Is Nature Omnipotent?

[Don Mc]

One of the common criticisms of theism is that omnipotence seems like a meaningless escape clause. The basic idea is that whenever Christian theists like me run up against a logical challenge such as an argument from evil, say, or a critique of the shrouded ontology of the Trinity, we can always handily resolve the dilemma by a blanket appeal to God's "mysterious ways" and thereby escape the burden of having to make sense of apparent contradictions. Though I think answers are available to such dilemmas beyond simply "God's mysterious ways," I do think the objection is a fair one on its face.

But I also think the kind of scientific-naturalistic view of the world shared so by many atheists faces a similar criticism. On scientific naturalism, nature, much like God, is credited with creating the universe from nothing (or else existing eternally), creating life from nonliving chemical constituents (the "dust of the earth"), and bestowing humanity with intelligence, an appreciation for beauty, and a sense of morality – among other seeming miracles. I've heard serious naturalist philosophers propose that even if it could be verified that Jesus rose from the dead, that would not mean there could not be a naturalistic explanation for it (and I think they're right). And the paradoxes of general relativity or quantum mechanics seem no less confounding than the Trinity or the Incarnation of Christ. It appears that as understood by advocates of scientific naturalism, nature, no less than God, can do (and explain) anything.

Questions for debate/dialogue:

1. In principle, can nature do anything God can do?
2. If so, does it require a metaphysical assumption of some sort to believe nature can do anything God can do?
3. If not, what limits does nature face that God does not?

[William]

.

I cannot see Scientific Naturalism as anything good for humankind, since taking note of how Nazi Germany used it.

That path hasn't proven itself to be serving anything but itself...and hasn't been great for nature either.

If scientific naturalism (view according to which all objects and events are part of nature, i.e. they belong to the world of space and time) is to be discredited and disavowed because it was involved in developing weapons of war, to be consistent one must also discredit and disavow modern medicine, communication, transportation, food production and distribution, etc in which scientific naturalism was involved.

Which of those are you prepared to do without?

My argument regarding scientific naturalism is not a case of 'disavowing' it but of recognizing that as a position it has nothing which is useful in debating theological ideas.

The addition of the recognition that as a position it also produces evil, is simply to say it is a pot calling a kettle black when used by non-theists against theism.

[William]

.

I cannot see Scientific Naturalism as anything good for humankind, since taking note of how Nazi Germany used it.

That path hasn't proven itself to be serving anything but itself...and hasn't been great for nature either.

If scientific naturalism (view according to which all objects and events are part of nature, i.e. they belong to the world of space and time) is to be discredited and disavowed because it was involved in developing weapons of war, to be consistent one must also discredit and disavow modern medicine, communication, transportation, food production and distribution, etc in which scientific naturalism was involved.

Which of those are you prepared to do without?

My argument regarding scientific naturalism is not a case of 'disavowing' it but of recognizing that as a position it has nothing which is useful in debating theological ideas.

The addition of the recognition that as a position it also produces evil, is simply to say it is a pot calling a kettle black when used by non-theists against the evils of theism.

[bluegreenearth]

If that is the case, the problem with the world isn't theism, but politics.

The non-theists are thus barking up the wrong tree.

Not every non-theist blames all the world's problems on theism, and theists are not immune from being equally myopic in their views either. Speaking only for myself as a non-theist, I acknowledge that most of the world's problems are often too nuanced for blame to be placed on any one perspective or ideology. Similarly, I don't necessarily assert that any one perspective or ideology is capable of resolving all the world's problems. In some cases, I observe where multiple perspectives and ideologies each resolve the same problem in their own way. In other cases, I observe where multiple perspectives and ideologies each equally fail at completely resolving a particular problem. While it would be ideal if every problem we encountered had an easily identifiable cause and a single simple solution, reality routinely demonstrates that it doesn't care at all about our preferences or what our ideological perspectives might be. Therefore, it would seem that "trial and error" may be the only approach to potentially solving some of the world's problems rather than dogmatic allegiance to any one perspective or ideology.

[William]

If that is the case, the problem with the world isn't theism, but politics.

The non-theists are thus barking up the wrong tree.

