I got lots of books for Christmas - several with a science / religion twist. Started with the latest Stephen Hawking one (Grand Design). Inspired me to write this blog...
Reality, Hawking (and others) suggest, is subjective and essentially a set of assumptions we make about the world. No 'reality' is 'better' or more 'true' than any other, except as defined by the assumptions of that reality. However, if the purpose of these assumptions is to help us thrive, then some versions of 'reality' are clearly more successful than others. That is not an indicator of truth, simply of greater utility. Is the 'Big Bang' theory of creation more true than a literal '6 Day Creation' one? The question simply makes no sense. The only meaningful question is 'Which view is more useful?' because we have no objective means of deciding between worldviews. I can argue from my theological view that the 'Big Bang' theory is inadequate. I can argue from my scientific worldview that 'Creationism' is just plain wrong. But there is no common ground between the two worldviews that would allow us to all agree which was true.
The question they both raise then is simple: 'Are there some worldviews, true or not (we can't tell) which are so unhelpful regarding the main purpose - to help us thrive, that actually, they should be discouraged?'
The logic is very compelling. Science explains so much and enables us to predict and therefore have the hope of control. Just look around you, the science that provides the 'Big Bang' theory gives mobile phones, the internet, medical care, food, warmth and cheap travel.Technology, the cousin of science, promises so much and has already delivered extraordinary achievement: we can control our temperature, our location. We can fix ourselves when we go wrong, as we discover new things, they enable more control. Those aspects of life that we refer to as spiritual are simply illusory or due to complex interactions of known phenomenon that we simply haven't got round to describing scientifically yet. Love is a hormonal, chemical response to enable the population to continue. Free will does not exist, we simply respond to complex stimuli in ways that appear to be free. There is no spiritual dimension - it is neither necessary nor testable. There is nothing beyond this physical life - the fact that such a view makes our existence seem fragile and futile is not a good reason for introducing religion into the equation.
So, whilst the conclusion of Hawking and Dawkins thinking is that we have no way of knowing the truth about God, they see great danger in unecessarily invoking such belief, after all, what has that worldview delivered?
War, division, myth, dogma...
Increasingly, this view is going to pervade. Let's start a debate - what answers are out there?
The purely scientific view concludes that the whole of creation happened by chance. It is the same concept as that of an infinite number of monkeys typing for an infinite amount of time and one of them producing the works of Shakespeare. It relies on the concept of infinity: not just a large amount of time, but infinite time.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, the scientific view has a large (but not infinite) amount of time for creation. Even the "Big Bang" was a finite amount of time away.
Given that there is a finite amount of time, to expect that such a complex system as even nature on earth is a "Random Event" does not hold.
We have self repairing bodies. We have a planet that has a balanced ecosystem. The list of the complex systems that nature holds goes on. And that is just one planet in a small solar system on the edge of a magnificent spiral galaxy. And it doesn't end there: there are millions of other galaxies, all as complex and beautiful as ours.
Is all that just a Random Chance?
Oh and by the way, who started the Big Bang and with what?
My conclusion is that there is a highly intelligent Mastermind who designed and created all this.
I call this Mastermind God.
Who do you think he is?
We have to understand that the power of Hawkins and Dawkins is that they are not totally wrong... science, logic and reason have helped us understand and control much of what happens in the world and for those of us in the west improved our lives significantly.
ReplyDeleteIn addition when they look at the lives, ideas and depth of thinking of those of faith they find us falling way short of the ideals that WE promote.
The greatest witness to challenge their ideas is not more ideas but a demonstration of the truth revealed in lives lived to there 'fullness', IN ADDITION to clear explanations of the fruit of their idea of a randomly created bunch of being with no purpose.... hopelessness!
However, we have to note that although we may not like what they promote many people are finding them more believable than us... we have to ask, why? (part of my conclusion is my poor life witness)
Alex Davie
I find it really interesting that scientists such as Hawking are saying that reality is subjective and therefore that there is no real truth out there. They seem to be saying that we might as well make up what is most helpful and effective for us regardless of any truth, which is what they always accuse religion of. Have I understood this right?
ReplyDeleteThe debate around body/soul/spirit and especially consciousness is a big one. What is consciousness? Is there a spirit, are neurones consciousness?! I wish I knew more about this. A good book is 'Wired for God' by Charles Foster (of HTB Church) - That's all I have at the moment! Also, a website where other scientists have responded to Stephen Hawking's latest book:
http://www.iscast.org/response_to_hawking
Thanks for the blog and the questions
For those interested in a response to David Birtwhistle's comments about chance, monkey's, time and a 'mastermind', can I refer you to the following Thinking Allowed posts:
ReplyDeleteIntelligent Design:http://david-thinking-allowed.blogspot.com/2010/05/intelligent-design.html
Against The Odds: http://david-thinking-allowed.blogspot.com/2010/05/against-odds.html
Beaky, Flappy-wings: http://david-thinking-allowed.blogspot.com/2010/05/beaky-flappy-wings.html
As I've been thinking about this today, a thought struck me.
ReplyDeleteHawkins et al have taken the position that all there is to life is life, and when it ends, everything ends. i.e. Once you're dead that's the end of everything.
The Christian position is that there is a God. He's holy and perfect. We have ignored him and have gone our own way. We can turn back to him and he will accept us as we are. If we accept him, we go to him when our body dies (heaven). If we continue in our own way, we cannot be with him when our body dies (hell).
Now, logically speaking, as we have no scientific evidence to prove or disprove either of these positions, we have to stand on faith.
From the Christian position when our body dies, if we are right we go to heaven, if we are wrong we go nowhere and stop existing.
From the Hawkins position when his body dies, if he is right he goes nowhere, if he is wrong he goes to hell.
As I see it, logically, the Christian position is the safest bet.
Not sure if it adds to the argument / discussion, but it makes me feel in a safer place!
mmm - not sure where i am on this one.
ReplyDeleteThink David B's type writer analogy doesn't completely fall down; from my memory (please contradict someone if I'm talking rubbish!) in Physics there is apparent fine tuning of constants in the universe which makes life possible - plus in biology evolutionary scientists are happy to explain how life gets more complex from single celled organism onwards (Dawkins does this really well in terms of explaining how an eye might evolve)but there is a lot of complexity right from the off that is hard to explain.
Still doesn't mean that the explanations won't be found one day; and a god that starts things up with the right initial conditions and then steps out of the picture except to give the system an occasional nudge when it goes off course isn't the Christian God who is the creater and sustainer of all things who holds everything together.
Jesus of Nazarath is the clearest picture of what God is like and pointer to God to a greater extent than creation however. Winning the arguments doesn't seem to matter per the first few chapters of 1 Corinthians (Paul wants people's faith to rest on the power of God rather than clever arguments). Jesus himself says that his resurrection; his miracles and the loving community of his disiples are what people need to see.
Despite all that though I have to admit that there is big part of me which wishes there was more evidence to support a literal six day creation; I like simple explanations.
Gareth Sarjeant.
David Birtwistles' comment regarding 'being safer to believe in a God' than not to, is often used by atheists as a 'hedging your bets' retort!
ReplyDeleteIf you really want sound logical and scientifically based reasoning to support the existence of God, then you must read "Who Made God" by Edgar Andrews. Using sound logical reasoning and some excellent wit, he manages to irrefutably unravel Hawkings' and Dawkins' so called 'scientific reasoning' Do not read it at your peril!
PS
ReplyDeleteMr Andrews also explains why the probability 'monkey puzzle' with typewriters falls apart in reality.
God Bless us everyone.