Natural Explanations That Deny a Supernatural God

As the Director of PleaseConvinceMe.com, I get lots of email from skeptics. Much of this email is related to miracles. People want to know why Christians are so quick to attribute an event (or healing) to the miraculous intervention of a supernatural God, especially when it appears that a natural force may be offered as an explanation.  After all, even Moses reported that a “strong east wind” blew all night prior to the parting of the red sea (Exodus 14:21). Maybe this natural occurrence was simply interpreted as a miracle after the fact. In a similar way, Thallus (the 1^st Century Roman historian) attributed the darkness at the crucifixion to “an eclipse of the sun”; another reasonable natural occurrence that may have been misinterpreted as a miracle by those who were inclined toward the miraculous.

Modern day Christians also make claims about the supernatural intervention of God, and to many skeptics, these claims seem unwarranted. When someone claims that God healed them from cancer, but admits that they underwent a year of chemotherapy and radiation, it’s difficult for non-believers to credit the healing to God. It seems just as likely that the “natural” interaction of the treatment was responsible. See the problem? When skeptics find evidence that “natural” forces or laws are in play, they quickly dismiss any claim of supernatural activity. But the involvement of “natural” forces does NOT preclude the activity of a “supernatural” God.

Can God Use the “Laws of Nature”?

My dog, Baily, occasionally begs for a chew toy or dog treat. When one of these coveted items is sitting on the dining room table, she is frustrated beyond words (or barks). Bailey’s Corgi stature prohibits her from making the necessary leap to the tabletop. Her incessant whining will usually provoke one of us to come over and knock the treat from the table so it can fall to the ground for her. Without our intervention as a free agent, the natural force of gravity would never be able to deliver the treat to Bailey. Strictly speaking, it could be said that the force of gravity provided the treat. But we know that our personal intervention was necessary, even though this intervention utilized the force of gravity as a means to an end. 

God most certainly works in the same way. God always engages the environment He created in a manner that employs the physical laws that reflect His nature. Over time, we’ve observed and identified these divine characteristics and given them a title: “The Laws of Nature”.  But the laws that describe the interaction between material objects don’t preclude the existence or intervention of a free agent who intercedes to “knock something from the table.” God’s free agency actively engages the laws that reflect his ordered, unified and consistent nature.

A “Supernatural” God in the “Natural” World

But how can we, as reasonable Christian observers, tell the difference between a series of “unguided,” “natural” occurrences, and a series of events that have been guided by the hand of God? How can we differentiate between a purely “natural” event and a uniquely “divine” miracle? Well, I think we begin by recognizing that ALL “natural,” physical processes in the universe are sustained by God (Hebrews 1:3, John 5:17). The physics of the universe are simply a reflection of the active participation of God in his creation. It’s easy to separate the “divine” from the “natural” and think of the world in categories and boxes. Yet, this is not how the Christian Scriptures describe God’s creation. When we fail to see the forces of nature as the hand of God, we end up justifying all of God’s divine interaction as some form of “natural” coincidence. If we do this long enough, we’ll eventually fail to recognize those moments when God’s free agency is evident; those times when God clearly had to act dramatically to “knock something from the table.”

Natural Explanations That Deny a Supernatural God

We Can't Save Ourselves

Most skeptics I know aren’t interested in philosophy. They have a “gut feeling” that they’re basically “good people” and that God – if there actually is one – isn’t interested in much else. He’ll look at your list of accomplishments, subtract out your misdeeds, throw in a few bonus points if you were “sincere,” and then grade on a curve. After all, they reason, God must recognize that “we’re only human,” right?

One challenger summed up the rejection of the need for a Savior this way: 

Christianity teaches that we must accept a particular story about a Redeemer dying for humanity’s salvation in order to be saved. In other words, the “only son” of God takes the fall for my own sins. But that seems like the ultimate sin to me. What could be less responsible? “I will answer to God for my own mistakes!” my brain tells me. “That is what adults are supposed to do. You don’t blame God for your own vices, do you?

This challenge has considerable surface appeal. It trades on our innate sense of responsibility, but in doing so, it makes a category error. It compares (implicitly) two very dissimilar kinds of things. When we think about how man should interact with his fellow men – a horizontal type of relationship if viewed as an organizational chart – then of course scapegoating – having Jesus die in our place - would be wrong. Each person should take responsibility for his own life. But does this same dynamic apply to interactions with a superior being? A creator being, who occupies a level above our own?

One need not resort to the Bible to see the error. One need only compare the nature of God, as the creator, to the nature of man, as the creature.  Even those who doubt God’s existence should recognize that implicit in the concept of God is limitless power. After all, if one is thinking of a being who, in any respect, has a power greater than God’s, that being would displace God. If the concept of God is to make any sense whatsoever, it must necessarily be the conception of that being a greater than which cannot possibly be conceived. Man, by contrast, is nothing if not limited. He lives a short while, has limited power and intelligence at his disposal, cannot will either his birth or prolong his life more than slightly, and fails, constantly, to live up to even his own limited expectations as to right behavior. In short, man enters and exits the world alone and powerless and owes his entire existence to something, or someone, other than himself.

Some examples might help make the point. There are some situations in which it is entirely proper, and to be expected, that a person should “make things right” on his own. If I make a mistake, I should correct it. If I hurt someone, I should make them whole to the extent possible. If I commit a crime, I should pay a price to the victim and to the society I have harmed. 

