TE exegesis and meditations on the "design" passages.

[Kelp]

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.--Romans 1:18-20

The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands. Day to day pours forth speech, And night to night reveals knowledge.--Psalm 19:1-2 Both NASB.

I was hesitant to begin this because I'm not sure how much of a dead horse this is. I use the term design loosely and not in an ID sense, I just mean that these are passages generally used to say that Scripture contains a claim that the existence and some attributes of God can be demonstrated from nature.

So, assuming for the sake of argument the untenability of design arguments for God and the subsequent evolutionary "invisibility" in natural history of His Creatorship, what do these passages mean? What validity can they have for us today? Can anything truly be learned about God from examination of nature, or do these passages mean something else entirely?

[shunyadragon]

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.--Romans 1:18-20

The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands. Day to day pours forth speech, And night to night reveals knowledge.--Psalm 19:1-2 Both NASB.

I was hesitant to begin this because I'm not sure how much of a dead horse this is. I use the term design loosely and not in an ID sense, I just mean that these are passages generally used to say that Scripture contains a claim that the existence and some attributes of God can be demonstrated from nature.

So, assuming for the sake of argument the untenability of design arguments for God and the subsequent evolutionary "invisibility" in natural history of His Creatorship, what do these passages mean? What validity can they have for us today? Can anything truly be learned about God from examination of nature, or do these passages mean something else entirely?

I believe the passages are pretty clear and mean what they say. Actually there are similar passages in the Baha'i writings. The attributes of God are reflected in His Creation. Include the Baha'i principle of the Harmony of Science and Religion the conclusion is the science progressively reveals the attributes of God in His Creation 'as it is,' not how human vanities want it to be. The problem with 'ID' concepts of 'design' is that they are very mechanistic and portray God as an engineer, and does not fit science. Gods attributes are 'hidden' as the passage describes, and science reveals the wonder of God's attributes in our physical existence, and it is not how traditional theists wish to see it.

[Vertetuesi]

Gods attributes are 'hidden' as the passage describes

You've got me lost there. How does either passage describe such a thing?

I also take issue with the way both you and the OP have implicitly confined the Biblical concept of design to the modern concept of ID which AFAIK is purely about biology, indeed just genetics. What about all the other aspects of the universe, e.g. the anthropic principle making the earth's attributes just right for life, or the difficulties with accounting for all the components of the solar system in naturalistic terms? These, too, it seems to me, would come under the concept especially of Romans 1.

Moreover (as I mentioned on another thread many months ago), Romans 1:20 in context actually implies that the world isn't vastly older than mankind, because it says that humans have been perceiving God's attributes in nature "from the creation of the world". As Richard Dawkins says, deep time is the biggest single factor that renders evolution more plausible than creation, so this is relevant to the question of "design" which tends to eliminate the need or point of vast ages of time.

[KBertsche]

I was hesitant to begin this because I'm not sure how much of a dead horse this is. I use the term design loosely and not in an ID sense, I just mean that these are passages generally used to say that Scripture contains a claim that the existence and some attributes of God can be demonstrated from nature.

Yes, this seems to be what the passages are saying.

So, assuming for the sake of argument the untenability of design arguments for God and the subsequent evolutionary "invisibility" in natural history of His Creatorship, ...

What do you mean by these statements? Could you please elaborate?

[technomage]

So, assuming for the sake of argument the untenability of design arguments for God and the subsequent evolutionary "invisibility" in natural history of His Creatorship, what do these passages mean? What validity can they have for us today? Can anything truly be learned about God from examination of nature, or do these passages mean something else entirely?

That is what the passages mean--in the first, Paul was making the argument that God cannot be seen directly, but can be seen in His handiwork.

Frankly, even as a theist, it's an argument I find to be false (as a purported fact) and unpersuasive (as an argument). If it were true, naturalism (even methodological naturalism) would be ineffective in telling us anything about the universe. Obviously, science can tell us some things about the universe ... so there are problems with Paul's argument.

