love

A fresh understanding of Grace

/ Minimalist Christian / Leave a comment

St Paul asked the rhetorical question “Well then, should we keep on sinning so that God can show us more and more of his wonderful grace?”  He then went on to answer with complicated and metaphorical language about being buried with Christ through baptism.  But I read this just after reading a facebook post from someone I care about behaving in a way that frankly won’t bring them happiness, and is simply satisfying their lustful urges. Looking at how I felt puts a new and simpler perspective on the question.

Let’s take it as read that God is love, and that he loves each one of us deeply.  We also need to understand that sin harms us deeply.  It may satisfy an immediate urge, but it harms us.  In the same way that it saddens me to see those I love harming themselves, it must sadden God so much more to see us harming ourselves.  Yet God still loves us, and in the same way that I still care about the person above, he cares about us.  I will not reject that person, and God will not reject us.  But it saddens Him so much that he was prepared to see Jesus tortured and killed on the cross to try to get through to us.

So if St Paul’s language seems confusing, just put yourself in God’s place and imagine how you would feel seeing your beloved son or daughter self-harming.  You would long for them to give up their life of sin, and return to your loving arms.  If they wanted to make a fresh start,  you would do whatever it takes to wipe their slate clean.  And that is just what God has done for us.

That’s why we shouldn’t keep on sinning; it causes God more pain and sadness and it does us no good either.

Simple.

Austerity is Working?

/ Minimalist Christian / 7 Comments

“Austerity is Working” proclaims the headline in The Sunday Times.

Why does this make me angry?  Shouldn’t I be glad that this pain that we are ‘all’ going through is finally working?  After all, ‘we are all in this together’ so isn’t this encouragement to keep taking the treatment?

But what does ‘working’ mean?  Let’s look at some other headline news that I recall recently:

  • More people in work than ever before rely on state support to feed their families
  • Food banks opening and helping thousands (and bizarrely someone claimed that this was a sign of a civilized society, that a few good people try to make up for the ineptitude of the rich)
  • The “lost generation”: young people struggle to find work and purpose.

Is that what we mean by ‘working’?  Surely not.  Let’s look further:

  • 2500 bankers are going to get bonuses of over £1 million
  • 11% pay rise for MPs to take their salaries over £70thousand

If I were cynical I might think that the writer must be referring to the latter two examples.  But no, he is referring to the new god, “the economy”.  This “thing” that we have raised above basic humanity, above compassion, above “loving our neighbour as ourself”.

And who are the priests of this new god?  Not the small people.  Not those who suffered from losing all their savings in the banking crisis, or those whose money bailed out the banks.  Not those who have to pay the extra ‘bedroom tax’.  Not those who are now going to have to work to 66 or older just to feed themselves.  Not those who frequent the foodbanks and rely on state support.

The priesthood are the wealthy.

Compared to many, I am wealthy.  I could pay more tax and it would be no more than a minor inconvenience. But it makes me ashamed that we have a government who would rather tax the poor than risk offending the rich.  Why do we not have a government who would close the budget deficit through taxing the higher paid, or tackling obscene bonuses, and a rich class who would willingly support them?

I have not suffered at all in this economic crisis.  I continue not to suffer.  And neither do any of our MPs, or any of those who administer the economy.  Neither does Mr Johnson, who openly advocates greed as good.

I am ashamed, but helpless.  I cannot see any political party that would change things.  They all worship at the same altar.

I do what I can for those around me, and I’m sure you do to – but it’s not enough.  It’s time for a new politics.  It’s time for another Mandela, or Gandhi; time for a statesman not a politician.

The nation waits, but where is such a leader to be found?

—————————————————————

https://philhemsley.wordpress.com/2012/10/06/basic-economics/

https://philhemsley.wordpress.com/2013/12/27/austerity-is-working-ii/

Mitochondrial donation – some concerns

/ Minimalist Christian / 2 Comments

The UK government has decided to consult publicly on the introduction of regulations to allow mitochondrial donation.

