While reading St. Thomas’ Summa Theologica on the topic of God’s providence, I found an interesting little argument that I think bears a special significance today. In Part I, question 22, article 2, which asks whether everything is subject to God’s providence, objection 3 is phrased thus:

Further, whatever happens of necessity does not require providence or prudence. Hence, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. vi, 5, 9-11): “Prudence is the right reason of things contingent concerning which there is counsel and choice.” Since, then, many things happen from necessity, everything cannot be subject to providence.

The point is that since many things happen because of the natural properties of things—the sky is blue, the Earth orbits the Sun, the Moon forces the tides—God’s providence is not active there. After all, God is not needed in order for these things to function. Thomas counters:

Man is not the author of nature, but he uses natural things in applying art and virtue to his own use. Hence human providence does not reach to that which takes place in nature from necessity; but divine providence extends thus far, since God is the author of nature.

In other words, God’s providence does indeed apply even to the necessities of nature precisely because he made nature to have those necessities. This is not solely because he created these natures once and had he not done so they would not exist in order to exercise their necessities. Rather, Thomas elsewhere explains the contingency of being, which makes it clear that when God created the Sun, it was not a simple one-time process that made the Earth now necessarily exist and spin around the Sun. If anything other than God existed out of necessity, it would be another God. Instead, God calls things into existence by in some sense sharing his own being with them; that is, their existence is contingent upon God’s own existence. If there were no God, they would not exist. If God were not causing them to exist, they would cease to exist. Thus God not only created everything, but sustains it in existence. Thus, every necessity belonging to the nature of those things that God creates are not absolutely necessary, but still contingent upon God’s allowing them to exist.

This does not mean that God happened to create a planet, and it happened to spin around the Sun, and thus we call it providence because God hasn’t thought it important to get rid of that planet. The planet perseveres in its existence precisely because God actively wills it to continue to do so. If he were to stop willing the existence of what he has created, it would stop existing. Nor did God create what he created without purpose or without understanding of the necessities contained in th4ese natures. Everything God has created, he has created with an end in sight, and this ordering toward an end is precisely what we  call providence.

What is most interesting is Thomas’ comment about his opponents in this matter. He says:

Apparently it was this argument that moved those who withdrew the course of nature from the care of divine providence, attributing it rather to the necessity of matter, as Democritus, and others of the ancients.

The logical conclusion from considering natural necessities not to be a part of divine providence is to place matter in a sort of absolute position apart from God. The various Gnostic sects, for example, placed evil among the necessities of matter and made matter into something contrary to God. Thus they would say that the world was created not from nothing, but from pre-existent materials, and that it was created not by God but by a Demiurge.

In modern times, however, we have found new ways to express this. This is most evident in the reception of the Big Bang theory. Many people, educated and uneducated, seem to have this silly idea that if the world was created through some sort of “Big Bang,” then God had no place in its creation. To be fair, some people do not consider the Big Bang theory to make any change to the Christian belief in creation and believe that God was still active somehow in bringing about this event. Others, whether they embrace the theory or not, feel that it contradicts Christian belief because it does not connect with either creation account in Genesis in any pretty way. They may believe that this contradiction alone is enough to shut down Christianity. But there are some who, explicitly or implicitly, believe that if the universe was created by an entirely natural event, which was logically caused by the necessities of natural properties, then there is no way that a providential God could have been involved in creation.

Those who hold this latter view may understand nature, and may be especially skilled at working out science, but they fail to understand being itself. What is most astonishing, however, is that they fail to ask the most vital question, perhaps the first question that should be asked: if there was a Big Bang, then why did it happen? They may answer, “Because of the laws of nature.” Then their heart should ask, “But why do these laws exist? Why these and not other laws?” And if they try to respond, “Because of the way that matter is,” they fail to answer the question, because then they must ask again why matter brings about those particular necessities and not others.

Given that it is much simpler not to exist then to exist at all, we are forever faced with the question of why anything at all exists. If we leave God out of the picture, there’s no reason. Matter cannot have any necessity nor any greater purpose without it having been put there. The world cannot be aimed at a greater good without some intelligence having directed it in that way. And if the world is not aimed at any greater good, it makes no sense that it should exist at all because it would be just as well if it didn’t exist.

The best way to avoid this dead-end mindset in science is to recognize the contingency of the laws of nature that science seeks to understand. I remember reading a Slashdot post a while ago where someone ranted, quite correctly, that it is faulty to think of these laws really as “laws.” Empirical science does not deduce absolute laws from absolute principles, such that it is certain that these laws are and always will be and cannot be broken. Rather, a “law” in science is merely an observation formed from a thorough collection of observations that the universe seems to conform in a certain way. Thus, when it is said that the normal laws of physics may not apply in a black hole, it is not that some absolute law has been broken, but merely that different observations are necessary in order to understand how the universe conforms in that particular sphere.

A “law” in the common mindset tends to imply complete unchangeability, and thus complete necessity. But to find complete necessity, the question “Why?” must be asked over and over until the questioner finally arrives at, “Because it is what it is.” Then, however, he or she must further inquire, “Why is it what it is?” and no answer can be given but, “Because God gives it being to be so.” Thus, not even the laws of nature can escape the providence of God, “who orders all things well” (Wis 8:1).

~Michael Anthony Abril

top - No comments, yet.  

2008-10-09: Human Distortion?

Many statements that I have encountered recently have led me to a stark and sad realization: when taken out of the context of the whole of Catholic teaching, Dei Verbum's emphasis on the human authorship of scripture can be greatly misinterpreted. The first argument that I heard that led me to this understanding was that God could not ... Read more...

2007-05-24: Christ Gathers a People

Up until now I have been describing the terrible state in which man finds himself in the world. Besides being the proposed reasoning behind it, what bearing does this have on the Christ-event? Perhaps "reasoning" is also an improper word, since it has many times been speculated that Christ would have come even if man had not fallen, and it ... Read more...

2007-05-08: Morality and Worship

I was reading a Slashdot article and a comment that somebody left got me thinking, and it seems to demand a reply. On Tuesday, May 8, 2007, inviolet said: You already understand that humans are utterly self-centered. Yet many of them have that irresistible desire to control others. It's a paradox, but still frighteningly ... Read more...

2007-04-14: Christianity Incarnate

Building off of the statements of my last entry, concerning the impact of Jesus upon the modern world, I would like to briefly bring together elements from many of my theological statements to give somewhat of a definition of Christianity as a whole. Yet any definition will of course be lacking precisely because Christianity deals with that which ... Read more...

top - More Blog Entries...