Christianity and the Scientific Method

I don’t like being called a pseudo-scientist.But that is what I am, according to my philosophy lecturer, who asserts that my views are based solely on an outdated book and run contrary to all the available scientific evidence. I say ‘asserts’ because she certainly hasn’t argued it to her ‘Critical Thinking’ class.Mostly the course has been relatively objective, looking at how to derive the validity of simple arguments, and describing some common fallacies. These last couple of weeks, however, have been significantly different, with a new lecturer speaking on the subject of pseudoscience. It’s funny listening to the intonation of the lecturer’s voice change as she talks about psychics on the one hand, and science on the other. Science and scientists are lifted up to almost divine status, while any belief system purporting to the supernatural is belittled and mocked.A lot of the discussion has been centred on some of the more mystical beliefs people hold, such as astrology, homeopathy and parapsychology, and as such I agree with a lot of the criticisms made. The underlying assumption, however, seems to be that Science is the only avenue to truth, and it is this that I take issue with. The question of whether science has the capacity to answer everything hasn’t (yet) been touched on, instead we just hear time after time that if science says something is true it must be true.I must be perfectly clear, however, that I am not against science as such. I am against science being exulted and, in a sense, worshipped. I am deeply impressed by the scientific method, and believe reason is a great gift to be used to its utmost. It is based on this attitude to the sciences that I have been pondering the following comparison.As far as I am aware, most scientists (religious or not) admit that there are limits to science. Likewise, in theology, we willingly concede that there are limits to what we can know of God. The difference seems to be that we Christians claim to know where the mystery line is, and boldly declare that “that’s something we can’t know until we get to heaven,” or similar such statements. Scientists, by contrast, admit that they don’t know something, but keep working away to see if they can figure it out. To tell the truth I find the scientist’s approach more appealing.Now there is most definitely a place for recognising that God’s sovereign ways are beyond our capacity to understand. Indeed the Bible clearly warns us not to tell God what he should and shouldn’t do, something about clay and potters. My point is not that we will be able to discern everything about God through reason, that would lead to arrogance, I just find ‘the mystery card’ to be a convenient cop-out used by many Christians. Instead I like to think the mystery line isn’t so clearly defined, and that we have plenty of room to exercise our intellectual muscles.One of the things I find most attractive about Christianity is that it is so simple that a child can understand and believe it, while at the same time being intellectually stimulating enough that the greatest mind can ponder it for a lifetime. Moreover, at every step of the way, it is not dry theory but a living reality that satisfies every thirsty soul.

Richard Baxter on Nearly Dying

"All this forementioned time of my ministry was passed under my foredescribed weaknesses, which were so great as made me live and preach in some continual expectation of death, supposing still that I had not long to live. And this I found through all my life to be an unvaluable mercy to me, for...it made me study and preach things necessary, and a little stirred my sluggish heart to speak to sinners with some compassion as a dying man to dying men."(From The Autobiography of Richard Baxter)

