Ongoing creation

[Al_Moritz]

And now let’s quote Communion and Stewardship in the original, and interpret ‘contingent’ as ‘by chance’ or ‘it could be one way or another, not determined by God’:

But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation.

Do you see how that paragraph now suddenly makes sense?

 

[JDaniel]

No. The heading before paragraph 306 of the Catechism that I cited speaks specifically of “secondary causes”. The idea of “secondary causes” has a long Church tradition, and I am afraid if you suggest that God not just is the primary cause of everything, but also “works in everything as direct primary cause” you are getting in a greyzone where you slip outside Catholic teaching, and I know that you do not intend to do that.

Al:

If you had just looked a little further, to Article 308, you would have found the fullness of Catholic teaching:

"The truth that God is at work in all the actions of his creatures is inseparable from faith in God the Creator. God is the first cause who operates in and through secondary causes: “For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.” Far from diminishing the creature’s dignity, this truth enhances it. Drawn from nothingness by God’s power, wisdom, and goodness, it can do nothing if it is cut off from its origin, for “without a Creator the creature vanishes.” Still less can a creature attain its ultimate end without the help of God’s grace.

Everything is under God’s all-encompassing knowledge and under His providence. This does not mean that everything is directly controlled by God in the sense of how we humans control things. Again, I repeat from Communion and Stewardship:

To clarify the meanings:

(1) “Necessity” means that a thing comes to be , or, acts, by virtue of itself alone. Only God is and acts by virtue of Himself alone. Only God.

(2) “Contingency” means precisely that a thing is dependent upon another for its coming to be, or, its acts, i.e., activities.

(3.) “Chance” is not “randomness,” although the two words are often used interchangeably. Randomness is the effect of homogeneity. Mix 600 brown beans together thoroughly with 400 black beans and in any future scoop of 100 beans they will be 60% brown and 40% black. Chance, on the other hand, is said to occur when two (or more) things take place in such a way that the occurrence could not have been predicted. For example, a cow, in the middle of a field of a thousand cows, is struck and killed by lightening, during a lightening storm. Only the most undisciplined of predictors could have made this prediction - and we would have called him a “charlatan.” Any fool can “predict” that some cow may get struck by lightening during a lightening storm. If he had been correct, no one would have given him the first accolade. But, to the point, the event is “chance.”

A better example of chance would have been a cow struck by lightening while under sufficient protection.

As an ex-Biology teacher, it was hard for me to fathom that we, and all of life, are not largely autonomous. Essentially, the Church - including St. Thomas Aquinas - are saying that all life is so completely enmeshed in God’s providential control, that nothing, not even the tiniest Sparrow perishes without His will, consent and direct control.

Primary causes are: matter, form, agency, and finality (i.e., purpose). But, we don’t actually see those causes in operation. What we see are the effects. When we look for causes, we discover all of the secondary causes. It is normal to attribute them as the causative factors, but, remember, they, too, must have causes. And, their causes are the Primary causes.

Now, if you do not want to believe me, I’d suggest that you go talk to a Priest and explain our cases as precisely as possible to him, and consider what he tells you. Actually, you will have no choice but to think about all of this. When you do, you’ll discover that your Faith will be further enhanced precisely because you will begin to notice the serial connection between the First Mover, the Prime Efficient Cause, His absolute Necessity, His Primacy in the order of Beings, and His reasons, i.e., Purposes for creating and directing everything.

continued . . .

 

[JDaniel]

continuation . . .

As Father Saint-Jure tells us:

"Treating of the Will of God St. Thomas, following St. Augustine, teaches that it is the cause of all that exists. 1 The Psalmist tells us that “all that the Lord wills He does in heaven and on earth, in the seas and in all the deeps.” 2 Again in the Book of the Apocalypse it is written: "Worthy art thou, O Lord our God, to receive glory and honor and power; for thou hast created all things, and because of thy will they existed and were created. " 3 Hence it is the Will of God which from nothingness drew out the universe with all its grandeur and all that lives in it, the earth with all that is on it and beneath it, all creatures visible and invisible, living and inanimate, reasonable and without reason, from the highest to the lowest.

