Supernatural acts of God

I have been really enjoying Miracles by C.S. Lewis. I thought I would share a few concepts about God from a chapter called "The propriety of Miracles". He answers the question that some of us may ask. Why would God need to do miracles, wouldn't He be able to plan out nature so that it would fulfil all His purposes without the need to apparently break His own laws of nature?

Lewis begins the chapter with:

"If the ultimate Fact is not an abstraction but the living God, opaque by the very fullness of His blinding actuality, then He might do things. He might work miracles. But would He? Many people of sincere piety feel that He would not. They think it unworthy of Him. It is petty and capricious tyrants who break their own laws: good and wise kings obey them. Only an incompetent workman will produce work which needs to be interfered with." 

He came up with a couple of potential answers to these questions that I found worthwhile thinking about.

1. Lewis suggested that God is like a poet or a painter when it comes to His ultimate plan. He follows basic rules known to everyone, rules that are consistent most of the time, ones that we can generally rely on. But what can surprise us is when the Poet or Painter is so skilful that He appears to break the rules of painting and poetry. The inexperienced may see a poem as half completed or a painting as incomplete, not because they are experts on art, but because they are not. It is the true artists who follow greater rules that are known to fewer of us. The true Artist is able to create a more beautiful and creative art work because of His knowledge and scope of what really is great art. Or I think about Jazz, it is music that appears to break rules but in fact follows a greater understanding of creative music. 

Hence if God does a miracle, it is not because He is incompetent but because He is competent. He is our lecturer, we are the students, in fact, are we the art? :)

2. The next concept that Lewis describes about story telling, is that a badly done story is where the plot is destroyed by unexpected or misplaced miracles. An example he gives is where a realistic story may be left at the end with a cliffhanger, only to finish with an unexpected miracle as an easy way out. The miracle that happened, destroyed the story because the miracle was not the theme of the story. How many movies have we watched where story writers do this! You are enjoying movie, wondering what could be happening, only to find it explained away by a seemingly random alien or ghost! 

However, as Lewis points out, a story where supernatural miracles are what the story is about, can then make a fantastic story.

Here I'll let Lewis describe how these ideas relate to God and His art.

"Now there is no doubt that a great deal of the modern objection to miracles is based on the suspicion that they are marvels of the wrong sort; that a story of a certain kind (Nature) is arbitrarily interfered with, to get the characters out of a difficulty, by events that do not really belong to that kind of story. Some people probably think of the Resurrection as a desperate last moment expedient to save the Hero from a situation which had got out of the Author’s control. The reader may set his mind at rest. If I thought miracles were like that, I should not believe in them. If they have occurred, they have occurred because they are the very thing this universal story is about. They are not exceptions (however rarely they occur) not irrelevancies. They are precisely those chapters in this great story on which the plot turns. Death and Resurrection are what the story is about; and had we but eyes to see it, this has been hinted on every page, met us, in some disguise, at every turn, and even been muttered in conversations between such minor characters (if they are minor characters) as the vegetables. If you have hitherto disbelieved in miracles, it is worth pausing a moment to consider whether this is not chiefly because you thought you had discovered what the story was really about?—that atoms, and time and space and economics and politics were the main plot? And is it certain you were right? It is easy to make mistakes in such matters....

To be sure, God might be expected to make a better story... But it is a very long story, with a complicated plot; and we are not, perhaps, very attentive readers."

The cross of Christ is not a last resort, ditch effort to restore a story gone wrong, but the intended outcome hinted to us throughout scripture. God, the Author of life as we know it, plans the future in as much detail as He sees the past, and we are partakers in His ultimate story. What part will we play?  

Quotes retrieved from  http://www.dunedin.elim.org.nz/uploads/1/2/7/8/12786940/miracles-c_s_lewis.pdf

Supernatural vs Process

A quick interlude between posts in my current series ... :)

This article is very thought provoking - it deals with the idea that Christians typically prefer supernatural descriptions of God's activity rather than natural / process descriptions. This is particularly obvious when it comes to creation and the origin of Scripture.