I suspect that at the majority of people in the UK have no idea what mitochondrial donation is, what the risks and technical issues are, or what the ethical considerations might be. I wasn’t until very recently!

This short note attempts to give a very brief introduction to the concept and raise some considerations that might inform the discussion.  It is not an expert paper – I am not an expert, but it is an overview to prompt further thought and discussion by the majority of UK citizens, who are also not experts.  A source of information on the topic is “Novel techniques for the prevention of mitochondrial DNA disorders: an ethical review”.

What is Mitochondrial donation?

The majority of human DNA is contained in the cell nucleus, however some is contained in the mothers mitochondria – so called Mitochondrial DNA.  Mutations or abnormalities in mitochondrial DNA (as in all DNA) can lead to disorders in the developing offspring.  Since these disorders are due to the DNA, they are not curable.

“They are progressive, can be very seriously debilitating and disabling. They may also cause miscarriage and stillbirth, death in babies, children and young people, or severe symptoms which onset in adulthood. The symptoms and the age and severity at which they are experienced vary widely between patients, which can make diagnosis difficult. Mitochondrial disorders may affect one organ at a time – for example resulting in blindness or heart failure – or may affect several areas of the body at the same time. Mothers can pass on mitochondrial disorders without having experienced symptoms themselves, which in some cases may mean that they are not aware that they carry mutated mitochondrial DNA that can cause disorders in their children.”[i]

Mitochondria are separate ‘bags’ within a cell, and so can be separated and removed from a cell.  They can be transferred from cell to cell, and so in theory the mitochondria from a parent whose DNA is abnormal can be removed and then replaced with mitochondria from another person who has normal DNA.  The new cell then contains DNA from the female nucleus donor and the father, and a small proportion of DNA from the mitochondria donor.

As with all new technology, implementation is far more difficult than the theory.  However, experimenters believe they are making progress.  Around 30 children worldwide have been born using a technique whereby mitochondria from a donor are injected into the mother cell, providing an excess of mitochondria, in effect trying to dilute the faulty mitochondria.  These trials have indicated a higher than normal incidence of Turners Syndrome (which resulted in miscarriage and a termination), a lack of ovarian development at puberty and short stature.  It may be associated with problems with major organs and mild learning difficulties.

What are some of the risks?

What loving person cannot want to improve the life of another in the best way they can?  If I were a scientist researching mitochondrial diseases I would use all of my expertise to try to find solutions.  In my own job as a design engineer I am continually striving to improve our product, and I sometimes get immensely frustrated by the procedures and processes that are put in place to make sure that new developments are as risk free as possible.  New concepts that I think are very likely to work are often years in development and testing before being introduced into a machine.  But I accept the situation because of the consequences of something going wrong.  A similar situation must apply with Mitochondrial donation.

The amount of testing and refinement that is needed with a new technology depends on the impact if it goes wrong.  Let’s consider some of the impacts if mitochondrial donation were to go wrong.

  • Being genetic, the outcome of the genetic manipulation will be permanently in the gene pool of the descendants.  Our knowledge of how DNA works is still very limited.  Only a few years ago scientists labelled most of the human DNA as ‘junk’, but now controversial recent research is showing that what was previously written off as junk may be important in helping each cell become the type of cell that it needs to be.[ii]  There must be a risk that future generations will suffer unknown and unpredictable consequences of ‘unnatural’ DNA mixing.
  • We really don’t understand how DNA forms our developing body.  We know that a single DNA change can make the difference between a fruit fly having two or four wings, but we don’t know how that happens.  Humans comprise 50 trillion cells, yet our DNA string only contains 3 billion base pairs. That’s more than 10,000 cells per base pair.  We don’t know exactly how so few DNA base pairs can manufacture such a complex entity as a human, although applying engineering principles we can infer that the cell itself must be an intelligent component.[iii]  How will that cell respond to the modified mitochondrial DNA from a donor?  Would it be like running Microsoft software on an Apple computer?
  • The body has evolved to reject unviable embryos.  The trials mentioned above showed that this happens.  Might mitochondrial donation lead to an increase in miscarriages and terminations?  Would the stress and damage to the mother and couple exceed the risk of mitochondrial disease?
  • If mitochondrial donation techniques were to become widespread, but only effective for a proportion cases, what would be the consequence on those parents who still have ‘disabled’ children?  Would the emotional strain be even greater than today?  Would society shun or blame them for having disabled children?
  • We learnt above that often a mother will not know that she has a disorder.  For such parents mitochondrial donation will not be an option, unless there is a universal screening program.  What would be the social and emotional impacts of such a program?

