Science and Christianity

The hand of God

/ Minimalist Christian / 1 Comment

A few years ago I decided to dig deeper into the apparent conflict between science and religion.

Many people have the view that science can in theory explain everything, that even if we don’t know the answers yet then it is just a matter of time before we find them.  This view of Science has turned it into a faith.

I admit that I wondered if advances in science since I studied it might actually bring more powerful arguments than I was aware of. But I also wondered whether the extreme unlikeliness of life might be sufficient to prove that there must be a God and so I spent several years reviewing what science has discovered and assessing how that fits with Christianity. 

The first thing to say is that there are clearly things written in the Bible that are not to be taken literally.  And it causes problems when people do. When people hear both Christians and atheists claim that Christians believe that Genesis is the literal truth then they are unlikely to look any further.  It is that which put me off even considering God until I was forty, and so I feel that Creationists do God a disservice.

Putting Creationism aside, I have not found any serious conflict between science and faith.

I have found that when you try to calculate numbers, you find that the chances of us being here are extremely small – but we are here.  The chance of me winning the lottery if I buy one ticket is extremely small, but every week someone wins. If you try often enough then extremely unlikely events will happen. 

But how can I say that there isn’t any serious conflict between science and faith?  Isn’t there a conflict between science and miracles?  Hasn’t science shown that they are impossible?

To answer that we need to think about what we actually mean by science. It’s a term that is in such common use that we often don’t think about what it really is. A few years ago the Science Council realised that they didn’t have a definition of science, and so they came up with one.

“Science is the pursuit of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.”

Let’s break that down a little:

“the pursuit of knowledge and understanding” – I’m sure we are happy with that, although it doesn’t say ALL knowledge and understanding.

“of the natural and social world” – that’s good, it defines the scope where it applies.  Science has nothing to do with what is not the natural and social world.

“following a systematic methodology based on evidence” We can expand on that a little.  The methodology includes steps of

  1. Observation of a phenomenon and experiment to find out what happens
  2. Trying to think of what the rules are that describe the phenomenon – the rules should be consistent with the accepted laws of science.
  3. Establishing new experiments or observations to test the theory
  4. Repeat the experiments
  5. Analyse and review the results, and publish.

Critical to this is repetition.  Science assumes that the “natural and social world” behaves in a manner that is repeatable.

Richard Feynman, a famous physicist was giving a talk about what is known as the ‘two slit experiment’ – you shoot electrons at a barrier which has two slits in it, and a screen behind it, and you observe where each electron hits the screen. He comments that

“A philosopher once said that: ‘It is necessary for the very existence of science that the same conditions always produce the same results’. Well, they do not. You set up the circumstances, with the same conditions every time, and you cannot predict behind which hole you will see the electron.”

Through repetition, science has discovered that if you look at enough numbers of electrons then a predictable pattern emerges.  However,  the behaviour of an individual electron cannot be predicted.

And what is a miracle?  The Cambridge Dictionary definition of a miracle is:

“An unusual and mysterious event that is thought to have been caused by a god because it does not follow the usual laws of nature”

By definition, science and miracles are mutually exclusive.

  • Science defines the usual laws of nature
  • Miracles don’t follow the usual laws of nature

But this does NOT mean that science tells us that miracles cannot happen.

It’s like putting everything that behaves in a predictable manner into a box and calling that science.  I can learn all about what goes on inside the box.  But none of my knowledge about what goes on inside the box can tell me anything about what is outside the box.  

I might assume that nothing exists outside the box, but science can give me no evidence of whether my assumption is true.  Belief in that assumption is called materialism. The faith of materialism asserts that there cannot be miracles, but science itself can say nothing about whether miracles can happen. 

But what if there is evidence that the universe doesn’t always behave according to fixed materialistic laws? Does that disprove materialism?

What if I know that there are things outside the box?

It seems to us that we are able to make choices.  We can decide who to vote for in elections.  We can decide whether to come to a breakfast talk.  We can decide whether or not to kill our next door neighbour. 

It’s called free will.  We experience our free will every day.

But if the universe operates according to fixed laws of nature, where is there scope for free will? 

There are some who believe so completely in Materialsm that they think free will is an illusion.  Here’s an example from an on line discussion forum:

“. . . given our understanding of determinism and un-determinism there is nothing left that explains exactly what free will could be, in the traditional sense. It’s more a case of a challenge to those that assume free will to explain its mechanism.”

In other words, Materialists believe that free will cannot exist in a universe which operates according to fixed laws.  So if you or I believe that we have free will, then that is a strong hint that materialism is wrong – that there are things outside of our box. 

