How Big is Your God?

Some years ago I came across a man who was a convert to Islam. I am always interested in how these things happen and it seems the first thing that grabbed his attention was the first verse of the Koran, “Praise be to Allah, the Cherisher and Sustainer of worlds...”

He was impressed because it mentions “worlds.” His point was that this seemed to anticipate and embrace modern science because it recognised more than one world. He had always had the idea that the Christian God was a God limited to this world, or that was the impression he had grown up with. I have thought a lot about that.

I am also reading a book entitled “The Genesis Enigma.” It is the account of one atheistic biologist’s grappling with an amazing discovery he has made in the first chapter of the Bible, i.e. he is amazed to discover that the creation account in Genesis is accurate to the very latest scientific discoveries and understanding of origins. He says, “Genesis 1 is correct in a way it has no business to be.”

He is an evolutionist of course and I don't want to get into that but he struggles with questions science simply can't answer. At one point he writes, “I see no problems whatsoever with the process of evolution. But I have encountered questions about life on earth that should have an equivalent scientific answer, yet to which no answer seems to be forthcoming.” He goes on to suggest maybe science will never answer those questions and perhaps the only answer is a Creator.

Like my Muslim acquaintance, however, he has come across too many Christians who have a God incapable of dealing with let alone ruling and reigning over what is being discovered by science. As  JB Phillips put it “Your God is too Small.” But I have also been reading Genesis for myself (Its is January after all) and right there in Genesis 2 we read, “Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.”

“The heavens and the earth...” I think that covers worlds, “...in all their vast array...” I think that copes with anything science might throw at us. In the Psalms we read:

“O LORD my God, you are very great; you are clothed with splendour and majesty.

He wraps himself in light as with a garment;

He stretches out the heavens like a tent.” Ps.104:1,2

The Bible reminds us that our God is so great we can trust him even in the face of death. That when our prayers seem not capable of being answered yet his purposes serve a greater end even through the greatest trials, and even death is conquered in those who trust in him. Paul writes of God's,

“Incomparable power for us who believe. That power is like the working of his mighty strength, which he exerted in Christ when he raised him from the dead, and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms far above all rule and authority, power and dominion...” Eph.1:19-21

As we enter a new year we must enter it trusting in this God and not the feeble God of limited imagination. We must say, “Worlds?” Let me tell you about worlds.”

“By him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities, all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church...” Col.1:16-18

BBC News - Stephen Hawking: God did not create Universe

 

There is no place for God in theories on the creation of the Universe, Professor Stephen Hawking has said.

He had previously argued belief in a creator was not incompatible with science but in a new book, he concludes the Big Bang was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics.

The Grand Design, part serialised in the Times, says there is no need to invoke God to set the Universe going.

"Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something," he concluded.

It is interesting that Prof. Hawking’s attitude to religion is highlighted in reports on his new book because he is as convinced that the physical sciences have made philosophy just as redundant. The emphasis on religion reflects perhaps the current rabid drive on the part of the neo-atheists to rid the world of believers. But philosophers?

It depends on how you define philosophy I suppose but if philosophy is thinking about how we think about the world then he has just made a philosophical statement and needs the context of philosophy in which to make it and to give it meaning; ergo, philosophy is not redundant.

With regards God, he has made the familiar mistake of assuming that the more science can discover the less need have we for God to explain this world. This is an argument directed at a particular view of God popular in certain fundamentalist circles but fails completely to address what the Bible has to say. It addresses the infamous “God of the gaps” error but not the God of the Bible.

While it is popularly believed (believed, now there’s a loaded term) that the more we have of science and reason the less our need of God, the biblical view is the more we have of science and reason the more we fulfil the creation mandate. In the creation account man is commanded to have dominion over the earth, to replenish it and fill it (Gen.1:28)

This has been interpreted by some as licence to exploit but this is quite wrong. Man’s dominion was to bring glory to the God who made everything and, acting as steward over God’s creation, he was to care for the world. What we see today as exploitation is the fruit of the fall when man’s “dominion” was diminished and lost but…

Hamlet declared, “What a piece of work is man…in apprehension how like a god!” Never a truer word was spoken. Not that man is, or will become a god, but that man was made with godlike qualities, what Christians call God’s communicable attributes. Those attributes of God that, in his wisdom and grace, he has shared with us, his creatures.

