Matter and Spirit Blogs

I certainly think that man has an effect on the environment.  And, when it comes to the environment and care of the earth, I believe we should err on the side of caution rather than abandon.  However, an article in Nature this week shows just how new the science of global warming really is. 

One of the big, big problems in science is developing models to predict the future.  The real test of a model (and hence the maturity of a science) is whether or not the predictions of the model match reality.  Models improve with time as a science matures.

Some will no doubt find fault in the report and say, “See how wishy-washy these scientists are.  There is no science here.”  However, the fact that scientists can change their minds when the evidence supports another view is evidence that science does work and there is science here.

What is chance? Most people have a fairly unsophisticated answer to this question. Even some scientists talk about chance as if it is “one damned thing after another.” But chance (randomness) is a fairly well developed mathematical theory. What we mean when we talk about chance is that “this” happens rather than “that.” Furthermore, “this” and “that” are not just anything one can conceive within the stretch of the imagination, but rather, “this” or “that” chosen from a countable set of options.

If we look at the evolution of the cosmos, we see that the great complexities of the cosmos have resulted from a very simple beginning. [1] As far as our science can tell, the cosmos was homogeneous immediately after the Big Bang. Afterwards, through various symmetry breaking processes, the cosmos has evolved after 13-17 billion years to be the vastly complex thing we see today. The randomness that is built into the cosmos has enabled this evolution. Randomness simply means that the universe is open to the future.

If there were no chance in the cosmos, the future would be fixed. Nothing could develop and grow. Novelty (newness) would not exist.  It is the randomness which is built into the fabric of the cosmos that has enabled you (rather than someone else) to exist. Think for a moment with me. If any one of multiplied billions of sperm cells had fertilized your mother’s egg rather than the single one which resulted in you, someone else (a counterfactual sibling) [2] would have existed rather than you! Likewise, if the single sperm that resulted in you had fertilized any other egg, rather than the one it fertilized, a counterfactual sibling would have existed. Your existence is greatly due to chance. If you don’t believe this, you are a fatalist (complete determinist). [3]

Of course, chance is constrained by necessity. For example, there are necessarily only two possible outcomes for the toss of a fair coin: heads or tails. There are necessarily only six possible outcomes for the roll of a six-sided die. If you play poker, then you should know the odds for a straight flush. If just any damned thing were possible, you could not know the odds. The forms of life on earth are also necessarily constrained by the probabilistic resources of the earth. It is much more difficult (if not practically impossible) to precisely compute these odds, but they exist nevertheless.

Without necessity, forms would vanish as soon as they come into existence. Necessity provides the stability for chance to work fruitfully. Without chance, the future would be a closed book. If the future is a closed book, hope is a meaningless word. [4]

Run-on Thoughts (Read at Your Own Peril!)

1. Some theologians (and I mean good ones) think that God is a simple being rather than a complex one. This means that God is not composed of cells (constituent parts) like we are, but has a simple existence. This would certainly be the greatest of all paradoxes if it were true. There is some indication that this may be the case in the very language of the Bible itself which refers, for instance, to the Elohim (plural gods: at least three) as One. “The LORD our God is one LORD” (Deuteronomy 6:4) coexisting with statements like “In the beginning Gods (Elohim) created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1) make us search for ways to reconcile such statements. God talks to himself in Psalm 110:1. A statement like “The Word was with God and the Word was God” (John 1:1) is all but nonsensical by natural reasoning because it demands that we see two as one. Yet this seems to be a consistent theme from Genesis to Revelation. This of course may be the foundation of warnings (not threats) against formulating “images” of God by construction from natural things. “To whom will you liken me, and make me equal, and compare me that we may be like? They lavish gold out of the bag, and weigh silver in the balance, and hire a goldsmith; and he makes a god: they fall down, yea, they worship.” (Isaiah 46:5, 6)

2. The study of true counterfactuals is a fascinating study. To get you started, Jesus said, “Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works had been done in Tyre and Sidon, which have been done in you, they had a great while ago repented, sitting in sackcloth and ashes.” (Luke 10:13) The “if this had happened-that would have happened” semantic construct is a true counterfactual. God not only knows what happened, he knows what would have happened if what happened had not happened. It also puts the judgments of God into a perspective that no human being can truly comprehend by introducing an infinite dialectic in God’s interaction with the cosmos. In my opinion, that is the attribute which enables His judgments to be right.

