Naturalistic Theism
Many of the new theological approaches attempt to distance themselves from the supernaturalistic interpretations in the traditions. They try to “naturalize” their theology. I believe there is some merit to this with a few caveats. Many people today are abandoning traditional religious systems because they are unable to accept the supernatural claims inherent in them. This can have various effects. Some become so disillusioned with religion, per se, that the religious dimension of their lives disappears or is diminished in its potentially beneficial impact. However, many others still have religious longings and forge out on their own outside the traditions to find a religious bearing that does not offend their intellect. What a noble adventure! These folks may then explore new “naturalized” religious frameworks that are being offered. Whether or not these new theological perspectives will fill their needs is an open question. What I would like to explore in this post is what “naturalism” could mean for a theistic system. If supernaturalism is rejected then it is important to understand in what way theology can be naturalized and still maintain its eternal substance.
Typically naturalism is thought to be a rejection of either God or the ongoing providential activity of God in the world. This finds a happy home in atheism and deism but not in theism. The foundation of theism is belief in a personal God. If God is personal then God relates to the world. This means that the divine intentionality is eternally at work in creation. In other words God acts in the world. A God who does not participate intentionally in creation is not a theistic God. Now the idea that God acts is also found in supernaturalistic interpretations. This can create a quandary for those who reject supernaturalism but also believe in divine action. Why should one accept divine providence and still reject supernaturalism? Or to put it more broadly how can one approach the various extraordinary claims found in religion, parapsychology, New Age, etc. Many of these claims challenge the “naturalistic” worldviews found today. Can one be a theist and still embrace a worldview that is emerging in our day?
The first thing to consider is the ontology that is to be utilized. This entails deciding on a model of how reality is constituted. I’ve discussed that here. What this model suggests is that both the order and novelty that is found in the cosmos are the result of the intentional activity of God. God creates just the right mix of these two such that life can exist and flourish. What this says with respect to naturalism is that God faithfully maintains the order in the universe. It is because of this that science can characterize much of the structure and dynamics we see. However, what we also find from scientific investigations is that the order that is present does not entail a mechanistic view of reality. Instead it points to an embedded, free intentionality also at work. The mix of order and intentionality does create a challenging situation in evaluating the extraordinary claims made by various systems of thought. Perhaps the best one can do is develop a reasonable approach to this evaluation.
This is what I propose. I believe that it is possible and even necessary to do honor both to the worldviews that emerge from science and religion. If truth is the goal, they cannot conflict with each other. To do so will require, however, what I call a faithing fallibilism. If is fallible because no absolute answers will be forthcoming. It is faithing because even with this fallibility, one is warranted in embracing the core belief that God acts in creation. To be a naturalistic theist means first making a strong commitment to forming beliefs based on how we nominally experience reality. I say a strong commitment but not an absolute one. What this means is that claims that go against how we nominally experience reality should be met with some level of skepticism. The farther from the nominal, the more skepticism is warranted. Accordingly, supernaturalistic claims where there is a remarkable divergence from how reality nominally unfolds would be met with strong skepticism. Claims that may seem extraordinary but are closer to the nominal would be met with less skepticism and even possibly embraced as truth. Obviously this requires a judgement call and only the individual can make it. It can, however, be informed by the powerful intuitions one has regarding the depth of reality. It may even be necessary to embrace claims that seem far afield from the nominal if those intuitions are compelling enough. However, if one adopts this approach in good faith, I think it is possible to affirm and do honor to both what science tells us about our world and what our intuitions and religious experience tells us as well.
Ok, wait wait wait a sec, lemme put this in my terms to make certain I’m understanding correctly. Basically, what this article is sayin is that Generally Speaking, God set the universe up to run on its own, but He still relates and intervenes now and then on a personal basis and because of the way He operates His creation, we can study and quantify much, perhaps even most of it, but there will always be something beyond the ken of “science”? **shakes head, checks ears for sand** I had to have been missing something somewhere, is my focus that narrow, am I really that nearsighted? I always kinda thought that was a pretty much common scence view of religion and the world and that most, certainly not all, people held some form of this view. And yet it seems to me that the very first paragraph makes it seem like this is a newer form of theology to emerge in the last…I’m gonna guess 30 years?… Steve, I’m not trying to be a jerk here, but this time I am truly and honestly stunned, not in a bad way or a good way, I just had no idea and I thought I was doing at least a mediocre job of staying current, but, now I think not even that good…**wanders away muttering into beard…**
Comment by carbon14atom —
Hi carbon,
No this would represent the view of classic theism. Let me use an illustration to show the difference. I realize this is not systematically complete but perhaps it can show the distinction.
Think of a juggler covered all in blue on television standing in front of a blue screen (like the weatherperson). Now the viewers can’t see the juggler but the balls follow an orderly pattern on the screen. This order is intentionally created by the juggler. If there is a scientist viewing she might even observe this order and create equations to represent it. From time to time the juggler might throw in a little novelty to make things interesting but only such that the order is not radically disrupted. To the scientist this would seem like an anomaly that didn’t fit the equations but not such that she would reject them. The point is that the juggler (God) creates both the order and novelty. The juggler faithfully maintains this mix of order and novelty such that life can exist and be meaningful. It is totally intentional and organic.