An expression of those attributes, albeit marred by sin, is still seen in mankind’s concern for and curiosity about our world. A steward of God’s world, far from being ignorant of his or her charge and duty, is industrious in learning and growing in knowledge of this world. Hence science, far from making God redundant, is, even unknowingly, obeying a godlike instinct to know, understand and responsibly steward the creation.

A Christian has no need to fear science and should rejoice in the knowledge that, even when some in the scientific community are determined to dismiss God, yet they fulfil God’s purposes and will in the end, like everyone else, see God either as their saving Father or as their judge.

BBC News - Stephen Hawking: God did not create Universe

BBC News - 'Artificial life' breakthrough announced by scientists

 

Scientists in the US have succeeded in developing the first synthetic living cell.

The researchers constructed a bacterium's "genetic software" and transplanted it into a host cell.

The resulting microbe then looked and behaved like the species "dictated" by the synthetic DNA.

This reminds me of the story of a group of scientists who, after years of work, finally produced a human being. They realised in their moment of triumph that someone had to take on the onerous job of telling God that he was redundant. No one was keen to do it and so they drew straws and the one who got the short straw got the task.

God listened patiently as this man explained that, in light of recent scientific advancements, God was now surplus to requirements. Then God said, “Alright, I see your point. Lets have a contest.”

“What sort of contest?” asked the scientist.

“Well”, said God, “You make a human being and I make a human being and whoever makes the better model gets the job while the other retires.”

“Alright”, said the scientist as he stooped down to take up a handful of soil.

“What are you doing?” asked God.

“I’m collecting up some of the basic building blocks of life” the scientist replied.

“Oh, no”, God said, “That’s cheating. You go and get your own dirt.”

 

No doubt there will be those who will worry about this latest development and, certainly, there are serious ethical issues to be considered. However it should be remembered that this synthetic living cell, while its creation is an incredible achievement, hasn’t actually been “created.” The genetic information pre-existed, as did the host cell, and what science has done is effectively copy the former and put it into the structure of the latter. No mean feat I am sure but nowhere near the actual act or process of “creation” as described in the Bible.

It is rather like typing this blog post. These words were already there, the computer on which I am typing already existed and, although I like to think there is some originality in my creating this post, the ideas were already out there. What I have done is take all these pre-existing factors and ordered them such that they express my thoughts. The worrying thing about this development is not that science is somehow making God redundant but that humans are doing these things without any reference to God. But then we have been doing this for some time now and on the whole the world is a worse place for it. As the writer of Ecclesiastes wrote, “There is nothing new under the sun.”

BBC News - 'Artificial life' breakthrough announced by scientists

US teacher broke law by describing creationism as 'superstitious nonsense' | World news | guardian.co.uk

If ever there was an argument against establishing a written constitution for Europe this is it. Once you have a written constitution it is interpreted endlessly by opposing factions  until they leave behind the original intentions of those who framed the constitution and make a nonsense of any attempt to make sensible and reasoned decisions.

Much better to allow precedent make our laws and define our rights as they do now in the UK. That way our constitution is respected but not carved in stone and given the same status as Holy Writ.

If Christians need written laws to protect them from being “offended” there is no hope for this Christian generation and if the unscientific claims of Creationism cannot be intelligently challenged by educators and need to be protected by law instead of reason then Creationism doesn’t deserve to be heard or taken seriously.

A US teenager has successfully won a lawsuit against a teacher who described creationism as "superstitious nonsense".

Chad Farnan, a devout Christian studying at California's Capistrano Valley high school, persuaded a judge that his European history teacher, James Corbett, violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment, which courts interpret as banning government employees from promoting, or displaying hostility towards, religion.

