Philosophical Questions Origins - LT Scotland · 2019. 12. 14. · Christian revelation Revelation is basically how God makes two things known to humanity 1. Who he is 2. What he

Philosophical Questions

Origins

!1

Where did it all come from?

This question has been taxing the most brilliant minds for centuries. Ever since we

(humanity), has had the opportunity and ability to think we have been struck by the

complexity and beauty of nature and what we see around us. Rudolf Otto (a German

theologian) gave this feeling a phrase the ‘Numinous’ describes where people are

struck with a sense of mystery and awe when people, for example, gaze at the stars

or consider the vastness of the universe. This experience could also occur when peo-

ple are overcome with a sense of beauty and wonder of nature and may also occur

when someone is struck by their own sense of helplessness in a tragic situation. Otto

stated that it was:

These thoughts for many people are the basis for humankind’s belief in God: that

there is something beyond the physical senses leading people to search for meaning

and purpose in their lives. These questions essentially are asking questions about

‘why’ and religions including Christianity have sought to answer the ‘why’ questions,

they are known as ‘ultimate questions’ and they seek to answer the existential ques-

tions of life e.g. ‘why are we here?’

This distinction is crucial to our understanding of the physical world. The question

you or I ask will depend on the response we get.

EXAMPLE:

How do you make a cup of tea?

Why do you make a cup of tea?

We get DIFFERENT answers when we ask different questions – we can think of ques-

tions like tools that we use to accomplish a task. When we use the HOW question we

want to find out specific information and we realise that there is usually a right way

and a wrong way. We might disagree on the METHOD of making a cup of tea to our

!2

SOURCE:

‘The feeling of ‘something uncanny’, ‘eerie’, or ‘weird’. It is the

feeling which in the mind of primeval man, forms the starting point

for the entire religious development in history.’

taste but essentially we need boiling water (usually about 100 degrees C. This water

needs to be poured onto tealeaves/teabag. You can

then add milk, lemon, sugar, etc. to your own taste.

Job done!

If we then ask WHY did you make a cup of tea you

will get a number of different answers – ALL of

which can be correct because the WHY question is

looking for MEANING and PURPOSE.

Different questions for different answers. So back to

the origins of the universe and life. We can ask…

How did the universe come about? Why did the universe come about?

OR How did life appear on earth? Why did life appear on earth?

Answering the HOW question.

The view of the universe and the world offered by science is awe inspiring. From the

forces within the tiny atom to the vastness of space and all that the universe con-

tains. The complexity of the human body and life on earth, is quite astounding. So

when it comes to developing a sense of wonder and the challenge to understand who

we are within this universe, science provides a good start-

ing point.

Science examines and questions evidence. What may seem

obvious to one generation is questioned by the next. And,

by so doing, science seeks to work its way towards a total

understanding of the world. Life without science and tech-

nology would be unthinkable for most people in the devel-

oped world. Deprived of modern medicine, transport or

communications, our lifestyle would be severely impaired.

!3

Key quote:

‘The eventual goal of

science is to provide a

single theory that de-

scribes the whole uni-

verse.’

Stephen Hawking, A

Brief History of Time,

1988

Answering the WHY question

Nobody seriously doubts the value of what science contributes, but that does not

mean that science meets every human need; the arts, personal relationships, emo-

tional fulfilment, a sense of purpose: these are equally important for human happi-

ness, but they are not directly addressed by scientific theory, nor do they depend on

technology.

When it comes to answering the question why the universe exists, why life exists or

we as individuals exist, science might not be the best place to turn. Religion is con-

stantly looking for meaning and purpose and can shed some light on why things exist.

There is also much represented by the term ‘religion’ that science does not address:

intuitions about the meaning and purpose of life, a sense of being ‘at home’ in the

universe, and convictions about what is morally right.

Science has not replaced religion. Most people still claim to belong, at least in

name, to one of the major world religions. The intuitions about life and its meaning,

the sense of wonder and of celebration, which in previous generations would have

been expressed largely through religion, are still very much in evidence. Sadly, how-

ever, much of the debate between science and religion in recent years has been be-

tween those who hold extreme positions.

On the one hand there are religious fundamentalists, who believe that every word

of the Bible should be taken as literal - almost scientific truth.