Now this might seem a subtle distinction but it is very important. In this model reality is not something set up by God to run by itself with occasional interventions. Instead life emerges intentionally according to God’s will and the freedom of its creatures. Also in this view emergence could be considered totally natural.
Comment by Steve Petermann —
Hi Steve, I have been contributing comments for the past few weeks over at TT. Your site caught my eye, so I thought I’d drop by for a visit and introduce myself and some of my ideas. (for whatever they’re worth). I guess three terms would describe my current thinking in regards to theology and science: evidentialist, minimalist and (finally) interventionist. I suspect you and I probably depart some over the latter. I guess I’m somewhat concerned over the rush by many theologians like yourself to abandom “traditional” or what I prefer to call it transcendent theism. It seems that nothing that I see in the current dicoveries of science neccessitates such a move. I see it as more of a temptation to incorporate a contemporary metaphysical frame work that is falsely derived from natural science… In fact, I see a move as being not only unneccessary but harmful to the Christian faith. Perhaps you can share with me some of your thinking as to why you think it is neccessary, if in fact you do…..
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER —
Hi John,
Welcome!
I agree in a certain respect. There is nothing (including scientific explorations) that logically precludes an interventionist theology. What I think has promoted non-interventionist theologies is more of a subtle intuitionism. As people are confronted with scientific knowledge and explanations, many just get a “sense”or intuition that marked disruptions of order in the cosmos just don’t seem to be happening. What I mean by marked are miracles like that talked about in the Bible. I firmly believe in natural theology where we can learn something about God and the way God creates by observing the structure and dynamics of the world. What these observations suggest to many is that God does not disrupt the order that science has discovered in occasional, radical ways but that God’s activity is more measured, being faithful to the order that allows creatures to be and flourish. I remember when I was in catechism classes in the Lutheran church wondering why God doesn’t act today like he supposedly did in the Bible. Now I’m sure there can be theological explanations for this but whether or not they are compelling is an open question.
Also as I studied scripture in depth in seminary I came to gain a grasp of the rldviews of people of ancient times and the question that arose in my mind was whether the miraculous events really occurred as stated or were they really just testaments of faith within that ancient worldview. I came to the conclusion that the latter was probably the case. This did not diminish their testaments. It just spoke to a deeper sense about God and should be not considered a scientific treatise.
The reason I think it is necessary is because so many thinking people today are not able to believe the miraculous, interventionist model today. Often because the traditions insist on clinging to this model, they become disillusioned with religion and either bale entirely or loose what I consider the powerful core benefits of theism. The new alternatives strive to somehow affirm a core theism that is in more consilience with a modern worldview.
However, I also agree that this could be “harmful” to the Christian faith as it is. I have often wondered if the new systems like those of Borg, Spong, Griffin and others maintain enough of what seems essential to Christianity to still be called Christian. I suspect they will not and I’m not so sure that more radical offerings (like mine) wouldn’t be more relevant and therapeutic in the long run.
I guess the question for traditional Christians is, what to say to those who find it hard to say the creeds? They have developed a worldview and a sense about God’s activity that makes it difficult for them to accept an interventionist model of God’s activity. What would you suggest be said to them?
Comment by Steve Petermann —
Hi Steve, It’s interesting that you give a practical reason for introducing your “new” theology. You write: “The reason I think it is necessary is because so many thinking people today are not able to believe the miraculous, interventionist model today.” IMO this viewpoint only serves to dumb down the gospel. The central theme of the gospel is forgiveness: God’s forgiveness of man; mankinds emulation of this forgiveness in how he (we) deal with one another. Miracles in fact are less extraordinary than a true act of unselfish love and forgiveness; something that Jesus wanted his disciples to carry out with out continous reminders by means of miracles (this is the message that comes out when Jesus, for example, confronts “doubting” Thomas). The people of faith that really impress me living today are people that truly demonstrate this kind of sacrifical love and forgiveness. They act the way they believe because they also believe that historically 2000 yrs ago God demonstrated His love and forgiveness towards mankind. In other words, God personally intervened within history. I think if you deny that you end up denying everything.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER —
John,
There is nothing that would preclude forgiveness as a central theme in a non-interventionist system. In fact it is an important theme in Borg’s new theology even though he views the miracles metaphorically.
There is also no problem with God acting in history. In fact I think it is essential to a theism. It just doesn’t have to be interventionist (in the scientific sense). However, you may be right for many Christians the metaphorization of Jesus’ divinity and resurrection does strip Christianity of everything essential. For some Christians, it may not. Unlike some theologians like Borg and Griffin, I myself am not trying to “salvage” Christianity in the face contemporary worldviews. That may be noble cause and I’ll leave that to others. In fact I am skeptical that Christians will go for these revolutionary Christian theologies in any great numbers. Only time will tell. In my vew, there needs to be many new theological approaches for people to choose from. Those that are transparent to the divine while still finding a friendly home in contemporary culture will remain and grow. Those that don’t will perish, just as they have historically.