Not every non-theist blames all the world's problems on theism, and theists are not immune from being equally myopic in their views either. Speaking only for myself as a non-theist, I acknowledge that most of the world's problems are often too nuanced for blame to be placed on any one perspective or ideology. Similarly, I don't necessarily assert that any one perspective or ideology is capable of resolving all the world's problems. In some cases, I observe where multiple perspectives and ideologies each resolve the same problem in their own way. In other cases, I observe where multiple perspectives and ideologies each equally fail at completely resolving a particular problem. While it would be ideal if every problem we encountered had an easily identifiable cause and a single simple solution, reality routinely demonstrates that it doesn't care at all about our preferences or what our ideological perspectives might be. Therefore, it would seem that "trial and error" may be the only approach to potentially solving some of the world's problems rather than dogmatic allegiance to any one perspective or ideology.

I would accord your particular position mapped out as better than that of the non-agnostic non-theist, who habitually blames the worlds woes on theism in general, and Christianity specifically.

Often enough the argument is that The Creator is ultimately to blame for the world's problems, for creating everything in the first place. The Thread "Is Humankind worse than YHWH" examples how most non-theists view this from their positions. Such could do with the more balanced input of agnostic argument...

[Don Mc]

This is why I suggest that there is nothing in principle that God can do which nature cannot also do – because naturalism is an a priori metaphysical claim upon all of reality.

Metaphysical naturalism may be a priori but methodological (scientific) naturalism is a posteriori.

I'm beginning to suspect that to this point ours has been a largely verbal disagreement. From what I've always understood "scientific" naturalism is essentially synonymous with "metaphysical" naturalism. Apparently I'm not alone in this:

"Scientific naturalism is a view according to which all objects and events are part of nature, i.e. they belong to the world of space and time. Therefore everything, including the mental realm of human beings, is subject to scientific enquiry."
https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/han ... 8/041.html

"Scientific naturalism is the view that only scientific knowledge is reliable and that science can, in principle, explain everything."
https://www.jubilee-centre.org/cambridg ... -alexander

Those definitions both emphasize what I have emphasized in the OP, namely that scientific naturalism is able to explain anything and everything in principle. That is an a priori assumption. The sweeping metaphysical implication is that if something exists, science can explain it (and by implication if science cannot explain it, it doesn't exist). Similarly, if all objects and events are part of nature, there are no realities that are not part of nature, that is, no realities that transcend or exist outside of nature. All that may be true – in that it's logically possible and certainly not falsifiable – but it extends well beyond the comparatively humble methodological assumptions required to practice science.

My understanding of the expectation implied by the OP is that we evaluate if scientific naturalism shares many of the same criticisms as theism in regards to its capability of addressing and resolving questions about the observable universe. As such, whether the reliability and success of the scientific method is any more impressive than that of the historical method does not appear to be relevant to this discussion. However, the scientific method's adherence to the principle of falsification and requirement for empirical evidence to be reproducible makes its conclusions inherently more reliable than any produced by the historical method. In fact, the scientific method is often employed by the historical method as the arbiter of truth for a variety of historical claims. Experimental archaeology is one example where this relationship is routinely demonstrated.

The point of the OP was not so much to compare theism with scientific naturalism in terms of understanding the observable universe, but to suggest that scientific naturalism is, like theism, capable of explaining anything and everything that could possibly be observed or experienced in principle. That would include not only things like consciousness, morality, and the origin of life – not easily explained scientifically as it is – but extraordinary phenomena like Jesus' appearances to his disciples following his crucifixion, or hypothetical scenarios like massive objects levitating, or the stars in the night sky appearing to spell out the word "REPENT."

Now you say that the principle of falsifiability makes scientific conclusions inherently more reliable, but I would counter with a couple of points. First, while it may be that (genuinely) scientific conclusions are falsifiable in principle, metaphysical naturalism itself evidently remains immune to falsification. Second, conclusions that are falsifiable in principle may well turn out to be false (and it should be clear than a false conclusion is not a reliable conclusion). If you look at the history of cosmology, for example, our basic understanding of how the universe is structured has changed drastically and repeatedly. It would take some hubris to presume that all the previous generations of scientists were ignorant or deluded and that our own answers are finally correct.

