Two Problems for Identifying God’s Causation
Identifying the Spirit’s causal activity is difficult for many reasons. I want to note two and then show that these problems may actually be opportunities for Christians.
The Mystery Temptation
Before looking at the two problems, I want to address whether we should talk about God as a cause at all. Many theologians want to sidestep causal issues by saying God does not act as an efficient cause.
An efficient cause exerts impact of one entity upon another. Science deals mainly in efficient causes, because it assumes the one thing influences others. We often call this “cause and effect.”
Many theologians are reluctant to think God is one efficient cause among others. They worry that thinking about God in such terms diminishes God to the status they reserve for creaturely causation.
In fact, some say God acts only as a formal or final cause, to use Aristotle’s language. Because science doesn’t deal with final causes (at least explicitly), they believe they can avert tensions between science and religion by saying the two are talking about different kinds of causes.
Some theologians even surmise God influences our present circumstances from a future in which God resides. Wolfhart Pannenberg is one who argues this way. I don’t find such reverse causation plausible, however.
Because of the difficulty of thinking about God as exerting efficient cause, still other theologians appeal to mystery when talking about how the Spirit acts in the world. To this I say, beware of worshipping the God of utter mystery, because you never know who the devil he may be.
In contrast to these theologians, I believe we can talk reasonably about God’s efficient causal influence in the world. Doing so moves the discussion squarely into the realm of science, instead of separating the two like misbehaving children in the backseat.
Talking about God as exerting efficient causation is helpful not only for discussions about the relation between science and theology. It also helps us make better sense of the biblical witness to God’s activity. And affirming God’s efficient causation seems advisable when accounting for the testimonies of those who claim to have experienced God’s activity in either ordinary or extraordinary ways (miracles).
First Problem: We Can’t Perceive Causation
In the first blog of this series, I referred to a biblical passage in which Jesus says God is like the Spirit/wind. Jesus uses the wind analogy to describe how we might have evidence of causation but not know adequately the efficient causes at play. We hear the wind, Jesus says, even though we don’t know precisely its origin or future.
It is true that in experiencing the wind, we may feel its impact on our bodies. And we may see objects swirling around us. This evidence is perceptible with our five senses, and we can plausibly infer the wind is a causal force at play. But we cannot see the causal sequences themselves.
Philosophers of science note that we cannot perceive any causation with our five senses. David Hume famously said we perceive “before” evidence and “after” evidence. But we never directly observe causation itself.
We may feel compelled to infer a causal link between the two events, but we cannot perceive causation directly with sensory perception. Interestingly, Hume’s claim about causation fits what Jesus says about the wind having causal force and yet our senses being incapable of perceiving this causation directly.
Second Problem: We Cannot Perceive God through Senses
The use of wind also fits what Christians have said about God as Spirit. Christians have said we cannot perceive God with our five senses. God is invisible, for instance.
In light of God’s composition, Christians throughout the centuries have sometimes called God “the soul of the universe,” “the holy Ghost,” “a spiritual being,” “the Great Spirit,” etc. “God is spirit,” says Jesus, “and we worship in spirit and truth.”
Although they may say they “taste God,” or “hear God, or “see God,” it is widely acknowledged that these statements are not to be taken literally.
Some Christians have proposed ways to talk about perceiving God’s direct causal activity though other forms of perception beyond our five. For instance, theologian John Wesley argued that at least humans (and perhaps all creatures) have a sixth set of senses: spiritual senses. God as Spirit can directly communicate to creatures that have spiritual sensory apparatus.
Other Christians argue for nonsensory perception of God. This argument says all aspects of the human body and, in fact, all creation can perceive God nonsensorily.
Conclusion
In future blogs, I will be arguing that God acts as an efficient cause (although I also believe God acts through other modes of causation). In these blogs, I will not yield to the temptation to appeal to mystery when it comes to how God acts as a cause in the world.
What I listed as problems for thinking about God as an efficient cause are actually advantages. Here’s why:
While science affirms efficient causation, we cannot actually observe such causation itself. Instead, we must infer such causation occurs based upon what we perceive as the “before” event and the “after” event.
To say God acts as an efficient cause, then, doesn’t require me to point to any particular instance in creation at which we can see God acting as an efficient cause. Remember, we cannot directly percieve 
causation with our five senses. Instead, we must use the same methods of inference for talking about divine efficient causation as we might for nondivine efficient causation.
In addition, Christians believe God is a Spirit imperceptible to our five senses. This means we should not think we can see God out roaming around as a cause. We don’t have to point to an event and say, “Did you see God cause that?” and by this question mean “the causation you observed was God’s.” God is an invisible Spirit, after all.
So… in thinking about the Spirit as an efficient causal force in the world, we’ll not have to strive to prove God can be percieved with our five senses or that God’s causation can be directly observed. And this lowers the bar to a much more manageable level.
And what seem problems are actually advantages!
Newsletter
For a 200-page book of Thomas Jay Oord's best-selling writings and to receive his newsletter, add your email address...
Comments
Thanks. These thoughts are very helpful. Like several others who received the book in the mail, I’ve started reading Clayton & Knapp’s The Predicament of Belief (see: http://www.craigladams.com/blog/files/12fd3abdfe489d380e88c00a6be302c9-80.html ), so issues like this are very much on my mind right now.
“I will not yield to the temptation to appeal to mystery when it comes to how God acts as a cause in the world.” Yes, good. I think there is a real courage in saying something even though it may be wrong than appealing to mystery, out of fear I imagine, and never really saying anything at all.
