A Working Example
9
A Working Example
The Solubility of Salt
A Theistic Metaphysics and Onto-Typology
At this juncture, we now explore how God’s divine action might be understood in terms of God willing the structures of the created reality into being, while simultaneously communicating knowledge of divine truths into these structures, and ultimately revealing this knowledge to the creature. In other words, how might this complex elemental understanding of divine action be related to the dynamics of chemical and biological mechanisms? In recent decades, much attention has been devoted in the literature to how the extant divine action views might provide a theistic metaphysical account for activity at the quantum level, in consciousness, and in free will. However, when it comes to a divine action account for higher order chemical and biological mechanisms, we find nothing. So let us begin with a theistic divine action account of a very simple chemical mechanism involving ionization of an ionic bond, the dissolving of salt, NaCl, into the ions Na+ and Cl-. We will explore this reaction in terms of Divine Compositionalism as described earlier which claims that the functioning of every physical, chemical, and biological mechanism in the universe is a manifesting complex disposition, which is nothing other than ways God acts according to plan.
In utilizing the power of this divine action view, the coherence and benefits of its theistic ontology will be tested alongside the value of scientific explanation. The metaphysics help align a complete understanding of the role of God’s acting in manifesting a creation out of nothing in an Edwardsean continuous creation. Then, using this ontology, the divine messages, or onto-types, embedded in this simple mechanism will be explored. Here we see a working example of a Trinitarian divine action theology. We begin with a dispositional ontology grounding what nature is, in this case the solubility of NaCl willed by God’s compositional, existence-conferring action according to God’s will or plan. Then, we investigate the communication of the spiritual messages that this mechanism adumbrates, and the revelation of these truths to created minds fashioned to receive it.
As we explored earlier in Chapter 6, Divine Compositionalism proposes that the ways God enacts his plan (i.e., confers existence) are mirrored in the latter three categories of our five category ontology, which are dispositions, forces, structures. Dispositions (ontologically considered) may be construed as God’s commitments to act on condition. The four forces (i.e., gravity, electromagnetism, the strong and the weak nuclear forces)—are God’s ‘constant’ acting, represented biblically as God’s faithfulness, grounded in God’s freedom. A structure is God’s unifying, coordinated acting which we perceive as a pattern of co-existence, as a simultaneous aspect of a physical system, or as the co-occurrence of separate events. We postulate that every created thing and every fundamental concept of physical, chemical, and biological science can be accounted for in terms of some combination of this five-category ontology. If this conceptualization is on the right track, then we may say that the ways God’s confers existence according to plan are what science studies.
Thus, Divine Compositionalism becomes not a deterrent to studying and understanding the natural world, but rather gives credence to the discoveries of science as the ongoing communication of a faithfully acting God who is moment-by-moment sustaining the universe by the word of his power. Edwards construed this idea of nature as God’s acting by saying that “to find out the reasons of things in natural philosophy is only to find out the proportion of God’s acting.” Even Enlightenment thinkers such as Isaac Newton construed nature in this way as well, “All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being, necessarily existing.”
In this view, a disposition is the fundamental level of existence defined as a state of being poised to do or be something (i.e., to effect a change (active) or to be changed (passive) that simply represents a divine commitment to confer existence on condition. Whether or not a physical system has a dispositional property is matter of what the actual world includes. However, since the actual world is God’s plan according to which God confers existence, we are in a position to relate a conception of dispositions to a conception of God’s creative acting according to plan. Every event is unique and is related to another by what appears to an observer to be a causal process but which we claim is really God’s conferring existence according to his commitments. With this in mind, we can apply a formal language to the analysis as follows:
Definition of a disposition
α ⊐〚 [σx ⊨ {i}]δ’ [σx’ ∈ {m}]δ’’ > δ’ 〛δ is
God’s commitment to manifest all dispositions
〚 [σx ⊨ {i}]δ’ [σx’ ∈ {m}]δ’’ > δ’ 〛 is
God representation for any type of causal process
[σx ⊨ {i}]δ’ [σx’ ∈ {m}]δ’’ > δ’ is
representation of a specific causal process in the actual world
Key of terms:
α ⊐—the actual world includes
x—any physical system (object or substance)
σx—any state of physical system
[D]—any disposition
δ—any duration of time
δ’’ > δ’—a duration of time later than the initial duration of time
{i}—a set of D’s initiating conditions over some duration δ’
σx’—is a token of one of D‘s manifestation types occurring over duration δ’’ later than δ’
{m}—a set of D’s manifestations when subject to one of the initiating conditions in {i}
Read in plain English, a disposition is a property of a physical system that exists in the actual world. The disposition in a physical system is poised to manifest under certain initiating conditions over a duration of time. When subject to the initiating condition, the disposition will manifest. This process is God’s commitment to act on condition. Since the actual world, containing physical systems with the dispositions they possess, is God’s plan according to which God confers existence, we now have related a conception of dispositions to a conception of God’s creative acting according to plan.
A Theistic Model of a Scientific Mechanism
Let us begin with the premise that God confers existence to the entire universe compositionally at every moment. This conjecture is fully Trinitarian and supported by Scripture. One scriptural starting point is found in Colossians 1:15–16 which indicates that “The Son is the image of the invisible God, for in Him all things were created . . . all things were created through him and for him. He is before all things and in Him all things hold together.” Divine Compositionalism holds that all things in the universe were created by the Trinitarian God through Christ and for Christ. Since it is through Christ all things “hold together” we cannot separate natural law, powers, or causality from the sovereignty of God in Christ, through the power of the Holy Spirit. All of the creation, as reflected in the language and discovery of science, is contingent upon God. Without such contingency on God, any ontology is forced to consider dispositions and forces in particular to be brute, non-contingent aseities in themselves. Thus, Divine Compositionalism holds that God is the only aseity, whereby all things are contingent. An expanded discussion further extends this theistic position to a Trinitarian view.