There is another definition of miracle in the Cambridge dictionary:

“a very lucky event that is surprising and unexpected”

Even within the laws of physics it is possible for miracles to happen. 

There is an account in the Bible of when Jesus told one of his followers to go and catch a fish, and that in the mouth of the fish he would find a gold coin, and then he was to use that coin to pay their tax.  That is such an extremely unlikely event that it becomes a miracle, but a miracle operating within the “laws of physics”.

I said earlier that I’d wondered whether the extreme unlikeliness of life might be sufficient to prove that there must be a God.  Whilst the origin of life may follow the laws of physics, is it so unlikely that it is classed as a miracle? Let’s explore that a little and try to get a feel for some numbers. 

It is difficult to define what life is, but one element that we are all aware of is the ability to reproduce, or replicate.

All life as we know it – plants and animals – contain long chain molecules.  Proteins are building blocks for much of the body, and DNA acts as a template for organising amino acids into the correct order to make proteins and to replicate itself.

DNA is made up of four nucleotides, called ‘bases’.  These are held in place on a sugar/phosphate backbone.  The order of the bases defines the order of amino acids that are assembled by machinery in the cell in order to form a protein.  The machinery in the cell includes other long chain molecules that are essential for the replication process.

Although human DNA has around 3 billion bases, scientists have estimated that the minimum length of a long chain molecule that would be able to replicate is around 40 bases.  Like DNA, those 40 bases would need to be in a precise order to be able to replicate.

The question is, where did this first long chain molecule come from?  It was not built by the mechanism in the cell, because there was no mechanism. 

Perhaps it might have self assembled by chance if we had a pot of molecules bubbling in a primordial soup.

Now, the number of different possible sequences of a chain of forty molecules of four different types is massive, and the chance of any particular one forming at random is on in a septillion!  That’s 1024  –  a million billion billion.

And if you needed two specific molecules to ensure replication then it would be the same as searching for a single molecule in the whole mass of the earth.

No wonder Richard Dawkins has said that

“Self-replicating molecules that made copies of themselves came into existence by sheer luck….. Nobody knows how it happened.”

We can agree I think that the origin of life is “a very lucky event that is surprising and unexpected” …. i.e. a miracle. 

Another extremely unlikely occurrence is the fine tuning of the universe.

We use equations to represent the laws of physics as we know them. The equations usually include a number of constants.   Some constants can be derived mathematically, such as the ratio of the circumference of a circle to the diameter which is known as Pi.

Other constants don’t appear to have their value for any particular reason – as far as I’m aware there is no particular reason why the speed of light is what it is.   These constants are only obtained by careful measurement.

Scientists can calculate what might have happened if the constants had been different. These calculations show us that the constants in this universe seem to be incredibly fine-tuned. 

John Lennox quotes that “If the ratio of the strong nuclear force to the electromagnetic force had been different by one part in 1016, no stars could have formed. If the ratio of electromagnetic force-constant to the gravitational force-constant was increased by only 1 part in 1040 then only small stars would exist; decrease it by the same amount and there will only be large stars. You must have both large and small stars in the universe; the large ones produce elements in their thermonuclear furnaces and it is only the small ones that burn long enough to sustain a planet with life. That is the kind of accuracy a marksman would need to hit a coin on the far side of the observable universe, twenty billion light years away.

Many thinkers and Christian scientists pursue the idea that these levels of extreme improbability must ‘prove’ that the laws of nature are insufficient, and that ‘The hand of God’ is required at critical points in the history of the universe to explain where we are today. I find the idea attractive, but it is not unquestionable proof as there is always the counter argument that with enough attempts unlikely things happen. 

And for me, trying to find God in the unlikely concedes too much.  It is a false way of thinking that seems to accept that if we can explain something scientifically then we don’t need God – so we have to look for things that we can’t explain scientifically and voila: God. This is called ‘God of the Gaps’, and constrains God to those things that we can’t explain – the gaps. 

But it is actually applying the faith of the Materialist to God.  “I’m going to claim everything that is explainable as my materialist faith, and just leave you with the gaps to explain by God” 

It implies that:

  • God is confined to the gaps
  • God only ‘appears’ intermittently
  • God only does miracles

That is a misunderstanding of God.

What if we apply this sort of ‘improbability thinking’ to the development of a human being from a single cell?

DNA is often called the blueprint of the body, and is the template to build all the protein molecules in the body. Human DNA has just under 3 billion bases.  There are around 3.5million letters in the Bible, so it would need around 800 books the size of the Bible to write out human DNA. That sounds a big number (although our DNA only a tenth of the size of that of an amoeba), but let’s look at what the DNA has to do.