So … if I reach out and push the power switch on my computer monitor, and it turns off … the cause is my pushing the button that breaks an electrical circuit. Cause and effect, right up front before my very eyes.
But not really.
The real cause is some synapses firing in my head, leading to the movements that cause the depression of the switch.
But not really.
The real cause is … what made the synapses fire? How did that happen? What triggered the synaptic response? That particular synaptic response? I had to think to cause. What is ‘thinking’? Is that like God?
Do we simply think God into being? Is the existence of God an effect, caused by our thinking?
Or is our thinking of God’s existence a manifestation of God’s efficient causal influence?
Or am I simple in babble mode?
Enquiring minds wish to know.
Hey Doc … nothing very cerebral down these parts this morning … but when you tossed out that “… presume God exists …” thingie, I could almost smell the tar as it bubbled on the fire over by the burning stake, and I’m sure I heard the terrorized squawking of chickens as feathers were forcibly obtained for the usual theological cleansing ritual. Gettin’ much hate mail over this? Meanwhile, keep up the Good Works.
It seems to me that if we are to look at the Christian view of causality, we should start with evaluating what the bible has to say and see if our views line up with its view. Just thinking
Great theme Tom! Looking forward to the thoughts to come. Your current piece (after a cursory read) and some recent other reading, including a couple of blogs challenging some recent statements by determistic thinkers, made be tap out (new iPad phrase to replace the lovely old verb ‘to pen’) the following. After getting that off my chest, I re-read your current piece carefully. I’m left wondering if the kind of God that gives me comfort does, in fact, have too much mystery. I agree with you that we should do our best to stand boldly out from mystery’s comforting skirts.
All please feel free to critize the following. I can take it.
Bev
Against Deterministic Thinking
Determinism is a seductive idea for believers and would-be non-believers alike. Human beings, understandably, want to feel that everything is under control or, at least, theoretically predictable. We, obviously, can’t exercise nearly enough control on our own to satisfy this need. Those with several copies of the “must control” gene have gone to, and continue to go to, grotesque lengths to satisfy this need, and even they always fail.
Many believers see salvation (or perhaps control) in a divine determinism. They rest assured that God has everything under control down to the last wiggle of the last molecule, and, that God even has perfect knowledge of, even ultimate control over, the last molecule that will ever wiggle just before time ends. This, apparently, is comforting.
The would-be non-believer sees it differently. Anything that happens must be a direct result of preceding events. Theoretically, if we could get exact and complete data on all of those past events, we could predict that future event because it is utterly dependent on those past events. By extention, all past events, perfectly understood, would lead to flawless predictive power. Flawless predictive power, in our hands, would let us do away with the bothersome idea of God. This too, apparently, is comforting.
An alternative idea, that, strangely, appears to make many uneasy, holds that God is so great, so loving, so resourceful, that he can allow complete freedom of action/decision within his creation. No actions/decisions, or combinations thereof, by any part of his creation can thwart his ultimate goals. The paths to the goals will be flexible; God’s goals, however, will be met. God’s will will prevail; his way is sure. This God is large beyond any hope of our understanding, exercising a kind of sovereignty we cannot fathom. We have no idea how he will accomplish his ends. We must rely completely on him, as he reveals himself to us in various ways. This God is still creating and perfecting all things, through love. This, I do find comforting!
@Bev: “Anything that happens must be a direct result of preceding events. Theoretically, if we could get exact and complete data on all of those past events, we could predict that future event because it is utterly dependent on those past events.”
Nice sounding theory, but in the real world – policing and military come to mind – that kind of thinking will getcha killed so fast you won’t even have time to say “Uh oh …”.
But your last paragraph sums up pretty well the way I see it, though I might add that I do not believe that God is omniscient. Nor is it likely that he is omnipotent, though he can fix what he screws up or doesn’t get right the first or even second or subsequent times. Evidence of God’s lacking in this skill set may be found in several Scriptural references, and are manifested in the geologic, evolutionary, and other ‘records’. Of course, all of that can be easily rationalized away by those True Believers (as opposed to we heathens and Papists) who have a personal informational pipeline to God.
If what you say is true concerning efficient causation, than our senses alone cannot identify God in the causation of the world. If our spirit is not a sense, than, as you say God is not a mystery, than His sprit is not a mystery and our spirit is compatible with his. Sin disturbs the relational connection with God and I would agree with your statement. However, if sin is not a factor, and the Holy Spirit is dominant in a person’s life than God is more recognizable in this world. Would you agree that those not of the sinful nature but born again with the Spirit, those sanctified by grace, can testify to God as an efficient cause because of their spiritual connection? I am considering Adam and Eve’s ability to walk and talk to God and engage God with their senses prior to the fall. If sanctification repairs our image, than why could we not have a relationship like that of Adam and Eve? I am not arguing that it does happen; only that it is possible because of grace.
So, what I perceive you saying is that, we cannot with our senses perceive God but we do perceive the results of God as a cause? If that is true, I cannot help but to recognize God as an efficient cause especially if efficient cause is as you say, the exertion of impact of one entity over another. Assuming, or believing God exists, helps to perceive the impact of God as a cause on creation. However, what about Genesis where it says, “and God’s Spirit was hovering over the surface of the waters” and then, we read of results? There was light, then there was sky, then there was order (the water gathered in one place), then there was life and so on. Even though there is no pinpointing the how or the time frames, doesn’t the fact that creation happens and for Christians who believe God created/creates actually “points to particular instance in creation?” Also, if one were to think in regards to God as timeless and if one were to think of God as efficient cause that puts creation constantly happening, doesn’t the timelessness also point to a particular instance even if that instance is eternity? And if one were to think of time as an instance, then is God efficient cause or is God actually active and we do perceive the cause because over time we see the result?