OBVIOUSLY this is a simplistic (and in some places and for many people, wrong) discussion. Supernatural creation is preferred over evolution for many reasons, and not only because it has more God-interventions that are not considered 'natural'. Biblical inspiration is preferred over a naturalistic explanation for many reasons, not only because it requires more supernatural intervention.

But I think the author makes an interesting point - why is it that we rely on non-'natural' interventions to assure us that God was present and involved and sovereign over a process? While I disagree with the author's specific conclusions regarding creation and Biblical inerrancy, his conclusion that this is not necessary or healthy - it's mostly right. The problem, I think, stems from his emphasis. He minimises the evidence and need for 'non-natural' intervention to support God's sovereign involvement, rather than lifting our view of 'natural processes' to BE a form of 'super-natural' sovereign involvement.

For example, in writing Scripture, he states that wise men simply wrote what they liked, hence no need for a high view of inerrancy, but God was still present in the process. I would say that God is ALWAYS present and active in every person's thoughts and writings, and not a single word is spoken or written that God did not specifically ordain. This includes Scripture. So we can still acknowledge 'natural' processes, and even potentially accept 'errors', but have confidence in the absolute intimate and sovereign direction of God.

This means that we really can trust Scripture to be without error in all that God intended it to teach, and in the clarity of its message, and in its preservation. This is ultimately why I disagree with his specific conclusions about Scripture, and creation.

So 'natural' processes are in fact multitudes of 'supernatural', intimately God-sustained and directed, sovereignty beautiful interventions. We should not minimise processes, or rely on obvious 'supernatural' interventions to assure us of God's involvement. He is ever-present and involved!

Richard Dawkins celebrates a victory over creationists

                          
Richard Dawkins hopes faith schools will be prevented from teaching creationism as fact. Photograph: Murdo MacLeod

Leading scientists and naturalists, including Professor Richard Dawkins and Sir David Attenborough, are claiming a victory over the creationist movement after the government ratified measures that will bar anti-evolution groups from teaching creationism in science classes.

The Department for Education has revised its model funding agreement, allowing the education secretary to withdraw cash from schools that fail to meet strict criteria relating to what they teach. Under the new agreement, funding will be withdrawn for any free school that teaches what it claims are "evidence-based views or theories" that run "contrary to established scientific and/or historical evidence and explanations".

The British Humanist Association (BHA), which has led a campaign against creationism – the movement that denies Darwinian evolution and claims that the Earth and all its life was created by God – described the move as "highly significant" and predicted that it would have implications for other faith groups looking to run schools.

Dawkins, who was one of the leading lights in the campaign, welcomed confirmation that creationists would not receive funding to run free schools if they sought to portray their views as science. "I welcome all moves to ensure that creationism is not taught as fact in schools," he said. "Government rules on this are extremely welcome, but they need to be properly enforced."

Free schools, which are state-funded and run by local people or organisations, do not need to follow the national curriculum. Scientific groups have expressed concerns that their spread will see a reduction in the teaching of evolution in the classroom.

Several creationist groups have expressed an interest in opening schools in towns and cities across England, including Bedford, Barnsley, Sheffield and Nottingham. Critics say they seek to promote creationism, or the doctrine of "intelligent design", as a scientific theory rather than as a myth or metaphor.

One creationist organisation, Truth in Science, which encourages teachers to incorporate intelligent design into their science teaching, has sent free resources to all secondary schools and sixth-form colleges.

A BHA campaign, called "Teach evolution, not creationism", saw 30 leading scientists and educators call on the government to introduce statutory guidance against the teaching of creationism. The group said if the government would not support the call, an explicit amendment to the wording of the funding agreement could have the same effect. Last week the Department for Education confirmed it had amended the agreement, although a spokesman denied it was the result of pressure from scientists. He said the revision made good on a pledge regarding the teaching of creationism given when the education secretary, Michael Gove, was in opposition. "We will not accept any academy or free school proposal which plans to teach creationism in the science curriculum or as an alternative to accepted scientific theories," the spokesman said, adding that "all free school proposals will be subject to due diligence checks by the department's specialist team".