An adult has fifty trillion human cells.  That’s 17000 cells for each DNA base. And scientists have said that 97% of our DNA is actually ‘junk’ … not used for producing proteins. If that is right, then there are over half a million cells for each non-junk DNA base.

Our fifty trillion cells are organised into systems:

  • Circulatory system
  • Skeletal system
  • Immune system
  • Muscular system
  • Hearing
  • Sight
  • Nervous system
  • Brain
  • ….

Those systems change with time.  Components are built at different times in the development process.  Cells have to die off to make way for other cells.  We have to stop growing at some point.  We are programmed to die.

And our “short” string of DNA is supposed to define all of this. The orchestrated operation of the fifty trillion cells for over seventy years is not something that is learned as the body grows. And the coding of these systems was contained in the DNA of one single fertilised cell.

Using a ‘probability’ type of thinking, we might deduce that it is impossible for a human to grow from a single fertilised cell without the hand of God.

And yet we see it happen every day, 350,000  new babies born a day around the world. This miracle has being repeated by the hand of God billions of times, just in humans. The hand of God is very busy!

Now actually, this is a better understanding of God.  This is not a ‘God of the gaps’ but a ‘God of everything’. This is a God who sustains the operation of matter in a consistent manner that we can predict through the scientific method.  This is a God who provides the raw materials for science to study.

This is a God of whom the psalmist wrote:  “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.”

The behaviour of matter, as modelled by the laws of physics can be understood to be the hand of God. We no longer search for a God who lives outside the universe and occasionally pops in to correct it when it goes wrong, but we have a God who is intimately involved in the universe, sustaining not only the laws of physics but also our very being. Everything that science discovers is simply discovering more of the wonders of God. 

If we can grasp this it leads to two responses:

Wow! …. and…. Why?

To understand the Why, we can’t look to science – but we can look to Jesus. And when we understand the Why, and respond to it, the Wow becomes our worship.  The study of science returns to its origin, the search for a better understanding and knowledge of God.

Thank you for reading.

Covid Inquiry – lockdowns and saving lives.

/ Minimalist Christian / Leave a comment

When China introduced their strict lock-down I remember saying ‘That could never happen here’.  And when people on social media were saying ‘we’ve got to lock-down immediately’  I didn’t think it should – imprisoning the elderly in their homes for 3 months for no offense!

When my father died of prostate cancer after several years of suffering and treatment, I was relieved.  I was desperately sad and sat alone and cried to mourn the loss, but he was never going to be young and healthy again and his suffering was over.

Before my mother died I used to cry coming home from visiting her at the pointlessness of her days, she had no joy anymore and would sit on her bed looking out the window.  She would often say that she was ready to die, but her body kept holding on.  When she fell with a broken hip and was taken to hospital she signed a DNR.  She didn’t want to eat and only did when pressed by the kindly nurses.  When she died it was a relief but again desperately sad – but she was never going to be young and healthy again, and she had fulfilled her purpose.

The Covid inquiry is asking how many more lives could have been ‘saved’ by earlier lock-downs.   Would my mother or father’s lives have been ‘saved’ by extending them further?

In “Screwtape Letters” – letters from one demon to another CS Lewis writes “They, of course, do tend to regard death as the prime evil and survival as the greatest good. But that is because we (the demons) have taught them to do so.”  In his non-fictional writing Lewis points out that we have lost sight of the ‘true reality’ of God and the spiritual life.  In our earthly, material world everyone dies; it is just a question of when. 

In reality, it is not the length of our days but what we have striven to become on earth that matters – our character, or values, our loves.  Of course the death of a loved one is sad, but let’s have less of this ‘saving lives’ when we simply mean ‘extending lives’ and let’s focus more on reality.

——————————————

““Reality, in fact, is usually something you could not have guessed. That is one of the reasons I believe Christianity. It is a religion you could not have guessed. If it offered us just the kind of universe we had always expected, I should feel we were making it up. But, in fact, it is not the sort of thing anyone would have made up. It has just that queer twist about it that real things have. So let us leave behind all these boys’ philosophies–these over simple answers. The problem is not simple and the answer is not going to be simple either.”” ― C.S. Lewis

Supreme power and love indwelling all of space and time, or cheerless physics?

/ Minimalist Christian / Leave a comment

We live in an age of information. I know there is fake news, but there is a vast wealth of knowledge. You can find almost anything you need to know on-line.  Yet just a few decades ago nobody could even conceive of the internet.

It didn’t happen spontaneously. We got here through the hard work and inspiration of highly intelligent designers and visionaries.