The writer of the book of Hebrews in the New Testament indicates that the universe was made through the Son (Hebrews 1:2), and that all things in the universe are “sustained by his powerful word” (Hebrews 1:3). On these grounds, Divine Compositionalism is Trinitarian, in that it holds that God—through the economic office of the Son—confers existence to the universe compositionally, so that dispositions (ontologically considered) simply are God’s commitment to act (i.e., confer existence) on condition. Thus, every physical, chemical and biological mechanism in the universe in its functioning is a manifesting complex disposition. It is the existence-conferring action of God. In this way, there is no separation of God from the creation in the sense that God must intervene in the creation. The problem of intervention/non-intervention does not even arise under Divine Compositionalism as it must in order to satisfy other views of divine action, because the laws of nature (both of succession and of co-existence) are not intermediaries in divine action. Laws of nature, such as gravitation, electromagnetism and so on, are God’s consistent acting according to his plans and purposes for the world in Christ. Natural laws, which we accept as regularities, are just constant acting in the existence-conferring action of God. Thus, there is no need to give an account for God “overriding” or “violating” laws of nature. The decision to treat the universe as a closed system or an open system of secondary causes also does not arise, for the causal structure of the universe is a structure of God’s acting. Again, Divine Compositionalism is consistent with Pannenberg’s thesis in understanding that the laws of nature themselves are not acting apart from God, but are viewed as God’s consistent acting. He writes,
the development of chaos theory seems to have shown that “local” contingency of actual events does indeed occur even on the level of macrophysical processes, without precluding the description of such processes by natural laws. This supports, in my judgment, the assumption that basically all natural events happen contingently, notwithstanding the uniformities that ordinarily occur in their sequence, and permit a description by formulas of natural law.
Whereas a concurrentist view would hold that the formulas describing natural laws indicate a conferred independence, Pannenberg asserts that physical formulas simple provide a description of God’s constant acting. Likewise, a Divine Compositional account of natural laws, and the scientific mechanisms that are described by them, rests in God’s continuous act of creating, willing the creation into existence moment-by-moment.
Let’s turn our attention now to the application of Divine Compositionalism to the solubility of NaCl, a relatively simple scientific mechanism. In general, a mechanism may be understood dynamically or statically. On the one hand—approaching mechanisms dynamically—every mechanism is a process, every process is an event, and every event is finite sequence of discrete states of a physical system (treating the dynamics scientifically) and every event is a manifesting disposition (treating the dynamics metaphysically). Thus, we may define a mechanism alternatively as a process or as a manifesting complex disposition, depending on whether it is for scientific purposes or for metaphysical purposes. On the other hand—approaching mechanisms statically as a whole—a mechanism may be conceptualized and represented as involving “entities” and “activities” or as a structure of component, fundamental dispositions. As such our model (Divine Compositionalism) may be graphically represented as follows, where the letters, A, B, and C, pick out stages in a causal process:
The Divine Compositionalism Model
A
B
C
⇓
⇓
⇓
D1 [σx ⊨ {i}]δ’
[σx’ ∈ {m}]δ’’>δ’
D2
[σx ⊨ {i}]δ
σx’ ∈ {m}]δ’’>δ’
A scientific investigation of a mechanism begins with the identification of “start-up” conditions and of terminating conditions which may (and usually does) involve intermediate states with more arrows until a final termination is achieved or a cycle is complete. In this schema, each state of a physical system is a manifestation state of one or more component dispositions and constitutes to some extent the initiation states of other component dispositions. In other words, the representation of states of a system by the brackets with a duration [σx]δ—while understood as depicting a sequence of events, may actually condense or summarize a complex of other causally-related or simultaneous states.
Thus, what may have been understood as a two-stage process (as depicted above) may later be discovered, with more advanced scientific discovery, to be a 5-stage process or perhaps an even more complex process, because “in between” stage 1 and stage 2 another stage is discovered; the same may hold between stage 2 and stage 3. Likewise, future scientific investigation may show more. In fact, even simple chemical and biological mechanisms show numerous intermediate states, leading to higher order complexity in multi-step biological mechanisms. Regardless of the complexity of steps, or the number of steps in a scientific mechanism, the same paradigm holds: the mechanism itself is a manifesting disposition. The disposition is conferred by God in Christ, thus the manifestation of a disposition under the appropriate start-up conditions is simply God acting according to his commitments, conferring existence according to his plan for the universe at every given moment.
A Theistic Account of a Simple Mechanism: the NaCl Cycle
Basic Science
Even though quantum theory has revealed subatomic levels of complexity, for the purposes here we need only to treat atoms as the basic building blocks of all types of matter. Atoms associate with other atoms through chemicals bonds resulting from the strong attractive forces that exist between atoms. The electrons that participate in chemical bonds are the valence electrons, which are the electrons found in an atom’s outermost shell. When two reactive atoms are present in a chemical reaction, whether in vivo or in vitro, their outer shell electrons interact. The four main types of bonds formed between atoms in decreasing bond energy strength are, covalent bonds, ionic bonds, hydrogen bonds and Van der Waals forces. For the purposes of this discussion, we will limit our analysis to ionic bonds and hydrogen bonds. An ionic bond is formed when one atom accepts or donates one or more of its valence electrons to another atom. In a standard chemistry explanation, an ionic bond is considered the electrostatic force of attraction between two oppositely charged ions; the resultant compound is referred to as a salt. The salt molecule (here we will confine our discussion to the salt, NaCl, but this chemistry applies to all ionic bond salt compounds such as CaCl2, KCl, KI, and so on), has the capacity and tendency to self-associate in a higher order lattice structure known as a salt crystal, commonly known as table salt.