Comment by Steve Petermann —
Steve,
It seems that you are trying to create a more intellectually palatable Christian or theistic theology. Probably, your motive is to fashion a theology that concords with the way our space-time world really is. I see the world composed not simply of space-time phenoma but spiritual/moral/intelligent beings. Humans I believe are spiritual/moral/intelligent beings. The problem I have with ivory tower types like Marcus Borg is that he focuses primarily on the intellectual dimension and the things we can primarily “know” that way. We are humans from the planet earth not Vulcan’s, like the fictional Mr. Spock, from Vulcan. My own metaphysical framework tries to take in all that we are. Because, we are mutidimensional in this way sometimes we fail to understand reality in the fullest sense. Sometimes the conceited ivory tower types fail to truly understand people of faith. And, I suppose sometimes, perhaps often, people of faith fail to communicate well with intellectuals. For example, recently (May ‘06) I heard a man named Steve speak whose father was brutally murdered when he was a young boy. This man has not only forgiven his fathers murderer, who is truly repentent, but they have become the closest of friends. In fact, when the murderer, who never served any prison time, is in town he stays with Steve and his family. This is an example, of faith and forgiveness I cannot explain metaphysically or psychologically without the idea the God intervened 2000 years ago and tryed to teach us something new about love and forgiveness… Unfortunately, too many people are still unwilling to learn.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER —
John,
My view is that the term “spacetime” is a metaphor for something much deeper. This is also my view of all of physics. I lean towards an absolute idealism in which scientific descriptions are really descriptions of God’s mind.
This is always a problem for theology. Theology is a rational project where a lot of abstractions are used and manipulated. Because of this it may seem to lose the human touch. This can be true but our sense of self and how we act stems from our conceptual grounding. This is what theology addresses. If a theology is just for itself it is barren. It can, however, create a “intellectual” or conceptual picture of reality and our place in it such that love, beauty and meaning are the result. Surely the theology found in the Bible can do just that.
Comment by Steve Petermann —
Steve,
Let me try to clarify a little bit more what I have been trying to say. The main problem that I see with “modern” theology in general is that it does not connect very well with the practical aspects of faith and people who practice that faith. Faith as it was described by both Jesus and Paul is very practical and literal. It is not only the way that we relate to God but how deal with other people by love and forgiveness, as well as, the hardships we may encounter in our life’s journey. Often people who live out there faith are not the worlds greatest theologians or intellectuals, but they understand a side of reality either the theologian is ignorant of, or explains away as superstition or some kind of psychological projection. Yet I have discovered that these people of faith have a knowledge of incredible depth, based not only on scripture or tradition but their own personal experience. The man I mentioned above is the son a martyred missionary Nate Saint who along with four other men was killed in South America by the Waodani Indians in 1956. Steve as he recounted the incident at the series of talks I attended last spring revealed a depth of knowledge about faith and forgiveness that is well worth trying to understand. Steve in fact talked for four days extemporaneously about his life his challenges and his work among the Waodani. There was knowledge here, real knowledge… Why is that most modern theologians don’t seem to have a clue about this kind of knowledge? How can you have a “true” theology that doesn’t take it into account?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER —
John,
I agree with you that there are many great souls out there who are not theologians. I also agree that for many people the theology presented in the Bible is perfectly adequate to live lives of love and meaning.
However, I also think that modern theology is important. When we have religious extremists coming out of the traditions doing harm, something is wrong. Perhaps it is not the tradition, per se, but what is being emphasized or warped. Whatever the case the absolutism that is often found in versions of the traditions needs to be countered with theologies that are more accepting of diverse religious sentiment.
I also think that theology should not neglect those people who in good faith cannot accept the creeds anymore. If this was a minor anomaly it could probably be dismissed. I don’t think it is. I attended a UU church for a couple of years and I saw the steady influx of new people, many coming from moderate to liberal Christian denominations. Most didn’t stay because apparently their needs weren’t met but there was a steady flow.
Comment by Steve Petermann —
Hi ya Steve, got another question for ya, as I have been away from the puter for a few day and I am getting caught up today.
Anyway, here is the quote from the comments above that sparked my question
My question is this, is or isn’t (in your opinion) the veiwing of the miracles in the bible as a metaphor a step towards gnosticism? To me it would seem that way, but I am interested in your view on this
Comment by carbon14atom —
carbon,
I agree completely. In Borg’s new book he spends a lot of time on forgiveness.