Questioning our assumptions

These are of course only a few of the questions that need to be considered.  However, perhaps it is also important to consider the cultural assumptions that we might be unknowingly making when considering the issues.

A parent will always want the best for their children.  If one were to ask any couple, “would you like a healthy or unhealthy child” then I cannot imagine any couple opting for the latter. However, if you were to ask the parent of a disabled child, “would you rather have Julie or not have Julie” the responses would not be so clear-cut.  If you were to ask “would you rather have Julie but that Julie was not disabled” then the responses would probably lean towards the not disabled Julie.

Anyone who loves others would love to see them fully healthy, intelligent, happy, hard-working, fulfilled, loving and loved, friendly, etc. etc.  Whilst the attributes and character traits of an individual are interlinked, they are not directly and positively correlated.  Health doesn’t lead to happiness.  Intelligence doesn’t lead to being loving or loved.  So we must be wary of concluding that it would have been better if Julie had been born healthy.  She may be more loved, more fulfilled and happier being disabled than she would have been if she had been healthy.  Would Stephen Hawking have become the great physicist that he is if he had not been disabled?

We assume that a long life is better than a short life.  Is this correct?  How do older people think about this?  Are the years in our life more important than the life in our years?

Are we convinced that the end of this life is the end of everything?  If not, then why do we want to keep people from dying? Is it for their sake or ours?

What aspects of life are important, what we produce or the relationships we forge?

Is suffering always a bad thing?  What does evidence suggest?  Would South Africa have successfully transitioned from apartheid to democracy without Mandela suffering years of imprisonment?

In conclusion

This short post was prompted by the UK government’s intention to introduce regulations to allow mitochondrial donation.

We need to question that intention.  This is not an issue to approach lightly and quickly.  Consideration goes beyond the term of a single parliament, and beyond single countries.  I do not feel comfortable that our government, elected by only a small proportion of the population, seems to be intent on adopting a technology which could have severe consequences.

What do you think?

Goodness – me!

/ Minimalist Christian / 13 Comments

Do you ever stop to think what you would like on your gravestone when you are dead?  It’s a good way of finding out what we really want to be like.  I don’t think any of us would like to see phrases like:

“Always selfish and greedy”

“Never had time for anyone else”

“Vindictive and hateful”

When we see a new baby, at a christening who would want to think that the baby would grow up to be a thief, or to have a string of husbands who she cheated on and deserted, or to be a child molester.

We know deep down that we want to be good.

In the 11th century, Anselm of Canterbury described how being good is possible through ‘goodness’, and how supreme goodness is God.  So that desire to be good is actually us wanting to be like God (supreme goodness), to act like God, to be in his image.

St John’s describes in his gospel that God is love.  So when we love one another, our love is possible through love, which is through God.  We are choosing to act like God, to be part of God.

Each of us has the essence of goodness in us, and the essence of love in us.  God is goodness and God is love, so we all have God within us.  Sometimes we choose to ignore goodness and love, and instead choose to be selfish, vindictive or hateful.  But that is not what we want to be – as we found at the start of this post.

The true Christian religion is about helping us to be what we want to be – good and loving.  It is about connecting with that goodness and love within us; God within us.  It is about learning from Christ what goodness and love looks like, and trying to imitate him.