Sodium Chloride (NaCl) Cycle
Geologically, NaCl occurs naturally in the mineral form, halite, also called “rocksalt.” In nature there is a highly complex NaCl cycle beginning with halite that is broken down into smaller and smaller bits of rock salt by environmental erosion. Solid NaCl rock salt enters water systems through runoff into lakes, streams, rivers and finally to the ocean systems of the world. The solid NaCl salt crystal is dissolved by the electrostatic effects of the polarity of water. Thus, the subsequent state of NaCl in environmental aqueous solution (rivers, oceans etc.) is in the ionized form, Na+ and Cl-, where each atom, carrying a full net charge is surrounded by a strong hydration layer of water.
The cycle then continues as ponds, lakes, rivers and oceans dry up from resultant evaporation. In geological history, the drying up of oceans and large bodies of water has produced the world’s halite mines and salt beds distributed throughout the Earth. However, on a much smaller scale, even evaporation on a hot day at the beach due to ocean spray on the rocky coast will produce the very same effect. Either on a small scale or a large scale, the salt water solution, which is subject to solar energy, will undergo evaporation. In this reaction, solar heat causes a dynamic change in the hydrogen bonding between water molecules. Once the water molecules begin to evaporate, the hydration layer around each ion decreases until the point when the ionic attraction for Na+ and Cl- is stronger than the hydrostatic pull on each ion from the hydrogen bonding of remaining water molecules. At that critical point, the ionic bond once again forms resulting in ionic bond formation, and the result is molecular NaCl. The final step is the self-association of NaCl molecules into the NaCl geometric lattice of the salt crystal.
NaCl in biological systems is required for the intracellular and extracellular salt balance across the membrane of all living organisms. Terrestrial and fresh water organisms (plant, animals, and bacteria) maintain intracellular Na+ and Cl- concentrations of 150mM, while marine organisms maintain an intracellular concentration of these ions at 500mM. Na+ and Cl- ions are crucial for life to exist and are balanced across the cell membrane by transmembrane Na+ and Cl- pumps and channels which maintain and use gradients for numerous physiological processes including glucose uptake, K+ balance, Ca++ regulation, action potential across the membrane, transmission of electrical signals in neurons, just to name a few.
Divine Compositionalism Applied to the Solubility of Salt
In what follows we apply the Divine Compositionalism model to a “simple” naturally-occurring mechanism, one that is biologically relevant, such as the dissolving, or ionization, of salt as it occurs inorganically in nature and in the laboratory, but also as a crucial mechanism in general for many biological mechanisms, including protein folding, enzyme action, cellular and molecular processes. We begin by representing the mechanism of the dissolving of NaCl in aqueous solution from erosion of naturally occurring halite as a structure of dispositions as follows:
A
B
C
D
⇓
⇓
⇓
⇓
NaCl(s) ⇒
NaCl(crystal)
D1 [σx ⊨{i}]δ’
[σx’ ∈ {m}]δ’’>δ’
NaCl(crystal) ⇒
NaCl(aq)
D2
[σx ⊨ {i}]δ
σx’ ∈ {m}]δ’’>δ’
H2O(aq) ⇒
H2 δ+O δ- (aq) + [H+(aq) + OH - (aq) ]
D3
[σx ⊨ {i}]δ’’
[σx’ ∈ {m}]δ’’’>δ’’
NaCl(aq) ⇒
Na+(aq) + Cl-(aq)
D4
[σx ⊨ {i}]δ’’’
σx’ ∈ {m}]δ’’’’>δ’’’
The physical states of system x are as follows:
States of System x
A
NaCl(s)
solid state NaCl in the form of halite or rock salt subject to erosion
B
NaCl(crystal)
the formation of salt crystals as a result of erosion into bodies of water
C
NaCl(aq)
individual molecular NaCl salt released from crystal lattice structure in aqueous solution. This a short-lived state since polarity of water will immediately act upon NaCl molecules inducing ionization, breaking the ionic bond
D
H20(aq)
the polarity of H20 yielding a partial positive (δ+) and a partial negative (δ-) dipole moment to the molecule. Note that also a very small percentage of hydroxide ion (H+(aq)) and hydroxyl radical (0H- (aq)) is also present in water and can contribute to the ionization of NaCl
E
Na+(aq)
ionized Na+ atom with a hydration layer of water molecules
F
Cl-(aq)
ionized Cl- atom with a hydration layer of water molecules
G
Na+(aq)+Cl-(aq)
ionized Na+ and Cl- atoms in aqueous solution found in lakes, streams rivers, oceans and all biological cellular systems; each ion is surrounded by a hydration layer of water
In order to apply Divine Compositionalism in formulating a theistic account of the mechanism of the dissolving of salt from halite breakdown to individual NaCl molecules, then to ionized Na+(aq) and Cl-(aq) in aqueous solutions in the natural world, we begin first by representing God’s commitment to act as
α ⊐〚 [σx ⊨ {i}]δ’ [σx’ ∈ {m}]δ’’>δ’ 〛δ
God’s commitment
This commitment applies to all possible states over the duration of time δ. In the actual world, there is a representation for the causal process of the solubility of NaCl from halite rock which we represent as
〚 [σx ⊨ {i}]δ’ [σx’ ∈ {m}]δ’’>δ’ 〛
a representation for any type of causal process
This causal process will occur over some duration of time. Within this causal process there are causal subprocesses, or steps, that contribute to the overall net mechanism. The representation of the sequential individual steps of the causal processes of the dissolving of NaCl in this mechanism is represented by this symbolism:
[σx ⊨ {i}]δ’ [σx’ ∈ {m}]δ’’>δ’
the representation of a specific causal process in
a given step in the mechanism
So, let’s begin with disposition, D1, of Na(s) halite (rock salt) existing in soil and rock. In this state, State A, Na(s) halite has the disposition of being eroded under certain start-up environmental conditions. This is represented in the formulation as [σx ⊐ {i}]δ’. There is a wide range of start-up conditions in this mechanism, {i}, that would include, but are not limited to, wind, rain, sleet, ice, ice melt, earthquake, hurricanes, and tornado. The initiating conditions {i}, hold no intrinsic power, neither do they convey any causal efficacy to the system. The initiating conditions represent a set of possible conditions, which when met, are the conditions within which dispositions (in the case of D1 the disposition to erode) are manifested. If the initiating conditions are not met, according to God’s plan and purposes, then the disposition, D1, will not be manifested. Halite will always possess the disposition to erode, but will only manifest the disposition when initiating conditions are met. Thus, said another way, the disposition, D1, is God’s commitment to act on condition when a member of the set {i} is an occasion, initiated by God according to God’s plan. In this way, Divine Compositionalism can be viewed as a form of occasionalism. In this system, the time duration can be long epochs of time (millions of years) or shorter time periods depending on environmental conditions.
