I loved this chapter. Not because it gives a specific answer to any question, but because it made me think. A lot. Ward asks, "Are the laws of nature absolute?" As a scientist, I would say yes. The "discovery" of the laws of nature in science took away the ancient spirituality of the world, in a sense. Before physical and mathematical laws were understood (before Descartes, Newton, Galileo, Copernicus, Einstein, etc.), the world was a playground for the spirits of the universe. If something were to fall from the sky, it would be because the gods wanted it to fall, not because gravity brought it towards the earth. The revolution in human thinking based on laws of nature turned the world into more of a mechanical function rather than the workings of supernatural presence. Contrary to thought, this revolution did not take away from religion. In a sense, it made belief in the higher power stronger, and it made miracles more evident, thus, God more powerful.
God created the world as a perfect machine and has the power to intervene. Any transgression from natural laws can be seen as divine intervention and purposeful, at that. Laws of nature, then, ARE absolute; anything that defies the law of nature can be defined as a miracle. Philosopher David Hume, in An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding gave a secular insight. He did not believe in God, but took a more rational approach to defining a true miracle. His was based on primarily probabilities, or, rather, improbabilities. For example, if someone were to say they witnessed a miracle, then there are two improbabilities that should be weighted before determining whether or not the event actually occurred: The miracle itself is improbable, and the falsehood of the story is also improbable. So one must take into account which is more improbable, whether or not the person would lie, or the event itself.
Now, is the resurrection of Jesus a miracle? The event itself is improbable. Highly improbable, actually, considering no one has been resurrected from the dead since. But, the probability that the mass of people (who saw Jesus at different places and times after his resurrection) lied about his reappearance is far less probable and can thus be considered a miracle. We know that Jesus is capable of performing miracles; we have all read the New Testament and have heard of his miraculous actions. In this case, God is intervening, as he promised he would in the Old Testament.
Miracles are prominent in many religions. In fact, the Qur'an is considered a miracle because "no ordinary human poet could have created a text of such beauty and power" (83). Defiances in the laws of nature are possible and do occur, as with people that hear divine spirits or have visions of the dead. Some may not believe in these situations, but why limit God's power? If things are not going according to His plan, he will intervene.
Friday, October 19, 2012
Sunday, October 7, 2012
Is Evolution Compatible with Creation?
In the third chapter, Ward asks how the "cruelty and waste" of evolution can be reconciled with creation by a good God. He first contrasts the medieval view of evolution with the modern form, then explains the differences between Creationism, Intelligent Design, and Darwinistic Evolution.
Thomas Aquinas believed that something could only become hot if it were heated by something at least as hot. In essence, something could only come into existence if something greater were to create it. This medieval view made it seem that, "stupid people can only be caused by even more stupid people and that God must be the most stupid, as well as the cleverest being there is...But God should also be the reddest and bluest and greenest of all things or perhaps the most brightly colored thing there is" (60). This differs from the modern view of evolution in that we believe that species grow upwards toward perfection. We evolve to stay alive; therefore, we technically develop from a lesser species.
There are many takes on the modern perspective of evolution. Creationism is a belief that the world was created exactly as described in the book of Genesis. Evolution, then, does not exist. According to the creationist theory, humans are not derived from a lesser species. It is important to distinguish creationism from the theory of Creation, which is highly compatible evolution. God created the universe to allow for mutation and change in species. There arises a problem, though, when considering the complexity of biological systems that could not have developed from evolution. Ward uses the bacterial flagellum as an example. This organism could not have evolved from a step-by-step process; therefore, it must have been intelligently designed. With the theory of intelligent design, God is the ultimate creator and allows for evolution to take place, but also guides the process. The specification of species is not completely random.
As an intermediate, Ward explains the view of Theistic Evolution. "What science shows is that evolution happened," he says, "Whether it is accidental or inevitable, blind or goal-oriented, is not conclusively decided by science" (75). He quotes a physical biochemist that takes a theistic approach to evolution: "God, he suggests, is 'an Improvisor of unsurpassed ingenuity' setting up a system in which chance and necessity interweave so that 'the full gamut of the potentialities of living matter could be explored'" (75). God does not merely watch, then, as species evolove (like Darwinian evolution suggests), but he does allow for chance to play a role in the development of species. Some things are created for a purpose, while some arise through natural selection. This, I believe, is theistic evolution.
Ward also briefly brings up an interesting point about suffering on earth. Why would God create a world in which there was suffering amongst his "perfect creations?" Because humans cannot live a perfect life. Theologians suggest that it is because we come with original sin. Scientist blame it on the laws of nature. He writes, "if God arranged for perfect moral justice in human affairs, there could be no laws of nature at all" (73). Humankind cannot and will not exist without suffering. As a Christian, I believe that we are to endure suffering on earth so that we may be freed at the time of our death, just as Jesus did for us.
