There is a great article on the "Bad Catholic" blog entitled "Creationism is Materialism's Creation." I won't attempt to summarize the article. But I do want to try to unpack one aspect of the article: scientific materialism and creationism have the same assumptions about God's relation to creation. Here are a couple paragraphs that get at the point:
"If by the world we mean a purely physical system, than God — who is not physical — can only be encountered in an inexplicable “break” in the same system. If God is to be active in a purely material universe, it must be as a Cosmic Magician popping into the world over and against all physical processes and laws — utterly at odds with his own creation. God is evidenced by that which is “utterly apart” from the universe “breaking into” the universe. And so the creationist, having conceded the materialistic assumption, must “prove” the existence of God by way of things “science can’t explain.” The complex cell, the fossil record — God is real because there are inexplicable things, materials that look as if something has broken into the material system and left its immaterial and thereby inexplicable mark."
One of the best illustrations of this point is the following clip from The Colbert Report. Watch it.
"If by the world we mean a purely physical system, than God — who is not physical — can only be encountered in an inexplicable “break” in the same system. If God is to be active in a purely material universe, it must be as a Cosmic Magician popping into the world over and against all physical processes and laws — utterly at odds with his own creation. God is evidenced by that which is “utterly apart” from the universe “breaking into” the universe. And so the creationist, having conceded the materialistic assumption, must “prove” the existence of God by way of things “science can’t explain.” The complex cell, the fossil record — God is real because there are inexplicable things, materials that look as if something has broken into the material system and left its immaterial and thereby inexplicable mark."
One of the best illustrations of this point is the following clip from The Colbert Report. Watch it.
Get More: Comedy Central,Funny Videos,Funny TV Shows
1. Faulty assumption 1: I can't explain it; God did it.
In Bill O'Reilly's version of things (along with many creationists), the realm of "what God does" is reduced to "what I can't explain." God as cause of something is seen as completely distinct from natural causes. In essence, a deistic watchmaker God who is not really involved in ongoing providence and history. But as Colbert rightly points out, this "God of the gaps" is simply another way of affirming that "I don't know how things work." If Christians point to things we can't explain as proof of God, then as we grow in our scientific ability to explain things, our proof for God will shrink. Unfortunately, those who start from this first faulty assumption will often swing to faulty assumption 2.
2. Faulty assumption 2: I can explain it; therefore, God didn't do it.
Now, I don't know where Neil DeGrasse Tyson is on this, but I do know where someone like Richard Dawkins is: if evolution by natural causes is true, then there is no God. But this assumes an either/or between God and natural causes: either God does it or there's a natural explanation. But Christians have always acknowledged that God's causality is an altogether different kind of causality than any cause within creation (so much so that Augustine at one point is wary of even calling God "cause" of anything because of the misunderstanding this can produce). We pray before meals not because God magically makes food appear on our plate, but because we assume that under and with all the natural causes--rain and sun, farmers and bakers, grocers, money to buy food, those who prepare the food--God is the ultimate cause.
As the aforementioned blog notes, God is not merely the answer to questions of particular events or facts--why did this happen?--but rather the answer to the big question, the biggest of them all: why is there something rather than nothing?
So what? If you want to debate facets of evolution, fine. But don't do so with the impression that evolution is inherently atheistic because it points to natural causes. So does your meteorologist, but we still thank God for the rain and sun (maybe not snow at this point in the winter). God has made his world so that creatures participate in causality. This is the kind of God he is: not one who hoards all things, including his power, for himself. As Nicanor Austriaco points out, this sharing of power and causality is a sign of God's omnipotence, not a detractor from it. So why is there something rather than nothing? "In the beginning God..."
As the aforementioned blog notes, God is not merely the answer to questions of particular events or facts--why did this happen?--but rather the answer to the big question, the biggest of them all: why is there something rather than nothing?
So what? If you want to debate facets of evolution, fine. But don't do so with the impression that evolution is inherently atheistic because it points to natural causes. So does your meteorologist, but we still thank God for the rain and sun (maybe not snow at this point in the winter). God has made his world so that creatures participate in causality. This is the kind of God he is: not one who hoards all things, including his power, for himself. As Nicanor Austriaco points out, this sharing of power and causality is a sign of God's omnipotence, not a detractor from it. So why is there something rather than nothing? "In the beginning God..."
RSS Feed