Why shouldn’t we expect to see evidence? Why assume from the start that we will not be able to see any evidence? If you assume that all can be explained without God, then, by golly, you’ll never see evidence of God.Now, as a theist, I would not say that we should expect to see evidence of this intervention, i.e., a detectable deviation of the bollide in its orbit prior to impacting earth, as if a giant invisible “hand” had nudged it.
Why?Divine action has to be infinitely more subtle than that.
What sort of evidence are you looking for? Is the fact that the universe exists not sufficient for you?Why shouldn’t we expect to see evidence?
Why shouldn’t we expect to see evidence? Why assume from the start that we will not be able to see any evidence? If you assume that all can be explained without God, then, by golly, you’ll never see evidence of God.
Why?
Your argument is very similar to the evolutionist response to the purported YEC claim, that God did it, and science doesn’t need to find out how or why. That’s a peculiar argument for you to make based on your other posts. Personally, though the existence of the universe is certainly more than sufficient for my belief in God, I like to see the beauty of God’s work in the details.What sort of evidence are you looking for? Is the fact that the universe exists not sufficient for you?
(1) What constitutes “evidence” will always be ambiguous. To a “flood geologist” marine fossils on alpine peaks are evidence of Noah’s flood; to a non-flood-geologist they are evidence of the uplift from ancient sea beds through orogeny. I see evidence of God in the beauty of a sunset, but an atheist does not.
- Why shouldn’t we expect to see evidence? (you agree that evidence, as in the existence of the universe exhibits proof of God. So why not look into the details as well? Why limit your evidence to the big picture only?)
- Why assume from the start that we will not be able to see any evidence? (Your argument that God created everything but purposely hid evidence of that fact seems to me to be a whole lot like the purported YEC argument that God created the universe in 6 days but purposefully made it look like it’s billions of years old, just to fool us).
- Why? (as in “Why does divine action need to be subtle”). The big bang wasn’t very subtle. Raising the dead wasn’t so subtle. The incarnation wasn’t subtle. Why do you insist that God needs to be so subtle that he leaves no evidence behind?
I agree that those are deep questions and I appreciate your time in giving more detail on your answers.Well, Reggie, these are deep questions you ask, and I’ve got a deadline today, so let me think about them.
Ok, that’s how a theist might view the asteroid. I’m wondering – do you view it that way? If not, could you give an example of something (in evolution, physics, chemistry, etc) where your view (through a theistic perspective) is different than what an atheist’s view would provide?In brief, however, I can say that while a theist might regard the Chicxulub asteroid at the K-T boundary as God’s intentional “clearing they way” by opening niches for mammalian evolution, an atheist would see this simply as a contingent, undirected event.
I’ll follow ricmat’s question – as a theist, we should expect to see evidence for God acting in the universe. Not all events show it clearly, but some do. What if the asteroid showed an inexplicable deviation in its orbit – something that has a miniscule probability of occurring normally? That is evidence for something other than what physical laws normally produce.Now, as a theist, I would not say that we should expect to see evidence of this intervention, i.e., a detectable deviation of the bollide in its orbit prior to impacting earth, as if a giant invisible “hand” had nudged it.
As I mentioned above – this is an example of where you’re looking at the empirical evidence, and recognizing that the things that happened are “inexplicable”. After that, you see that the lives of these people have changed dramatically. This is observable evidence of something occurring that physical laws would have difficulty explaining. While this is not “proof” – it is rational, explicable evidence that can support a conclusion.I think of divine intervention more in the lives of conscious persons. I know people to whom inexplicable things have happened that have changed their lives dramatically.
You do need to give evidence and reasons for your faith. It’s not a question of proof, but of evidence that supports a reasonable conclusion. When the evidence is reviewed, one can say that the proposal that God acted is the “most reasonable conclusion”. But to have zero evidence and to claim that your belief in God is supported by zero empirical evidence is like fideism or blind-faith. We have to have some solid basis for faith – otherwise it has no substance. For Catholics, the primary datum is revelation and we can evaluate it through empirical means (giving support, not proof) – looking at what eyewitness testimonies said, checking to see if those are credible witnesses, if there is support in the historical record, etc. That is all evidence of God’s action in the world.I can’t prove it was divine intervention, but why should I need to? If I believe God acted in my life I need no proof, and no “proof” I could give would convince an atheist anyway.
No, I hadn’t heard of it – thanks for the reference.Have you read from the five-volume CTNS Vatican series on Divine Action? ctns.org/books.html
reggieM, again, it being Friday I’ll have to put this off. About the Vatican series http://www.ctns.org/books.html this is the product of ten years of conferences, and the 2500 pages of articles range from clear as mud to brilliant, and from physics and cosmology to evolution and neuroscience. The chapter summaries are available to you on the site; the books are in some libraries. I’ve only scratched the surface, reading things by Bill Stoeger, a friend who is a Jesuit stellar evolution astronomer and deep-thinking Catholic priest. But there are lots of good essays.No, I hadn’t heard of it – thanks for the reference.
