We need a catchy counter-phrase for “god of the gaps”

[cfauster]

Look at the apparatus for photosynthesis in the link below including the amazing ATP Synthase set of molecules. Read how many atoms are involved. Even if more is discovered about them, I don’t think it is arrogant to think that these mechanisms could have been made directly in a supernatural way by God’s hand. I praise Him for His creation.

Indeed it’s not arrogant to think God could bypass creaturely/secondary causality and directly create photosynthesis and other cellular processes and structures, rather than use a chain involving both divine/primary and creaturely/secondary causality. But, it’s worth hearing the arguments in favor of “double agency.”

For Aquinas … creatures are what they are … precisely because God is present to them as cause. Were God to withdraw, all that exists would cease to be. Creaturely freedom and the integrity of nature, in general, are guaranteed by God’s creative causality … For Aquinas, God is at work in every operation of nature, but the autonomy of nature is not an indication of some reduction in God’s power or activity; rather, it is an indication of His goodness. It is important to recognize that divine causality and creaturely causality function at fundamentally different levels. In the Summa contra Gentiles, Aquinas remarks that “the same effect is not attributed to a natural cause and to divine power in such a way that it is partly done by God, and partly by the natural agent; rather, it is wholly done by both, according to a different way, just as the same effect is wholly attributed to the instrument and also wholly to the principal agent.”

The above comes from an essay at the Catholic Education Resource Center website.

Similarly, the following comes from an essay at CatholicIreland.net

But how does God act in a world so well described by science? The classical Christian view developed by Thomas Aquinas, based on the idea of ‘double agency’, distinguished between primary and secondary causality. God is the primary cause of all that exists and he works through the secondary causes of the natural world, which science studies. God’s sovereignty over nature is exercised always through the use of secondary causes, through natural laws and human agency, to achieve his purposes, without infringing on the freedom of his creatures. This means that God’s activity is always mediated through secondary causes. He does not interfere with the laws of nature; rather, God acts to devise and implement the laws that generate new patterns of complex beauty and order. The two kinds of causality are required for a complete description of the real, but they are on a completely different level; scientific and theological explanations are independent of one another. We cannot say how God acts because divine causation is very different. There is no ‘causal joint’ between God’s action and events in the natural world and there are no gaps in their scientific account. God acts ‘behind’ the systems of cause and effect at a level not amenable to physical description.

 

[womanatwell]

Indeed it’s not arrogant to think God could bypass creaturely/secondary causality and directly create photosynthesis and other cellular processes and structures, rather than use a chain involving both divine/primary and creaturely/secondary causality. But, it’s worth hearing the arguments in favor of “double agency.”

For Aquinas … creatures are what they are … precisely because God is present to them as cause. Were God to withdraw, all that exists would cease to be. Creaturely freedom and the integrity of nature, in general, are guaranteed by God’s creative causality … For Aquinas, God is at work in every operation of nature, but the autonomy of nature is not an indication of some reduction in God’s power or activity; rather, it is an indication of His goodness. It is important to recognize that divine causality and creaturely causality function at fundamentally different levels. In the Summa contra Gentiles, Aquinas remarks that “the same effect is not attributed to a natural cause and to divine power in such a way that it is partly done by God, and partly by the natural agent; rather, it is wholly done by both, according to a different way, just as the same effect is wholly attributed to the instrument and also wholly to the principal agent.”

The above comes from an essay at the Catholic Education Resource Center website.

Similarly, the following comes from an essay at CatholicIreland.net

But how does God act in a world so well described by science? The classical Christian view developed by Thomas Aquinas, based on the idea of ‘double agency’, distinguished between primary and secondary causality. God is the primary cause of all that exists and he works through the secondary causes of the natural world, which science studies. God’s sovereignty over nature is exercised always through the use of secondary causes, through natural laws and human agency, to achieve his purposes, without infringing on the freedom of his creatures. This means that God’s activity is always mediated through secondary causes. He does not interfere with the laws of nature; rather, God acts to devise and implement the laws that generate new patterns of complex beauty and order. The two kinds of causality are required for a complete description of the real, but they are on a completely different level; scientific and theological explanations are independent of one another. We cannot say how God acts because divine causation is very different. There is no ‘causal joint’ between God’s action and events in the natural world and there are no gaps in their scientific account. God acts ‘behind’ the systems of cause and effect at a level not amenable to physical description.

I know the name of St. Thomas Aquinas is used to prop up the idea of totally materialistic (secondary) natural causes for processes such as evolution, but please consider this section from Summa Theologica:

Summa Theologica, Part I, Question 92, Article 4:

I answer that, As was said above (2, ad 2), the natural generation of every species is from some determinate matter. Now the matter whence man is naturally begotten is the human semen of man or woman. Wherefore from any other matter an individual of the human species cannot naturally be generated. Now God alone, the Author of nature, can produce an effect into existence outside the ordinary course of nature. Therefore God alone could produce either a man from the slime of the earth, or a woman from the rib of man.

The next line says:

This argument is verified when an individual is begotten, by natural generation, from that which is like it in the same species.

newadvent.org/summa/1092.htm#article4 .

I think the passage is fairly straightforward, however you sure don’t hear it much. Could it be we lack the audacity to go against the pressure of the materialistic science machine of our day? I think that IF a person is a Christian, THEN to him or her the definition of science is the study of created natural objects.

We do not think of so much as a single brick forming by chance over billions of years much less a house. We do not think of an engine of a car much less an entire car forming by chance over billions of years. Yet we ascribe exquisite biological life to chance or, if we so say, secondary causes. Even a single biological cell is so much more sophisticated than a house or car.

If you are interested, I wrote a post called “Courage for the GAPS” in my blog:

womanatwell.blogspot.com/2013/12/courage-for-gaps.html .

In the post I say “It’s just as logical to think the totally materialistic evolution story won’t ever sufficiently explain biological complexity as to think it will.” I also say, “Some are afraid that if we say ‘God directly made the cell’ someone will come along and prove that a natural force suffices. There may be those who are afraid they will be mocked as ignorant, but I think many are concerned about letting God down if we are wrong. I don’t think He will be displeased if we indeed believe He intervened supernaturally within His Creation to create life. He knows we hold to faith as well as reason, and this conclusion (direct supernatural creation of life) works for both.”

 

[cfauster]

Good point, I think, that you (quoting Aquinas) are making. We take for granted the everyday origin/conception of living beings via natural fertilization, and their embryonic and fetal development via gestation. But even if one goes outside the Church’s instructions and employs in vitro fertilization, what St. Thomas Aquinas said so long ago is still biologically true: “Now the matter whence man is naturally begotten is the human semen of man or woman. Wherefore from any other matter an individual of the human species cannot naturally be generated.” From the context, it seems that he includes “naturally” in both sentences to distinguish normal dual-agency causation from the miraculous direct divine creation that only God can do. And then the last line you quoted: “This argument is verified when an individual is begotten, by natural generation, from that which is like it in the same species.” Perhaps what he is saying is that we should not take the generation of each individual life for granted, but rather see God at work also in those normal, everyday dual-agency creations. Certainly the Bible is full of verses thanking and praising God for life - and for providing all that is needed for life (this morning I saw a claim that the Bible speaks just as frequently of God giving rain as the Bible speaks of God giving life).