Science and faith: The creation story

There’a a very interesting post at the Jesus Creed blog which examines claims from John Polkinghorn’s new book about creation.

Polkinghorn, was an eminent Cambridge scientist before he was ordained and was involved in the discovery of quark particles, basically says that he doesn’t think that the creation accounts in Genesis was supposed to be literal scientific accounts of how the world was formed. The fact that there are two of them (Gen 1 and 2) which contain different details is an indicator of this.

Instead, they contain

true myth – with a truth so deep that only story can convey it.

This position resonates with my thinking. I have never been a fan of young earth creationism and see science as sitting alongside faith, complementing not opposing it. The creation stories are then more about explaining truths about God’s relationship with mankind and his creation, and mankind’s relationship with God, the world around, and one other. With this approach you can maintain scientific integrity without having to ignore vast chunks of the bible.

This still leaves questions open to which I don’t yet have adequate answers, such as who were Adam and Eve, and were they real or also metaphorical in order to convey truth. And if they were myth, at what point in the genesis narrative does is start to become historical? (for example, I believe that the flood in Gen 6 happened, so presumably if Adam and Eve were metaphorical, somewhere between Gen 3 and 6 the narrative shifts to being about real people rather than simply illustrative of God’s truth ).

So there are still lots of unanswered questions, but Polkinghorn’s approach is useful to those with a scientific mindset.

Stephen Hawking on aliens

Stephen Hawking has been in the news today by saying that creation could have spontaneously begun and therefore doesn’t necessitate the need for a God, even to kick the whole process off. This is being reported as as change in Hawking’s position in the media today as it contradicts what he wrote in A Brief History of Time in 1988, yet in actual fact, as the church mouse points out, it is a position he articulated as far back as 1989. It also doesn’t rule out the place for God in creation and can only be used as an counter to a ‘God of the gaps’ argument.

Elsewhere Hawking comments on the likelihood of aliens existing, saying that it is perfectly rational for them to exist elsewhere. However, we should avoid seeking them out as they may not be very nice:

We only have to look at ourselves to see how intelligent life might develop into something we wouldn’t want to meet.

I guess he’s noticed that humanity is flawed, given that he wouldn’t want to meet us in a dark alley in outer space. He recognises that we are not the nice friendly approachable beings that we like to think we are, but are greedy, selfish, power-hungry and so many other things:

If aliens visit us, the outcome would be much as when Columbus landed in America, which didn’t turn out well for the Native Americans

If only there was a solution to our flawed humanity. Well, not in Hawking’s world there isn’t.

Darwin on evolution

There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms, or into one…

Charles Darwin at the end of The Origin of the Species.

Darwin was not a Christian, though he certianly did not beleive he had done away with God.

Richard Dawkins on truth

Dawkins defends scientific truth in the Times online.

A scientist arrogantly asserts that thunder is not the triumphal sound of God’s balls banging together, nor is it Thor’s hammer. It is, instead, the reverberating echoes from the electrical discharges that we see as lightning. Poetic (or at least stirring) as those tribal myths may be, they are not actually true.

But now a certain kind of anthropologist can be relied on to jump up and say something like the following: Who are you to elevate scientific “truth” so? The tribal beliefs are true in the sense that they hang together in a meshwork of consistency with the rest of the tribe’s world view. Scientific “truth” is only one kind (“Western” truth, the anthropologist may call it, or even “patriarchal”). Like tribal truths, yours merely hang together with the world view that you happen to hold, which you call scientific. An extreme version of this viewpoint (I have actually encountered this) goes so far as to say that logic and evidence themselves are nothing more than instruments of masculine oppression over the “intuitive mind”.