I’m not sure exactly what you mean, but since the Gnostics emphasized knowledge through personal experience this could be the case. Paul Tillich’s experience of the divine in Beauty surely was an experience of “miracle”. One has to guess that when the prophets and apostles experienced the Divine Presence in history and particularly in the life of Jesus, they too must have experienced this a “miracle”. If this is true, then no wonder they offered the narratives they did. I think it is also important to view these miraculous narratives from within the context of the time. There were many competing religions in that region, all with their own miracle narratives. If the message of the apostles was to gain any traction, it would also have to refer to signs and wonders. I don’t view this as dishonest, but just as a common way of reaching out to the people of the day. We also see this to day, but I think the time has come where supernatural narratives are not necessary for the Spirit to grasp and compel people to belief.
Comment by Steve Petermann —
I owe an apology sir, first because I didn’t present my question very well, the part about forgiveness that I quoted wasn’t really part of it, just sloppy workmanship by me, and second because this question really belongs on the thread/post where you introduced us to to Mr. Borg.
As for where I was going, well, I certainly can’t claim to be the sharpest knife in the drawer and lacking any formal training in any kind of formal analysis or thought, sometimes it takes me a while to figure things out and to formulate an articulate manner of expressing myself well, all that to say that I’m not entirely certain just yet…
Comment by carbon14atom —
carbon,
No need to apologize. There are no strict rules here. Also its not as if I have my ideas full fleshed out. What I have found is that sometimes floating an incomplete idea in a dialog pushes it forward.
Comment by Steve Petermann —
Steve,
Pascal said that there were to 2 mistakes we could make when interpreting scripture: iiterpreting everthing literally or interpreting everthing figuratively (or as Borg would say metaphorically.) There is no doubt that that Bible used metaphor extensively. The apostle Paul, for example, used used both the crucifixion and ressurection as metaphors for living the christian life. In Galatians, for example, he writes: “I am crucified with Christ but nevertheless I live yet not I but Christ liveth in me”(2:20). Obviously, Paul was not talking about himself having been literally crucified. However, the fact that he uses the crucifixion as a metaphor doesn’t diminish the historical reality of the crucifixion of Jesus. On the other hand, I think Borg takes metaphor too far and in doing so risks divorcing history completely from faith. Real faith according to Dietrich Bohoeffer requires cost and commitment. It is sometimes a real blood and guts commitment in a world full of real suffering and real evil, as well as real forgiveness and real hope.
Steve Saint ,who I mentioned above, had to deal with the real fact that his father had died a horrible death at the hands of some stone age people. He really forgave Mincaye the warrior who confessed to killing his father. Abstract metaphors don’t make any difference here. Nor does an abstract sense of beuty, awe and wonder. Forgiveness to be forgiveness has to be literal, it has to be real, it has to be a concrete part of the world around us.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER —
Peter,
I liked your article on metaphor in religious language very much. It was loaded with many good points in a small space.
Your little article on prayer has some inconsistencies and is unnecessarily complicated. Here are some of the things you say, and my comments.
•New theological perspectives often try to position themselves as being “naturalistic”. By this I mean they want to distance themselves from the supernaturalistic interpretations found in many traditions. Prayer is often a sticking point for “naturalistic” religious forms. This is because if prayer is efficacious beyond some psychological factor, it seems to violate naturalistic sensibilities. [Your statement that “This is because if prayer is efficacious beyond some psychological factor, it seems to violate naturalistic sensibilities.” is dead wrong. You need to subscribe to Skeptical Inquirer magazine. The observable phenomena (and/or the lack of observable phenomena) in prayer experiments can be explained naturally.]
•This means that radical shifts away from the nominal order we experience are met with strong skepticism. It does not mean the rejection of divine providence but rather it accepts that God is faithful to the ordering of the cosmos. [I presume the last part is your acknowledgement that the scientific method does work. I.E., that experiments properly carried out and repeated will always produce the same results. I share that faith.]
•So how can prayer that is efficacious fit in to a naturalistic theology? It can by accepting the causal limits of prayer. The efficacy of prayer is not grounded in some brute manipulation of causal factors. Instead it taps into the already present causal fabric of depth. This causal fabric is not mechanistic as is portrayed by non-teleologists. It is instead part of the intrinsic freedom and intelligence of the divine life. Accordingly, prayer reaches into the core depth of reality and changes it. [Huh??? See your point just above. This will happen when God begins to heal amputees in answer to the deepest and most sincere prayers ever offered, those of parents of children who lost limbs in accidents caused by the parents’ carelessness.]
•Does this mean that no profound change can occur? To the contrary. Dramatic change can and does occur… [I see you couldn’t give examples here.]
•…but this change also occurs within the kenosis of life. It does so because there are kairotic moments in time, times of fulfillment, times when the tipping point occurs. In each life and each day there are moments of kairos. These are marked by periods of preparation, periods that built to a moment of change. They are radical life changing moments that can go either way. This correlates with the best science of the day. Nobel laureate physicist Robert Laughlin roots these types of momentous change in “collective instability” where very small changes can have an enormous effect. This collective instability is ubiquitous throughout the universe including biotic systems. Chaos theory also supports this notion. One cannot know when these dramatic events can occur, but they are part of the ordered dynamics of life not a violation of it. [You don’t have to conjure up kairotic moments as a reason for praying for the healing of the terminally ill. I think there’s a simpler way to justify prayers for miracles contrary to the laws of nature as we’ve known them until now. In moments of desperation, when there is nothing else we can do but pray, we can preface our prayer with the Buddhist thought (or meditation) that there really are no laws of nature, but only probabilities. That is, even if result A was produced by a set of circumstances the first 10 to the fiftieth power times, maybe result B will happen this time. I think saying there are no laws of nature, but only probabilities, is simpler than relying on the notion of kairotic moments. But of course the results are the same.]
