I think there is the idea that the reason the world is orderly and can be understood is because of God, and we are able to use reason to understand it because we are in the image of God. Traditionally there was “natural philosophy”, which is what we could understand without direct revelation from God, and that eventually became science.
Sometimes God becomes the natural order of the universe (and also impersonal), which I think is kind of where Spinoza and Einstein ended up.
I think the problem for the Biblical literalists is that God is not supposed to be too capricious. The inerrant Bible is supposed to be an authority about both morality and science. In fact, its scientific correctness is evidence for its moral authority. Revelation conquers science not by saying we cannot do science, but by becoming the ultimate scientific evidence. To say there is no current evidence for Noah’s flood because God said so means the there is no science, basically. I suspect this is too heavy a load in today’s society, where science does so much for us.
I think this is the gist of it. If miracles are granted, deductive reasoning falls apart, because there’s always the possibility that God is doing little tweaks behind the scene.
Think a murder trial, the accused is caught on camera, or even seen by the masse, or validated by DNA evidence, that s/he killed someone.
Yet, s/he claims innocence.
If miracles are granted, there’s always the slight possibility that God fudged all the evidence to make it seem like s/he is guilty (or innocent, conversely).
Then it boils down to the argument of whether or not God would do such a thing, which really becomes what humans want to believe what God would or wouldn’t do.
God created science. He created gravity and erosion and volcanic eruptions and solar flares and made the speed of light faster than the speed of sound… all of it. He is not bounded by science, but He did create it to carry out His purpose.
I think it depends on the kind of miracle. It may be that the miracle does not break existing natural laws. One example might be the emergence of life. While life certainly doesn’t break the laws of physics and chemistry, it also isn’t apparent, to me at least, that it is implied by them. Life might be a kind of miracle, or at least a kind of creation, that adds to the natural order of the universe rather than breaking it.
Even if God does break natural law, it might be in service of some greater supernatural law. For example, clearly an historical (i.e. actual) resurrection would have to break natural law. But it is supposed to show that God’s moral law will eventually triumph. It shows a greater order that in some cases overrules the natural one.
A God who creates the flood and then hides it, or makes evidence of a crime unreliable, seems to be a liar. He seems to break both natural law, and supernatural law as well.
Unless he also alters the logic such that it doesn’t. That’s the whole issue with God and logic, can God alter logic such that murder is moral? Or that if A>B, B>C, but A<C? If he dictates all the logical bounds, that should be possible, otherwise he is bound by logic, which is outside of him.
I think such a God would leave a person a little too helpless.
With the modern evangelical movement, I often think of the Left Behind series. Declaring you were Christian made you literally immune to the sweet talking of the anti-Christ.
Biblical literalism is empowering because the believer can literally hold the Word of God in their hand, know how to read it, and know what it means. The answer may not be easy, but it is known. It’s as practical as “fire insurance”.
This could not come from a God who lies to believers.
because there’s no way to tell when an intervention happens. thus there’s always going to be doubt when a conclusion is deduced (or induced). that’s a serious issue when you’re dealing with science or morality.
Jesus says “I am with you always even until the end of the age”. Most Christians, even the non-literalists, believe that literally. Jesus is around us all the time.
Yet, our senses don’t perceive him. Is God lying to us? I’m sure they would say no.
Same issue with “this is my body”. It sure tastes like tasteless wafers. Many Christians still believe it is the body, our senses don’t confirm that truth. God is not lying, our senses aren’t built to perceive all truth.
Thomas wasn’t going to believe that Jesus had risen unless “[I] put my finger into the print of the nails”. Jesus appeared and convinced him, but then said the most important line in the story “Thomas, because thou hast seen Me, thou hast believed. Blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed.” Faith saves, the evidence of our senses is irrelevant.
We don’t know why God operates this way. It’s something that is a mystery to humans, but obvious to God.
Given all that, it would be inconsistent for God to give us physical evidence of the flood or the 6,000 year old earth.
If God isn’t going to let us see Jesus walking with us, then God isn’t going to have stars pop into sight periodically, with scientists saying “Odd, these newly visible stars just happen to be 6,000 light years away”.
For unknowable reasons, He wants us to rely on faith, not observation.
He didn’t just “not give us physical evidence” of those things - he gave us ample evidence that such a flood didn’t happen and that the earth is WAY older than 6000 years…
Yep, that’s right. What is the alternative? Imagine a physical world with no evidence of 6,000 years, and no evidence of not 6,000 years. What would it be like?
Either our senses tell us that Jesus is here, or they don’t.
Either the physical evidence points to a 6,000 year old earth, or it doesn’t.
He wants humans to understand their world, he gives us stuff that helps us figure out how the clock works. He doesn’t prove that he made it.
God can easily bypass that, if he is the definer of logic and reason.
Same when people say evil/pain/suffering exists because of “free will”. That’s complete BS. God can easily create free will without pain and suffering. To say he can’t is to say he is bound by a logic outside of his control, which means he didn’t create logic.
One, the experience of Jesus is one that points us towards how we should exercise our freedom. It directs us in a creative act. It must express the paradox of God saving us through love, but also allowing us to keep our free will. This is different from knowing how the world came to be, which is an understanding of natural law rather than an exercise in freedom.
Two, if the world appears to be, say, 5 billion years old, then it is, at least according to our best understanding of time. If the stars appear to be billion of years old, then they are. Time is something that is measured by clocks. It is not a metaphysical property of things. This was one of Einstein’s chief insights.
But I think more to the point: in what sense can I trust a literal flood story if the natural world is such that there was no flood? In what sense did it happen? Perhaps it is has other important, figurative lessons. It starts to look a lot like a myth. A “literal” reading stops making sense.