Imagine now a vast cloud of molecules in space, the debris perhaps of an exploded star.  Just a collection of atoms and molecules: hydrogen, iron, oxygen, beryllium, carbon, nitrogen, silicone … a little bit of everything perhaps.  But a vast, lifeless, formless cloud drifting in space.

Imagine that there are no influences acting on the cloud of molecules apart from the forces of physics; gravity, weak and strong nuclear interaction, and electromagnetic forces.

We can imagine that those inanimate forces are sufficient to cause the molecule cloud to collapse into a star and some planets.  Over billions of years, gravity slowly pulls the gases together to form a solar system.

But can we imagine that those basic forces are sufficient to organise the lifeless cloud into a butterfly,  a magnolia tree or a human being?

Can we imagine that those basic forces are sufficient to organise the matter that they act on into the internet?  That the molecules organise themselves unaided into a smartphone, or the Mona Lisa, or a performance of Beethoven’s seventh symphony?

Take a molecule cloud, leave it completely alone for ten billion years, come back and you will find fitbits, contraceptive pills and life-forms intent on destroying themselves and each other.

Just through the laws of physics?

Intelligence creating itself, life with all its complexity spontaneously initiating and evolving.

Just through the laws of physics?

Love,  joy,  purpose existing without any material form that you can touch or measure.  Great stories and legends; “The Lord of the Rings” expressed in a myriad of forms…

All of these, with the only ingredients of a molecule cloud and the laws of physics.  Really?

Or is there something more? 

Something which indwells all of space and time, sustaining matter and the forces that act on it, imbuing form on the formless,  bestowing intelligence and ‘self’ on lifeforms, giving purpose to material and non-material reality.  Intelligence that gives intelligence.  Life that gives life? An eternal ‘something’, or ‘someone’ without cause but within everything?

If I put my pride aside, it seems to me that the universe, life, and love point to there being a supreme and eternal, creating, sustaining and loving God.

Not cheerless physics.

Image by David Mark from Pixabay

Is there place for God and religion in today’s world?

/ Minimalist Christian / Leave a comment

The first thing to realise is that we are all living in a computer generated world, and that we are living in the past.  Nothing exists in the form that we perceive it, and by the time we perceive it, it has already happened.

That steaming cup of coffee that you see is just the result of your eyes, optic nerves and brain processing photons that hit the back of your retina.  You are experiencing a brain (computer) generated model of what you now understand to be a cup of coffee.

Your brain’s processing inherently includes a delay to allow all of the bits of information to ‘catch up’.  It takes longer for visual stimuli to be processed than it does for sounds. When you experience the crash of your cup on the floor your brain has had to delay presenting the event to your consciousness until the signals from both your ears and your eyes have arrived.  Our reaction time is evidence of this, and the fact that we react faster to sounds than to lights.  If you start a sprint race with a gun then the sprinters set off faster than if you start it with a flash of light – although the speed of sound is much slower than the speed of light.

So we do not experience the world as it is, but we experience a three dimensional model created within our brain. 

As a child I used to wonder ‘does the colour green look the same to me as it does to you?’  Today I would answer almost certainly ‘no’.  First of all, we know that some people are colour-blind, and so all colours must be perceived differently by them.  And our eyes all have different sensitivities to shades of colours, and so the raw data that our brain has to process must be different between individuals.

But would we have the same ‘experience’ of the colour of our coffee cup if our brains received identical signals?  That is a hard one, because we can’t really explain what it means to ‘experience’ a colour. (Google ‘qualia’ to find out more).

So although our bodies live in real time, we ‘experience’ a computer generated world that has already happened.

Weird.

But weirder perhaps is to ask what we mean by ‘we’.  What is the ‘me’ that experiences this computer generated world?  Warning – science cannot answer this, it’s the meat and drink of philosophy; the discussion of abstract ideas by bright people who build arguments on certain basic assumptions that they continually disagree about.

My subjective view is that there is a ‘me’ that experiences things.  I interact with my brain (and hence body, and hence world) and can influence but not control what my brain and body does.  I can influence what my consciousness presents to me (ignoring distractions when focused on a task for instance), and I can influence how my body responds to things – but I am not really in control.  Just think of a tennis player returning a 140mph serve; there is no time for them to get directly involved in the process of selecting which direction to go, or what shot to play.  They have to leave the action up to their body. But they can influence what their body’s reaction will be by training, by giving it a strategy such as “don’t try to hit a winner off every shot”, and then they need to get out of the way!  Sportsmen know that consciousness gets in the way of winning; thinking too carefully about how to play a shot at best slows things down and at worst causes us to make a mess of it.