3. Calvinists are fatalists, at least on paper. Hard-core Calvinists believe that everything is predestinated, even the sperm that fertilized the egg. By the way, so do Muslims and even some atheist determinists. Of course, that means wars, diseases, and sins are predestinated because your existence is dependent on the precise history of the world which preceded you. This is why some Christians can claim that terrorists who crash airplanes into buildings are doing the will of God. In my opinion the Calvinist error is belief that the certain knowledge of future events is equivalent to causing them. This can be shown to be untrue. Calvinists also confuse the predestination of factual people to glorification (a definite Pauline teaching) with the predestination of space-time events (a teaching that Paul condemned with vigor in several places).

4. “For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man sees, why does he yet hope? But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with endurance wait for it.” (Romans 8:24, 25) This is not about wishful thinking. This is about being open to a fruitful future beyond the futility of everyday cosmic process.

My understanding of the cosmos is very different from what it was when I was nineteen years old. At that time, I had some high school physics, some high school biology, and almost no theology or philosophy. Since that time, I have had considerable training in science and have studied philosophy and theology on my own for a number of years.

I am convinced on many levels that the sciences present an approximately accurate general picture of the natural history of the universe. Many, if not most, of the details are yet to be discovered; but, an extremely ancient cosmos which has evolved for billions of years is not something that I consider arguable.

At the same time, I passionately question the idea that the study of current natural processes can provide us ultimate answers. First of all, I question this because by anyone’s understanding of science, the processes of today have not eternally been in place. If we can’t look forever into our past using the lens of science, it is doubtful that we can look forever into our future. Secondly, there are many reasons to believe that the processes of this cosmos, ancient, vast and varied as they are, serve an eternal purpose. [1]

On the other hand, I also question the idea, held by some Christians, that this cosmos will be magically and apocalyptically replaced by God with something totally different from what we see today. Unless this present world has no eternal significance, a concept difficult for me to comprehend in light of the resurrection of the Messiah, something like this cosmos will be forever in existence, although its natural, transient processes may be dramatically transformed into spiritual, everlasting processes.

Mathematicians and mathematical physicists will not find it illogical to posit a transform that maps this natural, transient, space-time cosmos into another spiritual [2], everlasting, space-time cosmos. It seems reasonable to me that it might be such a mapping which occurred in the resurrection of the Messiah. If this is the case, then the transform is the resurrection itself. [3]

Although I have gained a lot from the process theologians, I find it doubtful that they have discovered the answer of ultimate meaning by posing a cosmos that eternally evolves into higher and higher levels of organization until reaching some state of ultimate perfection. I do not think that the resurrection “transform” is a natural process of this space-time reality. [4] Current scientific understanding is not consonant with an eternally evolving cosmos. The universe will end, and more particularly our solar system and civilization, either in fire or ice if natural process continues unabated.

Notes

[1] Paul writes in Ephesians 3:9-11 about the church’s task of beginning to unveil the fellowship of the mysterious eternal purpose of God in the creation of this universe through Christ. Many Christians interpret this to refer to the eternal purpose of man alone. But I think it is much broader and encompasses the whole cosmos throughout all time.

[2] Don’t think vapor when you read the word spiritual in my writings. As a matter of fact, James says that this life is a vapor (transitory, fleeting, evaporating), not the one to come. (James 4:14) When I use the word spiritual, I’m thinking of something just as material as this cosmos, but not transient. The resurrected, spiritual body of I Corinthians 15 is material; but, it is everlastingly energized material. The material of this present cosmos is not everlastingly energized material if our understanding of natural process is even close to being right.

[3] I first read this idea in the writings of the scientist-theologian John Polkinghorne and found the idea intriguing. Polkinghorne argues that it is not unreasonable to think that the post-resurrection appearances of the Messiah may be described as intersections of this transient space-time with an everlasting space-time.

