To assume arbitrarily, a priori, that God created the matter of this globe in the most imperfect state to which the gross imagination of man can contrive to reduce it, which it effectually does, by reducing the creative Fiat to the mere production of an amorphous elementary mass; and then to pretend that His intelligence and wisdom are to be collected from certain hypothetical occult laws, by which that mass worked itself into perfection of figure and arrangement after innumerable ages; would tend to lessen our sense either of the divine wisdom or power, did not the supposition recoil with tremendous reaction upon the supposers, and convict them of the clumsiest irrationality. The supposition is totally arbitrary; and not only arbitrary, viciously arbitrary; because, it is totally unnecessary, and therefore betrays a vice of choice. For, the laws of matter could not have worked perfection in the mass which the Creator is thus supposed to have formed imperfect, unless by a power imparted by Himself who established the laws. And, if He could thus produce perfection mediately, through their operation, He could produce it immediately, without their operation. Why, then, wantonly and viciously, without a pretence of authority, choose the supposition of their mediation? It is entirely a decision of choice and preference, that is, of the will; for, the reason is no party to it, neither urging, suggesting, encouraging, or in any way aiding or abetting the decision, but, on the contrary, positively denying and condemning it. The vast length of time, which this sinistrous choice is necessarily obliged to call in for its own defense, could only be requisite to the Creator for overcoming difficulties obstructing the perfecting process; it therefore chooses to suppose, that He created obstructions in matter, to resist and retard the perfecting of the work which He designed; whilst at the same time He might have perfected it without any resistance at all, by His own Creative Act... To suppose then, a priori, and without the slightest motive prompted by reason, that His wisdom willed, at the same time, both the formation of a perfect work, argues a gross defect of intelligence somewhere; either in the Creator or in the supposer; and I leave it to this science, to determine the alternative. (Penn, A Comparative Estimate of the Mineral and Mosaical Geologies, 1825)
Also, read below quotes from atheist evolutionists Richard Dawkins and David Hull and decide if a Christian can hold that God created natural selection as the process of evolution and, at the same time, can be held to be free of guilt for creating natural evil.
The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives whimpering with fear, others are slowly devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there is ever a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. (Dawkins, God's Utility Function, 1995)
Whatever the God implied by evolutionary theory and the data of natural history may be like, He is not the Protestant God of waste not, want not. He is also not a loving God who cares about His productions. He is not even the awful God portrayed in the book of Job. The God of the Galapagos is careless, wasteful, indifferent, and almost diabolical. He is certainly not the sort of God to whom anyone would be inclined to pray. (Hull, The God of the Galapagos, 1991)
If the Bible is not believed, including the historical sense of the first 11 chapters of Genesis, then the above is all true and we should reject Christianity and God altogether. However, the Bible makes clear a theodicy which explains that sin is the root cause of all natural and moral evil, that the world was made perfect and will be restored, because of the saving work of Jesus Christ. We cannot afford to abandon this truth for any alternative, no matter what "authority" puts it forward.
5 comments:
Granville Penn is great, isn't he!
I have a real problem with Granville Penn's attitude. He seems to be saying that he has God figured out, that God has to be the way he understands Him to be, and that there is no way He could be any other way.
I find this to be amazingly pompous. What if God is different than he described- for reasons we don't understand? I know of many verses in the Bible that urge humbleness when it comes to humans thinking they have God figured out. I wonder why we can't be more modest in our convictions of how God works.
Just a few examples:
Job 36:26
How great is God- beyond our understanding!
Isaiah 40:28
Do you not know? Have you not heard? The LORD is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He will not grow tired or weary, and his understanding no one can fathom.
Proverbs 3:5
Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding
I'm not saying Granville is wrong, or that I know better. I am just constantly surprised by people who are so confident that they have God all figured out. Would they speak with such confidence in front of God and tell Him that he wouldn't be able to do certain things?
To RC Facilitator:
Instead of complaining about attitudes and convictions, why not give some consideration to Penn's reasoning? Penn's argument has nothing to do with what God is able to do, or what is possible for God. Rather, it has to do with arbitrary and gratuitous elements in a theory (Occam's razor). The argument is very similar to Augustine's argument for created time in the Confessions, book 11. An arbitrary delay in creation suggests a lack of wisdom or power. Of course one could just deny that there is a creator, but Penn's and Augustine's arguments do not address that; they deal with the reconciliation of belief in God with historical creation. Augustine concludes there must be a creation of time itself, Penn concludes that the timing of creation must be purposive, and not an random process.
RC,
It does seem as though you are taking a very postmodern viewpoint here. Of course, we cannot limit God - He is by definition the limitless One! However, God has revealed Himself in the Bible in a way that is both substantive and understandable by human beings. Otherwise, we must abandon the entire thing.
I agree with Tim, here. The problem of evil/pain causes a logical situation in which deep time cannot be reconciled with a loving and all-powerful God. Thus, since God has revealed Himself as loving, as all-powerful, and as the creator, deep time cannot be logically held.
The texts you list do not point to a complete loss of understanding but to the holiness of God. In a very real way, because of the wisdom of this world in naturalistic science, I am arguing for relying upon God's wisdom rather than that of the world, just as the text urges.
Post a Comment