On the other, there are scientific materialists who think that anything that cannot

be quantified and expressed in scientific terms is pointless, and who enjoy nothing

more than dismissing religious belief. Richard Dawkins has done this a few times.

This course will looks at how these two very important ways of thinking about life,

the universe and everything are related to one another. But if you expect these

notes to say that science has made all forms of religion redundant, or that religion

can somehow prove science wrong, you will be disappointed. The matter is not that

simple.

!4

Religion and Origins

!5

Key questions:

Do religion and science offer complementary views, or does the scientific world-

view automatically exclude religious belief?

Should religion be identified with the beliefs that religious people hold, or is there

more to it than that?

In the Bible Christians believe that God has revealed to us important truths about

the origins of the universe and life. But what is this revelation?

Christian revelation

Revelation is basically how God makes two things known to humanity

1. Who he is

2. What he wants from us

God does this

a) through scripture

b) through his creation (which includes us humans)

c) through individuals.

Propositional Revelation

In the first instance revelation can be understood to mean that there are certain

facts or information that can be known about God and expressed in sentences. This

is the propositional understanding of revelation, in which believers accept certain

‘truths’ about who God is and what his will is. But think about it – You can know lots

of facts about a person but still not know that person properly. That is why some

people feel you have to think about revelation in other ways too.

Revelation and cosmology

A different view is to see revelation in a more ‘personal’ manner. As well as reveal-

ing ‘facts’ about God, revelation also actually tells us who God is. Revelation is

about God’s self-revelation. In the same way you can learn something about an artist

through their work we can learn who God is through his works e.g. the universe. In

this sense, revelation has a cosmological dimension, God’s self-revelation is actually

tied up with the mystery of creation. Creation is not just something that happened

once upon a time, but is an ongoing process in which God is revealing himself to us.

This seems to make sense for Christians when thinking about the de-

velopments in modern science. Our universe is the product of a

process, which began billions of years ago and has slowly evolved to

its present state. On earth, over a period of some 20 million years,

matter has struggled to become alive, and life to become conscious.

This raises a very fundamental question for many people. !6

Definition Matter: anything made up of atoms

Does life in the universe have a purpose or is it aimlessly drifting onwards to

nothingness?

Many Christians believe that life must have a meaning and purpose, and that this is

guided God who reveals himself through this whole process. Christians would say

that they can see in the development of our universe a design or a call to the world

to go beyond what it is now. The book of Genesis reveals this in its opening sen-

tences when it tells us that God called the world into being. For these Christians

then, creation actually makes a promise, a promise which is in reality God’s revela-

tion of himself, guaranteeing hope of fulfilment. From this perspective, revelation is

the full unfolding of the universe as St Paul says in his letter to the Christians in

Rome:

SOURCE: All of creation waits with eager longing for God to reveal his children. For

we know that up to the present time all of creation groans with pain, like the pain

of childbirth.

(St. Paul’s letter to the Romans 8:19, 22)

Revelation and history

In the light of all that has been said above, it is important to understand that Chris-

tians believe that revelation also has a historical context. In other words revelation

takes place at a given time, in a given place, to a given people. So, as well as be-

lieving in a universal revelation, Christians believe that God has revealed himself in

the story of the people of Israel. What this means is that in the lives of significant

individuals and events in the history of Israel – Abraham, Moses, the delivery from

slavery in Egypt, King David, the Prophets and others – God was revealing himself in

a particular way to save humankind from sinfulness. For Christians, this reaches its

climax in the life death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth in whom they have the

forgiveness of their sins and restored to their rightful relationship with God.

!7

!8

Biblical Criticism

We also have to remember that just like most pieces of writing you often have to in-

terpret what has been written into what is being said. There are different ways of

interpreting passages of scripture.

• Literally: You take what is said as factually true in the way that we would un-

derstand a fact today. So, for example, Jesus death on the cross can be taken

as historical fact.

• Metaphorically/Symbolically: You have to learn to understand the symbols and

metaphors that are being used and not take them as statements of fact in the

literal sense. We will see this most clearly Chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis

• Morally: Sometimes there are passages that are in there to communicate a

moral principle or value.

• Combination: Sometimes you have to be able to see the blending of the literal

and the symbolic writing.

There are also a number of other factors that need to be taken into consideration.

• When was it written,

• where was it written,

• who was it written for,

• what were the cultures and traditions of the time.