ReggieM, perhaps seamless intervention? I promised to maintain the privacy of the person to whom this happened, so I’ll generalize. I have a friend who was at one nadir of her long pendulum of substance abuse, having failed at recovery a number of times. She was waiting for the light to change to cross a street, and said to herself that she felt utterly worthless. Looking down at the sidewalk she saw written in the concrete the words “I love you anyway.” That was the moment of her recovery, clean and sober now for 21 years. (She showed me the words a few years later; the sidewalk has been repoured since then)As I mentioned above – this is an example of where you’re looking at the empirical evidence, and recognizing that the things that happened are “inexplicable”. After that, you see that the lives of these people have changed dramatically. This is observable evidence of something occurring that physical laws would have difficulty explaining. While this is not “proof” – it is rational, explicable evidence that can support a conclusion…
That’s a great story. Yes, I think there are many of those seamless interventions that occur. Actually, that is strong evidence in itself because those are personal experiences of the miraculous. They’re much harder to evaluate objectively – but millions of these personal encounters with the divine happen (most in less dramatic ways) – and this is why billions of people believe in the existence of God.ReggieM, perhaps seamless intervention? I promised to maintain the privacy of the person to whom this happened, so I’ll generalize. I have a friend who was at one nadir of her long pendulum of substance abuse, having failed at recovery a number of times. She was waiting for the light to change to cross a street, and said to herself that she felt utterly worthless. Looking down at the sidewalk she saw written in the concrete the words “I love you anyway.” That was the moment of her recovery, clean and sober now for 21 years. (She showed me the words a few years later; the sidewalk has been repoured since then)
True, but I’d add some more detail to the empirical evidence.The empirical evidence: (1) words written in concrete; (2) a person in grave need; (3) the conjunction of these two circumstances. There is no difficulty explaining the physical laws governing the pouring of concrete, the writing of graffiti, or the bending of the head to look down. There is no reason to believe that an outside observer would have perceived an intervention, an invisible finger scraping the words in the sidewalk moments before. She had no reason to assume the words were not written by some lovelorn teenager when the concrete was wet, but that’s not important.
Interestingly, I was thinking about this very point today at Mass.I can only wonder what people think about when they read about visitations of Our Lady. Hoax? Mental problem? I am reminded of the person who held a candle under the hand of Bernadette while she was in a trance and it did not burn her. Or the nun whose body lies in an uncorrupted state. Or Saint Faustina who writes that she was visited by Jesus.
God knows the depth of our unbelief. The Bible is full of precise passages that refer to the human heart, describing it as “desperately wicked.” A sober reflection should occur over the words of the devil to Eve; “Ye shall be as gods.”
Indeed, ReggieM. On the personal level, I believe we have experienced divine intervention frequently. But it is more difficult with a large-scale event to p(name removed by moderator)oint or even generalize about divine intervention, or to see “proof” of that intervention. An asteroid collision may very well be divine intervention, but how would we ever know? The sinking of the Titanic, or the Nazi “Holocaust” may very well have had the hand of God behind it, but how would ever know? How would we ever have proof that God had engineered these events to chastise people, or to save individuals? I leave that up to God.For the girl in your story - the act of seeing those words at that precise moment was an unforgettable experience. I think the results in her life force us to respect her experience and not merely say she was surprised by an ordinary coincidence. In other words, trying to dismiss the inexplicable power of that event is not a reasonable response to what happened. She believed it was a divine intervention (not that the words were created by God directly, but that her place on that sidewalk was “guided” to see that). Lacking any alternative explanation for what happened – why can’t we simply accept her understanding of the experience as evidence of an intervention in itself?
It is hard to tell indeed.Indeed, ReggieM. On the personal level, I believe we have experienced divine intervention frequently. But it is more difficult with a large-scale event to p(name removed by moderator)oint or even generalize about divine intervention, or to see “proof” of that intervention. An asteroid collision may very well be divine intervention, but how would we ever know? The sinking of the Titanic, or the Nazi “Holocaust” may very well have had the hand of God behind it, but how would ever know? How would we ever have proof that God had engineered these events to chastise people, or to save individuals? I leave that up to God.
StAnastasia
Thank goodness we’re now in the 21st!It is hard to tell indeed.
However at Fatima Mary told us a great chastisement was about to begin. And the 20th century was the bloodiest.
If you examined the tilma of Our Lady of Guadalupe and were told that the Church has declared it was not painted by human hands, what would you say?Indeed, ReggieM. On the personal level, I believe we have experienced divine intervention frequently. But it is more difficult with a large-scale event to p(name removed by moderator)oint or even generalize about divine intervention, or to see “proof” of that intervention. An asteroid collision may very well be divine intervention, but how would we ever know? The sinking of the Titanic, or the Nazi “Holocaust” may very well have had the hand of God behind it, but how would ever know? How would we ever have proof that God had engineered these events to chastise people, or to save individuals? I leave that up to God.
StAnastasia
If I examined it, or if experts in painting analysis examined it?If you examined the tilma of Our Lady of Guadalupe and were told that the Church has declared it was not painted by human hands, what would you say?
Peace,Ed
It may be more difficult in some cases, but in others not. Trying to evaluate a personal encounter with God – where it affects one person, but in a way that is totally convincing to that person – can be difficult. If it is a healing, or something like getting a good job as against all odds, or meeting the exact right person who solves a problem – those are hard (but not impossible) to evaluate.But it is more difficult with a large-scale event to p(name removed by moderator)oint or even generalize about divine intervention, or to see “proof” of that intervention.
It depends on who claims it is divine intervention and why.An asteroid collision may very well be divine intervention, but how would we ever know?
You’ve chosen events that are more difficult to understand.The sinking of the Titanic, or the Nazi “Holocaust” may very well have had the hand of God behind it, but how would ever know? How would we ever have proof that God had engineered these events to chastise people, or to save individuals? I leave that up to God.
If you examined it after finding out that experts have examined it and concluded that it was not painted using paint or similar pigment, that microscopic analysis has shown reflections of individuals in the eyes and that the image does not distort normally when viewed at other angles. Finally, the cactus fibers of which it is made should have deteriorated many years ago but have not.If I examined it, or if experts in painting analysis examined it?
Fascinating.If you examined it after finding out that experts have examined it and concluded that it was not painted using paint or similar pigment, that microscopic analysis has shown reflections of individuals in the eyes and that the image does not distort normally when viewed at other angles. Finally, the cactus fibers of which it is made should have deteriorated many years ago but have not.Peace,Ed