"If God then has produced all these things, as St. Paul says, according to the purpose of
His will, 4 is it not supremely right and reasonable as well as absolutely necessary that they should be preserved and governed by Him according to the counsel of His will? And how could a thing remain, unless you willed it; or be preserved, had it not been called forth by you? 5

“But the works of God are perfect it is written in the Canticle of Moses. 6 They are so well
done that God Himself, whose judgment is strict and righteous, found when He had created them that they were good and very good. 7 It is quite obvious that He who hath founded the earth by wisdom and hath established the heavens by understanding 8 could not show less perfection in governing His works than in creating them. So, as He is careful to remind us, if his Providence continues to have care of all things, 9 it is in measure and number and weight, 10 it is with justice and mercy. 11 Neither can any man say to Him, Why dost thou so? 12 For if He assigns to His creatures the end that He wills, and chooses the means which seem good to Him to lead them to it, the end He assigns them must be good and wise, nor can He direct them towards their end other than by good and wise means. Therefore do not become foolish 13 the Apostle tells us, but understand what the will of the Lord is, so that doing it you may receive the promise, 14 that is to say eternal happiness, for it is written the world with its lust is passing away, but he who does the will of God abides forever. 15”

(6.)* Deut. 32:4* (7.) Gen. 1:31 (8.) Prov. 3:19
(9.) Wis. 12:13 (10.) id. 11:20 (11.) id. 12:15; 16:1
(12.) Eccles. 8:4 (13.) Eph. 5:7 (14.) Heb. 10:36
(15.) 1 John 2:17

I hope that you noticed that I have been extremely gentle in this discussion. I have a huge respect for you, and I knew you were coming at this from a scientist’s perspective. At first, as a sheer “biologist,” I was led into atheism. It was only after long and careful consideration of such things that I, like you, re-captured my Faith and belief in God.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Al:

If you had just looked a little further, to Article 308, you would have found the fullness of Catholic teaching:

"The truth that God is at work in all the actions of his creatures is inseparable from faith in God the Creator. God is the first cause who operates in and through secondary causes: “For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.” Far from diminishing the creature’s dignity, this truth enhances it. Drawn from nothingness by God’s power, wisdom, and goodness, it can do nothing if it is cut off from its origin, for “without a Creator the creature vanishes.” Still less can a creature attain its ultimate end without the help of God’s grace.

Yes, but this has to be seen in the light of paragraph 306, and then my interpretation becomes the correct one, as any impartial reader of this discusion will see. Also, “without a Creator the creature vanishes” means exactly what I have upheld all along, that God needs to sustain creation at all times.

To clarify the meanings:

(1) “Necessity” means that a thing comes to be , or, acts, by virtue of itself alone. Only God is and acts by virtue of Himself alone. Only God.

(2) “Contingency” means precisely that a thing is dependent upon another for its coming to be, or, its acts, i.e., activities.

Again, under (2) you confuse the philosophical conclusion with the premise, see above.

As an ex-Biology teacher, it was hard for me to fathom that we, and all of life, are not largely autonomous. Essentially, the Church - including St. Thomas Aquinas - are saying that all life is so completely enmeshed in God’s providential control, that nothing, not even the tiniest Sparrow perishes without His will, consent and direct control.

If you omit the word ‘direct’ *) completely agree with you. Everything falls under God’s all-encompassing knowledge and providence. In that sense, I would object less to the term ‘direct guidance’.

 

[Al_Moritz]

continuation . . .

As Father Saint-Jure tells us:

Father Saint-Jure (by the way, I find little to object in that last quote) is not a Doctor of the Church as Aquinas is, and does not have the authority of a Church document like Communion and Stewardship. It should be clear for any impartial reader of this discussion that under your interpretation paragraph 69 of the latter document becomes unintelliglible, as does the quote by Aquinas.

You are seriously mistaken on the matter, period.

I hope that you noticed that I have been extremely gentle in this discussion. I have a huge respect for you, and I knew you were coming at this from a scientist’s perspective.

I have great respect for you too, and I have been extremely gentle in this discussion as well. I could have been much harsher, given your substantial misunderstandings of the matter.

In the spirit of gentleness I will not reply to your suggestion that I should talk to a priest. I will leave to your imagination what my reply would be.