And if you want to be good and loving, then that means that you want to be like God.  Jesus said that ‘if you have seen me then you have seen God’; Jesus represented supreme goodness and love in human form.  So if you want to be good and loving, since Jesus was supremely good and loving, then you want to be like Jesus, and if you want to be like Jesus you can call yourself a Christian.

Christians pray to help make that connection with goodness and love.  Here’s an example of a Celtic prayer from Lindisfarne:

Help me dear Lord to care too much

To love too freely

To pray unceasingly

To forgive endlessly

To laugh fearlessly

To question

To live

To be who I am

To be where I am

To be what I am

To hope

To believe

To reach out my hand

That’s a good prayer, isn’t it?  It’s about connecting with God within us.  It’s asking God to help us be who we want to be.

Do you want to be the sort of person that the prayer describes?  You can take a step closer by praying that prayer.

Related posts

https://philhemsley.wordpress.com/2012/06/21/an-argument-for-and-definition-of-god/

https://philhemsley.wordpress.com/2012/12/29/the-god-of-science/

 

Proof of God?

/ Minimalist Christian / 7 Comments

A friend asked “Let us suppose it was absolutely certain there was no god but many people honestly believed there was – how different would the world look today?”

I could answer that if there was no God there would be no universe and no people to observe it.

Clearly, as we are both intelligent people we must be talking about something different when we say the word ‘god’.

The God that I conclude exists is a creator, and a God who sustains the universe.  Clearly the universe exists and continues to exist.  Ask a physicist why and he will probably say ‘because of the laws of physics’.  A rose is a rose by any other name, so at minimum my God is the laws of physics – we just choose to give it different names.

Perhaps my friend’s question is going beyond that definition of God.  Perhaps he is asking about a God who has ‘character’, a ‘me’-ness that I have.  (I know that I exist, there is an essence that is ‘me’).  What would things be like if there was not a God who had an essence of ‘me’?

It’s actually not easy to define what ‘I’ am.  Science of course shows that my brain has massively complex computational ability, but that doesn’t really help.  Literature and philosophy, and our daily experience tells me that there are things like love, joy, peace, thoughts, free will.  Let’s consider these as parts of ‘me’, and think – what if there were not a god who also had these characteristics.

But once again, the same sort of argument applies.  God is love, joy, peace.  Therefore without God there would be no love, joy or peace.  There would be no literature, there would be no mathematics, no equations, there would be not science.

Free will though is slightly different.  We know we have free will, and yet it is inexplicable by science.  It is inconsistent with the laws of physics.  Free will seems a bit of a paradox.  If God is the laws of physics, and free will is inconsistent with the laws of physics then how can that work?  A rational explanation is that free will is something that is a gift of God, that is not constrained by the laws of physics.  Therefore we begin to see what would be different in my friends question.  Without God we would have no free will, we would not be able to choose right from wrong, we would simply be robots who respond to stimuli.

But to explore the question further.  My last paragraph introduced right and wrong.  We know that there is right and wrong – even if we don’t always know what is right and what is wrong.  Right and wrong are different from free will, so let’s suppose that we were able to have free will but had no knowledge of right and wrong.  Clearly right and wrong exist.  Goodness and evil exist.  And yes, my definition of God includes ultimate goodness.  So without God we would have no constraint on what we do, we would simply live to serve ourselves.  The world would be governed simply by whoever was strongest.  We would be like most of the rest of the animal kingdom.  States like North Korea would be everywhere and left unchecked.  Anarchy would reign.  The world would be a very different place to live.

So have I proved God exists?  I think so (but I would) – simply because my definition of God includes everything that we know exists.  I define that it is not possible for anything to exist without God, and so anything which exists must be God.