Maybe I am not following you at all, and I may have cause and effect as far as God as “efficient cause” and the results mixed up. Maybe.
This essay got me thinking about God’s activities within time and space. Identifying God’s causal effect in the world may be difficult but not entirely impossible. The presuppositions are: “We can’t perceive causation.” And “We cannot perceive God through the senses.” I don’t believe that we should consider God’s ways as “utterly” mysterious although I am not opposed to there being some mystery in the season between the “before and after” evidence. It is these “before and after” concepts that make me wonder about beginnings and ends. Does an eternal God without beginning or end need to engage within our limitations of time and space?
Dr. Oord when you say: Cause, “doesn’t require me to point to any particular instance in creation” are you saying then that God’s causality is continuous or not limited to time? If so then is there a resultant effect? Or are the cause and effect simultaneously executed? If I have to speak of God as an efficient cause I somehow find it necessary to frame such a cause within time and space.
God exists. My spirit resonates to the Spirit of God that dwells within me. The creation of God speaks. We see his causal influence in the vegetation and created life on Earth. Since we see it, we have sensory knowledge. I too take a “theology of nature approach (Spirit Active 2).” God does efficiently cause miracles even though His Spirit is like the wind (Problems 2). He works in the Spirit on Earth currently, but in the future we will see a physical being. “John Wesley believes that the sixth sense that we have is a spiritual sense (Problems 2).” We know God has efficiently influenced our lives by this spiritual sense. We can actually understand prevenient grace and favor as we reflect in our lives and see God’s hand efficiently causing influence of goodness. How else could we experience underlying joy in the face of tragedy?
9/7/13 God’s Causation
For some reason the focus of this blog reminded me of an issue which arose in a seminary course I took several years ago. The issue was whether or not God experiences emotions. We cannot taste, hear, see, feel, or smell emotions, but they exist and are a powerful force in our lives, homes, communities, nation, and world. The Spirit also cannot be known by our senses. We participate in activities, though, which stimulate our senses in an effort to guide us into interaction with the Spirit. In these endeavors, we use that sixth spiritual sense acknowledged by Rev. John Wesley. I do believe that God creates (causes) things to happen which is why I spend time praying for myself, others, and circumstances. Is one of the issues in considering God as a cause the term “entity”? The definition as described is “An efficient cause exerts impact of one entity upon another.”
Take care –
Entropy (the second law of thermodynamics) is a concept given to us from the field of physics. Simply stated, it says that a closed system will decay to a state of disorder and equilibrium unless energy is continually applied. This is the reason, for example, that a pan cools down when removed from a burner.
Interestingly, the concept of entropy seems to play out in social, political and other human affairs as well. Without the “energy” of social norms, laws and social structure communities devolve rapidly into disorder and chaos. This can be observed even in the 21st century in places like Iraq, Egypt etc. when the central government is destabilized.
Can we not observe this in God’s creation as well? Even though we cannot “sense” God’s spirit and intervention in the world, isn’t the lack of complete chaos in the universe, our world and our lives evidence of an intervening force, God, on a system that science tells us would not remain ordered on its own?
I found this to be an interesting post. I also found your mention of Pannenberg of interest to me. I had a professor in seminary who was very much into Pannenburg. I was not that much into him but I always found his metaphor for God as “the power of the future” intriguing and useful to me. However, I bet I would put quite a bit different content to that metaphor (and a much more simplistic content) than Pannenberg did. However, I recently read a book by a physicist and philosopher that seemed to give some credence to Pannenberg’s insight. Not directly, because he never mentioned Pannenberg’s name. I found the book quite fascinating along with the author’s idea of “advance action”. Maybe you would want to add “Time’s Arrow and Archimedes’ Point: New Directions for the Physics of Time” by Huw Price
A J Heschel uses the word, ineffable, to characterize God. Is this different from ‘mystery’?
I think you are right to not yield to the temptation to appeal to mystery. This is often used as an easy answer or an excuse, it does not lend to deep thinking. And yet, we don’t have all of the answers about how God works. So what shall we say?
Your analogy to the wind is quite helpful. The wind is present and has some sort of origin – but the way wind operates is not readily known or visible. Yet we still have a name for it: wind. So beyond simply calling God a cause, what else can we conclude about how he works?
After reading this blog I am left wondering if our perceptions of causation can be limited to certain topics, genres, or other physical understandings. Is it just the Spiritual life we cannot see causation or is it just when we talk about God? Or can this be spread further into science and any causation we cannot perceive?
I do agree with the wind analogy that we can feel, sense, or see the affects but not see with our visual sense where the wind is coming from. Now, we can see the wind blowing from left to right so we can maybe get a false sense of understanding.
You pointed out that although we cannot physically “see” God with our eyes, we can infer that he is actively at work (the cause of) by evaluating the events that occur before as well as after God’s activity in the world as well as in our lives. It was interesting that you touched on John Wesley’s theory of spiritual senses. Wesley shared that he felt his heart “strangely warmed” while listening to the reading in Aldersgate. I know that I have felt a “tingling” in my physical body when I sense God’s Spirit around me, and absolute peace in the moments following. I did not see him with my eyes, but as you stated, knew he was present before and after the event. Thank you for the great insights in this article.