In this way, physical space and time does not exist outside of God or independent of God, but within the actual world representing God’s plan according to which God confers existence. Taken in this way, then, D1, specifically, solid sodium salt under these start-up conditions, is God’s creative acting according to plan, and as such, God’s commitment to act on condition. The manifestation, {m}, of the disposition of sodium rock salt to erode (ontologically considered) also represents a range of possibilities that includes size of eroded fragments, dimensions, crystal lattice structure and so on. This represents the range of God’s freedom to act according to condition. We see the regularity of erosion throughout nature, which we construe as God’s consistent acting. Referring back to our five-category ontology, then, disposition D1, is God’s acting upon a set of initiating conditions established by God’s creative action. We can construe the structure of NaCl halite in State A as God’s unifying, coordinated acting and the forces of ionic bonding, and inter-molecular bonding in the crystal lattice formation and rock salt as God’s ‘constant’ actings.
In the disposition D2, we see the multi-step, complex causal process continue as the manifestation of D1 becomes the start-up condition for the next step of the mechanism. This is represented by State B, which dispositionally is the state of eroded NaCl crystals poised to dissolve into individual NaCl molecules (under certain start-up conditions), and is represented in the formulation [σx ⊐ {i}]δ’’. There is a range of start-up conditions in this mechanism, {i}, that would include, but are not limited to various forms of exposure to aqueous solutions. Rather, however, in this case we can simplify even further and say that {i} = 1 in that the initiating condition is simply exposure of NaCl crystal to water in any form. Again, and throughout our model, the initiating conditions do not hold any causal powers, rather, we construe this simply as God’s acting upon an included set of start-up conditions, {i}, over a time duration δ’’ represented in the actual world. It might seem at first glance that the “causal power” in the initial dissolution of NaCl from the crystal lattice, leading to dissolving into sodium and chloride ions in the subsequent step, comes from water, ie., ‘water is causing the dissolving’. However, according to Divine Compositionalism, neither water, nor its properties, are a causal power. The effect of water on the NaCl crystal is simply the manifestation of the disposition of the polarity of water representing God’s commitment to act. Shown in the manifestation of the disposition of water in the formulation D3:
D3
H20(aq) → H2 δ+0 δ- (aq) + [H+(aq) + 0H - (aq) ]
[σx ⊨ {i}]δ’’ [σx’ ∈ {m}]δ’’’>δ’’
Again, we may apply a conception of the coordination of D2 and D3, specifically, dissolution of NaCl crystals to release free NaCl molecules in water to a conception of God’s creative acting according to plan, and may also be construed as God’s commitments to act coordinately and simultaneously in these two reactions on condition. This representation of God’s acting is viewed as compositional since these events are happening in a compositional, coordinate fashion. The manifestation, {m}, of the disposition of salt crystals to dissolve (ontologically considered) also represents a range of possibilities. These, likewise, represent the range of God’s freedom to act. The manifestation of D2 possesses a new set of forces and structures; ionic bonds within individual NaCl molecules, representing again God’s consistent and coordinated acting, respectively.
In disposition D4, we see the manifestation of D2 and D3 becoming the start-up conditions for the next and final step in the reaction represented. In this case, State C is very short-lived since the strong polarity of water will act upon individual NaCl molecules in aqueous solution instantly to produce the terminating condition, dissolving of salt, ie., the ionization of Na+ and Cl- ions, in aqueous solution:
D4
NaCl(aq) → Na+(aq) + Cl-(aq)
[σx ⊨ {i}]δ’’’ [σx’ ∈ {m}]δ’’’’>δ’’’
Thus, in State D the polarity of water of the system is required for States C, E, F and G. These reactions are coordinated. The disposition, D3, of the polarity of water, manifested in aqueous solution, is required for the manifestation of D2 and D4, (ie., State D of the system is required for States C and finally G). The disposition of NaCl to ionize simply stated, is God’s simultaneous acting upon commitment under certain start-up condition according to God’s plan for the world. The manifestation, {m}, in this reaction includes a range of possible manifestations, where in our experience in the actual world is m=1, the dissolving of salt into its requisite ions in water. We construe this as a regularity, representing God’s freedom to act according to God’s own purposes and plans. Each step in the multi-step mechanism of the solubility of salt from halite, just is God’s causally-productive acting. Given our analysis of dispositions, what really connects initiating conditions to manifestation (the arrow connecting the two sides of the reaction) is God’s commitment to act on condition.
Thus, to give an account of causation in the mechanism of the solubility of salt (ionization of NaCl from rock salt), the producing or the bringing about of dissolving, is God’s acting or God’s “REAL-izing” this particular actual world state. We never observe the causation. It is primitive subjectively, but objectively it is God’s acting. The mechanism in our model, then, is simply the manifesting of a complex disposition which ontologically is God’s acting on condition. Said another way, efficient causation turns out not to be a fundamental feature of nature, i.e., it is not (ontologically) primitive in a naturalistic sense. What seems to be the causal relation between states of the reaction just is God’s REAL-izing both states according to God’s established commitments in the natural world. Thus, the ‘cause’ of halite dissolving into the ions of Na+ and Cl- that are required for oceans to possess their salinity, and cells to function with required Na+ and Cl- ions, is a situation that satisfies a condition of one of God’s commitments to act on that condition. A divine commitment links two states, giving us a causal relation and, when generalized, give us laws of succession.
