I\u2019ve disliked the Intelligent Design concept since I first heard about it several years ago. From the theological standpoint, I believe that the theory is deeply flawed. It is simply a new version of a very old error: the God of the Gaps fallacy. To put it simply, the God of the Gaps fallacy argues that God is to be defined as mystery. Where there is mystery, there is God: if we find something in the world we don\u2019t understand, the explanation is always the same: God did it. <\/p>\n
This is an incredibly lazy approach to the world. When explanations for objects and events are found\u2014as they must always be\u2014the God of this fallacy inevitably shrinks. Needless to say, those caught in the grip of this fallacy inevitably fear explanations. Each time humanity\u2019s understanding of the universe grows, a little piece of their God chips away. They little realize that they\u2019re worshiping a false God who needs to disappear.<\/p>\n
\tMost theologians, along with most scientists, discarded the God of the Gaps fallacy a long time ago. God is not dependent for his existence on ignorance. <\/p>\n
I recently read someone who wrote, in thinking about God, that \u201csince natural laws are His, presumably He can violate them any time He feels like it.\u201d This reflects a widespread assumption regarding omnipotence which I don\u2019t think is correct.<\/p>\n
I do not think it is accurate to say that omnipotence means God can do just anything at all. I also disagree, therefore, that \u201cmiracle\u201d in any way is a violation of natural law. The eighteenth century philosopher David Hume\u2019s comments on miracle are devastating to that traditional concept of miracle, but only assuming this widely accepted definition of miracle is accurate. At least since the late nineteenth century, most theologians who have thought about the issue have attacked Hume\u2019s conclusions by dismantling this key presupposition (one that most people, unfortunately, still believe) that \u201cmiracle\u201d means \u201cviolation of natural law.\u201d A more precise definition is that a miracle is a \u201csign,\u201d or an \u201cintervention\u201d by God, by which he hopes to get the viewer\u2019s attention.<\/p>\n
Most people would find it difficult to commit murder. Their morality constrains their behavior. Most would argue that God is moral and thus is unable to violate his moral precepts, especially given the additional assumption that God is perfect. What if we now also assume that the laws of nature are as much a part of who God is as the moral laws? What if we modify the definition of omnipotence to then mean that \u201cGod is capable of doing anything that is consistent with his nature?\u201d God is constrained, I would argue, by his own nature and can do nothing in violation of it; nor do I think that he can do anything that is logically absurd. God can no more make two and two be five than I can.<\/p>\n
God then, might no more be able to violate natural law than he is able to violate his moral law. Certainly believers in God accept that he does spectacular things, but do those spectacular things require violation of natural law? An airplane would be mighty spectacular to a person living in the Middle Ages, as would flights to the moon or computers. But none of those spectacular things are violations of natural laws. We simply know the natural laws well and can manipulate them in very creative ways. God, to put it oddly, perhaps, should be seen as simply more technologically advanced than we are. And thus, in a universe where God is like this, science would be compatible with the nature of God. <\/p>\n
Given a God constrained by his own nature, who operates in accord with his own laws and never violates them, I would expect that we could learn how the universe functions down to the smallest level. Explanations do not negate God; they illuminate Him. I thus am content with modern science. I do not feel a conflict between science and religion. I do not imagine that the unknown is God, only that it is the unknown\u2014for now. I remain a theist who believes that God is intimately involved with his universe. I believe that God\u2019s manipulations are no more intrusive or problematic than the manipulations of his creative creatures and differ from them perhaps in degree, but not kind. I would also point out that God made us free, and thus it is always going to be possible for us to explain Him away, precisely because we would not be free otherwise. How free are you when you are aware that your boss is watching your every move? God didn\u2019t want us to live that way, either.<\/p>\n
I suspect that the moral laws and natural laws are both a reflection of God\u2019s fundamental nature and that he cannot be other than who he is. For instance, the fundamental forces of the universe (weak force, strong force, gravity, electromagnetism) must exist in a certain ratio with one another\u2014to several decimal places\u2014in order to have a universe capable of supporting life as we know it. We can logically posit universes where the forces are different than in our universe, but such universes would be very uncomfortable for us and incompatible with our existence. God is constrained by two and two always having to equal four. Likewise, \u201cthou shalt not murder\u201d is probably a necessary constraint on a properly functioning universe, too; anything else would be uncomfortable. <\/p>\n
While God could have done and could do anything, I believe he is constrained by who he is, just as my behavior is constrained by who I am. What are the odds that I will voluntarily drive on the wrong side of the street, even though the only thing stopping me is a double yellow line painted on the asphalt? Hardly an insurmountable physical barrier. But I\u2019m not a complete moron. And likewise, God is an intelligent being, even more than I am.<\/p>\n
![](\"https:\/\/nettelhorst.com\/blog1\/wp-content\/plugins\/send-to-kindle\/media\/white-15.png\")
Send to Kindle<\/span><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"I\u2019ve disliked the Intelligent Design concept since I first heard about it several years ago. From the theological standpoint, I believe that the theory is deeply flawed. It is simply a new version of a very old error: the God … Continue reading