But not every situation is one in which the person acting can solve the problem. If a bank robber is shot by police, he cannot very well perform surgery on himself to save his life.  If a child falls into a deep well with slick walls, he cannot climb out, however much his descent into the well was his own fault. If a boat sinks at sea, a lone sailor may be entirely reliant upon the Coast Guard to bring him to safety, however ill-prepared for the trip he may have been. Despite having “responsibility” in some sense for their predicament, the people in these examples simply lack the power to correct their mistake; they are entirely dependent upon the mercy of another - someone with greater power - to save them. 

As a general rule, it makes sense to attach accountability for one’s actions. If I sin against God, then I rightly owe Him a debt. If I embrace my sinfulness, and continue defiantly in my rebellion against my maker, then eternal separation is a consequence which is both fair and to be expected.  Thus, the skeptic’s analysis is not completely off: if we stand before God and “take the blame” for our “vices,” the consequence for us will be exceedingly unpleasant. But there is another way. Like the child stuck in the well or the sailor bobbing in the sea, we are – by our fallen and corrupted nature – incapable of correcting the problem. Rather than to approach Perfection with fear and trembling, however, we defiantly stand before Him, shaking our fists and humming “My Way.” We ask for a trial that we simply cannot win.

Wisdom lies in knowing which situation is which. Yes, we can stand before God and "take it on the chin," but in interacting with a perfect being, it should take us little effort to realize that we need help to make the grade. We have nothing to offer, nothing to trade, nothing that can impress Him, for one cannot add to perfection. But Jesus has the power to provide that help. Having lived a perfect life as a man, he is the only man who can stand before God and take the consequences for our sins. That he is capable of doing so is a testament to the great power He possesses, and shares, with the Father; that He is willing to do so is a testament to love, a love far greater than anything man in his present state can begin to understand. Like the surgeon or the Coast Guard rescuer, He has the power to act in a situation in which we have no such power, in which failure - damnation - is the only possible outcome.  

All He requires is our assent.

We Can't Save Ourselves

Why Environmentalism and Animal Rights Are Dependent on a Christian Worldview

A friend of mine recently wrote a post on Facebook and discovered the wrath of secular environmentalism. He innocently asked if anyone wanted a kitten. His young feline pet escaped and became pregnant before she could be spayed. The online assault began almost immediately as friends and acquaintances berated him over his negligence in failing to spay his pet. For many who deny the existence of the Christian God, environmentalism and the cause of animal rights have become a religion of sorts. The movement has its own doctrinal beliefs, its own set of commandments and its own set of prescribed consequences. At times, the doctrinal beliefs seem self-contradictory. I have many friends who fight vehemently for the rights of animals while supporting the abortion of humans. Maybe contradictions of this sort are the result of improper “grounding”.

Environmentalism From A Christian Perspective

As a Christian, I definitely understand my responsibility to protect and steward the natural environment. This responsibility is “grounded” in God’s purpose for me as a human created in His image. Adam and Eve were told that they were to have “dominion” over all creation (Genesis 1:26-28) but they clearly understood this as a responsibility to “work” and “keep” the Garden (Genesis 2:15). Dominion is not reckless power; it is careful responsibility and stewardship. By the time the nation of Israel was established, God provided a number of laws to make sure His children understood the importance of His creation and learned to respect and care for other animals (see Leviticus 25:1-12, Deuteronomy 25:4 and Deuteronomy 22:6). My concern for the environment is an act of obedience and respect for God’s creation. Everything in nature (humans included) began as a result of God’s creative act. All this created stuff is important to God.

Environmentalism From An Atheistic Perspective

But why should an atheist care about the wellbeing of another species? How is this concern “grounded” from an atheistic perspective? If everything in nature is the result of evolutionary processes and “survival of the fittest,” why should we advocate for a species that isn’t “fit” enough to survive without our intervention? Why shouldn’t we just allow nature to take its course? Evolution is a merciless tyrant that couldn’t care less about weak species that aren’t “fit” enough to survive. Why should humans care if some remote species of caterpillar is being extinguished in a region that we need to use for some purpose that benefits us as humans? The argument that ALL life forms are inextricably connected to a delicate ecosystem is a weak effort to promote religious environmentalism. The archaeological record reveals the destruction of thousands of species that were apparently “unfit” to survive and have not inhibited our human survival. Why should we care when a modern species suffers a similar fate? From an atheistic worldview, in full submission to the brutal and unguided process of evolution, none of this should be of any concern to us. Why should we even concern ourselves with the future of our own species? From an atheistic perspective, why should we even care of the generation living today is the last generation of humans to ever live? In fact, many environmentalists I know would prefer this to be the case, given what they claim about human impact on the planet.

My Christian worldview, however, compels me to see the environment unselfishly. The respect I have for my environment is more than simple utilitarianism. The “natural” world around me is a reflection of the “supernatural” God who created all species with the same love, attention to detail and creative concern. As I learn to submit to my Maker, I come to appreciate everything He’s made. My concern for the environment is properly rooted not in my own evolutionary status (allowing me to take advantage of the environment if it suits me), but in God’s supernatural nature and power (compelling me to care for the environment with the awe that I offer the Creator). True environmentalism must be grounded in the Creator of our environment. The rights of all animals (humans included) must be grounded in the purposes of God.

Why Environmentalism and Animal Rights Are Dependent on a Christian Worldview