Dawkins' God by Alister McGrath

I almost feel guilty for reading another book about Dawkins specifically, and atheism in general. I honestly thought I was finished with him when I put down The Dawkins Delusion! When my brother lent me this book, however, it was an offer too good to refuse.McGrath makes the direction of the book abundantly clear in the early pages: “this book is not a critique of Dawkins’ evolutionary biology. I do not propose to engage with Dawkins’ specific views on the theory of evolution, but the broader conclusions that he draws from these, particularly concerning religion and intellectual history…my concern…is supremely the critical and immensely problematic transition from biology to theology.” Elsewhere he states “the real issue for me is how Dawkins’ proceeds from a Darwinian theory of evolution to a confident atheistic worldview.” Because of this, readers seeking a purely scientific rebuttal of Dawkins’ ideas should turn elsewhere, as this book deals in the most part with the philosophy and history of science, and in particular it’s relation to religion.That said, McGrath devotes a large portion of the first two chapters to providing his readers with a broad overview of the concepts of biological evolution and the history of their introduction. He effectively summarises the influences leading up to Darwinism, and the responses of mainstream theological thought after its conception. In particular I appreciated the section relating to ‘The Religious Views of Charles Darwin.’ In this McGrath offers a fascinating insight into Darwin’s response to his own theory, highlighting its impact in leading him to theism apart from orthodox Christianity. Throughout this early part of the book, McGrath’s purpose is clearly to demonstrate that Darwinism does not, by necessity, lead to atheism as Dawkins proposes, instead:“There is a substantial logical gap between Darwinism and atheism, which Dawkins seems to prefer to bridge by rhetoric, rather than evidence. If firm conclusions are to be reached, they must be reached on other grounds.”McGrath then proceeds to enter into a discussion on the place of evidence in science and religion. This chapter stresses that the Christian definition of faith is one that places a high value on evidence, and consequently demonstrates how Dawkins’ analogies between theism and a belief in the tooth fairy, Santa Claus etc. fall short of reality. McGrath expresses disdain at Dawkins’ personal definition of faith as “blind trust.” Referring to a quote by Dawkins decrying a philosopher’s misunderstanding of his terms, McGrath says:“…is this the same Richard Dawkins who, knowing nothing about Christian theology, rushes headlong into the field, and tells theologians what they really mean when they use their own language? Or that they really mean “blind trust” when they speak of “faith”? There is a total failure on Dawkins’ part to even begin to understand what Christian theology means by its language.”Apart from defending how Christian notions of faith are reasonable, this chapter takes the offensive in investigating whether a Darwinian worldview self-evidently follows from evolution. In this McGrath warns of the dangers of basing a worldview purely on a scientific theory in light of ‘radical theory change in science.’ “If theories are thus subject to erosion, what of worldviews that are based upon them?”The chapter critiquing Dawkins’ concept of ‘memes,’ used to describe cultural evolution, is perhaps the most ‘scientific’ of the book. After giving a very helpful overview of the idea’s development, McGrath proceeds to give plenty of good reasons why it is a redundant concept that appears to have little grounding in empirical evidence and fails to effectively explain cultural trends. This is probably the most conclusive section of the book, however that makes sense given that the meme has always struggled to gain credibility in scientific circles.Finally, McGrath turns again to the relationship between science and religion, discussing the concept of awe and mystery. He well addresses Dawkins’ claims that a theistic view of the universe is truncated and devoid of wonder, arguing that the opposite is the case. Furthermore, he suggests that the unison of science and Christianity leads to a greater sense of awe, operating on a deeper level than that of the purely scientific.In this book, McGrath often takes time to describe the current intellectual climate on these issues. I found this helpful, and a refreshing contrast to Dawkins’ over-simplified generalisations about ‘all scientists being atheists.’ In doing so, however, McGrath risks over correcting and basing his arguments too much on contemporary thought. That is, his arguments sometimes tend towards being along the lines of ‘most modern historians/scientists/theologians etc believe this, so it must be true.’ This criticism is clearly an overstatement, and in reality the vast majority of the book is based on more substantial reasoning, however it is something readers should be aware of.On reflection, what I most appreciated about this book were the various short biographical sketches interspersed throughout. I especially enjoyed reading McGrath’s personal account of his journey from atheism to Christianity, and finding out more about Dawkins’ background. McGrath’s frequent references to momentous scientific works through history gave me more of an insight into the story of science leading to where we are at the start of the 21st century. As such I valued this as much for it’s historical content as for its arguments refuting Dawkins.Dawkins’ God is a well researched, easy to understand book that I’m sure will prove to be helpful to most readers. It is clear that McGrath has striven to be objective in his analysis, and seemed to me to be very fair to Dawkins. At the very least, he comes across as willing to have a constructive debate about the issues brought up. This is not an exhaustive rebuttal of Dawkins, as the conclusion makes plain, however it is intended as a platform for debate, with the goal of “moving the discussion on”. In this role I believe the book is immensely successful, and will be of value to anyone (theist or not) willing to consider its ideas. I liked the almost poetic last words“Some minds on both sides of the argument may be closed; the evidence and the debate, however, are not. Scientists and theologians have so much to learn from each other. Listening to each other, we might hear the galaxies sing. Or even the heavens declaring the glory of the Lord.”