 

[belorg]

It’s heading in that direction! The point is that you are implying evil can somehow be eliminated…

I don’t knwo where I implied that. Obviously, **some **evil can be eliminated.

An argumentum ad hominem! Your statement is also based on the assumption that God **never **intervenes - which requires substantiation.

No, it is not based on that assumption. That, again, proves my point: you try to dismiss my arguyment without actually understanding what it says. and that way, you keep attacking strawmen.

Another argumentum ad hominem! It would be more to the point to explain how a machine can be a rational being…

After you have explained how an immaterial,a-temporal and ultimately simple being can be rational, I’ll explain how a machine can be rational.

Would you rely on a supercomputer to make **all **your decisions for you?

Depends on the supercomputer. I could certainly use the help of a supercomputer for some problems, but I prefer to rely on myself instead of just accepting what some other supercomputer tells me is right. That’s probably one of the reasons I am not a catholic.

 

[empther]

Thank you for the reply. Do you know of any arguments that show why it is metaphysically impossible for the universe, or for any contingent thing, to exist without being continually sustained?

That’s easy.

The universe considered only in itself is doomed to die in at least two ways.

1. Radioactive elements spontaneously decay with varying half-lifes from nanoseconds for elements above atomic number 100 to five and half billion years for unranium.
   But it’s not just atoms that spontaneously decay. Subatomic particles also decay, although their half-lives are unimaginably longer. Eventually, seemingly infinitely in the future, the last proton will disintegrate and that’s the end of the universe, because when there is only energy you can’t call it a universe.
2. The universe expands because of something called the cosmological constant or “dark energy” which is increasing all the time. In the extremely distant future, galazies will be torn apart, stars and solar systems will be torn apart and even atoms will be torn apart by this “dark energy” and the subatomic particles will be widely dispersed through empty space. This is not what we would call a universe.

Now. Go to the beach. Pick up a grain of sand and look at it. That grain of sand represents the fourteen billion years that the universe has existed up to now.
Now look at the beach. All that beach sand represents the time it will take for the universe to self-destruct in the two ways I just described.

So. Do your think you just happen to live in that “single-grain-of-sand-time” and not in any other grains in the rest of the beach? Isn’t that the most ridiculous thing you ever heard! What are the chances? Zero!

That you live in this time, that you live at all, that there still is time in the first place, that there is now a universe for you now, all indicates that God sustains the universe for us.

 

[JDaniel]

You know what? I agree with all of that. I know Thomistic metaphysics well enough, and I do not think there is a mistake in your summary.

Basically, contingency means in usual Thomistic terms, it could be or it could not be, and necessity means, it could be only this way and not any other way. Right?

Al:

Only in the wider sense. In its stricter (Thomistic) sense, it means that contingent things can only be in being if, and only if, there exists some agency that sustains its being, not merely creates it.

And in the context of the quote by Thomas Aquinas, “contingent” is used that way as well. Things could “either be or not be” (contingent) or they could be “infallibly and by necessity”. Yet in the specific context within the quote, the “either be or not be” is not determined, juxtaposed as it is with “infallibly and by necessity”. Indeed it could be different and allowed by God to be any which way

Actually, no. God creates all thing for an end, or purpose, so to speak. And, in the achievement of that end, He directs all things. That “direction” would seem to indicate determinism, but that is not what we mean. It is not the paths toward a thing’s end that concerns us - of wich there could be millions - it is that the end itself is achieved. The end (Final cause) of men is the achievement of Heaven and God. But, we are told - and, in some wise notice - that not all men achieve that end. That they do not does not discount the fact that we are created by God to achieve that end.

Now, if we wish to shield God from the slings and arrows that will likely be hurled at Him, we can mis-construe the reality of it - and, this will not serve us. The more we allow ourselves to be subdued by His unknowable Providence - including our own deaths - the more we are in alignment with His desires for each of us from the moment of our creation.

– thus, it could be different “by chance”, and not determined by God.

Well, take for example, the consideration of predestination, of which there are several threads hereabouts. Predestination clearly refutes “chance.” It means: there is nothing we can do to merit Heaven; that it may be achieved only by the Will and Grace of God. Now, once we have that, we are expected to behave as requested guest, just as the man who was brought in from the outside to attend the wedding events, who came wearing the improper clothing, was removed from the gathering, bound and returned to the exterior, where there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. IOW, when we are invited, we’d better do what would be expected of us!