When we think about it we realise that ‘we’ have relatively little influence on what our minds and bodies do, and yet ‘we’ get to experience it all! 

And yet ‘we’ are unexplainable. To try to understand the unexplainable ‘we’, and much to the chagrin of materialistic scientists, we use terms like ‘soul’ and ‘spirit’ to define ‘us’. And we believe that other people have souls and spirit too.  And we spend a lot of time and money trying to find ways to interact with our brain/bodies that will lead to our soul’s wellbeing.  So much advertising money is spent on encouraging us to buy products to bring us ‘peace of mind’ or other palliatives for the soul.

It is natural, and not at all illogical, to imagine that in the same way that you and I are tiny individual souls (that happen to inhabit a bunch of chemicals that we had nothing to do with initiating) there is an overarching bigger ‘soul’ who initiated the material universe of space and time (God).  And if our individual soul ‘experiences’ interaction with this bigger soul then there is all the more reason to believe in its existence.  But of course, this can be frustrating to those souls who have not had similar experience…

So yes, there is a place for God in today’s world.  There is good intellectual reason to believe that there is a God, and this is reinforced by the experience and evidence of many witnesses who report interaction with and experience of God.  These interactions have been documented for millennia and continue today.  And there are many who feel that they have directly experienced such an ‘interaction’ yet believe that there is a larger ‘soul’, or God.   

In response to concluding that there is a God and recognising that our very existence is a gift, it is also natural to want to give thanks for that gift and to want to make best use of the gift.  Hence there is a place for religion too in today’s world.

How about you?  If you haven’t recognised them yet – why not start seeking God for yourself?

Have a blessed day.

With such a low Covid death rate, why do we have to accept a “draconian” lock-down?

/ Minimalist Christian / Leave a comment

I have been challenged to give an opinion on the lock-down, based on a claim that “99.7% of people recover” (source unknown).  A referenced and logically argued study suggests that in fact the death rate is much higher.

But let’s assume for a moment that the death rate is only 3 in every thousand (0.3%). 

Evidence shows that “a 20-year age-gap increased the risk by around 10-fold. So, compared to a 20-year-old, an 80-year-old had 10 * 10 * 10 ~ 1000 times the risk of dying.”  And the same document references that 90% of deaths have pre-exisiting conditions, and the chance of a healthy 30 year old woman  dying if infected is only one in 30,000.  In other words, the risk is highest for older people, and those with pre-existing conditions.  Roughly  two thirds of deaths are in those over 75.

So, if we were to simply allow the virus to ‘let rip’, and the death rate were only the 0.3% quoted we would see deaths in the over 75s equivalent to two in every thousand of the population. 

Deaths from the disease are highly selective.  Accepting this situation would be equivalent to sacrificing our over 75’s population.   To put the ‘two in every thousand of the population’ into context, roughly two in every thousand of the world’s population are Jews – so this would be equivalent to eliminating all the Jews.  Do I need to go on?

Data shows that hospital treatment has improved, with the chance of surviving if hospitalised with Covid increasing from 70% to nearly 90%.  Without hospital treatment the death toll would increase between three and ten times.  This is why there is so much focus on ‘protecting the NHS’. 

If we were to let the virus ‘let rip’ then our hospitals would indeed be overwhelmed and the death rate would conservatively increase by a factor of 3.  Using the death rate from my challenger of 0.3% today, that would increase it to about one in every hundred of the population.

 Again this would be targeted at the older generation, and equivalent in numbers to eliminating the world’s population of Jews three times over.  Or globally that would be equivalent to wiping out the whole population of the United Kingdom.

We have a clear choice. 

Either we accept personal restrictions in order to save a category of our population.  Or we ‘sacrifice’ that population for the sake of our ‘personal freedom’.

This is something that I completely oppose.  And many of our fathers and grandfathers fought and died in the Second World War to destroy a regime which had that approach;  I deliberately used the example of the number of Jews to reinforce the point.

I for one am willing to accept some personal sacrifice in order to protect the vulnerable, and those who dedicate their lives to care for those who are vulnerable, and I call on everyone to do the same.

POSTSCRIPT

To be clear – there have been appalling decisions, profiteering and cronyism by those in power.  But we must not let such behaviour prevent us from doing what is right.  We have to make up for the shortcomings of leadership, but perhaps we might remember this when we next get the chance to choose who will lead our country.