One reason why Christians are so protective of what they believe is because they be-

lieve the Bible to be the revealed word of God. The best way to sum up Christian be-

lief about scripture is that “God chose certain men who… made full use of their own

abilities so that, though he acted through them and by them, it was as true authors

that they consigned the writing to whatever he wanted written and no more”

(Second Vatican Council)

The Bible is not meant to record precise historical information or scientific findings

to Christians. In addition the authors were people of their own time. They shared

the cultural ideas of the world around them. However, the Catholic Church says that

all that we need to know about God can be found in the Bible.

!9

All Christians agree on one thing: the Bible gives them guidance

for their lives and understanding of the world in which they live.

They are able to evaluate trends in society, scientific develop-

ments, etc., by reflecting on what the Bible has to say. Obviously,

there are some developments that the Biblical authors could not

have envisaged, such as scientific theories on the development of

the universe, or evolution. Some Christians can have problems try-

ing to reconcile their faith with these developments, and this is

where some Christians would look to what is called Tradition to

guide them. This is the case for Catholic Christians, who under-

stand that the word of God is embodied in Scripture and Tradition.

Tradition is based on the belief that, before the New Testament

came into existence, the Apostles had already received from Jesus

what was essential for Christian faith. They, in turn, were able to

hand it on to others so that the Church had authority to teach on

matters that were not committed to writing in the Bible. So, on certain questions

that are not explicitly treated in the Bible, Catholic Christians can look to the

Church to guide them and teach them on the correct answer to these questions.

1. What is ‘propositional’ revelation?

2. In what way do contemporary theologians understand God’s

self-revelation to be tied up with the mystery of creation?

3. How would Christians respond to the question of whether or

not the universe and life have a purpose?

4. What does it mean for Christians to say that revelation has a historical

context?

5. How is this linked to the history of Israel?

6. Why do Christians believe the Bible to be the word of God?

7. What’s Biblical criticism and what is its significance for some Christians

when it comes to understanding the Bible?

8. Why do other Christians reject this approach to the Bible?

9. When it comes to the Bible what do all Christians agree on?

10. What is Tradition and what is its significance of for Catholic Christians?

!10

Definition Tradition: From the Latin ‘tradere’ meaning to hand on. The apostles learned more from Jesus than is written in the New Testament. They handed this on and the Catholic Church continues to

!11

Christianity and Origins When it comes to looking at the origin of the universe and life on earth there are the

two creation stories that appear in the first two chapters of the book of Genesis.

READ APPENDIX 1 & 2 BEFORE GOING ANY FURTHER WITH THESE NOTES

Activities & Tasks:

1) There are TWO stories of how the universe began and how life de-veloped. Summarise the main similarities and differences in a ta-ble.

2) What is your reasoned opinion of the two

creation stories in Genesis?

3) Why do you think there are TWO creation stories in Genesis and what are the im-plications of this for understanding the Bible?

SIMILARITIES DIFFERENCES

!12

Key Thought

The fact that there are two different creation stories should make anyone stop and

think. Both cannot be taken literally because that would mean they would both

have to be factually correct.

The idea that the world/universe/life is created by God is one of the most basic

themes in Christianity. It is the theme that opens the Bible and one that runs all the

way through the Old Testament.

God is the creator of the heavens and the Earth. Sometimes this is done quite physi-

cally, as when he is said to make Adam out of the dust of the earth and then breathe

life into him, or making Eve out of one of Adam’s ribs. Other accounts have God

simply speaking a word for things to come into being.

Both Bible stories want to show the absolute power and authority of God. It also sets

the relationship between human beings and the rest of creation. Humans are given

authority over the other creatures, and allowed to exploit the earth, which is there

for the benefit of humans. Central to the Christian doctrine of creation is that God

created the world out of nothing (creatio ex nihilo) rather than out of any pre-exist-

ing material.

The important thing to understand is that Christian teaching of creation is about

who made the world and why, whereas the ‘big bang’ and other theories are about

how the world came into existence. A Christian could quite well say that the ‘big

bang’ was the mechanism by which the world came about, while still believing that

God was the one who caused that creation.