[rogue06]

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.--Romans 1:18-20

The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands. Day to day pours forth speech, And night to night reveals knowledge.--Psalm 19:1-2 Both NASB.

I was hesitant to begin this because I'm not sure how much of a dead horse this is. I use the term design loosely and not in an ID sense, I just mean that these are passages generally used to say that Scripture contains a claim that the existence and some attributes of God can be demonstrated from nature.

So, assuming for the sake of argument the untenability of design arguments for God and the subsequent evolutionary "invisibility" in natural history of His Creatorship, what do these passages mean? What validity can they have for us today? Can anything truly be learned about God from examination of nature, or do these passages mean something else entirely?

I'd add Psalm 97:6

Scripture Verse:

The heavens declare His righteousness, And all the peoples have seen His glory.

And the description from the old commentary by Adam Clarke says it well: "Their magnitude, number, revolutions, order and harmony proclaim the wondrous skill, matchless wisdom and unlimited power of the Sovereign of the universe." He also wrote of this verse that, "Whatsoever God has made proclaims his eternal power and Godhead; and who, from a contemplation of the work of his hands, can be ignorant of his being and providence."

[mostlyharmless]

So, assuming for the sake of argument the untenability of design arguments for God and the subsequent evolutionary "invisibility" in natural history of His Creatorship, what do these passages mean? What validity can they have for us today? Can anything truly be learned about God from examination of nature, or do these passages mean something else entirely?

I sometimes think that we can understand the heavens declaring the Glory of God and his attributes in our experience of them, not the actual naturalistic details. Anyone can experience these emotional responses to creation and I imagine both St Paul and St David had these feelings in mind when they wrote these passages.

If I stand atop a mountain or in front of Niagra falls or confront a wildfire I can realize aspects of the human condition and from that understand something about the greatness of a creator God.

Blessings

[KBertsche]

That is what the passages mean--in the first, Paul was making the argument that God cannot be seen directly, but can be seen in His handiwork.

Frankly, even as a theist, it's an argument I find to be false (as a purported fact) and unpersuasive (as an argument).

I don't think Paul is trying to say that we can prove God's existence from nature, but rather that nature provides evidence for God's existence. As Alistar McGrath describes it, what we see of nature "resonates" with the biblical message. If you start with two "models", atheistic naturalism versus biblical theism, the latter is arguably a better fit with what we see in nature (e.g. fine-tuning of the universe).

If it were true, naturalism (even methodological naturalism) would be ineffective in telling us anything about the universe. Obviously, science can tell us some things about the universe ... so there are problems with Paul's argument.

I don't see how this follows from Paul's argument. He does not say that studying nature tells us nothing about nature.

[Kelp]

You've got me lost there. How does either passage describe such a thing?

I also take issue with the way both you and the OP have implicitly confined the Biblical concept of design to the modern concept of ID which AFAIK is purely about biology, indeed just genetics. What about all the other aspects of the universe, e.g. the anthropic principle making the earth's attributes just right for life, or the difficulties with accounting for all the components of the solar system in naturalistic terms? These, too, it seems to me, would come under the concept especially of Romans 1.

Moreover (as I mentioned on another thread many months ago), Romans 1:20 in context actually implies that the world isn't vastly older than mankind, because it says that humans have been perceiving God's attributes in nature "from the creation of the world". As Richard Dawkins says, deep time is the biggest single factor that renders evolution more plausible than creation, so this is relevant to the question of "design" which tends to eliminate the need or point of vast ages of time.

No, I'm pretty sure the Anthropic Principle and the other things you mention are also part of ID arguments.

[Kelp]

What do you mean by these statements? Could you please elaborate?

Well, if evolution is true, if mainstream science's ideas on abiogenesis are true, and if the Big Bang, etc. happened; then what we are left with is a universe that as far as it appears to our senses"created itself". Now, it could be true that God was working through nature and behind it, but you could never prove that observationally because all you are seing and all you can see are the results. God is like a hidden pupeteer with invisible strings.

