Laws of Nature Deistic?

[Taylor]

Hello, brothers and sisters.

I am wanting some opinions. Is referring to the "Laws of Nature" inherently deistic? In other words, is it right to say that nature actually has laws according to which it operates, or that God in his meticulous sovereignty is so consistent in moving, directing and ruling the physical world that we perceive them as "laws"? Is the former a subtle form of deism?

 

[VictorBravo]

The phrase "Law of Nature" itself originally was theistic, meaning that it referred to the entire order of creation decreed by God (including revealed moral commandments). A rock rolling down a hill obeys God's command, as it were. Blackstone, in his Commentary on the Laws of England, distinguished the "Laws of Nature" from "Natural Law." "Laws of Nature" are God's law, the physical as well as the moral. They are objective and not descriptive.

"Natural Law," on the other hand, was described by him as man's interpretation of observations. They are inherently tainted by the flaws in reason resulting from sin. These also included physical and moral. A subcategory of these laws would be the codification of empirical observations known in science as "laws of nature."

So confusion of terminology has developed over the years.

In the context of science, a law of nature is nothing more than a formal and codified description of observations. You observe a rock fall in a vacuum on earth 1000 times and it behaves the same each time. It falls at the same rate of acceleration, impacts the ground at the same velocity, etc. You take another, heavier, rock, and observe it does the same thing. From these observations you can come up with mathematical relationships. Then you call that equation the law of gravity. Nobody has actually discovered this thing called "gravity." They have just described the order observed in falling objects.

But this kind of "law" is not a decree, it is an acknowledgment that things are consistent and ordered in the universe (which is the great unexplainable for an empiricist--how can we be sure things will always be consistent and ordered?).

An anecdote: Years ago I was in a graduate class on plant physiology. We were measuring the relative humidity inside wheat leaves with tiny thermocouples, using the Peltier effect to change temperature inside a leaf to achieve dew point.

So the professor asked the small class, "why does reducing the temperature reduce the air pressure in the leaf?" I responded with something about kinetic energy and decreased collision rate of the gas molecules.

The professor shouted "NO! It's because of Charles' Law!"

To which I responded, "I don't think so. Gases were acting this way long before Charles came along."

The professor considered "natural laws" to be decrees. I think that is the height of hubris.

So, that's my long-winded way of saying that the term "laws of nature" can be deistic if you are a deist, but it can be a perfectly valid and useful phrase if you are a Christian. You just need to keep in mind that God is active in his creation, and his universe is ordered because it follows his laws.

An aside: only humans and fallen angels seem to have the temerity and ability to disobey God's Laws of Nature. Everything else in God's creation remains obedient.

 

[Taylor]

You just need to keep in mind that God is active in his creation, and his universe is ordered because it follows his laws.

I understand. But, I don't think you quite understood my question. This statement I quoted here simply makes me ask the question again, but hopefully with better clarity.

To me, when someone says that nature follows God's laws, that seems to me to be deistic, because it is essentially saying that God set laws into motion which then govern the behavior of the created order. I am asking if this notion is inherently deistic. It seems to me that it might be. The alternative to me would be to say that it is not that nature follows God's laws, but that God's meticulous and immanent providence is so consistent that to us it appears that nature is ordered according to laws. It seems to me that there is nuance in these two statements.

Does that (and my question) make sense? I think the distinction can be seen more clearly when describing miracles. To the former view, God working a miracle is his breaking system of natural laws momentarily to accomplish something extraordinary. To the latter view, a miracle is God's simply acting at variance with his normal meticulous governance of the universe.

I hope this clarifies my question.

 

[VictorBravo]

To me, when someone says that nature follows God's laws, that seems to me to be deistic, because it is essentially saying that God set laws into motion which then govern the behavior of the created order.

That is one way of interpreting what the "laws of nature" mean. I was trying to emphasize that God is active in his creation--right now and always. If we keep that in mind, the phrase is not deistic, but instead reminds us that things act in such ordered ways because, quite literally, Jesus Christ "upholds all things by the word of his power." (Heb. 1:3).

Does that (and my question) make sense? I think the distinction can be seen more clearly when describing miracles. To the former view, God working a miracle is his breaking system of natural laws momentarily to accomplish something extraordinary. To the latter view, a miracle is God's simply acting at variance with his normal meticulous governance of the universe.

This shows me you understand the distinction I'm trying to make. Yes, a miracle is more like an exception that proves the rule: God actively works his universe in an ordered fashion, and sometimes, according to his wisdom and purpose, he actively works things that appear to us to be extraordinary. But it is always God's working.

Deistic implies passive nature: as in, God wound up the universe and then left things alone. Scripture tells us he is always at work. So common use of the term "law of nature" might imply deism to someone with a deistic world view, but to me it shouts the glorious fact of God's comprehensive activity.

 

[MW]

The benefit of a term like "laws of nature" is that it makes a clear distinction between cause and effect. Scripture speaks of the "things" that are made and the upholding of "things." God should not be identified with the creation and the creation should not be identified with God. By identifying the "things" we guard against the concept of emanation. It is also important for stewardship and accountability that we recognise the fact that secondary causes will produce certain effects from the human perspective. If we said that God does all things without qualification we would undermine moral responsibility in man.

Historically, the Deists abused the term and really left it without any conceptual basis. A law requires a governor. No one accepts the idea of laws which administer themselves. And then to account for moral government one has to have a moral governor.