My friend asked what if God didn’t exist but people believed that he did.  I hope that I have shown that such a question is not directly answerable, it is like the “can god make a thing so heavy that he cannot lift it” question, or “can God make something that doesn’t exist”.  But perhaps I’ve also been able to answer the questions behind the question.  Will it satisfy my friend?  I doubt it.  If any of us really doesn’t want to change our views then no amount of logical reasoning will make a difference.  But perhaps others will find the discussion interesting….

If you found this post interesting you might also like:

https://philhemsley.wordpress.com/2013/05/03/goodness-me/

https://philhemsley.wordpress.com/2012/12/29/the-god-of-science/

https://philhemsley.wordpress.com/2012/06/19/can-god-answer-prayer-in-a-universe-that-operates-according-to-the-laws-of-physics/

Brian Cox’s “Wonders of life – what is life?” .. a review

/ Minimalist Christian / 5 Comments

Yesterday evening I watched the first in a new Brian Cox series on the wonders of life.  I was left with an uncomfortable feeling about the way the content was presented. In essence, the program shows very little science but a lot of metaphysical opinion. In essence it it propaganda.  As best as I can, I’ve transcribed phrases from the program in blue (thanks to iPlayer), to show what I mean.

“no matter how unscientific it sounds this, this idea that there is some kind of soul or spirit or animating force that makes us what we are that exists after our death is common.…. it ‘feels right’, it is hard to accept that you are … just something that emerges from an inanimate bag of stuff”.  This is filmed against the backdrop of smoky fires and gravestones where people are gathering to ‘connect with their dead relatives’. 

This section clearly communicates that spirituality is a magical force that is outside of science and is necessary to explain life – ‘spirit of the gaps’ – but that such an idea is wrong.  Although we might not like it we are just a bag of stuff (no explanation, but trust me, I’m a professor celebrity).

So this has set up the straw-man god that is not part of the natural world, but is outside of it, tinkering occasionally to start life through magical means.  No mention of a God who created and sustains the laws of physics themselves.

Feelings, and indeed we are ‘just something that emerges’ i.e. they have no meaning or purpose.  This is a metaphysical view that is essential if the idea of a purposeful God who set the universe in motion is abhorrent – yet the filming and presentation are designed to manipulate those same feelings.  This is not science, it is carefully crafted propaganda.

“if we are to say that science can explain everything about us then it is incumbent on science to answer the question what is it that animates living things what is it the difference between a piece of rock carved into a gravestone and me? …. For millennia, some form of spirituality has been evoked to explain what it means to be alive and how life began.  It is only recently that science has begun to answer these deepest of questions”  ,

Although the words don’t strictly say it, the message is clearly that science can explain life; no other explanation is necessary.  Again, the alternative is some magical force outside nature. The false dichotomy presented again (science OR spirituality) allows no space for a god who is consistent with scientific discovery, where scientific discovery allows us to learn more about God.  So science is getting busy and is providing the answers, which are:

  • Energy transforms from one form to another, and that caused and explains life – that is the reason we are here.  All life continues to be powered by the same process of transforming energy from one form to another.
  • We all have DNA, which is the “blueprint for life” and continues the organisation of the chemical processes from generation to generation, and shows that we have common ancestry with every other living things

“life is … a collection of chemical processes that harness flow of energy to create local islands of order…. Far from being some chance event ignited by some mystical spark the emergence of life on earth might have been the inevitable consequence of the laws of physics …. A living cosmos might be the only way our cosmos can be”

Mystical spark or science – the false dichotomy perpetuated.

The program focuses on a god of mysticism and magic, and appears not to know of the Christian God.

The God of Christianity is believed to be the creator of the universe, the cause of the Big Bang, the author of the laws of physics, the inventor and sustainer of a cosmos that has the inevitable consequence of producing life.  A God who cannot be seen – yet can be seen everywhere.  A God whose power has gifted us with the ability to feel and understand, and who gives meaning to each of us.  A God who is love; the love we feel is part of God rather than ‘just some emerging thing’.