US teacher broke law by describing creationism as 'superstitious nonsense' | World news | guardian.co.uk

Darwin and Godlessness

Having slated TV in general yesterday for its parlous state it has to be said that there are some gems still to be found. The coverage of the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth has been excellent so far and two programmes tonight, both on BBC Two, promise to keep up that standard. Jimmy Doherty, in "Darwin's Garden", follows in the footsteps of the great man by recreating his experiments with plants at 8 PM while Andrew Marr (does he ever go home?) looks at "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" at 9 PM.

What caught my attention, though, were the respective reviews for these programmes in the Radio Times. Jane Rackham reviewed Darwin's Garden and seemed to take great pleasure in declaring that:

"The results of Darwin's many years of painstaking experimentation demolished the biblical view of creation and created uproar."

There was a certain irony, then, in the review of Darwin's Dangerous idea by Alison Graham who bemoaned the fact that Darwin's theory proved "so potent and divisive that it was immediately hijacked by godless intellectuals such as Karl Marx and Friedrich Nietzsche, the latter memorably declaring 'God is dead'."

In a few sentences these reviewers illustrated how important is how we think about things. Of course, Darwin's theory did not "demolish the biblical view of creation", although it did create an uproar. It did challenge the way Christians had traditionally thought about and understood the biblical view of creation and that is no bad thing. We may change the way we think about and understand these things but why, when we do that in science, is it called progress but when we do it in religion it is evidence of a devastating blow?

The history of Darwin's Dangerous Idea shows us that the hard science is not all we have to consider. As Alison Graham wrote, godless men did hijack it for their own political and ideological purposes, declaring God dead and man expendable because of the fallacious notion that this was "natural". The consequences demonstrate what ensues when people take comfort from a wrong understanding of Darwin and a simplistic view of the Bible; society becomes godless, this familiar misunderstanding of natural selection becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy and "every man does what seems right in his own eyes" (Judges 17:6)

The Language of Origins

I am currently reading a fascinating book, The Language of God, by Dr Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project, in which he attempts to show evidence for God in 21^st Century science. The book has received mixed reviews. Alister McGrath, a believing scientist, molecular biologist and theologian of international reputation and author of Dawkins' God and, with his wife, The Dawkins Delusion, says of the work, "A remarkable book...Compelling reading for anyone reflecting on the relation of science and faith", while the secularist, Sam Harris, author of The End of Faith, writes, "To say that he fails at his task does not quite get at the inadequacy of his efforts." It does seem inevitable that, no matter how qualified and respected a scientist may be, once he mentions God his credentials mean nothing and his reputation is considered compromised.

In his review Harris paints a worrying picture of a mindless Christian world in which people believe the earth is six thousand years old; science is considered the enemy of faith and thinking is the preserve of beleaguered secularists. Of course, Harris has his own agenda and is an Evangelist for Atheism just as much as Collins is one for Christianity, both claiming to base their views on sound socio/scientific theory. (For a truly thrilling and thoughtful account of scientist as evangelist I recommend Clare George's The Evangelist ) Of course, neither will Dr Collins' observations sit easy with those of my Creationist friends who subscribe to a young earth theory since Collins' views sit squarely in the theistic evolution school of thought.

Collins points out that "science is not static. Scientists are constantly reaching into new arenas, investigating the natural world in new ways, digging deeper into territory where understanding is incomplete. Faced with a set of data that includes a puzzling and unexplained phenomenon, scientists construct hypotheses of the mechanism that might be involved, and then conduct experiments to test those hypotheses. Many experiments on the cutting edge of science fail, and most hypotheses turn out to be wrong. Science is progressive and self-correcting: no significantly erroneous conclusions or false hypotheses can be sustained for long, as newer observations will ultimately knock down incorrect constructs. But over a long period of time, a consistent set of observations sometimes emerges that leads to a new framework of understanding. That framework is then given a much more substantive description, and is called a 'theory' – the theory of gravitation, the theory of relativity, or the germ theory, in instance.

One of the most cherished hopes of a scientist is to make an observation that shakes up a field of research. Scientists have a streak of closeted anarchism, hoping that someday they will turn up some unexpected fact that will force a disruption of the framework of the day. That's what Nobel Prizes are given for. In that regard, any assumption that a conspiracy could exist among scientists to keep a widely current theory alive when it actually contains serious flaws is completely antithetical to the restless mindset of the profession."