And to be fair, I wasn't the one who introduced the "unparalleled reliability and success of the scientific method," presumably in the belief that mentioning it was relevant. Yes, history borrows from science, just as science borrows from history. The reason I contrasted your description of the scientific method with other methods is that the truth of theism, unlike the correctness of a scientific theory, is not based strictly on scientific observations and theories. Grounds for the Christian faith include experience (both personal experience and religious experience as a sociological phenomenon), historical evidence surrounding the resurrection and the rise of the early church, archaeological evidence supporting the biblical narratives, and yes, observations of the world around us that have inspired arguments from natural theology like the cosmological or teleological argument.

Yes, all scientific hypotheses must be falsifiable and must pass every test designed to potentially falsify them. At the same time, when a scientific hypothesis has passed and continues to pass every test designed to falsify it, we would be unreasonable to deny that conclusion without having the necessary falsifying evidence. Given not only its continued success in passing all tests designed to falsify it but also its demonstrable predictive capabilities and practical applications, it is unreasonable for anyone to deny the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection at this point. Nevertheless, the Theory should never be dogmatically asserted as gospel because there remains a number of questions it has not yet been able to answer. However, we must remember that no scientific theory ever answers all the questions associated with it but has nonetheless been routinely demonstrated to be the most reasonable explanation. So, to deny the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection as the most reasonable explanation based on its current inability to explain everything that remains unknown about the origin of life and its subsequent diversification is completely unreasonable and slightly absurd.

That's a rather impossibly fine line to walk, I would say. If we are not being dogmatic, we must allow that textbook evolutionary theory may not be the best explanation after all. But if we maintain that questioning the explanatory superiority of textbook evolutionary theory is completely unreasonable or absurd, we are being dogmatic.

I would agree that Darwinian evolution appears to be the best scientific explanation available, but if the process by which the tremendous diversity of life on earth was not in fact natural, it may be that the best explanation is not scientific in the first place. In that case scientists are essentially pressing a square peg into a round hole. And the idea that there simply must be a scientific explanation for all observable phenomena is true only if metaphysical naturalism is true.

As to falsifiability, I'm curious: by what kind of test would you propose to falsify evolution, assuming that you actually suspected it of possibly being false?

It is one thing to maintain a healthy level of skepticism but something else to be almost irrationally prejudicial. Let's be intellectually honest here, if it were not for theist's emotional investment in the belief that all life is divinely created, they probably wouldn't be any more skeptical of the Theory of Evolution than they would of the Theory of Gravity (despite the fact that the Theory of Gravity is not as well understood).

Irrationally prejudicial? That's really a matter of perspective. Many of us are theists at least in part because abundant evidence strongly suggests to us that the world was created and life within it deliberately designed. But emotional investments cut both ways regardless. Recall that evolution by natural selection is what permitted Dawkins, for example, to be "an intellectually fulfilled atheist." For atheist intellectuals, being an intellectually fulfilled atheist would have to be pretty important, in which case their own emotional investment in the truth of evolution would be accordingly heavy. I could just as easily assert, then, that were it not for atheists' emotional investment in the truth of evolution, they wouldn't be any more skeptical of the theory of divine creation than they are of the theory that Mount Rushmore was sculpted by an artist and not by erosion.

Now if that comparison seems somehow flawed or unfair, you're probably getting my point. In making the argument that evolution is "both fact and theory," Gould once said that "Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered." The problem there is the lack of any observations of common ancestry analogous to the falling of apples. I could grab an apple and watch it drop to the ground right now. But I've never seen a human evolve from an ape-like ancestor, and neither has Gould or anyone else. That would explain why scientists and philosophers for many centuries before Darwin wrestled to explain the evident attraction of bodies with mass, but none of them seemed to notice any evolution taking place.

My reasons for doubting evolutionary theory are legion, my belief that God created the world and living organisms being but one of them. I also doubt evolutionary theory because to me it's not very simple (at least five and up to seven distinct mechanisms are theorized to make it work), it relies on countless ad hoc assumptions, it fixes no theoretical limits and at the same time makes no risky predictions, and finally, it seems to invoke a fallacy of logic (see more on that here: viewtopic.php?f=17&t=35577).

