I am no scientist but science intrigues me. Despite my artistic temperament I can be quite captivated by the discoveries and theories of science. I am grateful for all the benefits science has brought to our daily lives and my ‘art’ depends upon science: electric guitars and recording studios would not exist but for the work of Michael Faraday. Interestingly he was a Christian believer. A commentator on Faraday’s life says this, “He viewed his discoveries of nature's laws as part of the continual process of `reading the book of nature', no different in principle from the process of reading the Bible to discover God's laws. A strong sense of the unity of God and nature pervaded Faraday's life and work.'
Some years ago Oxford University appointed the biologist
Richard Dawkins as the Charles Simonyi Professor For The Understanding
Of Science, based at New College. He set about his task of popularising
science with an evangelical intensity, publishing a number of successful
books; The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker and River Out of Eden being
among them. Readers from all walks of life were attracted to these books,
and Dawkins, a very clever and gifted man, has become justly famous.
But there’s a hitch. Dawkins is an atheist and vehemently
anti-Christian. Nothing sells books quite like controversy and Dawkins
has mined a rich seam of publicity by perpetuating the notion that science
and Christianity are fundamentally opposed. Rarely does he speak or write
about science but he grasps the opportunity to inculcate Jews, Christians
and Muslims in a supposed cruel deception on the world. He advocates science
as the one true alternative, offering a sure rescue from the perceived
absurdities of religion. He regularly joins adversarial debates on the
subject of creationism versus evolution and makes no bones about being
a Darwinist.
To give you an idea of the kind of attack he makes,
in a talk in February 1999, sponsored by the Guardian, he said, “Religions
are not imaginative, not poetic, not soulful. On the contrary, they are
parochial, small-minded, niggardly with the human imagination, precisely
where science is generous.” And yet his alternative is based on a disinterested,
mechanical process. He has developed the idea that biological history is
governed by the meme, his moniker for ‘selfish gene’. In the Guardian talk
he explains things thus, “DNA is the main kind of replicating entity that
we know…Any adaptation is for the good of the genes which made that adaptation.”
So, is Dawkins correct is assuming as first principle that there is a dichotomy between religion and science that will never be overcome, or is Einstein right when he sees the one informing the other? The biologist Mike Poole in an article on the Internet says this on the subject:
“Some people think of science and Christianity as
in conflict…The 'conflict thesis' is a relatively recent idea, from the
19th century. But for most of its history - certainly the first 300 years
- modern science and Christianity were regarded as going hand-in-hand.
But, as a contemporary historian of science, Dr Geoffrey Cantor of Leeds
University points out, ideas of conflict 'are not adequate as general claims
about how science and religion have been interrelated in history ... Much
historical research has invalidated the conflict thesis.'
Even today the idea of conflict is still deeply
entrenched in the folklore of society. So why has it persisted for so long?
Another historian of science, Prof. John Brooke of Lancaster University
suggests a reason: 'To assert that the findings of science have gradually
eroded or disproved the cherished dogmas of the church is one of
the ways by which a secular society justifies its unbelief.'”
Professor Brooke is undoubtedly right, today’s secular society
will eagerly grasp and affirm the propaganda of Dawkins and others of similar
persuasion to bolster their anti-God prejudice. Such blinkered ignorance
and arrogance should be given no latitude. But neither should credence
be given to the religious fraternity who would likewise exploit the supposed
science/religion conflict for their own shameless ends. Rather, there is
urgent need for informed society to reacquaint itself with the common ground
between science and theology, to see them as complimentary disciplines
that have much to learn and gain from a co-operative relationship.
Historically, universities regarded theology as
a science, and not only that but the queen of the sciences, and such was
it called. Perhaps the church and the modern theologian have sold out this
heritage with work that has been less than rigorous. Certainly, there has
been far less assurance and belief in the rightness of theological truth
that has given the scientist, who is not so encumbered by self-introspection
and doubt, the upper hand to march on unchecked with proclamation of scientific
truth as a worthy substitute.
To return briefly to Richard Dawkins’ Guardian address, he said at the outset of his speech, “The adversarial approach to truth isn’t always the best one. On the contrary, when two people disagree strongly, a great deal of time may be wasted.” Amen to that! A pity then that he doesn’t follow his own advice.
Here is a simple proposition to help us think
about both the big questions at the same time.
There are two incredible explanations of our existence. Either the
universe inexplicably just happened to pop (or bang) into existence all
by itself one dark non-existent morning. Or there was an outside agent,
who we call God, who brought the universe into being. Given that we are
indeed alive, which alternative sounds more plausible?
