Nature's Teleological Order and God's Providence

Are they compatible with chance, free will, and evil?

Paul Weingartner

• Publisher: De Gruyter
• Year: 2014
• eBook ISBN: 9781614519508
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Philosophy
• Subtopic: Philosophical Metaphysics

The book defends that there is both teleological order (design) and chance in non-living and in living systems of nature including man. This is done by giving exact definitions of different types of order and teleological order on the one hand and of different types of chance on the other. For their compatibility it is important to notice that any definition of chance presupposes some kind of order relative to that we can speak of chance. Thus also in evolution which is some growth of some order and for which a detailed definition is given in chpt.13 chance and degrees of freedom play an essential role.
A further purpose of the book is to show that both the existing order and the existing chance in nature are compatible with a global teleological plan which is God's providence. However concerning the execution of God's plan not everything is done or caused by himself but "God created things in such a way that they themselves can create something" (Gödel, MAX PHIL). A reason for that is that God is neither all-causing nor all-willing although he is almighty. This is connected with the result of chpts.15 and 16 that also human freedom and evil are compatible with God's providence.

1 Whether there can be providence at all?

1.1 Arguments Contra

1.1.1 First argument

Providence – as it is usually understood – is God’s plan by which the development of things is ordered towards their ends. But as Monod says, the development of things is not based on order but on chance and blind freedom:

“Chance alone is the source of every innovation, of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free, but blind, is at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution.” ¹

Therefore there cannot be providence at all.

1.1.2 Second argument

If by providence things are ordered towards their ends then providence implies the existence of ends in things. But only creatures with intellect and will, i.e. human beings can have ends. Accordingly Moses Maimonides says that in contradistinction to all other corruptible things only men are subject to providence.²

Therefore there cannot be providence except concerning human beings.

1.1.3 Third argument

That there is chance in many domains of the universe is a brute fact. Examples are the movements of the atoms in a gas (i.e. thermodynamic processes) or the emittance of elementary particles (i.e. processes of radiation), further mutations, DNA/RNA-recombinations . . . etc. But chance seems to exclude order and directedness towards an end. Now order and directedness towards an end are necessary conditions for providence.

Therefore there cannot be universal providence.

1.2 Argument Pro

If God is the creator of the world (universe) and if he is good then he will care about his creation and creatures. But to care about his creation and creatures involves a plan for guiding and helping them towards their ends.

Therefore if God is the creator of the world (universe) and if he is good then there can be providence.

1.3 Proposed Answer

1.3.1 Definition of ‘providence’

By God’s ’Providence’ we understand God’s plan together with its execution by which the change and development of things is ordered and directed towards their ends. In other words: . . . by which there is order and teleological order in things. To show that providence is possible we do not need factuality of the definition above; we need to assume only its possibility. Then it follows that: possibly: if there is providence there is ordered change and development and directedness towards ends and conversely: possibly: if there is ordered change and development and directedness towards ends then there is providence. And from the latter it follows by the principles of Modal Logic: if there is ordered change and development and directedness towards ends, i.e. order and teleological order, then possibly there is providence. But it will be shown in chapters 4, 5 and 7 below that there is ordered change and development among things of this world (universe) and directedness towards their ends.

Therefore it is possible that there is providence. This argument can be formulated in a more precise way as follows:

Df 1.1. The state of affairs p belongs to God’s Providence (abbreviated as Prov(p)) iff p belongs to God’s plan (PL(p)) or p belongs to God’s execution of his plan (EC(p)).

In symbols: Prov(p) ↔ (PL(p) ∨ EC(p))

Df 1.2. The state of affairs p belongs to God’s plan (abbreviated as PL(p)) iff p belongs to the state of affairs which describe the order in change and in the development of things (abbreviated as Ord(p) i.e. their order) and p belongs to the states of affairs which describe the directedness of the things towards their ends (abbreviated as TO(p) i.e. their teleological order).

In symbols: PL(p) ↔ (Ord(p) ∧ TO(p))

1.3.2 Possibility of Providence

We assume the definitions now only as possible:

1. ◇[Prov(p) ↔ (PL(p) ∨ EC(p))]
2. ◇[PL(p) ↔ (Ord(p) ∧ TO(p))]

From these it follows with the help of modus ponens [◇A∧A ⇒ B] ⇒ ◇B :

3. ◇[PL(p) → Prov(p)]	from 1.
4. ◇[(Ord(p) ∧ TO(p)) → PL(p)]	from 2.

And from these it follows by the principles of Modal Logic ◇(A → B) → (◇ A →→ ◇B); (◇A → ◇B) → (A → ◇B):

5. ◇PL(p) → ◇Prov(p)	from 3.
6. (Ord(p) ∧ TO(p)) → ◇PL(p)	from 4.

And therefore also:

7. (Ord(p) ∧ TO(p)) → ◇Prov(p)

from 6 and 5.

From the results then it follows that it is possible that there is providence provided there is order (Ord) and teleological order (TO). This is then an answer to question 1.: Can there be providence? That there is order and teleological order in both non-living and living things will be established in chs. 4., 5. and 7. below.

1.3.3 Remark on terminology

Terminology and terminological problems should not be overestimated. However, terminology should be kept flexible to provide a maximum of transparency and unambiguous understanding. To keep arguments transparent and simple, simple terminology is preferable over a more sophisticated one if it is unambiguous and sufficiently clear. Accordingly, the proof for the possibility of providence was symbolized in a most simple way: ‘Prov(p)’, ‘Pl(p)’, ‘EC(p)’were used respectively for ‘the state of affairs p belongs to God’s providence’ ‘. . . ...

Table of contents

• Philosophische Analyse / Philosophical Analysis
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Preface
• 1 Whether there can be providence at all?
• 2 Whether providence can be attributed to God?
• 3 Whether providence is concerned with creation?
• 4 Whether there is order in the change of things?
• 5 Whether there is teleological order in non-living things?
• 6 Whether there is chance and randomness in non-living things?
• 7 Whether there is teleological order in living things?
• 8 Whether there is chance and randomness in living things?
• 9 Whether providence is compatible with both order and chance?
• 10 Whether everything that happens comes under God’s providence
• 11 Whether everything that comes under God’s providence is known by God
• 12 Whether everything that comes under God’s providence is willed or permitted by God
• 13 Whether everything that comes under God’s providence is caused by God or by creatures
• 14 Whether everything that comes under God’s providence is directed to some goal or integrated into a network of goals
• 15 Whether nature’s order and God’s providence are compatible with free will
• 16 Whether God’s providence is compatible with evil
• Bibliography
• List of definitions
• List of theorems
• List of names
• List of subjects