Although I agree that we cannot perceive causation in action and we cannot perceive God through our sense, I do think we can experience some aspects of God through these vices. Like the blog says, this is a before and after experience but an experience that can be tangible. We can know that our creator is present when we feel the wind, hear the raindrops, feel the warmth of the sun and so on. When the lilies wilt and the rain refreshes them to life, we can see God taking care of His creation. This reminds us that if He takes cares of the lilies this way, so will Father God take care of us in the same manner.
Wow, this is a lot to think about. I’m not sure I entirely grasp that we cannot always see causation. I can see a ball hit another ball, which causes that second ball to move. Did I not just directly observe and see causation? Perhaps I do not understand causation? I understand not being able to observe causation in “events.” The argument caused the two people to leave. We can see that the first event caused the second, but we did not “observe” causation.
I think that the “problem” that we cannot perceive God through the senses seems to point back to the issue we talked about in the Philosophy of Science and the Spirit Active in the World blog. Because of this “problem” we cannot prove the existence of God. But we do have sufficient evidence to believe that God does exist, and can proceed from there.
I find the statement that this moves the conversation into the realm of science very interesting. As it should be a Christian’s desire to meet people where they are in life rather than expecting to be found, it also makes sense to make the move that you described. Also, by eliminating the move to mystery it creates a trust that both perspectives will be in discussion with similar rules. This trust then enables the conversation that can lead to witnessing of God and seeking to connect the world in relationship to God, which seems so much more important than trying to be right.
You make a compelling argument for understanding how the “proof” of God in scientific terms is often demanded to be as an actual sensory event; however, when we do this, we are neglecting the fact that science takes many presuppositions in the causation claim about other events in the world. There aren’t sensory elements required to prove causation in those cases. Why does it have to be different for the existence of God? Once we take the need to use our senses out of proving the existence of God at the actual “causation” level, you are left with an easier issue to deal with. For Christians this isn’t a question because we can feel the Spirits work within us and can see the changes of the people’s lives as they become wholly devoted to God. But people outside of our faith struggle with this and cast doubt because they are looking for proof that they don’t require for scientific claims in other areas.
Mary
It is certainly true that seeing God at work in one’s life is difficult, if not impossible. If the Christian looks back on life, however, it is difficult not to see how God has worked. This seems to verify the idea that our senses cannot perceive the efficient causation of God, at least not at the moment of causation; however, we are able to perceive the results of God’s causal activity in our lives.
Perception of this causation (or lack thereof) should never be a stumbling block; as Oord explains, we do not have to point to a specific event and God’s causation in that event to prove anything. God is Spirit and working, with purpose, in and through the lives of God’s people.
I understand the thought about theologians jumping to the conclusion of mystery when they cannot discover the answer about God or his causation in the world, but to seek to gain all knowledge or assume we have attained all knowledge removing mystery from God and his actions is a bold statement. While we seek to know God more, we cannot and more than likely will not attain a knowledge level that removes the mystery of God because He is God and we are not, praise the Lord.
Sometimes I wonder if we lose sight of the majesty of the world, its workings and God’s connection to the overall causation to it by looking to closely for specific answers. I am reminded of the telling’s of astronauts first images of the Earth from Space. It completely changed the way we view the world, the universe and our place in it because we saw things from a grander scale. Sometimes it is not our job to know all the answers but to trust that God is there, by our seeing Him in creation, feeling Him in our lives, and hearing Him speak into our souls and through community. Just my thoughts.
Although I lack the vocabulary to describe it, I would argue that God has a unique causal relationship within Creation. Much like the example of the wind, we can not witness God working in the same manner as we can observe a hammer driving a nail. I think that this unique causal relationship is necessary for both faith and free will to exist. If we were able to directly observe or record God’s cause of effects, there would be no faith, only undeniable recognition of God.
When it comes to issues such as God acting as a sustaining force in Creation, I do not think there could ever be an observable cause. In the case of miracles, we may be able to observe an effect, such as healing, but again, there is no cause that can be measured by the senses. In the case of Scripture, there is again no observable cause, but we have the effect of both the text and the effect that the text has had on humanity. In these cases, we can sense that something is happening which does not have a discernible cause, or at least a unique cause, and our faith allows for us to attribute causality to God.
I think this is a very difficult area to try and explain to a person who does not believe in God. I think the number one question I get asked is how do you know He exists if you can’t see Him? Or feel Him? I have used the wind analogy before, but wind is something that everyone can experience. A person that is not a believer of God, are they really going to be able to sense God? I would say probably not because they are not tuned into Him. Even though God may be trying to speak to the non-believer, the non-believer is not open to His voice, only because he doesn’t know how to tune in. Only when the non-believer opens his mind and heart to God will he be able to feel the presence of God.
My children have many times asked me, “how do I know when God is talking to me?” My best answer is, “you just know.” It’s not a good answer, but really how do we know? I think a sixth sense is the only way to explain it.
This is a very difficult concept to truly understand and grasp, but yet God makes faith very accessible to us. He stands and knocks, but we have to open the door. The causation and temptation information in this post, once again, causes readers to reflect upon temptation appealing to mystery, but God’s causation really doesn’t lend itself to an easy answer about why things happen. I reference the Bible often knowing that it has the answers we need, but not all the answers as a whole. God leaves things out for a reason and if we chase those mysteries we won’t find much.