"Sex God" by Rob Bell

If you have seen any of the Nooma series of films, you will know something of Rob Bell’s quirky, understandable and very insightful style of teaching. This book oozes that same tone, and often while reading it I could almost hear his voice speaking the words. As I was expecting, Sex God proved to be a very entertaining and relatively light read.The book is written about the connections between sexuality and spirituality, however I found the definition of sexuality to be somewhat dubious:“Our sexuality, then, has two dimensions. First, our sexuality is our awareness of how profoundly we’re severed and cut off and disconnected. Second, our sexuality is all of the ways we go about trying to reconnect.”Nothing about males and females and nothing related to what is commonly thought of as sex. This definition is based on the fact that “scholars believe that the word sex is related to the Latin word secare,” the root for other words like sect, section, dissect and bisect. This may well be true, but it still seems a counter-intuitive definition, and thus I expected a lot more explanation in its defence. He does point his readers to other books dealing more specifically with the definition of sexuality for those who are interested, however for such a central theme to the book I found it an excessively brief analysis.A result of this broad definition of sexuality is that it leaves the book with a far wider scope than that implied by the title. Readers looking for a book looking purely at sex and God may well be disappointed by this. In my own opinion, this is a minor point, and detracted little from the overall message of the book.That overall message I find hard to define, not because it is poorly written, but rather because it is simply an extended metaphor between spiritual truths and sexuality. As such there are a number of important but otherwise unrelated points drawn from it, and these are well organised into the various chapters (which the titles don’t do justice to). These range from the inherent value of humans, being in the image of God, to considering the strength required for commitment. From the importance of recognising both our spiritual and sexual nature, to the risk God takes in extending his love towards us.Rob Bell’s style, while making ideas readily understandable, is prone to over-simplification. However this is really only a consideration for his secondary points (an interesting example being his description of humans as spiritual beings, where he says “a divine spark resides in every single human being.” This is almost the exact wording my Early Christianity tutor used to describe Gnostic thought), his main ideas seem well explained and his terms defined. But still, those wanting an in depth and thorough investigation of the issues, this book will probably fall short of expectations.There are a couple of cases where I question the validity of the theology of the book. As already mentioned, Bell proposes that God takes a risk in demonstrating his love for us on the cross insofar as we can choose or reject him.“People God [has] made have freedom. Freedom to love anybody they want. And freedom not to love anybody they want. God takes this giant risk in creating and loving people, and in the process God’s heart is broken.”This seems a tricky stance in light of verses that say “we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will”.Another controversial idea is that “…God has left the world unfinished. And with every action, we’re continuing the ongoing creation of the world.” According to Bell, the story of creation is a process of moving chaos and disorder toward order and harmony, and so our actions ultimately effect the creation of the world. Perhaps this is just a foreign way (to me) of explaining an otherwise legitimate truth, however something about it seems fishy. This isn’t the forum to fully debate all the theological points made in the book, it will suffice to say readers should be aware of these things.I liked how Bell often expressed biblical truths in light of their historical context. Anyone familiar with the Nooma videos will probably understand this. Bell frequently refers to otherwise obscure passages and fleshes them out with their significance to the original audience, and hence discerning their importance for us today. Through this I learnt a number of valuable things about ancient Israelite society, which will no doubt prove to be of worth in the future. This also provides a good example of reliable exegesis to a readership that often wouldn’t touch many commentaries.Issues of sexuality, commitment and relationships are touchy, and Rob Bell does an admirable job at remaining sensitive to these. The book is helpful and relevant to singles, couples and those with more turbulent backgrounds. While still upholding values such as the importance of commitment, it does so in a manner that is not condescending towards those who have a marred record. Instead it seeks to bring change more by inspiration than by command, and in this I think it has been immensely successful.I very much enjoyed reading this book. Rob Bell has a way of putting things that makes sense and is entertaining. Though the basic ideas were things I already kind of knew, I still learnt a lot from his fresh perspective on life. His writing clearly seeks to uphold a biblical perspective on the issues, while being a refreshingly different way of presenting them. Readers need to be wary of a tendency to over-simplify concepts, and instances where it stands on shaky theological grounds. For the most part, however, I think this book will constructively teach, inspire and enthuse any reader.