This addresses an issue that has bothered me for some time concerning the approach of some Christians in trying to make sense of their faith and scientific progress in the question of origins. I am no scientist and cannot claim even an amateur enthusiast's grasp of the arguments but some Christians' faith approach to issues of science and origins seems sometimes to lack a basic integrity. Too many Christians decide on their conclusions based on one, usually literalist interpretation of the Bible then set about finding 'proof' to back up these conclusions; then they insist this is science. Question their approach and/or conclusions and they look at you with suspicion as though suspecting that you are part of this imagined conspiracy to which Collins refers. Not everyone does this by any means but enough to make it too easy for people like Sam Harris to feel justified in dismissing us all as the lunatic fringe.

It is not that I think that faith has nothing to say to science but it is really important that faith should speak the language of science and demand of itself the same level of integrity it demands of science; otherwise, why should anyone listen?

A common enough mistake that has been repeated down the centuries is to lay over the basic tenets of Scripture the received wisdom of the day and treat that as though as inerrant as Scripture. Collins explains that the church can attach itself to a prior view of things and incorporate that into its core belief system. Any attempt to revise the received wisdom of the day in light of new scientific observations is resisted and denounced as a betrayal of the truth, a heresy.

Galileo's experience presents us with a very good example of this. Many saw in the Bible irrefutable arguments that all heavenly bodies orbited the earth:

"The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved" (Psalm 93:1)

"He set the earth on its foundation; it can never be moved" (Psalm 104:5)

"The sin rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises" (Eccl. 1:5)

But Galileo observed four moons orbiting Jupiter, showing that the earth was certainly not their centre. However, over a thousand years earlier Augustine had already established the idea that God accommodates himself to our peculiar circumstances and what we see when we look out at the world. Each of those verses accurately represents the way we see things from where we stand.

That is not to say they are scientifically accurate but then, as has often been pointed out, that was never the purpose of God's communicating with us. He did not say to Moses "E=MC2" and, again, Augustine took the view that the biblical text should not be interpreted literally if it contradicts what we know from science and our God-given reason. He bemoaned the folly of those who stick doggedly to a view of the world long shown to be erroneous by simple human scientific progress, bringing the church into disrepure by such dogmatism:

"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly someone meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation."

(The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20, Chap. 19 [AD 408])

These are things with which thoughtful Christians wrestle and on which we don't all agree while Christians who fail to reflect thoughtfully, preferring an instinctive approach to faith, tend to cling to what they believe they 'know' and often do end up speaking idiotically about them, misrepresenting science as almost totally conspiratorial in its nature and the Bible as fully vindicating their personal prejudices. In a world that needs desperately to hear the gospel it serves the world ill and God unfaithfully if we present it such that it is robbed of all credibility and of even a fair hearing.

Galileo, Darwin and the Law of the Medes and Persians

When Galileo presented the inconvenient truth that the Sun did not orbit the Earth the people for whom it was most inconvenient was not the Pope and his cardinals but the scientific community. For some two thousand years the Aristotelian view that the Sun orbited the earth had prevailed, was the received wisdom of scientists everywhere and was not seriously challenged except by the odd nutcase who received short shrift from those who knew what they were talking about.

However, Galileo was not the first serious scientist to make the claim. Copernicus had already discovered the truth but, for fear of ridicule by other scientists and the possible ruin of his reputation he had his work published posthumously. Galileo was not so coy, indeed he was rather loud, abrasive and temperamental, as is the way with those who work on the edges of knowledge. It's so frustrating waiting for everyone else to catch up!

The story is popularly told in terms of science verses faith but this is not quite true. The church never was and still isn't as anti-science as people like to believe and, as in all ages of the world, scientists were as subject to dogmas and prejudices as anyone. Galileo was throwing over the received wisdom of the scientific world and the church was cautiously interested while the scientific community was positively hostile and reactionary. It was the scientific community that eventually persuaded a reluctant Rome to get involved in the controversy.