Thomas Aquinas believed that something could only become hot if it were heated by something at least as hot. In essence, something could only come into existence if something greater were to create it. This medieval view made it seem that, "stupid people can only be caused by even more stupid people and that God must be the most stupid, as well as the cleverest being there is...But God should also be the reddest and bluest and greenest of all things or perhaps the most brightly colored thing there is" (60). This differs from the modern view of evolution in that we believe that species grow upwards toward perfection. We evolve to stay alive; therefore, we technically develop from a lesser species.
There are many takes on the modern perspective of evolution. Creationism is a belief that the world was created exactly as described in the book of Genesis. Evolution, then, does not exist. According to the creationist theory, humans are not derived from a lesser species. It is important to distinguish creationism from the theory of Creation, which is highly compatible evolution. God created the universe to allow for mutation and change in species. There arises a problem, though, when considering the complexity of biological systems that could not have developed from evolution. Ward uses the bacterial flagellum as an example. This organism could not have evolved from a step-by-step process; therefore, it must have been intelligently designed. With the theory of intelligent design, God is the ultimate creator and allows for evolution to take place, but also guides the process. The specification of species is not completely random.
As an intermediate, Ward explains the view of Theistic Evolution. "What science shows is that evolution happened," he says, "Whether it is accidental or inevitable, blind or goal-oriented, is not conclusively decided by science" (75). He quotes a physical biochemist that takes a theistic approach to evolution: "God, he suggests, is 'an Improvisor of unsurpassed ingenuity' setting up a system in which chance and necessity interweave so that 'the full gamut of the potentialities of living matter could be explored'" (75). God does not merely watch, then, as species evolove (like Darwinian evolution suggests), but he does allow for chance to play a role in the development of species. Some things are created for a purpose, while some arise through natural selection. This, I believe, is theistic evolution.
Ward also briefly brings up an interesting point about suffering on earth. Why would God create a world in which there was suffering amongst his "perfect creations?" Because humans cannot live a perfect life. Theologians suggest that it is because we come with original sin. Scientist blame it on the laws of nature. He writes, "if God arranged for perfect moral justice in human affairs, there could be no laws of nature at all" (73). Humankind cannot and will not exist without suffering. As a Christian, I believe that we are to endure suffering on earth so that we may be freed at the time of our death, just as Jesus did for us.
Saturday, September 22, 2012
How Will the Universe End?
"If you think that the laws of physics are absolute and universal, it will, in fact, be true that, given the complete set of physical laws and the initial state of the universe, nothing will be merely random or accidental. Whatever happens will inevitably happen- or, allowing for quantum fluctuations, at least the general course of things will inevitably go as it does" (39).
In this chapter, Ward explores the different theories concerning the purpose of the universe and how it is going to end. In the first chapter, he stated that Christians believe in one creator and His manifestations on earth as purposeful, good works. Therefore, most Christians believe that the universe and humankind do serve some purpose. God would not have created us for no reason. We will fulfill our purpose on earth as God wishes and then the world will end at his command. Jesus prophesied that no one will know the day or the time the world is to end, but when it does:
"the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken. Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other (Matthew 24:29-31)."
This is the Christian mindset about the second coming of Christ and the end of the world to come. Ward also explores the end of the world in Indian beliefs, like Buddhism, where the physical end of the universe, similar to it's beginning, is of no religious relevance and the individual should focus only on the life here and now in the search for enlightenment.
The scientific view of the purpose of the universe and it's ultimate end is very pessimistic. As the opening quote implies, scientists do not believe that the universe serves an ultimate purpose. The world will end just as it began: as unconscious emptiness. It is inevitable and therefore our life on earth is irrelevant. The answer to the question, "How will the universe end?" is basically the same as, "How was the universe created?" It depends on one's belief in God as the primary consciousness. If one does not believe in God and instead relies on scientific evidence and physical understanding to shape their theory of the universe, then purpose and it's creation and destruction remain very unclear.
I am still trying to figure out how these first two chapters connect to ethical issues. One's sense of morals, in essence, is based on whether or not the individual believes in a higher power. Can science play a role in ethics if scientists believe that our universe doesn't have a purpose? If humanity is ultimately irrelevant, then why do we even care about how we act? Why do we have morals? The first two chapters give such vague answers to the big questions posed by Ward. I'm hoping for more concrete theories in the next chapters! I hope every question isn't answered by, "Either you believe in God or you don't." I want more connection between the two and explanation why one theory may make more sense than another so that I can figure out how science contributes to the ethical beliefs of a Christian scientist. The basis of our morals is obviously the teachings of scripture, but, if we lived on scripture alone, the field of science wouldn't exist.
In this chapter, Ward explores the different theories concerning the purpose of the universe and how it is going to end. In the first chapter, he stated that Christians believe in one creator and His manifestations on earth as purposeful, good works. Therefore, most Christians believe that the universe and humankind do serve some purpose. God would not have created us for no reason. We will fulfill our purpose on earth as God wishes and then the world will end at his command. Jesus prophesied that no one will know the day or the time the world is to end, but when it does:
"the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken. Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other (Matthew 24:29-31)."