Polkinghorne further suggests the possibility that we die at different times in this space-time, but all arrive at the same instant “on the Lord’s Day” in the spiritual space-time. This is one way to interpret the statement by Jesus to the thief on his right that “today you shall be with me in paradise.” (Luke 23:43) It is possible that resurrection events only appear to be chronological in the apocalyptic visions. This might be because humans have trouble conceiving of events such as these except sequentially. In my opinion, the apocalyptic visions are more like dreams (Joel 2:28, Acts 2:17) than clear insights; and, dreams are commonly atemporal.

[4] The biblical narratives are clear that power over death (read the transient processes of this evolving cosmos) required the death of God (submission of the creator to the creation’s processes) and his subsequent resurrection from the dead (conquest of and power over natural process). The only real argument for this to my mind is that “it was impossible for him (the creator) to be held prisoner by death (the transient processes of this evolving cosmos).” [Acts 2:24] Resurrection is a greater demonstration of the power of God than the creation in the big bang (and subsequent evolution) of the natural cosmos itself.

The Wellcome Trust has posted its Image Awards for 2008. While you’re at it, you might want to check out the Biomedical Image Awards (2006). These are all certainly worth viewing.

If the story Richard Dawkins tells on his website is true (and I suspect it is), we have a problem.  When I wrote my last entry, I had not seen the film (I still haven’t.)  Furthermore, I did not know about this.  If I had, I would have waited until after I viewed the film to say anything about it.  This is always a good idea anyway.

If the accounting of Lying for Jesus is a true accounting of the way these people have behaved, then once again, I am ashamed of their behavior.  Too often, we have adopted an “end justifies the means” ethic in dealing with the spread of ideas that are contrary to our religion in this country.  I had hoped that Ben Stein would not be party to such things.  I do not believe in this ethic.

I suspect that Stein is Jewish, but Intelligent Design does cross boundaries in the monotheistic religions.  It is sad that Paul’s commentary about the the behavior of the Jews of his day being the primary cause for blasphemy against God by unbelievers seems to be true today for Christians, Muslims and Jews alike.  When will we Christians cease to be our own worst enemy?

Ben Stein is one of my favorite television personalities. I used to play along on Win Ben Stein’s Money and I love his cameo appearances in movies. I also enjoy hearing his economic insights on CNBC. Ben has now ventured into the debate between Intelligent Design and Darwinism. His new documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is scheduled for release April 18, 2008. Watch the Super Trailer at The Playground.

I have really never weighed in on the Intelligent Design position, although you may have deduced from this blog that I am not a strict Darwinist. I do believe in evolution, but I do not believe it is without design. At the same time, Intelligent Design’s interventionist science (God steps into natural history at specific points to cover transitions that evolution can’t handle) seems a little flaky to me just on principle. I find it difficult to believe that God could not create a world that can evolve without the need for special intervention.

I have numerous reasons for believing that the creation makes itself. We might think of the fact that a human body makes itself in the womb as justification for such a belief. But, I find Darwinism’s exclusion of the divine a conclusion that is not warranted by the science itself. Neo-Darwinism specifically excludes the necessity of a creator. This is a huge philosophical, metaphysical conclusion that cannot be deduced from the evidence itself.

So, I basically think both are wrong. At the same time, both are right in some respects. As usual, I think the truth is on the path and not in the ditches.

In any case, I do think it is magisterial, pompous and highly unscientific to exclude any and all debate on any topic by sheer fiat. I agree with Stein on the point that this seems to be the case. Truth has nothing to fear from debate and consensus science has often been wrong in the past.

The Templeton Prize for 2008 has been awarded to theologian/physicist Michael Heller.

An Introduction

Theologians should be very grateful to science for bringing some theological questions into sharp focus. One of those questions concerns the ultimate fruitfulness of the universe. Is our universe ultimately fruitful or is it futile? Is our life in this universe, as Shakespeare’s Macbeth said, “…a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing…?” Atheist Steven Weinberg expresses a similar sentiment. Weinberg writes, “The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless.”

I would certainly be disingenuous if I were to say that this philosophy is not attractive to me at a certain level. Indeed, there have been, and probably will yet be, times that I “feel” just like Macbeth felt. On the other hand, there are many considerations that move me to think that our universe is much more than this kind of tale. Among the strongest of these motivations is the realization that the noetic worlds of mathematics and mathematical physics correspond so precisely to realities in our material universe.