Listen, anthropologist. Just as you entrust your travel to a Boeing 747 rather than a magic carpet or a broomstick; just as you take your tumour to the best surgeon available, rather than a shaman or a mundu mugu, so you will find that the scientific version of truth works. You can use it to navigate through the real world. Science predicts, with complete certainty unless the end of the world intervenes, that the city of Shanghai will experience a total eclipse of the sun on July 22, 2009. Theories about the moon god devouring the sun god may be poetic, and they may cohere with other aspects of a tribe’s world view, but they won’t predict the date, time and place of an eclipse. Science will, and with an accuracy you could set your watch by. Science gets you to the moon and back. Even if we bend over backwards to concede that scientific truth is no more than that which enables you to pilot your way reliably, safely and predictably around the real universe, it is in exactly this sense that – at the very least – evolution is true. Evolutionary theory pilots us around biology reliably and predictively, with a detailed and unblemished success that rivals anything in science. The least you can say about evolutionary theory is that it works. All but pedants would go further and assert that it is true.

via The gospel according to Darwin Richard Dawkins TLS.

For the most part I agree. However, what Dawkins has done is simply defend the use of the word ‘true’ in scientific thinking. He has argued that if something can be shown to scientifically ‘work’, we can call it true. This is mere semantics. What he hasn’t done is equated ‘truth’ with conclusive proof as he would like us to believe.

Robert Jeffers on the Big Bang

Quote by Robert Jeffers, an American Poet who reveals the inadequacy of the term ‘Big Bang’. From God and Science by Rob Frost and David Wilkinson.

There is no way to express that explosion – all that exists roars into flames, the tortured fragments rush away from each other into the sky, new Universes jewel the black breast of night and far off the outer nebulae like charging spearmen again invade emptiness.

Bit of an understatement really…

Scientists believe in God

According to the Daily Mail, scientists believe in God. Not all of them, I’m sure, but Jonathan Margolis wrote an interesting articlejust before Christmas – I’ve only just been passed it. He interviews several eminent scientists about their beleif in God. Not a definitive article by any means, but interesting nonetheless.

Similarly, Oxford mathematics professor John Lennox argues: ‘This misapprehension that faith is a religious thing not involved in science is simply false. I see the two as belonging together.’

The softly-spoken Ulsterman added: ‘But science is limited. That’s no insult to science, but as I recently told Richard Dawkins, I could dissect him, run his brain through a scanner, reduce him to chemicals and tell a great deal about him. ‘But I’d never get to know him as a person. For that, he must reveal himself to me.’

Professor Lennox said that God has revealed himself at several levels, in the universe and creation.

‘Science gives us pointers towards God, but you don’t get proofs; you get evidence. And faith is evidence-based – not based on lack of evidence, as Dawkins says.’

Weekly roundup – preaching, whales, and gaming

It’s been a blog-light week as I’ve been away at a conference – we’re hoping to set up a parenting course in the church for all those who feel that some tips might be useful. Other churches have found this to be a good way to serve the community in a practical way.

Anyway, I read a good article on preaching – how much should or can a preacher take as inspiration from another preacher, or should a sermon be all his own work? Scott McKnight wrote a great piece in response to this article on Christianity today.

I saw a lovely moment from nature on the BBC website - a Beluga whale gave birth in Vancouver aquarium in front of many tourists. The BBC video (here) is probably a bit clearer, but here’s a different one from the same incident on youtube.

And if you like retro games, neave.com has a whole selection including one of my favourites that I used to play on my BBC microcomputer – Frogger.

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill

This controversial bill comes up for voting in the House of Commons this week. Some of the things it is promoting is to allow the creation of ‘saviour’ siblings – children created for the specific purpose of being able to donate tissues or organs to an older sibling who is sick. Additionally, the bill proposes allowing the creation of human hybrid embryos, up to 50% human. This raises difficult moral questions of part-human entities.

MPs have been given a free vote on this issue, as it is an ‘issue of conscience’. This means they do not need to vote along party lines and are free to vote how they wish. It is not too late to get in touch with your MP to let them know your views. The website www.theyworkforyou.com can tell you who your MP is and how to get in touch with them.

Here is a draft letter written by a doctor friend of mine.

Dear [MP],

*** Urgent business: Embryology Bill ***

Thank you for your continued and conscientious work representing your constituents in Parliament.