As a commentator has observed, “Each of us must decide for ourselves which is more incredible - evolution or special creation.”
The scientist has told us much about creation right down to a minute split second after the Big Bang started, but he cannot proceed to point zero or before. And the theologian cannot prove beyond doubt that God exists. Stalemate.
Yet there is some common ground. The scientist
takes it as given that the universe works on pattern, mathematical code,
physical laws, call it what you will. If it were not so, then the scientist
could not satisfactorily go about his business because experimentation
would be impossible. But the constant nature of observable patterns in
all of the creation enable him to make sense of that creation and
to progress in his understanding. Let us also note that the scientist
is largely an observer who seeks to explain what is already there, to answer
the question ‘How’. How does the universe work and how can we adapt what
we learn in useful ways?
When answering the charges of science, the
theologian will turn invariably to the Book of Genesis, written according
to tradition by the patriarch Moses, a man who claimed to have a unique
one-to-one relationship with God. Pervading the creation story and God’s
dealings with the earliest nations and Israel is one overriding idea, that
God brings order and pattern out of disorder and chaos. Chapter 1 of Genesis
describes six ‘days’ of creation. The word day is used with at least three
separate meanings. What is common to them all is that they describe an
imposed division of some kind. On each day God speaks. On the first day,
God says, “Let there be light…” The text remarks that there was a consequence
of this command, “…and there was light.” The imposed division is
between light and dark.
One might make the charge that this is very primitive
language and shows us nothing, but we should be slow to dismiss it for
there are deep implications which a modern translation would dispel for
us. Let us update it thus, “God fed in the data, and the computer switched
on the lights.” God created the universe by his word, that is the Biblical
position. A word is nothing more than a piece of code or data that can
be analysed mathematically. Language, where we string words (bytes) together
in particular sequences (programmes) is logical and conveys meaning (a
result or print-out). Instructions within it are carried to the recipient.
At the turn of the second millennium we are all quite comfortable with
the way in which digital binary code can be used in a computer programme
to assist us with our word processing, but the man in the Middle Ages would
not have appreciated this. To him, “And God said…” makes much more sense
than, “And God fed in the data.”
Other than demonstrating pattern and order, the
Bible does nothing to flesh out the scientific questions with which we
are bursting. It is not a Haynes Manual for the budding scientist, for
it does not address the question ‘How’, but rather the question ‘Why’.
Why did God create the universe and human life in particular? It
seeks also to show us the character of God and the first lesson for us
to learn is that God is utterly consistent in his law-making, ordering
all things just so. The Genesis account shows that God calls mankind into
this process of bringing order out of disorder.
In Chapter 1 God delegates to us the responsibility to care for the
natural order telling us to ‘rule over’ it. In Chapter 2, man is brought
into a garden and told to work it and tend for it. What is a garden but
the taming and ordering of nature? So the work we do will involve the observation
of nature’s patterns and cycles and the learning of techniques to intervene
and control them, at least to some extent. Then, later in the chapter God
brings all birds and animals before man to be named, and he learns how
to classify. Furthermore, God also gives mankind the freedom of the world,
albeit apart from the famous tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It
has been remarked by many people that in these things God was inviting
us to go on journey of scientific discovery, that he specifically withheld
the physical information about the creation so that we might have the joy
of piecing the cosmic jigsaw together. It is fascinating to note that we
still spend a tremendous amount of money and effort in this pursuit, whether
in the laboratories of our universities or in our space programmes. There
is a fundamental need within man to know about the world and the universe,
and it is indeed a place full of wonders. Of course Mr. Dawkins can tell
us how science can fill our souls with awe, but the Bible tells us why:
it is the awesome plan of the generous creator. So ‘religion’ can hardly
be ‘not imaginative, not poetic, not soulful…parochial, small-minded and
niggardly’ as Mr. Dawkins would have us believe.
No, the real issue is probably deeper seated than
this. I would like to suggest what that issue is and why the non-believing
scientist has an interest in avoiding any reference that might force him
to declare his hand. Observed understanding of the world is not really
enough for some, and they hold out the promise of this comprehensive knowledge
bringing in its wake the ability for man to utterly control and shape his
world. In other words, if we can mould the very elements that have hitherto
been the preserve of God then we can usurp him, make him redundant both
practically and intellectually.