It is frustrating when scientific programmes such as these don’t present a balanced view of the metaphysics.

Other posts which might be of interest:

https://philhemsley.wordpress.com/2013/04/07/god-miracles-and-the-laws-of-physics/

https://philhemsley.wordpress.com/2012/12/29/the-god-of-science/

https://philhemsley.wordpress.com/2013/04/14/proof-of-god/

https://philhemsley.wordpress.com/2012/06/21/an-argument-for-and-definition-of-god/

 

 

A vision and purpose for 2013

/ Minimalist Christian / 2 Comments

In the 2011 UK census, nearly 60% of the population want to be recognised as Christian.  Many other surveys show that the proportion of the population who regularly attend church services is between 5% and 15%.  (Tearfund report on churchgoing 2007, http://www.eauk.org/church/research-and-statistics/english-church-census.cfm, Religious Trends – Brieley)

This data shows that there are 45 – 55% of the UK population who want to be associated with Christianity but are not being supported by the various churches in the country.  To my mind this is not an acceptable situation.  Something must change.

The popular representation of Christians is that we are uncaring unloving people:  We are sexist, not allowing women bishops.  We are homophobic, not allowing gay marriage or gay clergy.  We are ignorant – ignoring scientific data and insisting that the world is 6000 years old and was created in six days.  We are hypocrites and child molesters.  We instantly jump to judge everyone else’s behaviour whilst being just as bad ourselves.  Our bottom line is that “you are going to Hell if you don’t believe what I believe”.  Of course, that’s complete b*****cks, but it certainly doesn’t encourage anyone to explore what Christianity is actually about.  I wrote my first book “The Leap” to address some of these issues.

So there is an image barrier that prevents the 55% exploring their spiritual roots.  But there are many other barriers. To name a few:

  • long working hours leave people exhausted (Nearly 20% of men and 6% of women work over 49 hours per week – 2011 census).  We want to relax and do something enjoyable at the weekend and the image of sitting in a cold uncomfortable church pew is not very attractive.
  • entertainment is at our fingertips in the comfort of our own homes, we don’t want to go to the trouble of going out.
  • nearly 50% of the population live alone (2011 census).  There’s all the housework to do. The barrier of going out alone can be immense, loneliness is a hard habit to break

Jesus came to bring life in abundance.  We are missing out!  We catch glimpses of what life in abundance might be in the spirit of the Olympics,  in the national celebrations and street parties of the Jubilee.  Neighbours got to know each other, perhaps speaking for the first time in years.  The hearts of the people in this nation are good – look at the response when Claire Squires died – nearly £1million donated. http://www.justgiving.com/Claire-Squires2

The church in the UK needs to provide opportunities for this spirit (which is a reflection of the spirit of God within all of us) to grow, for individuals to explore and develop their spiritual side, their humanity.

We need to fight against the materialist mindset that tells us we are simply a bunch of chemicals.

We need to fight against the economic mindset that tells use we are just consumers, human resources, a drain on the economy.

We need to free and inspire the hearts and minds of every man, woman and child to love one another, forgive one another, and love God – with all our hearts, minds and souls.

Let’s go for it! Let 2013 be a year we remember.

The God of Science

/ Minimalist Christian / 9 Comments

Neuroscientist Michael Graziano has speculated on the connection between the material and the spirit world.  His book “God Soul Mind Brain” has the stated aim to describe ‘the mechanistic understanding of the spirit world’.  With is background he makes the assumption that ‘mechanism’ is the reality and perception is the illusion.

“we do not perceive the world as it is, the brain constructs a simulated world”

“colour is not actually out there…. The same set of wavelengths may look green to you in a different context or grey or blue”

“We experience the model rather than the reality”

The statements are fascinating reminders of what the brain does: it constructs a simulated world, it provides the stimulus to allow the experience of colours, it somehow appears to create a model in our brains.