So, according to Divine Compositionalism, it is a mistake to conceptualize two causally related situations (or events) as σ1 → σ2, where the right arrow, ‘→’, represents the productive causality. Rather, it is better conceptualized as in this graphic representation:
↓
↓
σ1 →
σ2
The down arrows, ‘↓’, represents God’s causally-productive acting. Given our analysis of dispositions, that which ontologically connects the situations is God’s commitment to act on condition. The causal relata of the mechanism is represented epistemically by the right arrow (→) but ontologically by the down arrows (↓). We see how common sense or perceptions mislead us to project onto things certain active and passive “powers.” There are no such things. There are only God’s compositional existence-conferring actions.
Limitation of a Scientific Explanation of Reality and
a Theistic Ontology of the Solubility of Salt Explained
We have given a theistic account of the nature of scientific mechanisms and have shown in detail how it applies to the NaCl cycle. This is a step toward satisfying a challenge to provide a comprehensive and consistent metaphysical account of the concepts of science and mathematics from a single ontology. Some other basic concepts of physical science are time, space, event, causation, law of nature, of mathematics are number, set, and function, and of the human sciences are consciousness, intentionality, and freedom. But what are those things to which the basic concepts refer? Can anything more be said about the nature of the things which are the referents of the concept? This is a persistent challenge for anyone holding to scientific realism, but who also eschews philosophical or religious explanation. Anjan Chakravartty writes “Scientific realism is a positive epistemic attitude towards the content of our best theories and models, recommending belief in both observable and unobservable aspects of the world described by the sciences.” But then a theory is said to be ontologically committed to whatever entities (or categories of such) must exist in order for the theory to be true, regardless of whether the theory is explicit about its ontological commitments. So, if one takes a realist stance regarding scientific theories, then the challenge is to provide some account of the nature of the entities that must exist if indeed the theories are true. The best account—admittedly somewhat subjective—should provide a sense that something fundamental has been reached and should apply to all basic concepts of both science and mathematics.
There are alternative ways to view this challenge. For example, James Ladyman and Don Ross, advocating Ontic Structural Realism (OSR), would say that, while the universe exhibits an ontologically-fundamental, objective modal structure, scientific theories (mathematical models) do not inform us about the nature of what is modeled, but rather its structure. So how do you get modality from structure alone, when reference to structure is as far as you can go? For another example, Jonathan Schaffer writes that
On the now dominant Quinean view, metaphysics is about what there is. Metaphysics so conceived is concerned with such questions as whether properties exist, whether meanings exist, and whether numbers exist. I will argue for the revival of a more traditional Aristotelian view, on which metaphysics is about what grounds what. Metaphysics so revived does not bother asking whether properties, meanings, and numbers exist (of course they do!) The question is whether or not they are fundamental.
But here again, what is it that assures you that you have come the fundamental nature of what entities are, and can go no further? Perhaps the challenge was put best in 1935 by Albert Einstein who wrote to Schrödinger that the real difficulty lies in the fact that physics is a kind of metaphysics; physics describes “reality.” But we do not know what “reality” is; we know it only by means of the physical description. Saying what reality is—having an account of the nature of the fundamental entities that are presupposed by a particular scientific theory—is not something that can be settled scientifically or mathematically. Rather, as Einstein seems to be implying, saying what reality is will inevitably involve religious and philosophical views. Let us consider this more closely.
It might seem from experimental science that all there is to any mechanism are states of some physical system standing in structural and “causal” relations to other states. From the standpoint of science, establishing a statistically-significant regularity by repeated experimentation entitles one to claim to have explained the mechanism. However, as we have seen, a complete explanation would have to identify not only the physical descriptions of what is going on in the mechanism, but how it is so from a metaphysical or ontological understanding. For example, the Standard Model of particle physics presupposes the existence of particles and provides a description. An electron for example,
This combination of properties is designated as “negative,” but the Standard Model can go no further. It does not tell us how this “particle” is so, or how it is that a particle with such a list of physical properties is attracted to another entity that:
or, better known as a proton. Even modern quantum physicists are beginning to realize that the scientific descriptions alone cannot give us the whole reality, the deeper we go toward the “bottom” we are only left with more physical descriptions. Description does not amount to deep explanation. Explanation (in the complete and deep sense) requires ontology that not only names its presupposed entities, but commits itself to what they are.
Thus, basic science according to the scientific method is limited to a description of physical states of a system based on measured values such as mass, charge, spin, etc. These physical descriptions are extremely valuable and form the basis of experimental science as such. However, the physical descriptions in and of themselves cannot give a complete picture of a physical system or mechanism. In other words, a purely scientific ontology (the set of entities presupposed by its theories) cannot completely and rigorously account for productive causation all the way down to bottom out levels of matter and energy.
For example, Francesa Vidotto’s work represents the Covariant Loop Quantum Gravity approach to unifying physics by reconciling Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity. Fay Dowker’s work represents the Causal Set approach. Vidotto says that fundamentally there are only general co-variant quantum fields. Dowker says elementary events. Admittedly, at this level it is difficult to distinguish a scientific theory’s theoretical commitments from its ontological commitments, but regardless what we have is either fields or events and one wants to ask what they are. Appealing to a theistic view, not by trying to recover an outdated 19th century Natural Theology, nor to insert a “God of the Gaps” explanation, but by engaging with a Trinitarian Theology of Nature, substantiated by Divine Compositionalism, provides a better explanation of ontological commitments. As Alister McGrath indicates, “the scientific enterprise often focuses on the empirical, on surface phenomena, passing over the deeper structures and meaning of the world.” And again, “The key to . . . the orderliness of nature is ultimately expressed in the basic mathematical laws of the natural sciences. Swinburne offers an inductive and probabilistic approach, which sets out to determine whether theism offers a superior account of such regularities in nature than does its alternatives.” Perhaps, as McGrath seems to be indicating here, the current scientific ontology is fundamentally limited. Perhaps an alternative, a theistic view, may provide a better, more complete understanding.