Of course Rome was cautious and questioning about scientific progress and its implications. There are often spiritual and theological implications to scientific discoveries and experimentation; witness today's hot topics of embryology, saviour siblings, IVF treatment and fatherless families, not to mention larger issues such as climate change. Contrary to popular myth, however, the received wisdom of the day was not that the earth was at the centre of Creation with science daring to question its elevated position and that of the church, but at the bottom of Creation, reflecting the biblical view of its fallen nature. Galileo was not demoting the earth but elevating it above its true and fallen station in the order of things. In today's sceptical, cynical and decidedly two-dimensional world this may seem trivial but people's world-view can't be simply overturned based on new and untried science and people trusted the church for guidance in these things. It's not just religion that shouldn't mess with people's heads.

No one comes out of this story covered in glory. Science showed itself as capable of prejudice and stubborn dogmatism as anyone as it silenced Copernicus and bullied the church into getting more involved than it really wanted to be. Galileo was an irascible and bad-tempered man who would never have won friends and influenced people. But he had often discussed his theories with his friend Pope Urban VIII, who was cautiously interested and encouraging, asking Galileo to give arguments for and against heliocentrism in a book, but cautioning him to be careful not to advocate heliocentrism because that theory had no decisive proof and was contrary to the literal meaning of Scripture. Hard to imagine these days but Galileo's claims were still considered no more than a hypothesis even by the scientific community.

Unfortunately, when he finally presented his theories to the world in the form of a classic Greek dialogue he advocated his theories as fact and, to add insult to injury, he put the Aristotelian view including the ideas of his friend the Pope in the mouth of an incompetent adversary he named Simplicius. Thus he lost the support of a strong and powerful advocate and supporter.

The church finally lost patience and overreacted, taking an entrenched position and reinforcing a not altogether deserved reputation for being anti-science and imperious in its attitude, keeping his books on the index of prohibited books until 1835. In 1990 Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict, spoke about Galileo in Rome and observed, "The Church at the time of Galileo kept much more closely to reason than did Galileo himself, and she took into consideration the ethical and social consequences of Galileo's teaching too."

"The Law of the Medes and Persians" is a reference to a verse of the Bible and is a term used to describe that which is unalterable:

"Now, O King, establish the decree, and sign the writing, that it be not changed, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which altereth not" (Daniel 6:8)

It is easy to see how things can seem unalterable, either because the powers that be, like the scientific community or the state, seem to be beyond challenging or because everyone 'just knows' the truth and any alternative to the received wisdom is unthinkable. For many Christians, today's geocentrism is Darwin's theory of evolution and it seems that, despite its failings, gaps and missing links, it is beyond challenging. History teaches us otherwise but we must be careful to learn the lessons of history.

It was science that stood in the way of progress but it was also science that made that progress and we mustn't dismiss her findings because they don't suit our preconceptions otherwise we will fall into the same trap as Galileo's scientific contemporaries.

The church was much more involved in encouraging that progress than popular perception will allow but in doing so it did try to exercise reason and counsel caution. We too must be careful not to present what we believe as scientific or our pet theories as proven facts. We must also not overreact to what science seems to tell us because she is a good servant and we don't always give her the credit she is due. We should remember this when next we board a plane, take a painkiller or even now as we read this off a computer screen. We should work with her, always seeking to remain faithful to the God whose thoughts, Einstein once said, science is thinking after him.

We should never say never for where is the Law of the Medes and Persians today? Where is Aristotle's geocentrism? The truth is only God is unchangeable and even our understanding of God is subject to revision as we grow in our knowledge of him and his creation. Darwinism is still a minority view in the world and evolution is a hypothesis that is still being tested, revised and reviewed. The last thing needed is a stubborn scientific community that will not allow for the possibilities of alternatives as this process goes on, or a church that is backed into a dogmatic ghetto and has nothing positively scientific to contribute to the debate. There needs to be humility on all sides because history teaches us that, in the rush to progress, we can all be wrong yet still capable of finding and appreciating the truth eventually.