•Prayer speaks to a unity of communion. It is within the communion that prayer reaches out both to the depth of life in the persona of God and to all things. Imagine the power of such a communion. One need not feel alone in life. There is a vast communion of life that is not only part of each life but there for each life. Prayer in the divine life is a striking network of relationship within the organism of life. An organism is a powerful interrelation of its parts. A prayer to the communion is not an isolated offering. It is an offering to God as a communion of all things. That interrelation may seem hidden but its power is manifest in the history of the world and the lives of all in the communion. [This shows some real appreciation of communion and the interrelationship of all beings, a network which does have a unity. I would use slightly different language, but this is good. By the way, the word “communion” is underutilized in its best sense because of its being used for the rite involving bread and wine. For example, people who regularly appear at a church for its services are usually called “members”, “members and friends,” “attendees,” or “congregants” when the best word for them in the context often would be “communicants.”]
•Does this view alter the content of prayers? I think it does. What it means is that the believer should not expect God to violate God’s faithfulness to the life giving order inherent in the cosmos. [Exactly! Suppose for a second that the standard-model theistic god did exist, i.e., the god who created the entire universe and always knows the position, energy level, and momentum of every particle in it (and the number of hairs on every head). How sad this god would be over humanity’s dissatisfaction with the natural realm and demand that there be another, supernatural one!]
•Does this mean that prayers should not ask for remarkable effects in the world? No. It does require, however, a refined sensibility in prayer. It requires a sense of what requests would be asking for a violation of this life giving order and what would not. Prayers need not be radically censored, but the deep intuition concerning what fits within the mix of order and creativity of the divine life can inform prayers. [Again, I think the Buddhist thought I mentioned above is more useful here.]
•It also requires a faithing fallibilism. By fallibilism I mean that a specific prayer may go beyond what should be expected from God. It is faithing because it affirms a faith that God listens to all prayers, however flawed, and embraces their core intent, acting accordingly to the benefit of both the person and the entire communion. Prayer is an essential part of theism. Prayer must be efficacious for there to be a personal relationship with God. [To repeat, you really should subscribe to the Skeptical Inquirer magazine. It has had many very scholarly articles through the years looking at attempts to prove the efficaciousness of intercessory prayer. Intercessory prayer is not efficacious, even though it does accomplish some good things.]
•Prayers of supplication and intercession should not be abandoned even for those who attempt to embrace and form their beliefs based on all forms of human exploration into the fabric of the cosmos. [I agree with you (and also John Shelby Spong, by the way) that these traditional kinds of prayer need not, and most likely should not, be abandoned.]
George Desnoyers
cagean@berkshire.rr.com
Comment by George Desnoyers —
Hi George,
Thanks for the comments.
As I’ve mentioned before, I think being skeptical of certain claims is healthy. Accordingly, I am also skeptical about so-called empirical efforts to affirm or disconfirm the efficacy of intercessory prayer. It’s just not that simple for an “experiment” to draw any definitive conclusions. First of all the experiment would have to come up with some kind of criterion to evaluate. What would that be? Blood pressure level, remission of a disease, survival vs. non-survival. Unless the assumption is that for confirmation there must be some overt statistical divergence between those prayed for or not, then there are too many factors to consider for any conclusion to be drawn. Besides, I for one, don’t need a study to tell me that prayers, for the most part, don’t result in dramatic changes in the health of someone who is ill. From my point of view that would introduce “magic” and is not part of my worldview. The scientific method works well for drawing definitive conclusions for some things and not for others. It basically relies on reductionism to isolate causes and effects so they are manageable. When things get complex with lots of interrelated causes and effects, conclusions can be interpreted all over the place by different researchers. Just witness ecology, psychology, sociology, global warming, etc. Statistical models are used, but it is well known how dependent these models are on assumptions, data collection methods, analytic models, and even personality and ideological inclination. I just don’t think any definitive conclusion pro or con can be made about whether or not intercessory prayer is efficacious. What we have are anecdotal instances that may sway one’s opinion one way or another but that is not conclusive.
My own view is that there is a communion between the prayer, prayed for, and God. The results of such prayers will fall within the boundaries and limitations of the structure of life, order and novelty. Additionally see here.
As I mentioned the scientific method works well in certain situations and not in others. As things get more and more complex, the data from experiments can vary from one to the other and all sorts of anomalies appear that, at least according to Nobel laureate Robert Laughlin, may mean that reductionist methods will not work.
