The Explanation for Everything

My guest column in the Newport News Daily Press appeared again today, under the headline “God answers it all.” It’s on Charles Colson’s provocative assertion that “Christianity is the explanation for everything.”

(The above link will disappear in 1-2 weeks, after which you may still access the article in PDF form here.)

Because of limited space, I could not address all the questions I knew my article would raise. My focus was not so much on whether Colson’s statement was true, but on what it means. To summarize: God, through His self-revelation, has given us a structure of knowledge and a background of information by which we must interpret and understand everything.

Whether this is true obviously matters, too, though; so I wrote:

This is but one brief illustration of what Colson was getting at….
But was his statement true? Is Christianity really the explanation for everything? Again, space will not allow me to address that question here the way it deserves (though I’m happy to do so at www.thinkingchristian.net).

Real Knowledge of God Makes All the Difference
The question surely comes down to this: did God create the universe, and did He reveal His ways to us through the Bible such that we can understand what He has said? Do we have real knowledge of the Person and purpose by which the world was made and we humans came to be the way we are? If so, that knowledge must make all the difference.

This does not mean that we do not live in a natural world where ordinary things happen in ordinary ways. It means rather that we have a different perspective on those ordinary things: they can often have extraordinary significance under God. Every choice matters.

It also does not mean that we ought actually to use the word “God” in every explanation, as for example (using Ohm’s Law for electricity),

Voltage equals current times resistance, because God made it that way (and we hope He doesn’t change His mind too often!).

No, for when we’re looking in the natural sphere, natural explanations are generally quite sufficient for the purpose. In the background, though, we can bear in mind that all this came from a Person who created a world where we can count on natural events happening predictably in natural ways. Francis Collins, Director of the Human Genome Project, provides a great example of that mindset:

As a scientist who is also a believer, virtually everything that we uncover day after day about the human genome and how it works is also a glimpse of God’s mind. My work is a celebration of our understanding of nature, but more importantly a celebration of what God has done.

Open For Questions
Again, though, do we really have knowledge of God and His purposes? The controversy on this is undeniable. My position is that God has given us considerable and very sufficient evidence that He is real, through the record of the Bible, through His work in history, through what He has created, and through His work in the lives of many, many followers.

There’s a space limitation here in this blog, too, but in the right-hand column of this web page you’ll see a link for “Evidences,” which will refer you to much additional information on this (or just click here). There is also another set of evidence-oriented blog entries you can reach from the right-hand column here, the former home page of this blog.

And to save you the trouble of searching for specifics, the comments section below is open for your questions.

(Thanks to Mark D. Roberts for the Francis Collins link.)

You may also like...

3 Responses

  1. Jordan says:

    “It also does not mean that we ought actually to use the word “God” in every explanation, as for example (using Ohm’s Law for electricity)”

    Why shouldn’t we invoke only supernatural explanations, even when natural ones exist? Are you suggesting that, by default, natural explanations are superior, and supernatural ones should only be invoked in the absence of natural ones? Also, is it ok to invoke supernatural explanations in areas of physics (e.g., quantum mechanics) that aren’t yet fully understood–and, if not, why not?

    “No, for when we’re looking in the natural sphere, natural explanations are generally quite sufficient for the purpose.”

    Aren’t supernatural explanations equally sufficient (in your mind)?

    I guess what I’m asking is this: When is it ok to invoke a supernatural explanation, and when isn’t it ok?

    I’m not trying to be argumentative here. I genuinely want to know whether you believe (as I do) that natural explanations are better than supernatural ones; and, if you do believe that, I’d like to know why you don’t think we should be searching for a natural theory of origins.

  2. Tom Gilson says:

    Good questions, Jordan.

    Why shouldn’t we invoke only supernatural explanations, even when natural ones exist? Are you suggesting that, by default, natural explanations are superior, and supernatural ones should only be invoked in the absence of natural ones? Also, is it ok to invoke supernatural explanations in areas of physics (e.g., quantum mechanics) that aren’t yet fully understood–and, if not, why not?

    There are different levels of explanation. Ohm’s Law is (understatement coming!) a whole lot more useful than the Bible is for designing or analyzing electrical circuits. The Bible is a whole lot more useful at explaining why natural law itself exists.

    We can usefully rely on both levels of explanation as far as they take us. Quantum mechanics is not fully understandable by human minds, but certainly enough so to allow us to make integrated circuits and lasers, and to allow us considerable insight into a crucial aspect of reality. This is not an either/or (supernatural or natural) choice. It’s both/and.

    So I hope that answers the following:

    Aren’t supernatural explanations equally sufficient (in your mind)?

    I guess what I’m asking is this: When is it ok to invoke a supernatural explanation, and when isn’t it ok?

    I genuinely want to know whether you believe (as I do) that natural explanations are better than supernatural ones; and, if you do believe that, I’d like to know why you don’t think we should be searching for a natural theory of origins.

    We apply the explanation that fits the question. If the question is how things interact on a natural level, then we ought to look for answers on the natural level. We certainly ought to follow that trail as far as it can take us. But there are limits to what science can investigate. It cannot speak to whether there is a God, or an afterlife, or human souls. It cannot explain why there is something rather than nothing, nor can it explain what is ultimately good, or what the purpose of existence is. For that, we must look to other types of explanation.

    I absolutely do not object to searching for a natural theory of origins. (Wherever did I give anybody that impression?!)

    I seriously doubt that science will succeed in that search (especially the origins of the cosmos and the first life), but I have no objection whatever to learning whatever we might be able to learn about them scientifically. My only objection is to some scientists’ insistence that the only possible explanation for everything must be naturalistic. This is scientifically and philosophically unsupportable, in the first place; in the second place, it defies knowledge we have of God and His work in the world.

  3. I may be a bit heterodox here. If I’m a heretic feel free to inform me my fellow Christians.

    Natural explanations are arrived at by observing nature and making predictions based on patterns or relationships.

    Supernatural explanations are made by observing deviations from nature and using spiritual discernment to judge them.

    The natural and supernatural acts themselves are all indirectly from God. There’s no qualitative difference in origin between Peter walking on water and an apple falling according to the law of gravity.