IMAGE: PHOTO OF FOREST
I think one of the great strengths of Mormonism is its naturalism; however, the
term is equivocal and “naturalism” is sometimes criticized. Dictionary.com gives
(among others) these definitions of “naturalism”:
Philosophy. The system of thought holding that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws.
Theology. The doctrine that all religious truths are derived from nature and
natural causes and not from revelation.
It is in the context of this latter definition that, for example, “naturalistic”
approaches to the Book of Mormon sometimes come under fire (typically from
Mormon apologetic sources). But it seems there is a dichotomy in this definition
that Mormonism rejects.
The assumption in the latter definition seems to be that God is “supernatural.”
While this may be definitionally true (one of the dictionary definitions of
“supernatural” is anything having to do with deity), there is a lot of baggage
here. In Western religious and philosophical tradition, God has been understood
to be outside or beyond the universe. But this is not the case in Mormon
theology, in great part because of our denial of creation ex nihilo and our
interpretation of scriptural creation accounts as pertaining to this earth only,
and not to the entire universe.
This is both an advantage and a disadvantage in seeking to reconcile Mormonism
with scientific thought. The advantage is that our conception of divinity allows
god to be involved in whatever natural processes exist; in fact, we often assert
that God always works by natural means. For example, Brigham Young taught:
“
Yet I will say with regard to miracles, there is no such thing save to the
ignorant—that is, there never was a result wrought out by God or by any of His
creatures without there being a cause for it. There may be results, the causes
of which we do not see or understand, and what we call miracles are no more
than this—they are the results or effects of causes hidden from our
understandings.
”
—
Journal of Discourses 13:140
Brother Carrington was telling us about the way in which money turned up to
clear the ship after sending off more Saints than he had means to pay for. Was
this a miracle any more than many other things in our lives and in the work of
God? No, the providences of God are all a miracle to the human family until
they understand them. There are no miracles only to those who are ignorant. A
miracle is supposed to be a result without a cause, but there is no such
thing. There is a cause for every result we see; and if we see a result
without understanding the cause we call it a miracle. This is what we have
been taught; but there is no miracle to those who understand. (Journal of
Discourses 14:79)
George Q. Cannon was more explicit, in a very transhumanist explanation:
It was no suspension of law on the part of our Savior, that caused Him to
gather from the elements the bread and the fishes necessary to feed the
multitude. It was no suspension of law that caused Him to open the eyes of the
blind, or to cause the sick to be healed. It was no suspension of law that
caused Him to ascend in the sight of His disciples after His resurrection when
He visited them. I know that miracles are said to be suspension of law; but
instead of their being a suspension of law, they are due to a knowledge of a
higher law, to a comprehension of greater laws, by the knowledge of which,
what are called miracles are wrought. To a person who never saw the effect of
electricity, if he were in this Tabernacle and were to see these lights
kindled instantaneously by the touch of electricity—a person who did not
understand the laws of electricity, would say, “Why this is miraculous.” Or to
an ignorant person, a person who knew nothing of the law of electricity, it
would seem marvelous that one standing at the end of a wire, stretched under
the ocean could, by touching that wire, communicate a distance of nearly 3,000
miles, and could talk to a person at the other end of the wire. Had this been
mentioned in the days of our forefathers, they would have declared it was an
impossibility. Such a power would have been miraculous in their eyes, and they
would have said that such a thing was contrary to all known laws concerning
the transmission of sound and thought; but to us who understand this law—or if
we do not understand it, who see the operations of electricity; who know that
we can go to the telegraph office and send a message to Europe from this city,
and get a reply within a few hours; in fact, receive it here at a time of the
day earlier than it was transmitted from there, which is frequently done. We,
who witness this, no longer look upon it as a miracle, or as a suspension of
law, or a violation of the laws which govern the transmission of sound or
thought. We accept it because we have become familiar with it. And so, if we
understood the law by which Jesus operated when He fed the multitude, it would
be as simple to us as the law of electricity is today. If we understood the
law by which the sick were healed, and sight restored to the blind, or by
which He counteracted the laws of gravitation, and ascended in the sight of
His disciples into heaven—if we understood these laws, they would be simple to
us, as all laws are when they are understood. (Journal of Discourses
25:149-150)
This kind of naturalism — one that rejects the dichotomy presented in the
theological definition of the term — is one of the great strengths of Mormonism,
one that positions it very well in our current world.
But there are disadvantages to this approach, too. When we claim that everything
follows from natural law, then we should expect “miraculous” events to be
subject to criticisms in a naturalistic vein. There is a disadvantage also in
claiming that an effect flows from natural law without being able to provide a
naturalistic account for it. We may rightly profess ignorance of these laws, but
we cannot be content with ignorance, particularly when we claim to be able to
receive all the knowledge God has. And the more we fall back on ignorance, the
more our naturalism begins to look like supernaturalism, which I think has
significant theological as well as philosophical drawbacks.
Following the definitions given above, Mormonism is philosophically
naturalistic, but theologically revelatory, and we consider the latter
definition (“derived from nature and natural causes and not from revelation”) to
be a false dichotomy.
