in our own narrow perspective of what God's purposes are, and our limited understanding of the possibilities inherent in the universe. God may simply find it generally unnecessary to intervene, and here we again return to the issue of efficiency and Nibley's reminder that God can have multiple purposes. After all, who can look at the way the plan of salvation has been implemented in this world and claim to see a model of efficiency? It may be that processes are just as much a part of God's purposes as final goals--the journey as much as the destination. Or perhaps God values different efficiencies than we do.
My criticism of Steve's idea should not be taken to mean that I think it is false or worthless. On the contrary, I think that in many cases it is probably correct and is worth further consideration. However, although I am willing to believe that God has limitations, I am skeptical of attempts to pinpoint what they are. Rather than serving as an absolute explanation, I view Steve's proposal as one line of reasoning that is potentially useful in grappling with these kinds of questions.
4 comments:
Talmage points out that God would never use his divine power when it is not needed and points out this is the case with Lazarus. (Everyone did everything they could do and the only thing Christ did was that which none else could: raise the dead.)
That said, if nature can preform X and Y using natural principles there is not need for God to intervene. Therefore, in in so much of gravitational collapse, natural selection, etc... He probably lets Nature do its thing knowing that divine intervention isn't needed. (Obviously this is only one of many, many possibilities.)
Jared,
I've been doing crazy travelling and just got back and settled enough to respond. So sorry this is late in coming.
Again thank you for doing this. I can't tell you how much it means to me to be looked at this closely. Already you have had me rethink some of my approaches, and have opened new avenues of thought.
In thinking about God's action through consciousness, there are a couple of issues that need exploring. I base my thought largely upon my experience in life, and by noticing a couple of observation. The first is that as you go back into the past, the interventions become more heavy handed. In the Old Testament, language is being changed, the sun stands still, armies are wiped out in a night, etc. By the new testament people are being healed and getting released from prison sort of a step down from OT times (again I think the savior's miracles are special so don't include them in this idea because he was God). Certainly there were wonderful visions, but these are acts of consciousness. In our day the miracles that I know about all fit within consciousness. There is a tendency in stories from the past to entail more dramatic interventions. I don't think that this is because God is more active in the past, but rather in the retelling things grow in proportion to their distance. Does the Book of Mormon events escape this? In Grant Hardy's new book, Understanding the Book of Mormon, he asks us to view the writers as real people with all the prejudices, weakness, and inclinations as people in our day. He sees Nephi writing as an old man, remembering events. Mormon as collecting almost 1000 years of retellings and stories. By the time I was in Primary, the seagull and the crickets story had become white clouds of crickets descending in mass and eating, puking, eating until the crickets were gone. That was only 150 years ago.
I think this is important because if God intervenes in the arbitrary way reported it seems problematic. Take your drought example. In the Book of Mormon, the Lord causes a drought and doesn't remove it until the people righteous up. While I was in Ethiopia recently, a drought was causing untold suffering and many people, children, were starving to death. Suffering significantly. If I am walking by a wading pool, and I see a toddler slip under the water, but turn away, I am in fact culpable should he drown. Especially, say, if all I have to do is reach out my hand and grab him. If it is that easy, and I just stand there, I am in fact fully responsible for its death.
If the Book of Mormon is a human retelling of historical stories than I think Hardy's account suggests that we cannot take them simply as facts. What does this do to the Book of Mormon, as the most correct book? Does that statement imply historical accuracy, or is it a statement about, as the following clause, meaning, “A man will get closer to God by following its precepts . . .” I think the book is most correct in its theology, its understanding of Christ's role. Again, most correct in theological epistemology, i.e,, the things we are led to Consciously!
So, while I do not deny the possibility of intervention in non-conscious ways, it is just outside of my experience. I think others have had experiences, but for me my experiences of divine action have involved consciousness. Lots of interventions though others, though impressions, dreams, ideas in the temple. All though grounded in consciousness. Stopping the sun? Not so much. However, those who do have evidence of physical intervention, may have another take on this.
And this does not cheapen God's interaction. No to me it empowers it because it shows me how to expect help and shows me the importance of maintaining a connection.
Steve,
You are gracious. Unfortunately I don't think my post reflects the extent to which I agree (or am inclined to agree) with you. I think you're idea gets a lot of mileage. Similar thoughts have occurred to me over the last few years, though I haven't done any work to flesh them out. Yet, I'm just not sure it can take us all the way. It certainly touches on issues of theodicy.
I got Hardy's book for my dad, but I haven't read it myself. However, I read and listen to a fair amount of material coming from the skeptical community, and they constantly emphasize the problems with memory, perception, attributing cause and effect, etc. I agree that prophets are susceptible to the same problems, which is why I said that I was not suggesting that every miracle be taken at face value.
I hope that you will continue to develop this. Maybe it goes 90% of the way to explaining God's actions in the world, but that remaining 10% will be tough to resolve.
"Steve speculatively suggests that God acts in the physical world by communicating with the minds of conscious beings, who carry out the physical work."
This reminds me of a Process Theology interpretation of the creation. I think it is a common line for believing scholars to take when faced with the challenge of reconciling abundant evidence for evolutionary processes with the idea of an active Creator.
Post a Comment