Image by enriquelopezgarre from Pixabay

“Will you return to me?” asks the Lord

/ Minimalist Christian / Leave a comment

For many years now I have been offended by the gross inequality in the world and in our nation.  I particularly became aware of how bad it was in the UK when my children were of an age to think about buying a house (Cathy and I were able to buy our first house at the age of 22!).  I looked at how much building societies would lend for a given income, and so what income one would need to buy a house.  I then looked at the income distribution in the country, and realised that without ‘parental’ help only a quarter of individual earners would be able to buy their own home.  And if your parents are unable to help, then there is no chance for someone on minimum wage.  The system ensures that the poorest are doomed to remain poor, particularly when you realise that the rental costs that they have to pay are far higher than the equivalent mortgage cost if they were able to buy a home.

This institutionalized system of stealing from the poor to give to the rich let me to become an active political campaigner.  But to no avail…

We are in the midst of the Covid19 pandemic, which I am hopefully will be the catalyst for great social re-engineering.  Poor and rich alike are realising who it is that keeps our world going; our key workers.  We are realising how fragile our safety nets are.  The government, who claimed that there was no money, and inflicted a decade of austerity has suddenly found it possible to inject billions into the economy – the money is there, we just need to choose what is important.  People are talking about a Universal Basic Income.

Some billionaires are giving large sums to help those in the majority world – and realising that their own day to day living standards are unaffected, but that giving brings the joy of helping and showing love to others.

Society could be transformed in ways that I’ve longed for, but been helpless to achieve.  The hearts and minds of people needed to change – and it seems that they are. Yet this is not being done by human hand, or by leaders rhetoric but by a consequence of the biological design of life.

It is not unreasonable to think that this powerful persuading force might be a providential gift from the one who created and sustains the universe.  A gift which, although it brings fear and immediate pain could lead to a transformed society that has the courage to value each human being, and to retreat from its wanton destruction of our natural environment.  Is this a glorious example of the power and love of God to bring us back to spiritual health?

I hope we choose to accept this gift, although I know that human beings are a stubborn people.  Thousands of years ago the prophet Amos wrote: “I sent among you a pestilence after the manner of Egypt ... yet you did not return to me, says the Lord.”  I pray the same won’t be said of us.

Before the universe began.

/ Minimalist Christian / 1 Comment

The bowler beats the bat and the ball hits the batsman’s pad.  There is a loud appeal and the umpire calls for ‘hawkeye’ to predict where the ball was going. Hawkeye is a system that tracks the flight of the ball and predicts, using the laws of physics, where the ball would have gone if the batsman’s pad had not got in the way.  The batsman’s innings depends on the prediction.Those same laws of physics and tracked trajectory of the ball can be run in reverse, to predict where the ball came from.  The prediction will be completely accurate back until the point when the ball left the bowler’s hand.  The prediction will extrapolate back a series of parabolas, to infinity.

It’s common sense.  Hawkeye makes valid predictions where the assumptions included in the model are correct.  But where the assumptions break down, the prediction will be wrong.  So it is with all science.  Where assumptions break down then science will be wrong.  We test our assumptions where we have data – back as far almost as the beginning of the universe, but we cannot test beyond there.  And so although science can make predictions of what was before the beginning of the universe, it would be wrong to believe them.  We have to accept that we don’t know, and can never know whether there was a ‘bowler’ or whether the ball came bouncing from infinity…

The headline of the following and similar articles are therefore completely misleading

Stephen Hawking Claims To Know What Happened Before The Big Bang

although the text is more accurate: “Hawking had previously said in one of his lectures that the events that occurred before the Big Bang have no consequences that can be observed, therefore they are not defined because there is no way to measure what happened…….  Even the amount of matter in the universe can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang.”  Hawking recognised that the laws of physics ‘change’ …. allowing the existence of the ‘bowler’.

 

 

Foreword to The Big Picture

/ Minimalist Christian / Leave a comment

Scientific discovery has brought material benefits and physical comfort to mankind.  The predictability of matter leads us to assume that it behaves according to fixed laws, and this belief has led engineers to develop tools and machinery to manipulate the environment, doctors to develop cures for many diseases, and farmers to grow crops with greatly increased yields.  Many of the scourges of previous times have been overcome leading, in the Western world at least, to longer lifetimes and better health.  However, this has also led to the belief that everything is predictable and controllable. If anything goes wrong (by which we mean it causes us distress or discomfort) then it must be fixable, and if it hasn’t been fixed it must be someone else’s fault.