I am writing regarding key votes in the Embryology Bill over the next couple of days. I believe it to be fortuitous that Labour MPs have been given a free vote on the key conscience issues and gives Labour MPs the opportunity to demonstrate that they are listening to their constituents at a difficult time politically. I write to request that you vote according to the views of the majority of the UK public with respect to the following four issues.

1. Human-animal embryos
The creation of such entities crosses a moral rubicon, the Bill as it stands permitting the creation of hybrids from 99% to 50% ‘human’. The critical issue is in the notion of an entity being ‘less than human’ and the risk to human dignity/rights that this category poses. Furthermore, the scientific value of such an ‘advance’ is suspect. All the medical benefits to date have come from ethically non-controversial adult stem cells, and the commercially-exciting possibility of hybrids will divert funds and attention from this proven fruitful avenue. Please vote against.

2. ‘Saviour siblings’
The main problem with this is the notion that a child is created as a means (to help a sibling) and not as an ends (for the child itself). This is bound to impact the ‘saviour’s’ sense of value. Other problems are those of either moral pressure to donate the relevant organ once old enough to consent (which will have health risks associated), or the prospect of taking tissue without any consent at all. Please vote against.

3. No need for a father
There is mounting evidence that the best environment in which to bring up a child is with its biological (male and female) parents, each having a unique contribution to make. The adverse social consequences of fatherlessness are widely acknowledged and this Bill sets out to exacerbate the situation. It also sends out a clear message that fathers are not important and will increase both the irresponsibility of some young men as regards producing progeny and decrease their sense of value as fathers. Crucial to the issue is the right of the child to have a father, which is more fundamental than that of the potential parent to have a child. Please vote in favour of the need for a father.

4. Abortion liberalisation
It is clearly ridiculous that in one part of a hospital doctors battle to save a 22 week old fetus born prematurely and in another part deliberately kill another. Social abortion is out of control in this country and needs to be more tightly regulated, not less. The legal limit should be brought down to 20 weeks or less for ‘social’ abortions. Women should be counselled about the adverse consequences of abortion (and the Royal Colleges recognise that there are many such effects, e.g. the risk of mental illness) and so be able to give fully informed consent to abortion. Please vote against liberalisation of abortion.

I realise that these are all controversial issues on which there is very little consensus. Speaking as a medical doctor keen to treat illnesses and relieve suffering, and as someone also trained in theology, I appreciate many of the nuances and the personal dilemmas. But a principle that I – and anyone else who appreciates the enormous moral significance of these issues – relies on is one of caution. Could I respectfully urge you to act similarly? If these embryos really are humans, how can we justify what we are doing to them? If we are approving the commodification of babies, the devaluing of human life, and encouraging in our society the breakdown of the family (well established as the basic and necessary socio-economic unit in all human civilisations that have flourished), how can these ever be costs worth the supposed benefits?

I urge you please to take this opportunity to vote as requested above on behalf of the majority of your constituents and in line with the moral norms that have held sway across cultures and for millennia, for the good of humanity.

Yours sincerely,

The atheist delusion

There’s a great article in the Guardian from a couple of days ago talking about Dawkins, Hitchens and the new breed of atheists that seem to be zealous about their faith. He underlines the flaws in believing solely in scientific progress, and highlights some of the less than scientific theories that it is built upon. I don’t pretend to understand it all but it’s worth a read.

Truth, Evidence, Experience, and Faith.

Over on his blog, Rodibidably poses the question

“How certain are you that your version of the “truth” (truth of god, religion, the world, the universe, etc) is the correct one, and more importantly, how do you know what that “truth” is?”

He has a long discussion going on, this is my contribution to it.

So, how do we know if something is true? Is it possible to know, 100% for certain that anything is true? Let’s say we think something might be true, so we test it. This is what science does – it comes up with theories which might be true, and it tests them. So, for example, if I want to know if, say, all apples are red, I start picking apples. I keep doing this either until I’ve found an apple that isn’t red – disproving the theory, or until I’ve picked enough apples so I’m convinced that all apples are indeed red.