The quote is clearly used in this interpretation in paragraph 69 of Communion and Stewardship, in the context of evolution.

Yes, but that is really another but, related, matter.

Here you make two mistakes:

I doubt it!

1. you confuse a definition of the Oxford Dictionary Online with the use of the term by Thomas.

Not so. The Oxford Dictionary defines it precisely as St. Thomas intended it.

1. you confuse the philosophical conclusion by Thomas, that contingent beings are dependent on a necessary being, with the premise, that there are contingent beings, which could be one way or another.

Not so. Nothing can be “one way or another” on its own accord. The only deviation from that is human free choice. Everything else is intended for its end (its nature) and directed there - by God Almighty.

The term ‘contingent’ in Aquinas is not defined as ‘dependent’.

It is, Al.

That contingent beings are dependent on something else is a philosophical conclusion by Aquinas, but the conclusion itself is not built into the term.

The word “contingent” is understood throughout public usage as dependent on something else. In Law, a “contingency” is that which mitigates. It may not have been initially seen (understood clearly) by the Court, but that it was not clearly understood does not mean that it came about by chance. Remember, there were people like Laplace who, in his Philosophical Essay on Probabilities, considered that so-called “chance” events differed from other events only because the order involved is so complicated that we are ignorant of its details.

I think, rather, that chance is the shuffling of secondary causes to such a degree that we cannot seem to sort them out. Perhaps, God shuffles them that way for a reason (or, many reasons). Perhaps we are not meant to see the order of secondary causes so that we don’t tamper with His Providences. (But, this is mere speculation on my part.)

continued…

 

[JDaniel]

continiation…

It is clear that the conflation of contingent with meaning ‘dependent’ makes no sense. Again, as I said, try to replace the word ‘contingent’ in the Aquinas quote and in paragraph 69 of Communion and Stewardship with ‘dependent’. It becomes a disaster. I will do it for the latter:

But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true dependency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly dependent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation.

Actually, I do not see that it “makes no sense!”

Of course everything is dependent on God, so to say that this fact is “not incompatible” with a purposeful divine providence would be silly. And if that were the trivial point, then what would be the point of “Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree”? In created causality things are also dependent on one another. And in the last sentence the word “even” and the phrase “can nonetheless fall within” would be nonsensical.

You should think this through a tad more.

God bless, my friend,
jd

 

[Al_Moritz]

JDaniel,

ok. we will have to leave the matter as is. We have both made our points, and we will have to agree to disagree.

Impartial readers of this discussion will come to their own judgment of whose viewpoint makes more sense and is more in alignment with the Church documents cited.

 

[JDaniel]

Yes, but this has to be seen in the light of paragraph 306, and then my interpretation becomes the correct one, as any impartial reader of this discussion will see. Also, “without a Creator the creature vanishes” means exactly what I have upheld all along, that God needs to sustain creation at all times.

Well, let’s ask some “impartial readers,” shall we? Also, remember, by “Creator” is meant “Creator, Sustainer, Subsistor (a new word!), all of what God is,” not just He who brings something to be!

Again, under (2) you confuse the philosophical conclusion with the premise, see above.

I don’t believe so.

If you omit the word ‘direct’ I completely agree with you. Everything falls under God’s all-encompassing knowledge and providence. In that sense, I would object less to the term ‘direct guidance’.

I know. I have that tendency too. But, from the moment a thing comes to be, it begins that rather short trek downhill, inexorably toward its personal entropy - if you will allow the analogy. In the mean time, it is not matter that sustains matter. If it did, things would end differently, if our general conceptions of matter were correct!. Look, we are held together by the merest of “hooks.” Our matter is so tenuous that at any moment - and, in a matter of seconds - we can become a decaying material lump by what we perceive to be “natural causes.” Or, we can be completely destroyed by fire or explosion. Given these propensities, what makes us think we can persevere by our own power? What makes us think we can achieve our end by our own whims?