God’s activity in the world as efficient cause makes sense in light of the wind analogy Jesus used. You mentioned the way in which David Hume says that with our senses, we perceive “before” evidence and “after” evidence. I wander if this understanding of how God works is at the heart of the Exodus 33 passage in which God places Moses in the cleft of the rock while His glory passes him by. Moses sees his glory coming, or to use Hume’s language, perceives Him “before.” Once His glory has passed, Moses sees God’s back, or perceives him “after.” He never, however, sees God’s face, the efficient cause of this whole experience. Perhaps I am reading too much into this passage of scripture, but it seems consistent with Jesus’ analogy of the wind.
Tom,
Your essay regarding causation here falls in line with an understanding of God that falls in line with where Scripture takes us. We are told in Scripture that we cannot look on God and, as you pointed out Jesus compares God to the wind. We see evidence of the before and after work of God in our daily lives but do not hear God directly. We may feel God’s presence but do not see God. We may hear God’s instructions but do not see the One giving the instructions. One argument that I hear echoing in the back of my head regarding God being an efficient cause (even though we find much evidence that God is), is related to free will. If God causes things to happen, one might argue that this manipulates free will to cause us to act in the way God desires. However, if God does not act then there is no creation to begin with. The second argument is regarding how our actions cause God to act. It all seems quite circular in nature.
Buford
This article really gets to something I have been wrestling with. In life there are many times I have felt that God has clearly spoken to me, provided direction and a path for my decisions, and in the midst of the path the reason that I thought I had embarked upon the journey suddenly changes. It becomes very difficult to understand the meaning behind the way God leads us, and it incredibly hard when in the midst of the journey one cannot clearly see the end.
Part of this I believe in the beauty of giving us choices, and how other people or circumstances in life may change this direction or the path we thought we were on. This is where faith in purpose comes into the picture for me. We must have faith that God is in control, even in the midst of those things we simply cannot explain or understand. This develops us and causes perseverance, it does not make it any easier, but for me, it gives me something to hold on to in the midst of the storm.
This is a very interesting blog! Thank you! It was new to me that we can’t really observe causation itself. But the explanation made perfectly sense to me. Saying we perceive “before” evidence and “after” evidence is true on many theological levels. Wesley felt his heart strangely warmed. It was after it happened that he perceived God doing something.
What I liked about the wind analogy is the way in which it also shows us that people can imitate much of what we like to perceive as God’s activity. Whether it is a service, a bible study or some other gathering, often we shake the trees and then shout “Look the Spirit is moving!” This endeavor of talking about God’s causation is about discerning whether we are shaking the trees and present it as unconsciously self-produced evidence or if we are really capable of perceiving causation itself. I assume that when we stick to the before/after idea that much of the causation we present as God activity is manufactured. That is scary but also revealing.
This blog has challenged me to think about God as cause, but this seems to fit scripture in many places. One that comes to mind as I think about God and cause is Paul’s missionary journey’s found in Acts chapter 15, where he is kept by the Spirit from entering Asia to preach the gospel.
This reminds me of some of my own spiritual journey and how there have been times when God has moved in my life, either seeming open doors for things to happen or to close them.
Some might ask then where is free will, I contend that God’s love for us allows us to resist these causes so to speak or to go along with them. I believe that Paul could have decided not to follow the Spirit and go ahead into Asia, he just chose to follow the Spirit.
Now I understand that this can go much further than individuals being affected by a cause if one thinks in terms of God controlling all things, but that is another discussion.
I like the idea that God is an efficient cause. As Tom says, there is a lot to be gained in terms of reconciling scientific activity and God’s activity by not denying how God is involved in the world while also not appealing to a nebulous sense of mystery in order to explain that activity.
Looking ahead, I can see that by utilizing a method similar to the one Tom has outlined here, that of thinking about the before and after of causes without attempting to identity a causal force as it occurs, we can appeal to the nature of God that we might believe in in order to see where God is involved in the world. This is, of course, going to be heavily dependent on what kind of God we believe is at work in the world.
It struck me that considering God as cause would diminish God to a level of ‘creaturely causation.’ My seven year old sister-in-law once pondered aloud about God making everything, but who was God’s mother? From a child’s point of view such causation is clearly familial, and Jesus’ reference to God as ‘Father’ give us a relational idea of adoption to the Kingdom of God. Does it diminish God to recognize “how deep the love the Father has lavished on us that we should be called children of God?”(1 John 3:1)
Reverse causation is an intriguing idea, though I see the obvious weakness in the predestination debate. How would this relate to God being aware of possibilities in the future, thus revealing to those who ‘seek to know the mind of God,’ as truth carries a prophetic element. Perception in hindsight, I agree that often “what seem problems are actually advantages!”
How would you address the idea that God’s causality was seen, and by extension through the Gospels, we are able to see, God’s causality through the person of Jesus Christ? While we may not be able to perceive through our five senses God the Father or God the Holy Spirit, we are able to read of those that did perceive through their senses God the Son.
Looking at God as causation is what I believe that we can understand about nature. I understand that we may not see the actual cause but we can see the result to it. When looking at the wind we may not be able to see it with our own eyes yet we are able to measure it through the use of an anemometer, and through a weather vane we can see the direct of which the wind is coming from. I believe that same can be said about God as causation. God has given us and all of creation the ability to see and feel Him. Paul prayed a prayer in Ephesians 1:17-18, “I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better. 18 I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in his holy people.” We need to have the eyes of our heart opened to see God.
The New International Version (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), Eph 1:17–18.