In Divine Compositionalism, we assert that the dynamic and changing universe is observed by direct experience, and through the rigors of scientific discovery. We hold the view that the universe at any duration is God’s enacting his plan for it. The actual world is God plan; the universe is God’s enacting his plan. There are many situations or states of physical systems that God intends to enact. Each individual scientific mechanism happening everywhere at every Planck moment is represented by some such divine plan or intention. Thus, in our model, we can account ontologically for the causal relata between state A of a physical system and state B by appealing to God’s commitments. Since every entity in the universe can be described dispositionally, and a scientific mechanism can be viewed as an entity poised to manifest a disposition, we can ground ontological understanding of mechanisms more than the physical descriptions. By claiming that the manifestation of a disposition of a physical entity or system is God’s acting upon condition, we can conceive of the causation as a matter of God’s acting rather than looking for it in a purely physical description. The disposition itself does not involve neo-Aristotelian “causal powers,” neither does the initiating condition which leads to the manifestation of the disposition. In our view, the universe is ontologically distinct from God, but it can never be ontologically independent of God, because only God is a se (self-sufficient). No part of the physical world could exist apart from God willing that it exist at the moment. For every disposition, both the states that are initiating conditions, and those that are its manifestations, are contingent. Thus, God had no need to create anything at all, and thus acts freely. As Wolfhart Pannenberg addresses here: “such uniformities, a substratum of the hypothesis of natural law, as well as the enduring forms of natural reality are considered as contingent in the same was as any single event. The laws of nature appear . . . as contingent products of the creative freedom of God. The unity of contingency and continuity in the creative activity . . . is rooted in God’s faithfulness.” Thus, dispositions, forces and structures are contingent upon God’s divine acting according to God’s pre-ordained commitments, under conditions of the natural world according to God’s plan. If dispositions, forces and structures are non-contingent then we are faced with two further problems: namely first, that dispositions, forces and structures are aseities, in and of themselves, and second we are presented with a universe of total receivers. In our ontological understanding of a scientific mechanism, and the processes within the natural world, a universe of total receivers of existence simply cannot exist, as handed down to us from the tradition of Aquinas. We align with Pannenberg’s view insomuch as the laws of nature, the fundamental forces, are God’s constant acting, as he states, “rooted in the faithfulness of God.”
In the dispositions literature, dispositional properties such as solubility, fragility, elasticity and so on, are explored as bona fide explanations for a source of causal powers in a system in the physical world. However, as stated above, there are metaphysical problems involved with viewing causal relata in terms of Aristotelian powers or in dispositional properties as such. We present an alternative view grounded in dispositions, not as casual powers, but as ways God acts upon commitment. In our theistic analysis of the NaCl cycle we do not in any way reject the metaphysical realism of the system in terms of the basic chemistry of the reaction of the dissolving of salt. Scientific analysis has informed us that in the presence of aqueous solution, the ionic bond of NaCl will yield the ions Na+ and Cl-. It may seem enough to say that the “cause” of the solubility of salt is due to the competing polarity of water and call it a day. However, upon close inspection, how can we account for the polarity of water, a dispositional property itself, to be a causal power? Or even more succinctly, how can the polarity of a water molecule itself be a cause? There is no intrinsic power in the polarity of water molecules so the explanation must be found elsewhere.
Divine Compositionalism proposes an alternative explanation. It might seem that the “causal power” to dissolve the ionic bond in NaCl comes from the ionic attraction between the cation and the anion, and the “force” of the competing polarity of water molecules. In our view, however, forces are merely perceived, there are no such intrinsic causal powers or forces. Rather, Divine Compositionalism, proposes that as such, ontologically, states of the reaction are understood in terms of dispositions, forces and structures. Dispositions are construed as God’s commitment to act on condition.
In the formalism presented above for the solubility of salt, we can account for dispositions at each step in the reaction and give an account of the manifestation of each disposition when a particular initiating condition is met. Both the disposition itself, and the “trigger” of the initiating condition, are fully God’s acting upon commitment according to God’s plan. As we continue through the ontology, forces are God’s consistent action which is viewed as a regularity in nature. A good example from the solubility of NaCl above, consistent with our five-category ontology, would be in stating that the perceived “force” involved in dissolving the ionic bond is attributed solely and ontologically to God’s consistent commitment to manifest the disposition of solubility whenever the initiating conditions of hydration are present. In each step of the NaCl cycle, structures are either being formed or broken down depending on the particular stage of the reaction. In each and every case, the structures themselves are God’s coordinated acting.
In short, the multi-step, complex mechanism of the NaCl cycle in nature, and in particular the solubility of salt, is best viewed compositionally and dynamically as a manifesting complex disposition. Said another way, according to this view, all scientific mechanisms in the natural world are a manifesting complex disposition, which is nothing other than the ways God acts according to plan.