Certainly, only an incredibly naïve Christian would believe that God said, “Let there be light” in English (or Hebrew). Why would we not think that what was actually said might appear much more like Maxwell’s equations? But, would the Hebrews, or anyone else long before 1861 for that matter, have understood the following? [1]

[2]

On the other hand, only another kind of naivety would have us believe that Maxwell’s Equations did not exist until James Clerk Maxwell published his treatise in 1861. Furthermore, can anyone cognizant of the field of complex dynamics say that the Mandelbrot Set did not exist until the 1985 Scientific American article that published a crude image of it? Even if we go back in the history of complex dynamics, it is most certainly a fool’s belief to think that the Julia set didn’t exist until it was “discovered.” This noetic mathematical world existed prior to human mathematics and the corresponding dynamical examples of it in our cosmos were precisely related to that noetic world prior to our discovery of it.

But the real challenge by contemporary science is surprisingly not to atheism in my opinion. It takes little real thinking to not believe in a god (at least the God of Hebrew and Christian scripture). As a matter of fact, I think that unbelief is the natural state of affairs for man. [3] No, it is theism that must take very seriously the facts that contemporary science has revealed about the universe if it is to maintain credibility in a post-scientific age.

According to well-understood processes of this present cosmos, the universe is destined for ultimate futility. How can a human being find meaning in a cosmos that is destined for one of two ends: expansion forever, in which case all of the energy in the universe will ultimately be unusable, or a big crunch, in which case the universe will ultimately collapse in upon itself in a gigantic fireball?

Science has determined with relative certainty that one of these two cosmic ends are to be faced should natural processes continue, even though our current state of cosmological knowledge does not allow us to determine which. However, science has also determined that some other kind of catastrophic event is much more likely to destroy our civilization and our planet, since earth is most certainly not going to be around when either of these two final outcomes comes to pass.

Is there any reason that a human being, faced with this kind of very certain scientific knowledge, can have hope that in the end all will be well with our souls? Or, is science’s knowledge of present physical process and understanding of the probabilities of catastrophic, natural, civilization-ending disasters the last word?

In the articles that follow, I intend to address these predictions of science, not with incredulity, but with credulity. I have very little doubt that the predictions of science are correct. I will also address the question of whether or not there is any motivation for us to have hope for ultimate fulfillment rather than an ending in futility. [4]

NOTES

1. Actually, there were no Hebrews, except in potential, this soon after the Big Bang. The New Testament states that the language of the Spirit of God are “groanings which cannot be uttered” by humans (Romans 8:26).

2. Maxwell’s Equations

3. This is why many Christians throughout history (except those with political power) have insisted upon “believer’s baptism” and have regarded coerced baptisms (whether infantile or inquisitional) as not genuine. For biblical justification for the position that unbelief is man’s natural state see I Corinthians 2:14, Psalm 58:3, and Romans 3:10-18. I can list a multitude more.

4. I am referring here to ultimate fulfillment for each individual, not some kind of species fulfillment for mankind in which one generation builds for the next. For even in the case of species fulfillment, the destiny for both the individual and mankind itself is, in the final analysis, transient and futile.

This is the first in a series of entries on ways to model the science and spirituality dialogue. There are as many as ten models that are used to discuss the interaction of science and spirituality. I have reduced these models to four that capture the essence of the conversation in my opinion. I normally illustrate these models with Venn Diagram-like pictures when I’m teaching on the topic.

The Conflict Model

The Conflict Model is one of the most popular today. It is popular, not only with atheists and other secularists who embrace scientism, but it is the model of choice for almost all religious fundamentalists. I illustrate this model with two nonintersecting circles, one black and one white.

Scientism

Scientism is a term that is normally used to describe the view that the natural sciences have authority over all other interpretations of life and over other fields of inquiry. Other interpretations of life can include philosophical, religious, spiritual, mythical, and even humanistic explanations. Other fields of inquiry include the social sciences and other “soft” sciences. Another term we might use in its place is scientific imperialism. It is the idea that the only legitimate questions are scientific in nature and that all such questions are answerable using only the scientific method.