However, it is a false assumption that the mechanism is the reality and the perception is the illusion.   Accepting the assumption is like saying that the material pages of a book and the printed ink are the reality, and the story that the book tells or the information that it contains is not the reality.  Whist nobody would disagree that the book is the material and the story is not, which of them is the reality?

In a book, we read the words rather than perceiving the paper and letters and we construct in our imagination a picture and an experience based on the words and story within the book.  In the only scale of importance that matters to a human being, the book is the words, not the paper and ink.  War and Peace is a famous story, the paper that it was written on was just the framework for holding it. The story is eternal although the paper decays. To a human being, the story is the reality.

Consider a work of art; the material is not the masterpiece, it is merely a framework which holds the masterpiece.  The canvas and paint is meaningless, the picture is the meaning.

If we can free ourselves of the dogma of materialism then we can perhaps begin to consider that in the universe created from nothing, where particles are only potentialities until they are observed the reality is the experience, the qualia, the ‘I’, and that the material is just the skeleton for holding the reality.

The material universe is meaningless until it is perceived, the perception of it gives it meaning.

The butterfly nebula is beautiful when it is observed; without observation it is meaningless.

Two bags of chemicals are meaningless, but the intimate relationship between two people who are in love has immense meaning and purpose.

Is this so strange?  When we look at the quantum level of the material, there is no such thing as paper or ink.  There are particles and forces that we cannot understand.  They are outside of our ability to perceive, so we think of them as miniature versions of ping pong balls and sticks.  They are only potentialities until they are observed.  What we consider material reality is not really real, it performs its function only when it is perceived and observed.  So perhaps what we perceive as real day to day, the material world, is similarly non-material. Perhaps the only reality is our perception, our model.

So what of God in this?  Jesus spoke of God living in us and us in him.  Perhaps our material framework that holds us is part of God.  As Anselm wrote, everything is what it is through extreme goodness, through God, so we are what we are through and within God.  We are told that God is love, and that we are made in his image.  Jesus said that ‘if you have seen me, you have seen the father’; I don’t think he was talking about his flesh, but his ‘being’ – his ‘spirit’.  Our framework (our body and brain) is a small part of a material universe that is created and sustained by God.  If that universe is within God, part of God, then we too are ‘in him’, as he is ‘in us’.

And what of laws of physics, of evolution and biology?  We can create mathematical models of inanimate physical objects, and we can observe the behaviour of molecules and cells which seems to be beyond the possibility of simply responding to those physical laws – yet seems to be consistent, predictable, and purposeful. Within the framework where the universe is within and part of God there may be causes other than the laws of physics for the astonishing growth and development of the human being from the single cell; a God whose will ‘knits us together in our mother’s womb’. In the same way that our ‘will’ causes our hands to move, makes our choices, interacts with others, so God’s will can cause our bodies to grow and develop, to form our brain, to manufacture us as the masterpiece we are, our body being the receptacle for our spirit.

It is the non-material that motivates us, the non-material that leads to change, the non-material that makes our world like it is rather than a desolate moonscape.  The non-material is master over matter.  The non-material is the meaning, the meaning is the reality.

Who would disagree that there is a ‘spirit of Christmas’, all of society embracing a season of joy and giving.  People speak of the true spirit of Christmas; we know that there is something that transcends each of us as individuals.  It is part of the sprit that is God.

When we observe a beautiful woodland track, sunlight shining through the leaves to create a dappled light settling on a trickling stream, that beauty is part of the essence that is God.

When we listen to a sublime piece of music that moves us to tears, or an energising rock ballad that lifts our hearts with passion, that is part of God.

When we love someone, our love is part of the supreme love that is God.

When we meet friends in a party, in a community, that spirit of community is part of God’s spirit of community.