This post was very interesting reading. The argument of how God relates to the world we live in or speaking about God as exerting efficient cause, as some mixed emotions for me. I believe that we should not undermine the work of the Holy Spirit while we here on Earth. I have seen the power of the God being revealed through the working of the Holy Spirit. To argue that God distanced from us or has no cause while we here on Earth, does bring some concern.
I find the words of John Wesley significant because it speaks to how we relate to God that moved beyond our five sense. That even though we may not sense God with our five sense ; there are ways that goes beyond our human understanding , where God communicates to us. I believe this speaks to the mystery of our understanding of God. The same can speak to our understanding of cause and effect of God and science defines it , one can read so many theories but the truth is which theories makes more sense to you. The argument that speaks most to your six sense defined by John Wesley that speaks to our spiritual sense, where God communicates to us.
I really liked and could relate to the analogy of the wind. As was mentioned, we do not “see” the wind but can see the effects of the wind. The wind can in some ways be a “mystery” in the same sense as we refer to our belief and faith in God. As a believer, I do not believe God is a total mystery. I believe things are revealed to us through the work of the Spirit and shown to us through the Scriptures, through the church, creeds, sacred traditions, and even through situations we face in life, etc. It is not possible for us in our human ability to see the wind’s beginning or end. The same can be said of God. I believe that is how each of them can be referred to as a mystery. I believe it is a positive when we “limit” our labeling of the faith as a mystery in some ways. Such is the case when it is looked at in scientific terms, and it gives our faith more “solid” ground with science.
I also appreciate the thoughts of Wesley on some of God’s creation having a “sixth” sense in order to know and or sense God. As I have stated in another post, I believe each of us has this “void” in which we are longing for or in need of God. I believe it is only a result of prevenient grace that some of us come to know God before others or at all. Many may not ever realize it is “God” they are missing or longing for, but I do not believe that changes the object of their void. I believe this again speaks to some of the “mystery” of our faith. Some things in this life, involving both science and God, are simply beyond our human ability to reason or understand and will remain a mystery in some ways to us. Ric Smith
Without a doubt we can scientifically admit to experiencing God’s efficient casual influence in the world. However, to do this will require some measure of collaboration between science and theology. It is a fact that we cannot adequately dialogue about “God as exerting efficient causation” without the mutual relationship between science and theology. It is science that will aid in tracing the process of created things that ultimately leads to God as efficient cause. Scripture rightly affirms God as efficient cause by which all things are created according to Hebrews 11:3. I like the fact that “God as Spirit can directly communicate to creatures that have spiritual sensory apparatus.” My mind reflected on the Apostle Paul even as he experienced God in real ways that pointed back to God as the efficient cause pertaining to transformation and spiritual direction as seen through his conversion and missional adventures – clearly some measure of cause and effect.
I appreciated this essay on causation, it is a topic for which I have never considered, but the argument presented here seems in line with not only scripture, but also personal experience. From experience it is clear that there are “nudges” from God, though the direction is not heard audibly or even internally. There is simply an understanding of God’s direction, from this essay it appears this is a causation that Tom is referring to. As Wesley said the sixth sense to sense God’s leading without any other outside cause. It is not simply an emotional response or a “mystery” instead, it is the working of God through humanity. There is much to consider in this essay and I look forward to reading additional essays in this series.
In the initial post the reminder that everyone, scientist and theologian alike, have presuppositions which influence world views and drive assumptions, is a healthy one. Everything is not definitely proven either way, although the results of causation are clearly seen. I personally find that God is the best idea in causation, even though there is certainly a degree of faith involved. Unfortunately, when God’s causation is pressed, others have a problem with things like evil. It’s like getting all the blame and no credit. There is certainly a balance to consider here, yet thankfully we do not have to work harder and prove more than anyone else involved in the question.
Looking at cause and how it relates to God takes me back to creation. We understand that cause and effect principle in how it relates to nature. Tracing this back to the Aristotelian idea of an unmoved mover helps create a starting point for the plausibility of God. Looking at the Kalam cosmological argument, we can assert that the universe has a beginning (taking that a true infinity cannot exist) and that the beginning would need to be created by something that is uncaused. God fits this definition and acts as an efficient cause by bring the universe into creation. We do not perceive God with our five sense in looking through the lens of history. We see the after effects by virtue of the universe existing. Where you go from here could be an engagement of whether or not creation was a one and done (hands off) approach or that God continues to engage in causal actions upon creation. Looking at the Bible, and believing what is within, we do ‘see’ the continue action of God. It would be reasonable that God continues to engage in causal actions today just as the Lord engaged in them during the biblical times.
How do I experience and know God?
Am I experiencing God or is it some level of an after effect taking place?
I am challenged by the depth of the conversation.
What did Saul experience on the road to Damascus?
What did Philip experience when he was swept up to the Ethiopian Eunich?
What did John experience in exile?
How much and to what extent or purpose is God active in our lives?
I feel like I have only more questions to ask….
We cannot perceive God with our senses, but we do infer, assume, and then say we have a “sense”. We end up in a circle of confusion because we may be physical people with sense and feelings, but we are also complicated and have a great faith and presumption that God is there. Many people have testimony that includes the way God spoke to them, and there were times when God did speak to people directly, even the lovely Hagar, but have we evolved past that? I don’t believe so. To consider the causation of God is a great discussion and it fills us with questions. but our complicated creation continues to color our perceptions, our “lenses” through which we see the world, fill in the blanks.