God is Infinite. He can only be Infinite if, and only if, He somehow compenetrates all things. We say that He is outside of time; but, we do not say that He is outside of us. This is not Pantheism: we are not particles of God. But the presence of Infinite Being cannot be excluded from any reality.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

JDaniel,

ok. we will have to leave the matter as is. We have both made our points, and we will have to agree to disagree.

Impartial readers of this discussion will come to their own judgment of whose viewpoint makes more sense and is more in alignment with the Church documents cited.

Al:

It’s important not to leave it at that. I certainly invite others to join in. I know that there are more knowledgeable Thomists, in here, than me!

God bless,
jd

 

[Al_Moritz]

Also, remember, by “Creator” is meant “Creator, Sustainer, Subsistor (a new word!), all of what God is,” not just He who brings something to be!

As I said before, I agree with this.

Look, we are held together by the merest of “hooks.” Our matter is so tenuous that at any moment - and, in a matter of seconds - we can become a decaying material lump by what we perceive to be “natural causes.” Or, we can be completely destroyed by fire or explosion. Given these propensities, what makes us think we can persevere by our own power? What makes us think we can achieve our end by our own whims?

God is Infinite. He can only be Infinite if, and only if, He somehow compenetrates all things. We say that He is outside of time; but, we do not say that He is outside of us. This is not Pantheism: we are not particles of God. But the presence of Infinite Being cannot be excluded from any reality.

God bless,
jd

I agree with all this as well.

Our differences of viewpoint lie elsewhere.

 

[Al_Moritz]

The quote is clearly used in this interpretation

I am glad that at least you are willing to admit this.

 

[JDaniel]

As I said before, I agree with this.

I agree with all this as well.

Our differences of viewpoint lie elsewhere.

Al:

Would you send me a pm with your disagreement explained as clearly as possible? Perhaps I’m just not seeing it.

God bless,
jd

 

[rom422]

My friend is a deist. She thinks that some sort of intelligence put the universe into being, and then stepped back.

Are there any good arguments to show that God is causally active on the universe as a whole at every moment of its existence, holding it in being, so to speak? Could anybody explain one such argument to me?

As a deist, your friend already believes in God. She also believes that God created the world and preserves it in being. What she denies is that God has any concern for the world after creating it.

Therefore, there is really no need to look for philosophical arguments to prove the fact of Divine Preservation, or the fact that at every moment of its existence God is holding the world in His hands. If your friend is like most deists, she probably accepts that, too. What you need is to look for threads in this forum that address the question of Divine Providence, the fact that God continues to rule, govern and take care of His creatures.

The strongest reason why deists deny that God cares for the world is the existence of physical and moral evil in the world. Therefore, you might also want to search this forum for threads that address this issue, such as, for example, “The Problem of Evil,” where I have had the occasion to post.

Perhaps you can explain to your friend that physical evil (poverty, sickness, death, etc.) is often a help, rather than an obstacle, to man. God allows it to remind us of our need for Him, and to turn our minds - which are too focused on the transitory things of life - to Heaven, and to the things that truly matter most. Regarding moral evil (or sin), man is to be blamed, not God. For God does not will evil, not even indirectly. God gave us the gift of freedom to choose between good and evil, a freedom that we so often abuse or misuse. When He gave us this precious freedom of choice, by that same stroke He permitted the possibility of sin. Yet, God is so good that He is able to draw straight with crooked lines. I mean, He is still able to draw good out of our mistakes and sinfulness. Without other people committing sin against us, for example, how indeed can we exercise the virtue of forgiveness or patience? Without hatred, greed or injustice in this world, how can there be heroes, martyrs, and saints? So, God’s Will is also accomplished, for in His wisdom He is able to use man-made evils as occasions for the outpouring of grace. God cares, but we must trust Him.

That said, don’t think that you can convince your friend so easily by arguments alone. You need prayer and kindness as well. In the present world where evil reigns, man’s approach to God is often no longer by observing the beauty of God’s creation. Instead, many people find Him in the emptiness of their lives, the frustrations of their hearts, and sometimes also the kindness of those around them. People don’t always find God by the “Five Ways” of St. Thomas. As Jacques Maritain once said, there are as many approaches to God as there are paths leading to the human heart.