If we can appreciate that the greater reality is the spirit, and the material is just the framework then we can see God and the universe in a whole new light.  The universe can be considered the canvas for a cosmic work of art, a magnificent symphony of action and awe.  Life is a molecular dance of astonishing intricacy and beauty.  We are permitted to explore and understand through science.  We are permitted to glimpse the canvas and participate in the dance; characters created by the dance emerging as individual caring, loving, interacting beings partaking of some of the glory that is the story; individual masterpieces beyond the beautiful, whose reality is our character, our choices, our nature, our soul.  Creatures of purpose and with purpose.  Creatures honoured with the possibility of relating to our creator, the master artist, engineer, scientist, musician, teacher, parent, friend, but never are we his equal.

So this is the God of Science:  A God who was there before the universe began.  An un-created, creator God who gave ‘nothing’ the ability to become ‘something’.  A God who sustains, and maybe actually is, the very fabric of the universe. A God who actually is the laws of physics, who benevolently guides providence to bring life out of a set of chemicals.   A God who imbues the chemical dance that is us with the ability to feel, to taste, to see, to experience: love, joy, peace, fulfilment, intellectual challenge, selflessness, forgiveness, anger, hate, disgust, bitterness.  Perhaps even a God who is love, joy, peace, fulfilment…. But a God who allows us to experience both the good and the bad, and who allows us to choose to pursue that which is good, or that which is not.

Add to this the God revealed to us by Jesus Christ and we begin to understand the complete context.

butterfly nebula

Questions raised by the Neon Roberts case

/ Minimalist Christian / 12 Comments

According to the BBC news the judge in the Neon Roberts said doctors accepted that radiotherapy had side effects: it could slightly impair intellect and carried some risks of causing infertility but most children coped well – and there would be no quality of life at all if you were dead.  At first this sounds very logical, but it seems to me that it reflects a very irrational view of life and death that has perhaps come to be accepted without thinking.

It assumes that there is no life after death, that the value of life is only the short period of life on earth, and it assumes that the only value in life is the quality of life of the individual.

This is a self-centred worldview, a Darwinian view that each individual is only important to himself and consequences for others are secondary.  The essence of humanity is lost.  All of Christ’s teaching about loving one’s neighbour is ignored.

If there is no life after death (the secular view) then a dead person no longer exists and it does not matter to them whether they are alive or dead.  Almost all religions view our spiritual being as continuing to exist after physical death.  If that is the case, then the quality of spiritual life continues after death, and again we should not fear death.

In each case, the impact of death is on those who remain behind; on those who miss the person who had died.  That is indeed a serious impact, but I wonder if it is something that institutions such as courts are best placed to decide on – they are not the ones left to pick up the pieces.

What’s it all mean?

/ Minimalist Christian / Leave a comment

I unashamedly quote the following that was written perhaps 3000 years ago.  If you’re having a stressful time, perhaps at work, this puts it into perspective:

“Everything is meaningless,” says the Teacher, “completely meaningless!”

What do people get for all their hard work under the sun? Generations come and generations go, but the earth never changes.  The sun rises and the sun sets, then hurries around to rise again.  The wind blows south, and then turns north. Around and around it goes, blowing in circles.  Rivers run into the sea, but the sea is never full. Then the water returns again to the rivers and flows out again to the sea.  Everything is wearisome beyond description. No matter how much we see, we are never satisfied. No matter how much we hear, we are not content.

 History merely repeats itself. It has all been done before. Nothing under the sun is truly new.  Sometimes people say, “Here is something new!” But actually it is old; nothing is ever truly new. We don’t remember what happened in the past, and in future generations, no one will remember what we are doing now.…….

So I decided there is nothing better than to enjoy food and drink and to find satisfaction in work. Then I realized that these pleasures are from the hand of God……

.... remember your Creator now while you are young, before the silver cord of life snaps and the golden bowl is broken. Don’t wait until the water jar is smashed at the spring and the pulley is broken at the well.  For then the dust will return to the earth, and the spirit will return to God who gave it.

…taken from the Holy Bible, New Living Translation, copyright © 1996, 2004. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Carol Stream, Illinois 60188. All rights reserved.