Tom,
Great thoughts on the ideas of causation. This is a good example of the Greek philosophical influence of how theologians interpret Scripture. These presuppositions take us away form the what the Scripture reveals and how we should think about God.
And using Hume in a positive way! That made me laugh! But what he said is right on. Both science and religion see only a before and after. This article gives me a lot to think about.
You write don’t worship a God of mystery because you don’t know who the devil he may be. But isn’t God the God of mystery? So how can one say that? I understand that Satan uses disguises but where is our faith and trust?
The before and after event is what we witness and see but can’t we also say that we are in the midst of the event? Can’t God use others to impact us…people we can, things we can touch, words we can hear and a lot of the time things we can taste? With this blog are you saying that isn’t God and just a moment? I think we can see the before, after and be in the middle of it all.
The appeal to mystery has been the approach I have taken most of my life. The concept that God acts in mysterious ways and is mysterious allows us not to have to “know it all.” I agree with you that we should “beware of worshipping the God of utter mystery,” for I wouldn’t want to be in a relationship with someone I didn’t know anything about. But, could you have a reasonable appeal to mystery that could work alongside the argument that God acts as an efficient cause. The work you’ve done on causation is great because it guides us to “see” in a different kind of way. Operating under our presupposition that God does exist, we look to the “before” and “after” and fill in the blank. So, though these problems are actually advantages for Christians, is there not still an element of mystery in God?
I did enjoy this read, for I was drawn back in thought to how I first experienced God. I remember things down to how the smell in the air, and the way that the light came in the window. It is through these experiences that I feel that the experiences of God in the 5 senses is an amazing starting point and foundation.
Gaining that sense, the overwhelming embodiment of God, that brings all your senses alive to His wondrous being is an amazing experience and one that you don’t forget. Seeing how you, Dr. Oord, have developed a fresh way for us to see God in a different light and bring the overwhelming desire to have the relationship with him and experience new opportunities is a great thing.
Seeing how we experienced His presence and how to best grasp His knowledge gives us a better way to explain and show that God is here with us, desiring to have a relationship with him, and living with us in the moment, filling our senses with His being. Thank you Again for the wonderful Article.
I am thankful for Jesus’ comparison of the Spirit with wind because it helps me have a tiny bit more understanding of God and how God works in the world. I can physically feel the wind and although I cannot see it, I can see its effects. There have been moments in my life where I have physically felt God’s Spirit in me, although more often I see the effects of the Spirit working through me.
My five senses cannot perceive God, yet that does not make God any less real. Normally I am not a fan of David Hume, but I like his observation mentioned in the article, “we perceive ‘before’ evidence and ‘after’ evidence. But we never directly observe causation itself.” I can look at my own life and see a clear before and after picture of the work God has done in me. I never sense it at the time; it is only in looking back that I can see God’s hand in my life.
Christie American Horse
PHIL 7560 Philosophical Foundations of Ministry
Thomas J. Oord, PhD: Philosophy of Science and the Spirit Active in the World
Two Problems for Identifying God’s Causation
Theology, Ecology, and Values
Professor: Thomas J. Oord, PhD
9/9/17
In your first essay Professor Oord states, “Metaphysical categories are not dogmatic statements of the obvious; they are tentative formulations of the ultimate generalities” (Process and Reality, page 8). Some scientists speak as if science is definite proven fact, when it is called scientific theory for a reason. It is established that all are plagued with presuppositions; both theologians and scientists. In science, there is the terminology of efficient cause. This is what “exerts impact of one entity upon another.
Dr. Oord then introduces God as an “exerting efficient cause” which exerts “efficient causal influence on the world”. I agree, in part, with the statement “We can’t perceive causation.” There are instances, biblically speaking, in which those present did perceive with a sense God’s presence. One is at Jesus’ baptism when those attending heard an audible voice sounding. The other example is Jesus himself. Do we not believe Jesus to be God walking among us? He was perceived by ears, eyes, touch of the hand, and kissed by lips. Jesus is the visible of the invisible.
Thanks for your thoughts here, Tom. As I read, I thought of the “observer effect.” If this effect were to apply to God’s causation, our very act of observing it would affect the causation itself in some way. Perhaps this is a built-in reason why we must infer rather than observe or perceive it. I suppose that some of the results of the causation which we observe or perceive could also add to what you word as the “cumulative case for why it seems more plausible than not God exists” in your essay “The Philosophy of Science and the Spirit Active in the World.”
Your point about the “God of utter mystery” gave me pause for further thought. I found myself asking where the line may be between God’s mystery and our need to define who God is.
I appreciate the statement: affirming God’s efficient causation seems advisable when accounting for the testimonies of those who claim to have experienced God’s activity in either ordinary or extraordinary ways (miracles). While we may not know the original source or start of the causation, since science affirms efficient causation, we can also include God as a possible source. This allows for an opportunity to witness, sharing the possibility (or truth) of God with those who do not believe in God. At the same time, I appreciate the caution of beware of worshipping the God of utter mystery, because you never know who the devil may be. Discernment, awareness, and wisdom – shall I add science? – are needed to help determine the source or causation of anything.
I’d like to add this: what “mystery” are the “other theologians appealing” to? Many people will use the phrase, “God works in mysterious ways.” Yet, that phrase is not scriptural and through scripture we are told that the mystery has been revealed (Eph 3:2-6; Col. 1:25-27). God wants to be known (we are told that is scripture too). I still appreciate your “caution” in the blog re “worshipping a God of utter mystery.”