"Sex God" by Rob Bell

If you have seen any of the Nooma series of films, you will know something of Rob Bell’s quirky, understandable and very insightful style of teaching. This book oozes that same tone, and often while reading it I could almost hear his voice speaking the words. As I was expecting, Sex God proved to be a very entertaining and relatively light read.The book is written about the connections between sexuality and spirituality, however I found the definition of sexuality to be somewhat dubious:“Our sexuality, then, has two dimensions. First, our sexuality is our awareness of how profoundly we’re severed and cut off and disconnected. Second, our sexuality is all of the ways we go about trying to reconnect.”Nothing about males and females and nothing related to what is commonly thought of as sex. This definition is based on the fact that “scholars believe that the word sex is related to the Latin word secare,” the root for other words like sect, section, dissect and bisect. This may well be true, but it still seems a counter-intuitive definition, and thus I expected a lot more explanation in its defence. He does point his readers to other books dealing more specifically with the definition of sexuality for those who are interested, however for such a central theme to the book I found it an excessively brief analysis.A result of this broad definition of sexuality is that it leaves the book with a far wider scope than that implied by the title. Readers looking for a book looking purely at sex and God may well be disappointed by this. In my own opinion, this is a minor point, and detracted little from the overall message of the book.That overall message I find hard to define, not because it is poorly written, but rather because it is simply an extended metaphor between spiritual truths and sexuality. As such there are a number of important but otherwise unrelated points drawn from it, and these are well organised into the various chapters (which the titles don’t do justice to). These range from the inherent value of humans, being in the image of God, to considering the strength required for commitment. From the importance of recognising both our spiritual and sexual nature, to the risk God takes in extending his love towards us.Rob Bell’s style, while making ideas readily understandable, is prone to over-simplification. However this is really only a consideration for his secondary points (an interesting example being his description of humans as spiritual beings, where he says “a divine spark resides in every single human being.” This is almost the exact wording my Early Christianity tutor used to describe Gnostic thought), his main ideas seem well explained and his terms defined. But still, those wanting an in depth and thorough investigation of the issues, this book will probably fall short of expectations.There are a couple of cases where I question the validity of the theology of the book. As already mentioned, Bell proposes that God takes a risk in demonstrating his love for us on the cross insofar as we can choose or reject him.“People God [has] made have freedom. Freedom to love anybody they want. And freedom not to love anybody they want. God takes this giant risk in creating and loving people, and in the process God’s heart is broken.”This seems a tricky stance in light of verses that say “we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will”.Another controversial idea is that “…God has left the world unfinished. And with every action, we’re continuing the ongoing creation of the world.” According to Bell, the story of creation is a process of moving chaos and disorder toward order and harmony, and so our actions ultimately effect the creation of the world. Perhaps this is just a foreign way (to me) of explaining an otherwise legitimate truth, however something about it seems fishy. This isn’t the forum to fully debate all the theological points made in the book, it will suffice to say readers should be aware of these things.I liked how Bell often expressed biblical truths in light of their historical context. Anyone familiar with the Nooma videos will probably understand this. Bell frequently refers to otherwise obscure passages and fleshes them out with their significance to the original audience, and hence discerning their importance for us today. Through this I learnt a number of valuable things about ancient Israelite society, which will no doubt prove to be of worth in the future. This also provides a good example of reliable exegesis to a readership that often wouldn’t touch many commentaries.Issues of sexuality, commitment and relationships are touchy, and Rob Bell does an admirable job at remaining sensitive to these. The book is helpful and relevant to singles, couples and those with more turbulent backgrounds. While still upholding values such as the importance of commitment, it does so in a manner that is not condescending towards those who have a marred record. Instead it seeks to bring change more by inspiration than by command, and in this I think it has been immensely successful.I very much enjoyed reading this book. Rob Bell has a way of putting things that makes sense and is entertaining. Though the basic ideas were things I already kind of knew, I still learnt a lot from his fresh perspective on life. His writing clearly seeks to uphold a biblical perspective on the issues, while being a refreshingly different way of presenting them. Readers need to be wary of a tendency to over-simplify concepts, and instances where it stands on shaky theological grounds. For the most part, however, I think this book will constructively teach, inspire and enthuse any reader.