For example, Richard Dawkins believes theology is not even a subject worthy of serious study. Daniel Dennett believes that theology is not on a par with philosophy. Sam Harris has stated that some religious ideas are too dangerous to allow their proponents to live. They would all like to see religion, theology, and spirituality abolished. Harris would like to see religious fundamentalists killed by the state for believing a dangerous idea.

Fundamentalism

Fundamentalism is a term that is normally used to describe the view that a particular religious world view has authority over all other interpretations of life and over other fields of inquiry. Another term we might use in its place is religious imperialism. It is the idea that the only legitimate questions are religious in nature and that all such questions are answerable using only the revealed and “properly” interpreted religious texts.

For example, Ken Ham believes that he does not interpret the bible; he simply reads it and believes it. Everyone else is wrong. The Institute for Creation Research (ICR), led by the late (2006) Henry Morris, Duane Gish, and others, believes that most science is an atheistic attempt to explain the creation without a creator. They would all like to see science reduced to an apologetic tool to support their literal interpretation of Genesis. Most fundamentalists categorize evolutionary theory as a dangerous idea which should not be allowed to exist. The worldwide problem with religious fundamentalist violence is well-documented.

Black and White Thinking

People who adopt the Conflict Model have a penchant for black and white thinking. According to these “idealists” there are no grey areas, no room for dialogue, and no way to harmonize the two fields of thought. This is why I illustrate the model the way I do. They are antithetical to each other. They are enemies, period.

Both scientism and fundamentalism are narrow and intolerant. Many in both camps espouse the notion that others are not simply wrong, but evil. I have discovered false claims made by each one against the other. Neither group is very likable.

Most fundamentalists lean toward a desire for a theocracy in which God, or God’s representative(s), rules without question. Most adherents to scientism lean toward a desire for a government in which all judgments are made without regard to anyone’s religious, philosophical, spiritual or humanistic values.

I personally view the Conflict Model as the most intellectually unsatisfying of any of the models. This is not because it requires the least amount of intellectual work. Quite to the contrary, both groups expend tremendous intellectual energies in the defense of their respective positions. The reason I find it intellectually unsatisfying is that each group in the conflict ignores vast amounts of intellectual work in those areas which it lightly esteems or has no desire to learn.

Last weekend I had an interesting experience with my family. After attending a family reunion, my son and I went to my parent’s house so that he could play with his cousins. My mom, sister and I were talking about my niece (actually my 1st cousin once removed, but she calls me uncle and I call her niece because of age differences) and her husband leaving my sister’s home back in July as she went into labor. I made the statement that I remembered them leaving in a hurry.

My sister said, “You can’t remember that because you were not even there.” Well, if you knew my family, you would know that a long debate ensued with everyone involved trying to figure out how I knew the details of an event which I did not attend. Details, that I swore I remembered.

Well, it turns out that my memory of the event is false. I was not there. Yet, I have a clear memory of my niece and her husband leaving the house in labor! How can such a thing happen? It turns out that there is an explanation and we discovered it during our conversation.

The night that my niece went into labor, my wife and I were watching a movie called The Illusionist, which I highly recommend as a chick flick that a guy will like as well. As a matter of fact, immediately after the movie was over, I called my sister to tell her to watch it if she had not already. During that conversation, she told me that my niece had left her house in a tremendous rush because she had gone into labor.

Here is what we figured out. Either…

1. My sister’s description of the event was so vivid that my mind created a memory of the event as if I had been there…OR

2. I subsequently had a dream in which I witnessed the event and the dream became a memory.

There is a further complication. At dinner that evening, we recanted the story to my brother. He told us that he actually has a memory of another time we were all together at my sister’s house and my niece and her husband left the house in a hurry for another reason. So…

3. I possibly merged my sister’s story with an actual memory of another event.

All of this leads me to the point of this entry. The mind is a tricky thing!

How many people have been convicted of crimes based on memories of other people (or perhaps their own flawed memories)? Perhaps these are memories of things done to them in childhood, or under some other kind of duress. I myself have had occasions in which my memory of an event was not entirely accurate according to other people who were there, and yet, to my mind, I was not lying. I have seen this happen to others (based on their vehemence and a knowledge of the frailty of the human mind) as well.

I suggest much care should be given when claiming a memory…especially one that hurts others.