Personal rights have grown, but personal responsibility has diminished.  Laws to protect the weak have bred the belief that it is the state’s job and not our individual duty to help out those less fortunate than ourselves.  Mechanisation that was supposed to give more leisure time has led to lost jobs and loss of purpose.  Competition and the shrinking of the geographical world has meant that there is someone, somewhere who will work harder or longer hours than we do, and the pressure grows to produce more for less.  The availability of loans means that goods can be obtained now if we promise to pay later.  To pay the loan we need a job.  Fear of job loss drives us to work longer hours and accept less pay. The purpose of life becomes to produce.  The mechanism which fuels demand and production is the economy.  The economy becomes the measure of the health of a nation.

Is that what it’s all about?

Is my value simply what I can produce?

Am I measured just by what I can earn?

If I retain the worldview that the economy is king then the implication is yes, but that doesn’t feel right.  I want to be valued and loved as a person.  I want a worldview that speaks to my heart and my mind and not just my wallet, and I want it to be based on sound thinking and evidence.

Science has brought great technological and medical benefits to mankind; cars, televisions, fridges, telephones, electricity and so on.  But science has also brought guns and bullets, pollution, global drug trafficking and job losses.  Science seems to dominate my life, telling me what I should or shouldn’t do to keep healthy, avoid risk and live longer, but it doesn’t tell me why I would want to live longer.  Science doesn’t give any purpose to my life.

Religion offers purpose, but it too seems to want to control me and dominate me.  Religion has been used as justification for many great atrocities: the Spanish Inquisition, child sacrifices, the Crusades.  Religious people seem to want to tell me how to behave, and to judge and criticise me, claiming to represent the will of God.

I want to know the truth.  I want to know what science can tell me about how the universe works, and perhaps where I came from.  I want the benefits that science can bring, but not at the cost of becoming a slave to its dictates.  I want to know why I am here, what my purpose in life is, or even if there is one.  If there is a God I want to know what He thinks. I want the benefit of knowing that I have a purpose, but not at the cost of becoming a slave to rules from another human being.

And so I investigate, weigh up evidence in all forms and seek a holistic worldview that works.  I have explored what we know from the physical and biological sciences, and I have researched historical evidence for God. I have tested what is actually known, and what is speculation, extrapolation or personal opinion and rhetoric.

This book presents my conclusions, and some of the evidence that brought me to draw them.  I offer what I believe is a consistent, healthy and constructive worldview based on sound evidence.  I’ve called it Minimalist Christianity.  Whether you agree with my conclusion or not, I hope that many of the myths that currently inhibit so many of us will have been weakened or dispelled.  I hope that a step can be taken towards finding purpose and experiencing life in abundance.

A contemporary Genesis

/ Minimalist Christian / 3 Comments

One morning I felt the inspiration to write a modern version of the Genesis account of creation, incorporating and alluding to the scientific discoveries of recent times.  I hope that nobody chooses to take offence:

Before the beginning of time and matter in our universe, there was God.  Of his works other than our universe we know nothing, but of his works in this universe we have learned much through the gift of our intellect. Of all his purpose in our universe we can know only what he has chosen to reveal to us, and he has revealed that we were his purpose.  One purpose alone or one purpose among many is not for us to know.

God chose to create this universe.  He created time, and then he tore nothingness into matter and antimatter, and in that great explosion from nothing he caused there to be an excess of matter over antimatter.  And he causes matter to interact with matter through invisible forces acting across nothingness. And ripples of that rending apart of nothing remain until this day for us to observe with wonder.

Since God knows his plans, he chooses to cause matter to behave in a consistent way. He allows the tiniest particles to behave in individually unpredictable ways, but in community he causes them to follow his chosen laws.  In the presence of spirit, whether God’s own or that of humans or other spiritual beings, God allows his laws to be suspended.  God continues to sustain and guide his creation, acting as and when he chooses and allowing individuals to choose how to act.

And so for billions of years, although years were yet to be invented, the universe unrolled according to the laws that God had chosen.  Particles formed into atoms, atoms formed into great stars and stars drew together into galaxies.  The first stars grew to such a size that the interaction between the matter and the forces caused great energy and the explosion of the stars, and in those explosions new atoms were formed.  God was making the building blocks of life, the carbon and the oxygen atoms.  Out of those explosions, and according to God’s laws of interaction new stars formed, and planets were formed around those stars.

One of those planets, the earth, had the right conditions for the next phase in God’s plan.  The planet was at first a molten mass, bombarded from space by asteroids and meteors as the turmoil of the formation of the particular sun and galaxy subsided.  A crust was formed on the molten mass, and a gaseous atmosphere formed above the crust.  In that atmosphere and on the crust, the carbon, hydrogen and oxygen atoms joined to form more complex short molecules.  When the time was right, these short molecules formed into long chain molecules.  These very special molecules continued to work according to the laws that God had chosen for the atoms and particles.  The molecules had different purposes, some formed into cell membranes, some formed into little molecular machines, and some formed into very long instruction chains.  And God caused them to be combined into what we today would call cells, and God had given them the mechanism to multiply in number.