Book Review: The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins

It seems funny (to me at least) that my first book review turns out to be on something so contrary to my beliefs as The God Delusion. I was originally inspired to pick up this book because of a review written by Tim Challies, and because I read that review while I was in the library and it was easy to get. I’d also had a few heated conversations with atheists and thought reading this would earn me a bit of respect in their eyes, the equivalent of people who say they only respect opinions from Christians who’ve read right through the Bible.Anyway, I found it quite an interesting read, had a few laughs but mostly didn’t enjoy reading something so vehemently attacking what I hold to be true. I’m most definitely still a Christian, which means that, for me, the book didn’t work out its stated intention: that “religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down.”This book is attacking religion in general, but I suspect that Dawkins mostly sees the worst side of religion, both because that’s what he wants to see and because it is often the more angry religious people who over-react in their response to him. What I’m trying to say is that the religion Dawkins is attacking tends to encompass all the worst qualities of religion, and so I actually agree with a lot of things he says of them. For example, he criticises those who create a sharp definition between the realm of science and that of religion, and disagrees that parents should teach their children what to think, at the expense of how to think. Dawkins devotes a lot of space to attacking the many evil things done in the name of religion, a criticism I would agree with.The main thesis of the book is that “however statistically improbable the entity you seek to explain by invoking a designer, the designer himself has got to be at least as improbable.” Thus, in the words of Dawkins himself: “what matters is not whether God is disprovable (he isn’t) but whether his existence is probable.” His arguments then seek to demonstrate that God’s existence is highly improbable, to the point of being absurd. In this I believe Dawkins fails, primarily because he does not provide a satisfactory explanation for the origins of the universe.He argues well for Darwinian natural selection, using the analogy of a crane to explain how complex organisms can come from simple forms. He juxtaposes this with the ‘skyhook’ reasoning of theism, he says “[skyhooks] do no bona fide explanatory work and demand more explanation than they provide. Cranes are explanatory devices that actually do explain. Natural selection is the champion crane of all time. It has lifted life from primeval simplicity to the dizzy heights of complexity, beauty and apparent design that dazzle us today.” Dawkins adamantly and effectively argues that natural selection is not ‘blind chance’ and as a result I have resolved not to attack it on those grounds, however I found the main problem with his argument is not natural selection but his defence of how the world and the universe came to be.In explaining the how the many mind-numbingly precise variables for a life friendly world and universe came to be tuned so exactly, Dawkins draws heavily on the anthropic principle. In a nutshell this says there are lots of stars, so chances are one of them (ours!) must possess all the necessary qualities to support life. In the same token, he postulates that there are many universes and so at least one must consist of exactly the right physical constants and matter. This is where, I believe, Dawkins’ argument is weakest, for two main reasons.As Tim Challies observes, the anthropic principle (especially the planetary version) rests primarily on luck. I was surprised that Dawkins himself used the word, though he quickly defends this, stating that the anthropic principle hugely reduces the odds. Even if we grant that the chance of a life friendly planet occurring is within acceptable odds, it is still precisely that, chance. I personally would be unsatisfied with an explanation that rested so heavily on luck as the catalyst for all life.Another, bigger problem I have with Dawkins’ explanation comes from the cosmological version of the anthropic principle. Dawkins gives no real evidence for why there would be multiple universes, instead the whole section sounds very speculative and unsubstantial. Moreover, it seems counter-intuitive to me (admittedly not a theoretical physicist) that science, which only observes things in our universe, can make assertions about the existence of things outside our universe. Anyway, he defends this view as being better than the God hypothesis by saying: “the multiverse may seem extravagant in sheer number of universes. But if each one of those universes is simple in its fundamental laws, we are still not postulating anything highly improbable. The very opposite has to be said of any kind of intelligence.” However the fact is, there is something, and Dawkins doesn’t attempt to explain why there is something as opposed to nothing. So although that thing may be very simple, there is simply no crane or anything to get it there. It seems to me like trying to multiply zero with something to get one, it simply can’t work. To use Dawkins’ terminology, it is still massively improbable that even simple things could exist without anything to get them there. In this sense I think it is just as improbable that ‘simple’ universes could exist as it is improbable that God exists. In other words, if you can multiply something with zero to get one, you can multiply something with zero to get one million. I hope that makes sense.Apart from this there is a lot of rhetoric which I won’t respond to. He tries to explain how religion originated (as a mis-fire of some useful evolutionary change), argues that we don’t need God, the Bible or religion to be moral, and devotes a whole chapter to how raising children to be religious is a form of child abuse. If you want a fuller summary of the book I’m sure there’s somewhere else on the internet where you can go, because that’s all I’m going to do.Perhaps one of the main reasons I found this book interesting is because it caused me to think how the battle for truth is happening on a worldwide scale. I find it easy to get bogged down and concerned only with the questions and problems of people I know, forgetting that there are global trends in the way people think. This book caused me to think how I can make an impact on a larger scale than simply the people I deal with on a daily basis. In that regard I enjoyed this book.In closing I will say, at the risk of sounding religious and unscientific, I thank God that I have found Him to be fully satisfying not just to my intellect, but also to my heart and soul. I think Tim Challies’ words are fitting: “[the Christian and the atheist] both have faith. But the Christian has hope.”