Does the testing prove the theories? No, but each subsequent test shows that it is working on at least one more occasion. As we test more and more times we can be confident that the same thing will happen. Eventually we spot a trend and are confident enough to assert, beyond reasonable doubt, that the theory is true. We have not proved it, but we have seen it enough to be sure enough that it is true, so we believe that it is.

Note that even in a scientific experiment, the very last stage of ‘proving’ the theory comes down to a matter of faith – faith that what we have seen shows that the theory is true.

This basic method which underlies science is sound and fairly reliable, but there is necessarily always some element of doubt, however small, in the theories themselves. Should another conflicting bit of data come along, it is tested, and a new hypothesis is formed which takes into account this new information, replacing the old theory. They can be replaced when a new, stronger theory comes along. So, talk of ‘knowledge’ or ‘fact’ is misguided.

Definitive knowledge can only be known by building logically on top of a firm foundation, so there could be total certainty about the outcomes. However, the only discipline which is subject to this methodology and is not open to doubt is mathematics, and maths to this degree of proof exists only in the abstract. Even Einstein admits that this is the case:

“As for as the propositions of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality” (Einstein, quoted in Leslie Newbigin’s book ‘The Gospel in a Pluralist Society’ p31)

Later, Newbigin says

“There is no knowing without believing, and believing is the way to knowing”

So, if we want to work out if we think something is true, we need to look at the evidence and ask ourselves, ‘is it reasonable to believe?’ and ‘Does it work?’

So, why do I think that Christianity is true?

First, it is pretty clear that there was a man called Jesus who lived in the middle east and claimed to do miracles. Non-Christian historians of the time such as Josephus, Tacitus and others attest that he existed and was put to death by Pontius Pilate. Josephus reports that his followers claimed that three days after his death, Jesus was alive again and appeared to them. There are places you can read about this in much more detail, – Wikipedia has a short entry here. These are non-Christian sources.

Christian sources, such as the accounts in the gospels are shown to be reliable. They were written soon after the events by people who were there at the time or by people who knew people who were. There are many fragments of manuscripts from early on – far more than with other documents of the same era (such as some of Caesars writings), so we can be fairly sure that what was written then was pretty much the same as what we have now. So it is reasonable to believe the Bible. (Again, there have been many, many books written on this subject. Any commentary on one of the gospels should detail the historicity of it).

As Josephus reports, the disciples claimed that they saw Jesus alive after he died (the Bible says Jesus appeared to 500 followers of Jesus after the resurrection). We have two choices. Either they are telling the truth or they are lying. If they were lying, they would know. However, almost all the 12 disciples died gruesome deaths at the hand of the Romans or others who were persecuting Christians. Surely, if they were lying, they would have said so? Who would give their life for something that they knew was not true?

Obviously, there is much more that I could say. There are many other claims of Christianity that can be investigated in a similar manner. But overall, the evidence points to something that is intellectually reasonable to believe.

Secondly, does it work? Does Christianity still play out as if it is true? Does what the Bible says play out as true? Well, why don’t you ask a Christian you know. I find it does – Jesus gives my life hope, purpose, and a rock solid foundation to build upon. I know many people, some who were former drug addicts who attest that it was only the power of God that helped them to quit, and if it wasn’t for the saving work of Jesus, they would, quite literally, be dead from their addiction. I know some Christians who have had powerful experiences of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, I have had some of those experiences myself that I can only attribute to God.

So, I have found that Christianity is intellectually reasonable to believe, and I have found that it works. We know what truth is through investigation and experience. The next step is to take that leap of faith and actually believe it. It will involve re-evaluating your life, but if God exists, it is worth it. Isn’t it??

(As for other religions, they can’t all be true because they are all quite different. I would recommend Michael Green’s excellent short book “But Don’t All Religions Lead To God” to highlight the differences.)