My ontology is an objective idealism so I don’t even use the phrase “law of nature”. However, I do believe that there is an order at work in the cosmos that creates the possibility of life and to a certain extent can be probed with the scientific method to give us a sense of how things work. However, if reality is constituted by Mind then there will be limitations on what can be gleaned from just looking at and analyzing repeatable phenomena.
Comment by Steve Petermann —
Hello Steve,
Thanks for replying to my comments.
You wrote, “It’s just not that simple for an ‘experiment’ to draw any definitive conclusions. First of all the experiment would have to come up with some kind of criterion to evaluate. What would that be? Blood pressure level, remission of a disease, survival vs. non-survival.”
I answer: How about whether dead, embalmed, and buried people come back to life (as in the experiment I outline below), or whether children who have lost limbs in accidents acquire new limbs?
You wrote: “Besides, I, for one, don’t need a study to tell me that prayers, for the most part, don’t result in dramatic changes in the health of someone who is ill. From my point of view that would introduce “magic” and is not part of my worldview.”
I answer: Yes, when I read all your posts I did see that we are really not too far apart on the “supernatural” things many church-goers are promised and expect. No supernatural is a part of my worldview. For some decades now I’ve been a freethinker in the sense of not accepting authority alone over reason. Of course I know I understand relatively little, but I go with what I do see and understand.
You wrote: “The scientific method works well for drawing definitive conclusions for some things and not for others. It basically relies on reductionism to isolate causes and effects so they are manageable. When things get complex with lots of interrelated causes and effects, conclusions can be interpreted all over the place by different researchers. Just witness ecology, psychology, sociology, global warming, etc.”
I reply: It’s extremely difficult, if not impossible, to conduct experiments in psychology and sociology using the scientific method. But, yes, you are right that there are some complex questions which the scientific method has not conclusively answered yet. But that doesn’t mean that the method isn’t working, as one of its purposes is to show that hypotheses are not correct. It can do that many times before narrowing down things to the point where a single hypothesis is deemed the conclusive answer to a question.
I will skip a point you made for a moment to answer something you wrote near the end. You said, “My ontology is an objective idealism so I don’t even use the phrase ‘law of nature’. However, I do believe that there is an order at work in the cosmos that creates the possibility of life and to a certain extent can be probed with the scientific method to give us a sense of how things work. However, if reality is constituted by Mind then there will be limitations on what can be gleaned from just looking at and analyzing repeatable phenomena.”
Yes, I agree with the possibility that “reality” is all in my mind. Everything may just boil down to chemicals and electrical discharges in my “brain,” if I have one. I know I exist, but I cannot be sure of you or anything else. Therefore, I too am not awfully thrilled by the concept of “law of nature”. I have Buddhist friends who sometimes make me want to stop using the phrase. But I spent many years as a scientist, and I got pretty used to thinking I was observing things outside myself. Whether it was all a “dream” of some type, I can’t be sure. But a lot of stuff appeared to make sense to me.
Now to go back a bit, regarding your statement, “I just don’t think any definitive conclusion pro or con can be made about whether or not intercessory prayer is efficacious. What we have are anecdotal instances that may sway one’s opinion one way or another but that is not conclusive.”
I reply with the following:
Steve, you are not claiming that theological miracles (the kind in which some theologians would say a “law of nature” was “contravened” or “suspended” or “over-ridden”) occur, but only that we cannot come to a conclusion whether prayers are efficacious. So some of the rest of my reply will not apply to you. However, since I believe that we can know for certain that prayer is not efficacious, I would like to give you my standard reply regarding prayer’s efficacy.
Miracles and Measuring the Efficacy of Prayer
Everything one really needs to know about the efficacy of prayer can be found at http://www.religionandtheology.org/amputees.html
And yet I pray. I even pray intercessory prayers of petition for miracles or the nearest thing to them. There’s sufficient reason to do that at times, but it isn’t because the prayers are efficacious. (I think you’ve said that repeatedly yourself.)
The Traditional Double-blind Study
Traditionally, Christians have been encouraged to believe in the efficacy of prayer. This has led to attempts to measure prayer’s efficacy by the use of double-blind studies. Typically, such studies are conducted in the following way. A statistically sufficient number of sick people are divided into two matched groups. Prayers are said for the healing of the members of one of the two groups, but not offered for the members of the second group. The members of the two groups do not know whether prayers were offered on their behalf. Without knowing which group was prayed for, an external authority conducts an independent examination into the frequencies and speeds of healings among members of the two groups. Only after the independent determination of the numbers and speeds of healings of the members of the two groups, all experimental data is gathered together and analyzed. A judgment is then made regarding the efficacy of prayer.
An Improved Double-blind Study
As some people have pointed out, it would be possible to design an improved test to measure the efficacy of prayer. The above-described double-blind study could be a good test, but it includes a variable that would be easy to eliminate. After all, sick people either do or don’t recover, and recover at various rates, for a large variety of reasons having nothing to do with supernatural intervention in response to prayers. Instead of dividing sick people randomly into two groups, and having one group prayed for, and the other not prayed for, without either group knowing which group it is, and independently measuring the numbers and speeds of recoveries in the two groups, it has been suggested that one could do the following.