"Men have become like gods ... Science offers us total mastery over our environment and over our destiny." Edmund Leach.
Genetic engineering of foodstuffs has recently
brought this agenda into the public gaze like no other. Like the builders
of the Tower of Babel, we say, ‘Let us make a name for ourselves’ by using
our ingenuity to challenge God by reaching and claiming the heavens for
our own. St. Paul again in Romans 1:18-19 expresses distinctly what is
really happening when he talks of, “the godlessness and wickedness of men
who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about
God is plain to men, because God has made it plain to them.” (the italics
are again mine). It is biblical language that sounds strange to us but
it means that the (scientific) atheist’s denial of God is not because they
don’t know there is a God but that their agenda is deliberately to oppose
God by whatever means they can: it is in reality an affair of the heart
and not really of the intellect, albeit dressed up in those clothes.
The author of the site at www.gennet.org says in his introduction,
“Creation implies that man is ultimately accountable to the Creator and evolution implies that man is ultimately accountable to no one save himself.”
A description for sin that is usefully succinct points out that
the middle letter of the word sin is the letter ‘I’. It is when I make
my own moral decisions rather than accept God’s moral law that I sin, when
I put myself at the centre and Jesus elsewhere or nowhere.
Tom Stoppard grappled with the implications
of morality in a Godless world in his play Jumpers. Like Immanual Kant
and G.E. Moore before him he wondered whether it was the motive or the
outcome of an action on which that action should be judged good or bad.
Also, his hero ponders what the term good actually means: is a good action
one that produces happiness, and is happiness best described as peace of
mind or hedonistic gratification. More importantly, is good (as opposed
to evil) a quality that can have any meaning apart from God? The eponymous
jumpers are the hero’s colleagues who are moral jumpers. In other words,
their morality changes with the situation and is entirely selfish: if an
action suits their own personal whim then it is morally justified, and
that includes murder. Accountability becomes personal.
Let us not lose sight of the fact that personal
moral accountability is not necessarily individual but may well be social
in its outworking. The individual defers to a social grouping in certain
moral issues because he sees his best interests served by so doing. Whilst
such social grouping may lend respectability to doubtful actions it does
not mean the actions are inherently moral of themselves. The selfish gene
of Richard Dawkins is an example of arguments that use science to undermine
Morality (being of God) and promote moral jumping. In seeing history as
the story of the meme (the selfish gene) he takes genetics out of the moral
environment of the creator to whom genetics is a creative mechanism and
places it centre stage where it begs the question whether morality is even
relevant to life – why waste breath on it? Without a God who sets limits
and judges foul play there is no final sanction against wrong-doing. Evolution
is an absentee master without scruple, and the selfish man is free to justify
any action at all.
"I was just thinking ..... that here we are, all of us, eating and drinking, to preserve our previous existence, and that there's nothing, nothing, absolutely no reason for existing." Jean-Paul Sartre"If one puts aside the existence of God .... one has to make up one's mind what is the meaning and use of life ... Now the answer is plain, but so unpalatable that most men will not face it. There is no reason for life, and life has no meaning." Somerset Maugham
"What is life for? To die? To kill myself at once? No, I am afraid. To wait for death till it comes? I fear that even more. Then I must live. But what for?" Leo Tolstoy.
“Although scientists can't give us an answer to this important why question (what is life for?), a certain Jesus Christ claims that he can. Jesus said that each of us is created by God to live in a personal relationship with him. That is why we are here - because God created us to enjoy being with him.” Nick Pollard, Scripture Union.
To mention human dignity may seem a rather subjective
way of ending a paper on science and belief that I have tried to make objective
so far as I am able, but, as the quotations show, bound up with this whole
problem is the human desire for meaning. Whether this meaning is something
we have to make up for ourselves to fill the vacuum of despair that results
from godless reasoning, or whether it is given to us by a loving God, all
of us need meaning.
We have already looked at the enormous resources humanity pours into
scientific research. Much of that is concerned with who and what we are,
with our place in the natural order, and where we came from. This instinctive
drive is a question of identity. Are we glorified carriers of genes in
an inexplicable universe, or are we the wanted children of a creator who
shared our humanity for thirty years before dying for us? If it is the
second, then we all matter, and we all have a dignity, and we all have
a hope. And, having faith in God-in-the-flesh, Jesus Christ is not the
emotional, anti-scientific position that it is so often portrayed to be.
And neither is science the destroyer of dreams and hope, and of the gospel,
the good news that God is in control of all things.