This is the Christian mindset about the second coming of Christ and the end of the world to come. Ward also explores the end of the world in Indian beliefs, like Buddhism, where the physical end of the universe, similar to it's beginning, is of no religious relevance and the individual should focus only on the life here and now in the search for enlightenment.
The scientific view of the purpose of the universe and it's ultimate end is very pessimistic. As the opening quote implies, scientists do not believe that the universe serves an ultimate purpose. The world will end just as it began: as unconscious emptiness. It is inevitable and therefore our life on earth is irrelevant. The answer to the question, "How will the universe end?" is basically the same as, "How was the universe created?" It depends on one's belief in God as the primary consciousness. If one does not believe in God and instead relies on scientific evidence and physical understanding to shape their theory of the universe, then purpose and it's creation and destruction remain very unclear.
I am still trying to figure out how these first two chapters connect to ethical issues. One's sense of morals, in essence, is based on whether or not the individual believes in a higher power. Can science play a role in ethics if scientists believe that our universe doesn't have a purpose? If humanity is ultimately irrelevant, then why do we even care about how we act? Why do we have morals? The first two chapters give such vague answers to the big questions posed by Ward. I'm hoping for more concrete theories in the next chapters! I hope every question isn't answered by, "Either you believe in God or you don't." I want more connection between the two and explanation why one theory may make more sense than another so that I can figure out how science contributes to the ethical beliefs of a Christian scientist. The basis of our morals is obviously the teachings of scripture, but, if we lived on scripture alone, the field of science wouldn't exist.
Sunday, September 9, 2012
How Did the Universe Begin?
This is my first time to ever post on a blog! I am looking forward to reviewing Keith Ward's The Big Questions in Science and Religion throughout the semester. The synopsis says that Ward, a world religion expert, aims to connect diverse religious views with new scientific knowledge by raising major questions pertaining to the basis of our faith as Christians (as well as Confucianism, Hinduism, Judaism, etc.). I hope to cover one question per week and relate them to what we discuss in Biblical Heritage, starting with chapter one: How Did the Universe Begin?
Ward opens his discussion with a brief summary of the Enuma Elish, which we are all familiar with. This story, along with the book of Genesis, provide explanations of the beginning of time. One stems from a polytheistic view in which human life was shaped by the wars of the gods, and other originates with a single god and is formed for the purpose of goodness alone. This was an interesting comparison because we discussed the same similarities and differences in class!
Ward explains that problems in the biblical explanation rest with three major assumptions: the universe is good, the universe has a purpose, and God has always been a being. This is something I have never considered before. As a Christian, I have always taken these assumptions as fact and I probably always will. Why question something that challenges our God? In denying the assumption that the universe is good or that it has a purpose, we are denying story from which our faith originates.
After comparing the beginning of the universe and human life across religions, Ward offers a scientific explanation, as I suppose he will in every chapter. It is proposed and widely accepted by cosmologists that the universe began 13.7 billion years ago. But still, there is no definite explanation on HOW it came to be. Therefore, the answer to the question "How Did the Universe Begin?" depends whether one wants to believe in spiritual consciousness or the scientific theory of "pure chance."
Buddhists do not concern themselves with the origin of the universe, but instead, focus on the existence of the spirtiual realm that has been given to them (31). I agree with the Buddhists. I am a Christian and a scientist, and because no definite proof of the beginning of the universe can be found, why waste time wondering about something that may not ever be proven and question the power of our loving God?
Ward opens his discussion with a brief summary of the Enuma Elish, which we are all familiar with. This story, along with the book of Genesis, provide explanations of the beginning of time. One stems from a polytheistic view in which human life was shaped by the wars of the gods, and other originates with a single god and is formed for the purpose of goodness alone. This was an interesting comparison because we discussed the same similarities and differences in class!
Ward explains that problems in the biblical explanation rest with three major assumptions: the universe is good, the universe has a purpose, and God has always been a being. This is something I have never considered before. As a Christian, I have always taken these assumptions as fact and I probably always will. Why question something that challenges our God? In denying the assumption that the universe is good or that it has a purpose, we are denying story from which our faith originates.
After comparing the beginning of the universe and human life across religions, Ward offers a scientific explanation, as I suppose he will in every chapter. It is proposed and widely accepted by cosmologists that the universe began 13.7 billion years ago. But still, there is no definite explanation on HOW it came to be. Therefore, the answer to the question "How Did the Universe Begin?" depends whether one wants to believe in spiritual consciousness or the scientific theory of "pure chance."
Buddhists do not concern themselves with the origin of the universe, but instead, focus on the existence of the spirtiual realm that has been given to them (31). I agree with the Buddhists. I am a Christian and a scientist, and because no definite proof of the beginning of the universe can be found, why waste time wondering about something that may not ever be proven and question the power of our loving God?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)