Divide dead people into two groups. Because people sometimes only appear to be dead, use only people who have already been embalmed, or maybe who have been embalmed and buried. Have the dead in one group prayed for, that they would come back to life. But do not have the dead in the other group prayed for. Compare the percentages of dead who come back to life in the two groups. When an embalmed dead person comes back to life, supernatural intervention can pretty safely be presumed. Such revitalizations are theological miracles, not just “Biblical miracles” (“signs” or “wonders” to show power or inspire awe). Revitalizations of dead people would be absolutely contrary to the known laws of nature as we know them. Factors other than supernatural intervention could almost certainly be discounted.
If the experiment is done as suggested, you might come to the same conclusion a person I know came to several years ago. For many years he’s had a standing offer to tithe to the church of anyone who can light a match by saying a prayer. So far he has never had to tithe to a church because the match was lighted.
Objections to the Improved Experiment
Let’s look at a couple of likely objections to this suggested experiment.
First, one might say that the suggested experiment asks too much of God. To that is replied that it should not be one whit more difficult for God to raise an embalmed dead person to life than it is for God to more speedily heal a sick person. After all, are not we talking about the God who created the entire universe and holds it in his/her hand, so-to-speak, and does that with great ease? Could such a God find anything too difficult?
A second objection that might be given is that such a test tempts God to perform a miracle in order to prove himself. It is sometimes said that God will never do that. Reference may be made to Satan’s temptations of Jesus in the wilderness. The answers to this objection would be the following.
(a) The temptations in the wilderness were a special case in which Satan, not a human, was suggesting that Jesus specifically perform miracles that would undermine God’s plan and accomplish Satan’s desire. Jesus would have lost stature had he fallen for Satan’s treachery. But the prayers in the suggested experiment would be said by humans who are not in competition with God, and the prayers would be intended to bring God glory rather than to harm God’s reputation.
(b) Jesus did perform signs and wonders to vindicate, or prove, himself before humans. Look, for example, at Matthew 9:2-8, esp. v. 6 (“But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins…” Then he said to the paralytic, ‘Get up, take up your mat and go home.’” – NIV)
Third, we do have those NT verses in which Jesus promises, “If you ask anything in my name, My Father will do it for you” and “If you have faith the size of a mustard seed . . . ,” and so on, implying that all sincere prayers can and will be granted.”
The Real Reason for Objections to the Improved Experiment
Anyone who has spent much time in Christian churches should realize the real reason for objections to the improved experiment. It is because theological miracles, the kind of miracles in which a law of nature is contravened, are just not taken seriously today. When it comes to theological miracles, Christians very rarely take prayerful action on such promises as, “If you ask anything in my name, My Father will do it for you.” And theological miracles are almost never prayed for with much hope or expectation that the prayer will be answered affirmatively. On those occasions when such prayers are said, it is usually in desperation, because in the matters most important to us – like the health of a loved one - the smallest hope is better than none. Only a person either extremely religious or very desperate could fail to recognize the presumption in requesting God to suspend a law of nature on behalf of a sinner confessedly unworthy.
Somewhat paradoxically, ministers in fundamentalist churches are often both the loudest proponents of praying for theological miracles and also the least likely to pray for supernatural intervention in matters where it would seem they would have great interest in doing so. Why don’t they, for example, ask God in prayer to miraculously and unmistakably let all of us humans know which one of many thousands of versions of “his inerrant word” is the right one? Some versions even have several whole books that other versions don’t have. If the Bible were truly all God’s word, we should naturally expect God to have an interest in preserving and promoting an accurate version, and to desire to make men/women reluctant to alter it. At the very least, following the production of all these versions of “his word,” you’d think he would unmistakably make clear to all of us which one is correct. This is a prayer that fundamentalist ministers should quite eagerly pray, since praying for God’s revelation to mankind to actually be recognized by mankind would certainly be praying for something within God’s will.
Steve, as I said above, I know some of this argument is against a straw man and not applicable to you. After all, you didn’t say that the theological miracles happen. You just wrote that we cannot be sure about the efficacy of prayer.
George Desnoyers
Comment by George Desnoyers —
George,
This is not what objective idealism means. What you talk about would be more like solipsism. Here’s a pretty good definition of objective idealism:
http://www.philosophyprofessor.com/philosophies/objective-idealism.php
Since I don’t know how much you know about absolute idealism I’ll ramble on a bit about it. My apologies if you already know this.
A metaphor I often use to describe this is Author/Story. The author is a mind but the author can create other minds in his own. Those minds are aspects of his but there is really only one mind. The author creates the story but at times (and I have talk to other offers about this) the characters surprise the author in what they do or think (free will?).