So in one sense Dawkins is right, the design is an illusion. Any account of nature and natural history written by an atheist and one written by a Christian are going to have to be identical, the difference can only come when we look at things in terms of philosophy and not science. It's only after we believe in God that we can acknowledge that the universe is the way it is for an overarching reason.

I know you're an OEC so you'll probably disagree with some of that, just telling you what I meant.

[Kelp]

I sometimes think that we can understand the heavens declaring the Glory of God and his attributes in our experience of them, not the actual naturalistic details. Anyone can experience these emotional responses to creation and I imagine both St Paul and St David had these feelings in mind when they wrote these passages.

If I stand atop a mountain or in front of Niagra falls or confront a wildfire I can realize aspects of the human condition and from that understand something about the greatness of a creator God.

Blessings

Yeah, there is definitely something to be said for the numinous. I've felt it before. Where I have the problem is with taking some Joe off the street and asking, "How can you look at Niagra Falls and not believe in God?" ThatI think is what the Bible is getting at, but it seems like human experience is not quite so uniform as you and I would wish.

[Manwë Súlimo]

Well, if evolution is true, if mainstream science's ideas on abiogenesis are true, and if the Big Bang, etc. happened; then what we are left with is a universe that as far as it appears to our senses"created itself".

How so? Dennett makes this claim, but it's patently absurd. For the universe to create itself (whatever that means), it must have existed before it existed. For the universe to exist, there must be a transcendent cause of the universe. Furthermore, we have no good reason to believe that something can come from nothing, uncaused. That's essentially the kalam cosmological argument in a nutshell.

Then we look at the fine tuning of the initial conditions of the Big Bang. This is getting into territory I'm not well-versed in, but this include the rate of entropy, the rate of expansion, and so on. If any of these conditions were altered without a margin of error so thin that it might as well not even exist, the universe would have either imploded back onto itself or dissipate.

The point I'm getting at is that (at least as far as I'm convinced) by looking at the universe, we can surmise that God exists, is incredibly powerful, and incredibly smart. God needn't speak to us a word of this, we can deduce from the existence and design of the universe.

[glassonion]

Viewing the universe as a closed system (which I don't) it still is unbelievable and awe inspiring to consider, not ape to man, but matter to mind!! Amazing!! And all by accident? I guess it is in the eye of the beholder. Like Paul, I see God.

[mostlyharmless]

Yeah, there is definitely something to be said for the numinous. I've felt it before. Where I have the problem is with taking some Joe off the street and asking, "How can you look at Niagra Falls and not believe in God?" ThatI think is what the Bible is getting at, but it seems like human experience is not quite so uniform as you and I would wish.

I don't think its an apologetic argument either because it presupposes a belief in God. But I believe that those passages in scripture are directed at those who believe in the divine in some sense, not at atheists as we have now. I honestly don't think that there is anything in nature that you will ever be able to point to and use as direct proof of God.

Blessings

[technomage]

I don't think Paul is trying to say that we can prove God's existence from nature

It would be astounding if he was, as he was speaking to the "already persuaded" of Rome.

The problem is, this passage cannot be taken in isolation: Paul is not attempting to persuade the Romans that nature "proves", or even "gives evidence" of the existence of God--he already assumes that, and he also knows he is speaking to others who already assume it. Instead, Paul is attempting to set the foundation for his later "without excuse" statement.

As Alistar McGrath describes it, what we see of nature "resonates" with the biblical message. If you start with two "models", atheistic naturalism versus biblical theism, the latter is arguably a better fit with what we see in nature (e.g. fine-tuning of the universe).

The "fine-tuning" argument is questionable, as it seems to be a selective cherry-picking of the fact that most of the universe is actually quite hostile to life.

I don't see how this follows from Paul's argument. He does not say that studying nature tells us nothing about nature.

It made perfect sense to me ... at midnight. When I was half asleep. But it does seem a bit cloudy now.

Seriously, I don't think Paul is engaging in spelling out doctrine: he seems to be using the statement as rhetorical support for "without evidence."