I think you've made some other arguments deserving of a serious reply, but for now I'm out of time. I will try to answer more later.

[bluegreenearth]

I'm beginning to suspect that to this point ours has been a largely verbal disagreement.

I'm beginning to suspect our disagreement is entirely due to the lack of a shared epistemology (i.e. method of determining which claims are true, false, or unknowable). My epistemology is based on science while yours appears to be based on theism. Thus, our disagreement may not be resolvable unless we agree to operate within a single epistemology. For example, you used the phrase "truth of theism" as if theism is known to be true. According to my epistemology, theism cannot be known as true or false because it makes an untestable claim regardless of whatever "evidence" anyone presents for or against it. If you are claiming to have knowledge of theism being true, then your epistemology must axiomatically assert that a god exists with no further justification required. I am not willing to include that axiom in my epistemology as it seems intellectually dishonest in my opinion.

Returning to my epistemology for a moment, although it might seem counter-intuitive given how science is discussed colloquially, it is not in the business of proving anything absolutely true. Within my epistemology, there are actually three types of "truth" and only two are obtainable. It is impossible to acquire knowledge of the absolute truth about our metaphysical reality because the unsolvable problem of solipsism limits our perspective in that regard. At best, we can only speculate about what our metaphysical reality might be. As such, any metaphysical claim about our external reality is unfalsifiable. Then there is conceptual truth and empirical truth which are both obtainable. For example, mathematics and logic are two ways we can acquire conceptual truths. However, what may be conceptually true is not necessarily empirically true. To acquire empirical truths, the epistemology I use defers to science as the most reliable method.

Now, to answer your question about falsifying the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, one of many ways it could be disproved would be by discovering a fossilized whale along side trilobite fossils in a rock layer dated to the Cambrian Period. Furthermore, all experiments that have ever been conducted by the professional scientists who study the Theory of Evolution were designed to try and falsify it. As such, there is nothing remotely dogmatic or emotionally dependent in the way scientists approach the Theory of Evolution. The fact that the Theory of Evolution has survived every experiment designed to falsify it is precisely why it is accepted as the most reasonable explanation for the biodiversity we observe. The Theory of Evolution predicts what evidence scientists should find as it applies to each of their experiments, and the scientists could know the theory was false if they find contradictory evidence instead. However, in every experiment conducted thus far, the evidence the scientists discovered always precisely matched what the theory predicted they would find. To date, no contradictory evidence has ever been found to disprove the predictions made by the Theory of Evolution despite it being falsifiable. So, even though the Theory of Evolution could still be potentially disproved, its falsifiability has no relevance to its demonstrable reliability in making predictions. This also applies to every other established scientific theory in every scientific discipline.

Finally, for the record, I do not endorse metaphysical naturalism but methodological naturalism.

[Zzyzx]

.

My argument regarding scientific naturalism is not a case of 'disavowing' it but of recognizing that as a position it has nothing which is useful in debating theological ideas.

I disagree. When religions make claims and tell stories that conflict with what is known of the real world, it is within the realm of science to challenge those claims and stories. If the stories upon which a religion is based are not true, the religion itself is questionable at best.

If a religion is based on a long-dead body coming back to life, what is the religion if the tale isn't true? Since long-dead bodies are not known to come back to life (except in fantasy) it might be wise to ask for supporting evidence -- which consists ONLY of unverified tales of an empty tomb, assumption that a missing body means it came back to life and left, tales of associates having postmortem visits from the deceased, and a weird tale of someone meeting the deceased years later in a 'vision' (or hallucination or delusion or fantasy or whatever it was).

Although science is not charged with investigating supposed supernatural entities or events, it IS well within science to challenge claims and stories that contradict what is known of the real world.

[William]

.

My argument regarding scientific naturalism is not a case of 'disavowing' it but of recognizing that as a position it has nothing which is useful in debating theological ideas.

I disagree. When religions make claims and tell stories that conflict with what is known of the real world, it is within the realm of science to challenge those claims and stories. If the stories upon which a religion is based are not true, the religion itself is questionable at best.