One question in science is “what constitutes reality?”. Probably the first materialists were the Carvakan philosophers in the Indus Valley (India) around 600 BCE. They claimed that reality is constitute by “little things”, later called atoms by the Greeks, that have a self-nature (svabhava). As such, for materialists reality is constituted by these material objects acting out their self-natures. This ontology (atomism/materialism) caught on in Greece and eventually became the prevailing view in the West and later in science. However, there were also those who rejected the materialist view and promoted some form of idealism. The pre-Socratic philosopher, Anaxagoras was probably the first in the West to promote this idea. He agreed that there are “little things” but they require “Nous” or mind to be animated. Modern pragmatic philosopher Charles Peirce also promoted this notion. Plato was probably the most notable early idealist.
Throughout history there have been a number of idealists. Bishop Berkeley was a prominent one in Britain but his idealism was a subjective one where reality is constituted by individual minds. However, he had a problem understanding how there could be a consistent reality with all these individual minds. This lead him later in life and many others to posit an absolute mind to provide a coherent whole.
So when the question, “what constitutes reality” is posed there is not definitive answer. Although scientific categorize “little things” and their properties, it cannot explain where these properties come from. Are they ultimately cause by a “blind little something (a Planc scale string)” or Mind. With this seeming intractability it might seem impossible to choose. However, today there are some good reasons to choose Mind as the constituting cause. First in the early 20th century it was found in quantum physics that the choice a mind makes in an experiment effects the outcome. This strange factor is still in play today. Even as recently as this year Paul Davies has suggested that choices made today effect not only the present but also the past and future.
The “Hard Problem” in consciousness has also pointed away from materialism toward some sort of panpsychism or idealism. A leading philosopher of consciousness, David Chalmers, has presented powerful arguments against materialism and suggests that consciousness is fundamental to reality.
http://consc.net/papers/nature.html
The take home idea is that if reality is constituted by One Mind (God in my parlance) then there is an overarching unity where all things are aspects of the one in a communion of life. It also means that what many call “laws” are really the habit of Mind. Habits that are faithfully held to, to provide the environment where life can exist. This approach totally removes the supernatural/natural dichotomy because there is nothing to interfere with by God. So when science probes the orderliness of the cosmos what it is really exploring is the order create by Mind.
In this sense prayer is not the isolated event of an individual mind but part of the whole mind. As such, an intercessory prayer has causal effects beyond the pray-er both in the prayed for and God. If intercessory prayers are “answered” they are within God’s faithfulness to the order God maintains. However, this order is not absolute. We even see this in quantum mechanics. There is a openness deeply embedded in reality. This openness, however, is not without limits otherwise there would be chaos. Instead there are limits to openness that create just the right balance of order and novelty. This brings us back to what results one should expect from intercessory prayers? They create a change in Mind but any results will not violate that faithful balance. As such, if remission of disease does not violate that balance, then remission can occur. This also means given the importance of orderliness, one should not expect consistent radical results from intercessory prayer. Given this complexity, this is why I don’t think a scientific experience could definitively come to a conclusion about prayer, pro or con.
Comment by Steve Petermann —
Steve,
Thanks for your explanation.
No, I am not familiar with much of that philosophy. I doubt that I am capable of understanding the long article by Chalmers. (I would have trouble mastering the technical vocabulary. You may not realize the extent to which his language is technical & difficult for someone like me because you are so well-trained in philosophy.)
But I do think I understand your ontology. Reality is a Unity, and prayer and any “results” from prayer is just a part of this Unity. Everything is a part of this Unity, including Mind (God), so Mind really cannot intervene in something “outside” Mind (or outside the Unity). There is nothing outside Mind or outside Unity).
[This appears different (but not very different) from your preferred version of panentheism, in which god is in all of nature but exists outside it as well. Here it seems you do not address whether there is any Mind (or God) outside of the Unity. Maybe you have replaced a previous panentheistic inclination with this newer view of objective idealism.]
Intuitively I feel there are some problems with your idea, but that might just be because the idea is new to me. Perhaps it will seem like a plausible ontology when I think about it some more. I certainly can’t put any objections to the theory into writing without giving more thought to it and perhaps doing some minor research. So I would like to get back to you on this later with my questions.
I’ll work on this as I have time. But please let me know if I have characterized your view incorrectly. That way I won’t spend my time addressing a view you haven’t presented.
Since my years at Boston College I’ve been aware of ontological questions. But I spent several decades only rarely thinking about them. When I have thought about them, it was always in a pretty shallow way. Otherwise, I have assumed reality is as it appeared to my consciousness, as consisting of my conscious self and some other things outside myself. My career was spent applying the scientific method to that “order at work in the cosmos” which you acknowledge can be probed using the method.
George
Comment by George Desnoyers —
George,
Let me use my metaphor again to explain better what I mean. My system is monistic. God being “outside” in my panentheism would go something like this. Let’s use JRR Tolkein as an example. He had a mind and created his fantasy world. That world and its characters were aspects of his mind but not all of it. So in this metaphor there is only God but our creation is an aspects of the One.
Comment by Steve Petermann —