Time and How to Use it

I’ve been thinking recently about time, and how best to use it. More specifically I’m trying to think how to slot Bible time into my day. I know it seems particularly spiritual to do the early morning deal, but I seriously struggle with consistency when I try to take that avenue. That said, I struggle with consistency no matter what.Now when I say ‘Bible time’ I mean time to actually study it as opposed to brushing over a chapter or two. I mean devoting at least half an hour (though preferably more) to sitting at my desk and poring over the Word. Anyone can quickly read a chapter before bed and then go to sleep without having a clue what they just read (I speak from experience).I understand that early in the morning is when there are the least distractions, and when you can pray the loudest without people hearing you. But my biggest problem is that, as a student in a hall, it is very hard to get to bed before 10, and often I don’t go to bed until after 11. Hence I sometimes fail to get up early, and often when I do get up I find I simply can’t keep my mind focussed on what I’m reading. Moreover, without sleep the rest of my day is affected, and I can’t do other things either.Eight seems to be the magic number when it comes to sleep. Admittedly I haven’t done much research on this, but everything I have read seems to say I should be getting at least that, otherwise I start accruing ‘sleep debt.’ Now I’ve been thinking recently that perhaps this is actually the way God designed us (gasp!). An implication of this is that we can actually achieve all that God wants us to in 16 hours a day. It's easy for me to say this, being a student and all, but I think there's still some truth in it. I have no idea what it would be like to be the CEO of a major business, or the pastor of some major church, balancing meeting and helping people with preparing sermons and (for some) writing books, I imagine they very rarely get the magic eight hours. But I can't help wondering if there is a way that we can achieve everything God demands of us while still keeping healthy sleep habits.I need to be careful here, because this can’t be an absolute thing. Indeed Paul commends himself to the Corinthians giving “sleepless nights” as one of his credentials. I’m not saying we should never get less than eight hours sleep a night, just that it shouldn’t be the norm. I think there is some evidence for this in Psalm 127:2.Note that I’m not saying we should be loving sleep. Proverbs has some pretty strong words to say about that here and here. And a quick search brought up this verse from Isaiah. I am most emphatically not supporting a love of sleep, I am saying we should be trying to use the remaining 16 hours of our day in the most productive way possible.For me this means I won't observe early mornings as devoutly as I once did. I will try and get to bed earlier to have beneficial morning Bible times, but if I have a legitimate reason for staying up late I will sleep in a bit to compensate (thankfully as a student I have a lot of other time to study the Bible).I know I haven’t fully fleshed this out, but it's getting late and I need sleep. maybe I'll add more later, maybe I won't. In the meantime I’d be interested to hear if anyone can think of anything I missed, or has some more verses that shed light on the subject.Oh and in my defence, I think the times given at the bottom of each post is for somewhere else...because it certainly isn't 3 in the morning in humble New Zealand.