If a religion is based on a long-dead body coming back to life, what is the religion if the tale isn't true? Since long-dead bodies are not known to come back to life (except in fantasy) it might be wise to ask for supporting evidence -- which consists ONLY of unverified tales of an empty tomb, assumption that a missing body means it came back to life and left, tales of associates having postmortem visits from the deceased, and a weird tale of someone meeting the deceased years later in a 'vision' (or hallucination or delusion or fantasy or whatever it was).

Although science is not charged with investigating supposed supernatural entities or events, it IS well within science to challenge claims and stories that contradict what is known of the real world.

I have not been arguing otherwise. I was speaking about theological ideas not stories which are required to be believed on faith. The way you have responded strongly suggests that you cannot tell the difference.

When something is claimed to have happened in history - such as the flood which covered the world, we have the ability to fact-check such a claim because the evidence of such an event should have left its imprint. If no such evidence can be found, then we can place such a story in the fables department.

Claims of resurrections are harder to find nonsupporting evidence. They are believed in through faith.

Ideas such as we exist within a creation have to be regarded as theist but are not so easily able to be fact-checked by scientific process. One does not require faith to see it as possible. The Simulation Theory [idea we exist within a creation] does not contradict what is known 'in the real world'.

[Zzyzx]

.

Claims of resurrections are harder to find nonsupporting evidence. They are believed in through faith.

What is missing is SUPPORTING evidence.

Opposing evidence is provided by forensic biology -- including the study of decomposition processes of dead human bodies (at 'body farms'). The decomposition is well documented. https://undark.org/2019/11/11/how-micro ... etectives/ (and many similar sites available with internet search).

Defenders of the 'resurrection' tale offer 'Well it happened to Jesus by magic long ago and far way'. However, the Bible tells tales of many long-dead bodies coming back to life -- as do other folklore sources from many cultures and ideologies. Remember, the Bible also tells of many 'saints' arising from their graves and going to town. Nowhere else is this miraculous event mentioned -- and nothing further is said of the zombies after their town trip.

It must take a good deal of 'faith' to believe such tales.

[William]

.

Claims of resurrections are harder to find nonsupporting evidence. They are believed in through faith.

What is missing is SUPPORTING evidence.

Opposing evidence is provided by forensic biology -- including the study of decomposition processes of dead human bodies (at 'body farms'). The decomposition is well documented. https://undark.org/2019/11/11/how-micro ... etectives/ (and many similar sites available with internet search).

Defenders of the 'resurrection' tale offer 'Well it happened to Jesus by magic long ago and far way'. However, the Bible tells tales of many long-dead bodies coming back to life -- as do other folklore sources from many cultures and ideologies. Remember, the Bible also tells of many 'saints' arising from their graves and going to town. Nowhere else is this miraculous event mentioned -- and nothing further is said of the zombies after their town trip.

It must take a good deal of 'faith' to believe such tales.

What has that got to do with my own argument regarding Simulation Theory? Or my own argument regarding Earth [the planet] being the form of a self aware entity [with obvious intelligence and creative expression way beyond our own]?

I myself haven't been arguing in favor of the claim of resurrection. I see such as possible in relation to Simulation Theory [the event could have been inserted into our reality as an anomaly] but am not arguing for or against the idea.

In that, from the perspective of the Simulation Theory [we are within a creation] to think such a thing might have occurred is not a matter of faith but one of logic.

Why?

Because, if we do actually exist within a simulation, this implies a creator [or creators] of said simulation, which in itself implies that anomalies can be inserted [programmed] into the simulation as events...actual events...even if they do require science. to *'make it so'.

Biblically speaking, there is an identifiable wake left behind the path of that branch of theism which fits the bill in relation to Simulation Theory. The Abrahamic branch...

I could go on, but one should get the picture.

If you want to argue against a theological concept, I am happy for you to focus on the resurrection, but not so keen for you to be directing your argument in my at my own, unless it is specifically answering the simulation theory [theism] of which I am addressing.

[*"In The Beginning [GOD] created..." = Simulation Theory...]

'What is Gods nature' is not something I am personally making claims about...and as to 'what is the purpose of a creator creating this reality simulation?'...perhaps something of an answer can be gained from looking a little more closely at what science has to say about that...