Onto-typology of the Solubility of Salt
We have just explored the metaphysics of the mechanism of solubility using Divine Compositionalism as the preferred view of divine action to account for God’s existence-conferring act-result action in terms of physical states of the mechanism of NaCl ionization. In that analysis, God wills into existence states of a system on condition depending upon God’s plan for the actual world in that particular time and place. This accounts for the physical world we encounter in our moment-by-moment lives on earth. However, the central theme in our construction of a Trinitarian Theology of Nature, is not only does God will dispositions, structures and (perceived) forces into being, but likewise there is a communication of embedded divine messages that encompass the actual structures and processes as well. In thinking of the NaCl mechanism, we now turn to explore embedded onto-types pointing toward spiritual truths. As a reminder, we will need to satisfy the four main criteria for qualifying a natural onto-type/antitype construct as presented earlier:
1. In a type/antitype, the factual nature of the item in question remains such that the meaning and use of the word, person, object or situation does not change, it is only different in its relation.
2. There must be a rigorous correspondence between the type and its corresponding antitype, not just a mere resemblance.
3. There must be a chronological or systematized prefiguring or foreshadowing of the type to its corresponding antitype.
4. The type/antitype must convey truth regarding knowledge of God as affirmed in scripture
In the discussion that follows, the factual nature of NaCl and its properties remain intact (satisfies criterion 1), there is a rigorous correspondence between halite, NaCl, and Na+ and Cl- ions to their antitype in each case (satisfies criterion 2), there is a chronological prefiguring of the onto-types of halite, NaCl, and Na+ and Cl- ions in each case starting with the earthly substance, pointing to the heavenly (satisfies criterion 3), and in each case scriptural references are given to substantiate the consonance between onto-type and antitype (satisfies criterion 4). Let us begin.
In this mechanism, we noted that NaCl crystal is bound in halite until it encounters water which disrupts the NaCl ionic bond. Bound in halite crystal, the Na+ and Cl- ions cannot function as they were intended to function in ecological and biological systems. Plants and animals cannot live without the correct isotonic balance of salt ions in the environments in which they live, survive, and thrive. In this way, the halite crystal may serve as an onto-type pointing to the antitype of a human life without the grace and love of God, thus unable to attain the full potential of who they were created to be. In rock, halite serves a function of being part of the mountain, but does not give the saltiness and ionic capacity to organic and inorganic systems as it was intended to give for the fullness of life to exist.
The scriptures likewise tell us something of individuals with hardened hearts who do not live according to God’s best for their lives. One example is in Ephesians 4:18, “being darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart.” Their hearts, like the immovable halite crystal in rock, are fixed, unable to function in the vast range of godly attributes they were created for. Thus, the onto-type of halite releasing Na+ and Cl- ions serves to point to a hard heart being released by God’s Spirit to produce greater benefits, as it says in Ezekiel 36:26 “Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.” In addition, just as the halite indeed has a function when it is part of mountainous rock, so individuals can function in certain important and valuable capacities in their lives. Halite’s limited function while it is immobilized, then “freed” once ionized, adumbrates the spiritual truth of being set free.
In the case of the solubility mechanism, water plays the crucial and transformative role of loosening the ions from their fixed position in the salt crystal in order to fully function and be used in aqueous systems and in organisms. Here water serves as the spiritual onto-type prefiguring the antitype of the Holy Spirit working in the lives of people loosening the bonds of sin, breaking up the fallow ground (Jeremiah 4:3), allowing for spiritual growth, transformation, and change. Thus, God’s Spirit releases a human being from rigid ways of being, trapped in sin, darkness, and limitedness much as water, manifesting its disposition of polarity, sets the conditions for NaCl to manifest its disposition of ionization. It is the Holy Spirit that creates the conditions in the human heart to manifest the dispositions of faith, love, compassion, kindness, and so on. Likewise, according to the halite cycle, wind, storms, rain, and erosion also serve to release chunks of NaCl crystal from its fixed position toward ionization in aqueous environments. This may serve as an onto-type of the pain and suffering in life. It is often during these dark and stormy times that God works deeply in human lives producing spiritual gifts that yield growth and spiritual maturity.
In addition, Na+ and Cl- ions are used in food preservation, preventing harmful bacteria from growing and spoiling food, as well as adding flavor to our favorite foods. This harkens to the Scripture in Matthew 5:13 when Jesus said, “You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.” Humans are the salt of the earth. Jesus uses this onto-type to convey the spiritual truth that once an individual encounters the truth of God, their life takes on new substance, deeper meaning, and significant purpose much like the function of salt in our everyday lives. The onto-type of being the salt of the earth points to an individual having been seasoned by God’s grace, transformed from sin and harmful habits, much like salt prevents harmful bacteria from spoiling our food. With an awareness of sin, and the transformation that comes from new life in Christ, those in Christ add goodness to the world by their attitudes, their call to action, justice, ministries, and relationships. The onto-type of salt adding flavor or “saltiness.” to foods prefigures deeper meaning in life from God’s presence which “flavors” the believer’s life with good things, much as salt adds flavor. Life in Christ also takes on significant purpose as we are used in the Kingdom of God, much like salt is used for a variety of commercial purposes necessary to life, like salt that softens the water in the home or melts ice in the driveway. An individual who has encountered the love of God gains a significant purpose, a higher calling, to be used in turn to give life and love, kindness and goodness to others, in an analogous way to the ions giving vital life to plants and animals physiologically.
From this example it can be seen that much spiritual instruction can be gleaned from even a simple mechanism such as the solubility of salt. How affirming it is to find that God speaks to his beloved creatures in the very mechanisms he created through which they live and find life each day. Given this, we can expect to find myriad of embedded messages in all of the mechanisms and discoveries that science provides. As was told to the prophet Jeremiah, “Call to me and I will answer you and tell you great and unsearchable things you do not know.”
. Schultz and D’Andrea-Winslow, “Divine Compositionalism.”
. For a more detailed discussion, see D’Andrea-Winslow and Schultz, “The Solubility of Salt: A Theistic Account.”
. The inclusion of structures in our ontology reflects our commitment to a version of ontic structural realism (OSR) in the philosophy of science. See French, “The Structure of the World; and Bird et al., Properties, Powers and Structures.