The revised funding agreement has been seized upon by anti-creationists who are pressing for wider concessions from the government.

"It is clear that some faith schools are ignoring the regulations and are continuing to teach myth as though it were science," Dawkins said. "Evolution is fact, supported by evidence from a host of scientific disciplines, and we do a great disservice to our young people if we fail to teach it properly. "

A spokeswoman for the BHA said: "The government's new wording is quite wide and in practice could prevent those who promote extreme religious or particular spiritual or pseudoscientific approaches from including them as part of the school curriculum as science or as evidence-based."

Resolving Faint Sun Paradoxes

Hi guys,

This is an article from Hugh Ross at Reasons to Believe. Like many of their articles, it demonstrates two key things:

1. The fallibility of our human interpretation of God's work, including creation.
2. The incredible design inherent in the universe - enhanced (rather than diminished) by a thorough understanding of the creation events

Reasons to Believe is an evangelical Christian apologetics organization. They hold to a progressive creationist perspective of the Genesis account of creation (check out their website for details). Many of you will completely disagree with their perspective! I encourage you to ensure you fully understand it before criticizing it. But in any case, see the good in their arguments against pure naturalism.

Here's the text. Let me know your thoughts! I'll include a description of 'progressive creationism' in the comments.

P.S. If you get bored, just read the first two and the last few paragraphs ;)

RESOLVING FAINT SUN PARADOXES, PART 3

7/25/2011

by Dr. Hugh Ross

In part 1 of this series, I defined the faint young Sun paradox and described how, in the 1970s and 1980s, astronomers and physicists concluded that volcanic gas emissions pumped enough extra carbon dioxide into the early Earth’s atmosphere to sufficiently enhance the atmosphere’s greenhouse effect so as to compensate for the lower solar luminosity. In part 2, I explained how research teams discovered complications that made the faint Sun paradox seem unresolvable.

Here, in part 3, I will describe how recent observations of young solar analog stars enabled astronomers to pull together everything they know about the history of the Sun, Earth, Moon, and terrestrial life to provide a real, comprehensive resolution to the paradox. This research has also yielded some of the most spectacular evidences for the supernatural, super-intelligent design of the solar system.

Not So Dim After All

Throughout the 1990s and early part of the twenty-first century, it became increasingly evident to scientists there was no way to adjust physical and chemical conditions on early Earth to compensate fully for a Sun 25–30 percent less luminous at the time of life’s origin 3.8 billion years ago. Moreover, planetary scientists were experiencing the same frustrations in their attempts to explain growing evidence that the Martian surface was, for a brief time, warm enough to permit the existence of liquid water.¹

These frustrations led certain teams of astronomers to question the Sagan-Mullen model for the history of the Sun (see part 1). In 2003, Caltech astronomers Juliana Sackmann and Arnold Boothroyd pointed out that helioseismology measurements establish that, during its youth, the Sun must have lost at least 4–7 percent of its mass.² Since the luminosity of a star rises with the fourth power of its mass, Sackmann and Boothroyd determined that the Sun’s brightness 3.8 billion years ago was 15 percent, not 30 percent, dimmer than it is today (see figure 1).

Including early mass loss in the Sun’s history goes a long way toward resolving the faint Sun paradox. With the Sun no more than 15 percent dimmer, Earth would not require nearly so great a quantity of greenhouse gases to keep the planet surface warm enough to sustain life, Thus, as Sackmann and Boothroyd note, the quantities of greenhouse gases needed are within reasonable possibility.

In support of their not-so-faint Sun model, Sackmann and Boothroyd made reference to several observational studies establishing that very young stars equivalent to the Sun’s mass are indeed losing mass at rates consistent with their model. They called for more extensive and definitive observational programs to determine the mass loss history of solar-type stars.