Dr. Oord thank you for you blog and the constant pushing of our minds to think and explore the possibilities. I agree with you that there is a danger to living a life searching for that absolute when the absolute is difficult to prove. This is especially true when it comes to the existence of God. On your argument that we cannot perceive God through the senses as one cannot perceive the cause of the “wind” where it came from and where it is going. This again is true but the fact does exist we can “feel” the wind when it blows and we can also feel if is “cool”, “warm”, “dry” or “wet” with moisture in it. Not only can we experience the wind in some respect but then we can quantify it to a certain degree “strong” or “gentle”. We may not be perceive causation or perceive God through the five senses but what we do feel and experience from what is available should be enough to give us enough confidence for reasonable faith.
I have always had an issue with the appeal to absolute mystery but I could never put my finger on why. Dr. Oord has worded an answer for me that I feel is the reason why I have problems with mystery with the idea that, “To this I say, beware of worshipping the God of utter mystery, because you never know who the devil he may be” (Oord). As we look at causation and try to figure out where God has been the cause. God is greater than we can imagine but there are ways we can talk about God outside of our sense that don’t simply rely on the idea of mystery.
Tom,
I appreciate the concept of efficient causation as a way to describe God’s interaction with the created world, and in particular with humanity. Our desire to have absolute proof is replaced with the ability to evaluate events and experiences from the view point of reasonable evidence that the cause was God in action. This can be true even when our words fail to be effective in describing the event.
I relate to the visualization of the wind as one description of God’s causal force. When I met Jesus for the first time it was “the warm wind of the love of the Holy Spirit that swept over me and within me”. I did not “see” God cause it, but I knew through all of my senses, that it was God. The reference to a sixth sense is a plausible way of describing those experiences. This is not proof in the scientific sense. Yet, there is dramatic proof of change from before to after.
Dr Oord,
You said,
“The use of wind also fits what Christians have said about God as Spirit. Christians have said we cannot perceive God with our five senses. ”
This reminded me of what I learned about the words spirit and wind in the Greek language. The words are connected in that language. I found this website as an example but I don’t think that it necessarily describes how the words are connected to one another.
http://www.ntwords.com/spirit.htm
There is also this passage found in Acts 2:2 which is referencing when the gift of the Holy Spirit was first received after Jesus’ ascension.
Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting.
My question to you Dr. Oord is this, were you thinking about such things when you wrote the above and if not, what do you think of the correlation?
love reading about the advantages of our current culture. Some people say this is a sad time. People do not come to the church and people do not engage in Christian religious activity. I think we are in exciting times. Because of the relationship between science and theology Christians have a seat for discussion at the table. The advantages you share are really encouraging. We don’t have to prove God’s existence through our experience of Him through our senses. I believe we can feel and experience God. I think we can point to exact moments when God is moving. However, we don’t have to point to these moments in order for God to exist.
I spent much of my life being told to just accept the total mystery of God and it never felt like a satisfying answer to me. I think there is a healthy way to approach mystery though. I think mystery should spur a sense of curiosity and wonder within us, driving us to explore and learn about God on a deeper level. Would it be wrong to assume that God is the intial efficient cause and that as he is active in the world to this day, he is continuing this series of efficient causes? These are the kinds of things that for too long have gone unexplored by much of mainstream Christianity.
I find this blog post to be very intriguing. I especially love the following statement,” I believe we can talk reasonably about God’s efficient causal influence in the world.” I think I like this statement because it allows for testimonies which are how I understand God’s causation.
I do see how perceiving God through the five senses is highly debatable because of the children in my ministry struggle with the “literal statements and many people today want tangible evidence and thus they can not attach the causation of God with the five senses or even the sixth.
“I want to address whether we should talk about God as a cause at all”.
This is an interesting question, but honestly I am still struggling with it. I read this article 3 times and I still don’t understand causation. I looked up the definition for causation: the action of causing something…. Which makes total sense for Christians to be in favor of. I can understand why the secular community does not want to address this issue because it changes everything that follows if they acknowledge causation. If we bury our heads in the sand and think that something came from nothing then we don’t have to address the “who made who” question. I think that if we do look at nature it is almost impossible to rationalize the idea that nothing caused our world into existence.
I think the question is interesting, but I still don’t understand the topic enough to have a strong opinion.
Jason
This topic is extremely new to me I have never heard of “Causation.” This particular topic is mysterious to me, and it leaves the mind with a great deal of questions concerning myself as a human being. One question that is raised is “Can I approach God at all”? God influences our present circumstances from a future in which God resides, seriously makes me think, that God is a cosmic force that is untouchable.
Understanding what causation is from the article, would be to trace the movements or activity of the Spirit. Since interaction with God is not really possible, I am thinking that to keep up with the activity of the Spirit is not possible using my senses? When reading that Christians can experience God in a non-sensory way with the use of a “sixth sense”? With the use of a “sixth sense,” God can speak to human beings that have this spiritual sensory hookup? This subject matter simply will leave you seriously thinking about God in general.
Dr. Oord,
I enjoyed the blog post as it caused some questions but what stood out to me was your comment, “To this I say, beware of worshipping the God of utter mystery, because you never know who the devil he may be.” It seems as if as Christians when we do not know the answer as to how God did/does something it is easy to label it a mystery. I have a ton of questions to ask Him about things I do not know but these are not a mystery as I believe there He always has a reason. To me if God was mysterious then it would make it hard to have a relationship with Him as we would not know Who He is. I do appreciate your comment as if you do not know who you are worshipping then one needs to be careful trusting a mystery.