. See Schultz, “Dispositions, Capacities, and Powers.”
. Edwards, “The Mind,” in Scientific and Philosophical Writings, 353.
. Newton, Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, 1687.
. This appeal to the existence-conferring action of God distinguishes Divine Compositionalism from deism and locates it within a theistic view of divine action. In this way, Divine Compositionalism can appeal to theistic views of divine action across the spectrum of religious traditions. However, a fully expanded explanation of this view, rooted in the Christian scriptures, moves from a theistic view of a theology of nature to a Trinitarian view, that is, the existence-conferring action of God, in Christ, through the power of the Holy Spirit. As Alister McGrath states in his book, A Fine-Tuned Universe, “Recognizing that God remains involved with the created order leads from deism to theism; recognizing that this God chose to become incarnate in Jesus of Nazareth leads from theism to Trinitarianism.”
. Pannenberg, The Historicity of Nature, 63.
. As is entailed by seeing laws as impositions or prescriptions on an already existing universe. Foster, The Divine Lawmaker, 149–69.
. Machamer, et al., write that “Mechanisms are entities and activities organized such that they are productive of regular changes from start or set-up to finish or termination conditions.” “Thinking about Mechanisms,” 3.
. Just for clarity, the compound NaCl is technically considered a formula unit in the Chemistry literature. We refer to the compound as a molecule in our discussion for ease of reference.
. For a more detailed discussion see Schultz and D’Andrea-Winslow, “Divine Compositionalism,” specifically the section of the paper under the subheading, “Understanding Occasional Causation in Terms of Divine Compositionalism,” describes how we view occasional causation.
. This is the vertical factor in causation. As William Vallicella puts this: “Occasionalism as here defended maintains that each caused event is a product of two factors, one ‘horizontal,’ the other ‘vertical.’ The horizontal factor is made up of the relations (for example, constant conjunction, counterfactual dependency, what-have-you) between caused events and what we naturally take to be their causing events, whether these relations be diachronic or synchronic; the vertical factor is the cause of the existence of the caused events.“ See Vallicella, “Concurrentism or Occasionalism?,” 356.
. Chakravartty, “Scientific Realism.”
. See Quine, ‘On What There Is’ from a Logical Point of View, 119. Alyssa Ney provides a nice introduction in Metaphysics: An Introduction, 30–57. Jody Azzouni, for example, argues that the theoretical entities of physics should take precedence over those posited by its mathematics. Azzouni, “Applied Mathematics, Existential Commitment and the Quine-Putnam Indispensability Thesis,” 193–209. For advanced discussions, see Correia and Schnieder Metaphysical Grounding.
. Ladyman and Ross, Every Thing Must Go, 130.
. Berenstein and Ladyman argue that a scientific realist must accept natural necessity, but do say how modality arises from structure alone. Stathis Psillos argues that indeed the lacuna remains and prospects do not look promising. See Berenstein and Ladyman “Ontic Structural Realism and Modality,” 149–67; and Psillos, “Adding Modality to Ontic Structural Realism,” 169–85.
. Schaffer, “On What Grounds What,” 347–83.
. Dowker, “Causal Sets as Discrete Spacetime.”
. We would like here to acknowledge and extend gratitude to Drs. Anna Marmadoro and Martin Pickup, as well as the students and post-docs in the “Metaphysics of Entanglement” group at Oxford University for helpful and robust discussion. The notion of an ontology rooted in dispositions, structures, and forces is strong and appealing, so the question “Why do you have need of God in this ontology” became a useful impetus for us to defend our ontology precisely and concisely. Briefly stated, why we have need of God in this ontology is in the tradition of Richard Swinburne and others who have supported the notion of “inference to the best explanation.” We feel that a theistic view offers a superior view since it solves several heuristic problems and provides the greatest level of coherence. Alternative naturalistic views cannot account for an ontology of nature beyond descriptions of properties; it cannot give an account of “how” mechanisms in the natural world operate ontologically. Alternative naturalistic views cannot account for the problem of an entirely contingent universe, a universe of total receivers. These views cannot give an explanation of non-conformities or irregularities that in religious traditions are known as “miracles.” Here we defend a position that a theistic view can account for each of these as described above, thus offering the greatest coherence. In addition, Divine Compositionalism in particular as a view of divine action, allows for a non-interventionist, indeterministic view that avoids a God-of-the-gaps dilemma, that accounts for miracles without God violating any natural laws and allows for an account of contingency fully grounded in God’s freedom and God’s faithfulness.
. McGrath. A Fine-Tuned Universe, 4.
. McGrath. A Fine-Tuned Universe, 18.
. Pannenberg, Toward a Theology of Nature, 37. For a more complete discussion, see this same text, Chapter 4 “Contingency and Natural Law.”
. Pannenberg, Toward a Theology of Nature, 37.
. In Schultz and D’Andrea-Winslow “Divine Compositionalism,” refer to the section titled “A Five Category Ontology,” for a larger discussion.
. I would like to note here that the process of receiving the revelation of embedded truths in the NaCl mechanism, as well as receiving the onto-types embedded in numerous other cellular and biological mechanisms I have encountered, has come from prayerful waiting. As a scientist, I work in scientific mechanisms in my everyday life, both in my research and in teaching. It is when I am quiet and waiting on God in meditation and prayer that revelations of embedded truths in the scientific processes come as God sees fit to reveal. There are many times revelations do not come. I can only say that thoughts and ideas of spiritual truths are given through a similar kind of divine inspiration that I have experienced and encountered in other areas of my spiritual life, such as revelation of scriptures; insights; and divine guidance in my life for instruction, growth, teaching, and healing.
. Also see Psalms 17:10; 85:8–9; Proverbs 28:14; and Jeremiah 5:23.
. John 8:38, “If the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.”
. As the Apostle Paul says in Philippians 3:14, “I press on to the mark of the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.”