In the April 20, 2011 edition of Astrophysical Journal Letters three astronomers reported on the latest observations of young solar analogs.³ These stars consistently exhibit strong activity phenomena. These phenomena produce a huge variability in X-ray and ultraviolet emission, accompanied by inevitable mass loss. The three astronomers estimated that the loss of mass in the young solar analogs reaches up to 30 percent. Thus, they conclude that the Sun during its youth lost at least 20 percent of its mass. This much mass loss implies that, shortly after it formed fully, the Sun was about 85 percent brighter than it is today (see figure 2).

The research team then took note of the few remaining discrepancies between the standard solar model (SSM) and their observations. Specifically, sound speed determinations from helioseismology do not agree with predictions from the SSM. Likewise, there is disagreement between the observed and the predicted lithium abundance of the Sun. The three astronomers, along with other research teams,⁴demonstrated that pushing the mass loss of the early Sun up from 4–7 percent to about 20 percent does much to eliminate not only these two discrepancies but a few more minor ones as well.

A Sun that loses 20–25 percent of its mass during its youth seems to solve all the outstanding issues concerning the faint Sun paradox. Evidently, the faint young Sun label needs to be replaced with a more accurate term like the “dimming young Sun.” This new model has another advantage. It explains why Mars would have been warm enough to experience a brief wet episode at some point during its first few hundred million years.⁵

To be clear, I am not saying the new model by itself solves all the faint Sun paradox problems. Rather, each suggested solution proposed over the past 40 years probably plays a contributing role. That is, it takes a combination of the Sun losing at least 20 percent of its mass during its first billion years, extra greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, an altered albedo for Earth, a carefully controlled and timed introduction of specific life-forms, and perhaps extra atmospheric nitrogen to explain why life could be sustained so ubiquitously and so diversely throughout the past 3.8 billion years.

The next step in building a better dimming young Sun model is to make measurements on a much larger sample of young solar analog stars. Astronomers need to make these measurements all across the electromagnetic spectrum, from gamma-ray wavelengths to long radio wavelengths. Furthermore, they need to make measurements over a few years so as to determine the short-term variability of these stars. Such observations will enable astronomers to determine precisely how much the Sun actually dimmed during its youth, over what time scale it dimmed, and whether or not the degree of dimming varies over the wavelength of solar emission.

One such observational program is already underway. A team of radio astronomers is using the Expanded Very Large Array, or EVLA, (see figure 3) to measure the interaction of stellar winds emanating from young, nearby solar analogs with the interstellar medium. With such measurements, astronomers will be able to calculate the rates of mass loss from these stars.⁶

The new model does place a new constraint on origin-of-life models. A much-brighter young Sun is a Sun with more dramatic flaring activity, greater variability, and greater X-ray and ultraviolet radiation emission. These features, combined with a rapidly falling solar luminosity, effectively rule out any possibility for life existing on Earth previous to the late heavy bombardment (see here and here). The date for the late heavy bombardment’s end, 3.8 billion years ago, is the same for the first evidence of Earth life; that means the origin of life took place within a geological instant of time. No time for life’s origin implies there’s no possibility for a naturalistic explanation.

As King David declared 3,000 years ago, “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.”⁷ The new dimming young Sun model proves David’s declaration in a broader context. Sustaining abundant, diverse life throughout the past 3.8 billion years requires multifaceted fine-tuning. As the Sun’s luminosity dims or brightens, certain features on Earth must be fine-tuned correspondingly.

1. The amount of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere
2. The amount of methane in Earth’s atmosphere
3. The amount of nitrogen in Earth’s atmosphere
4. Earth’s albedo
5. The quantity and diversity of Earth’s life to contribute or remove just-right amounts of greenhouse gases, erosion, and albedo

No set of natural processes can possibly keep all these factors perfectly and continuously balanced for billions of years. It takes a Mind of great intellect and knowledge who knows the solar system’s present and future conditions and who has the power and the love to provide Earth’s life with everything it needs to thrive.