To the first cells he gave the task of changing the atmosphere of the earth.  Using the energy of the nearest star, the sun, the cells separated oxygen from carbon dioxide and pumped the oxygen into the atmosphere.  For more than a billion years the cells carried out their task of preparing the atmosphere of the earth, getting ready for the more complex organisms that were next on his plan.

When conditions were right, the individual cells formed into groups or communities that were dependant on each other, where each cell in the group performed slightly different functions and so the new organism was able to both become larger but also to perform more complex functions.  God gave the individual cells the means to evolve a mechanism that would carry the instructions for each cell in the group to perform its function, and to respond to the communications from other cells within the group.  And so, multicellular organisms were formed.

The instructions embedded in each of these cells ran to billions of characters in length.  The mechanisms of the cell and these instructions were both necessary for the cells to operate and grow, and to reproduce from generation to generation.  God didn’t plan to make all organisms identical, so he designed ways and means of bringing variation to the offspring of the organisms.  He allowed “random” variations due to inaccurate copying, and he caused deliberate mixing of the instructions in one organism with another, requiring separate organisms to come together in order to create the next generation.  The organisms themselves thus had to live in partnership and community to survive.

So God had established a process of growing a wide diversity of organisms of increasing functionality that relied on each other to survive and thrive.  Whilst each individual organism would be allowed to behave in an individual way, only those that were successful in progressing God’s plan survived and reproduced.  God chose to allow a process of competition to develop the organisms as he wanted; a process which required individual capability and cooperation between individual cells within an organism, and between organisms of the same type.  Through this phase of God’s plan he used the law of “survival of the fittest” to perfect each organism, and to select which organisms to perfect.  The organisms didn’t know anything of right and wrong.

But that was not the end of God’s purpose, although it took billions of years to accomplish.  His plans were greater than that, for there to be beings in his likeness; beings that would design and create, but more than that, beings that would know right from wrong, beings that would love, spiritual beings that would know and seek God himself.

So he selected one of the organisms and he planted his spirit in that organism and gave it an awareness of God himself, and he gave that organism the ability to know what is right and what is wrong, and he gave that organism the ability to choose to do what is right or what is wrong.  That organism is mankind, the pinnacle of God’s creation. 

You might not be ready to accept this new account. Certainly it is not literally correct, but maybe it is more relevant to today’s society in the same way that the original Genesis was relevant to the society of its day.  It conveys that all of us are spiritual and material beings, willed by God as the culmination of a creative process of unimaginable complexity spanning billions of years, following the creation of time itself.  Mankind: created with the opportunity to know God and to relate to him, but allowed the alternative of rejecting and ignoring him.

Excerpt from “The Big Picture – an honest examination of God, Science and Purpose”

evolution

I think I might be a panentheist – I hope it’s catching!

/ Minimalist Christian / 9 Comments

The ancient Celts knew a thing or two. They were not the wild fighters who the Sheriff of Nottingham brought in to drive Kevin Costner’s Robin Hood from his idyllic woodland village. They had a special understanding of the nature of things. According to “The Celtic Way” by Ian Bradley they held “a conviction that the presence of God was to be found throughout creation – in the physical elements of earth, rock and water, in plants trees and animals and in the wayward forces of wind and storm.”

Bradley goes on to say that “We are not in the world of pantheism here but in the much more subtle and suggestive realm of panentheism – the sense that God is found both within creation and outside it.”

Elsewhere I have written that God is ‘the laws of physics’ – it’s just another name for the thing which causes matter to behave in the way that it does. Without God/’the laws of physics’ there can be no matter – God and matter are not independent, and so matter is (part of) God. (see “Proof of God?”)

I have also noted that there are non-material things: love, justice, purpose etc. These must similarly be part of God – reflected in the Biblical passages which state that God is love. (see “An argument for, and definition of God”)

This understanding of the nature of God leads us to realise that you don’t need to go somewhere to meet God – he doesn’t live in church or a monastery – he is all around us, and within us, sustaining our physical bodies and our environment: “we are what we are through and within God”. (see “The God of Science”)

The Celts understood this. Not within the scientific context that I have described, but in the practical day-to-day knowledge of God. Perhaps we need to refresh our view and understanding of science to reflect this Celtic wisdom: science is simply the study of God!
There is no separate sacred / secular division, no God / nature division, no heaven / earth division; they are all part of God who is God of everything.