For more information on the creation stories and how they are understood read pages 82 - 87 and pages 129 – 133 of Belief and Science

!13

Key Beliefs

• God is the Creator

• He creates from nothing

• He brings order from chaos

• Performs actions freely

• Can enter into a relationship with human beings

• Sustains the universe (universe dependent on God)

How Christians understand the Creation stories

Christians believe that the Bible is the divinely revealed

and inspired word of God. This means for them it con-

tains truths about the world we live in and how it came

to exist. The stories are definitely the product of an oral

tradition. Some Christians like to believe that what is in

the Bible is word for word what God “said” about cre-

ation, while others believe that it has become more

stylised as time passed, more poetic and symbolic.

For some Christians, the Genesis story is a myth based on the observable universe.

This doesn’t mean that it’s untrue, just that it’s a kind of writing where an attempt

is made to explain the unexplainable. Humans decided that something powerful

must have made this earth, based upon what they could see. There is truth in the

story but it is hard to pinpoint. The belief that God made the universe – is more im-

portant than the specific details which are not to be taken too literally.

Genesis 1 Genesis 2

a. This is the religious establishment's official authorized description of cre-ation.

b. This description was first written about 500 BCE, in or around the time the Jews returned to Jerusalem from exile in Baby-lon.

c. The pre-creation situation is watery chaos because Babylon sat between the Tigris and Euphrates.

d. Order of creation is light, sky, sea, earth, vegetation, sun and moon and stars, birds, sea creatures, land animals, and lastly, humanity.

e. Creation of humanity is single act.

f. The Creator is called "God."

g. The Creator is present only through the commands that cause the creative acts to occur.

h. One important aspect of the concept of God presented in this description is bringing order out of chaos.

a. The story comes from the southern storyteller of this and other stories.

b. It was first written about 1000 BCE (before the common era, same as BC)

c. The pre-creation situation is dry desert because that's what you find in southern Israel.

d. Creation of humanity precedes the creation of vegetation and animal life.

e. Man and woman, Adam and Eve, are created in two separate acts.

f. The Creator is called "the Lord God."

g. Creation is a hands-on experience for the Lord God.

h. One important aspect of the concept of the Lord God presented in this story is fertility.

!14

Oral tradition: The passing on of stories by word of mouth. Over time stories can become enriched and developed

Genesis - Literal Interpretation

Christian literalists believe that the creation story

is totally true. The Bible is the word of God so

everything must be accepted as true. They get

round the obvious problems with treating the 7

creation story as factually accurate by saying we

don’t need to understand it; we just need to accept it. In short:

• If it is in the Bible, it is true.

• God can do anything – even the story as it is written.

• The Bible is a book of faith, not science.

• The Biblical creation story does all that is needs to – pointing to God as the

creator of all.

They also believe that Genesis is not a science textbook and can’t be read as one.

Where they differ from other Christians though is when they say that scientific evi-

dence that goes against the Bible’s teaching is just wrong.

SOURCE:

(Nov 2009) ‘What God recorded in Genesis is absolutely perfect! But it is not all that

God wants us to know about Him. Only the full collection of 66 inspired books is both

perfect and complete. In spite of the new popularity of the so-called progressive or

process creationism in evangelical circles today, there is no 67th book of divinely-in-

spired revelation, namely, modern science, to tell us how God really created the

world! Such thinking threatens the entire Word of God, not simply Genesis 1-11.

With so-called "modern science" as our final guide, no supernatural works of God,

including the resurrection of Christ, will survive

(see 1 Cor. 2:4-16)’.

Comment:

This quote is taken from a lecture given by Prof. John D Whitcomb to celebrate

the 25th anniversary of the founding of the Institute for Creation Research – they

!15

Key thought

In discussing the origins of the

universe, or evolution, it is im-

portant to realise that the cre-

support the 6 literal day view presented in Genesis 1 as

the way in which the world/universe was created.

For Creationists therefore, the world cannot be the result

of a random explosion known as the Big Bang. The world

itself is too complex to be anything other than the result of

a prime mover who has instilled his creative purpose in the

whole of creation. They believe that there is plenty of evi-

dence for this view. The earth and its eco systems are so

finely balanced that they cannot possibly be pure chance.

The Creationist Christian would argue that this is no acci-

dent but is the design of a creator God.

Secondly, accepting the Big Bang Theory would mean deny-

ing that God is the creator and preserver of the universe.

Relying solely on science to provide us with accurate knowledge of how the world

came to be is insufficient because it depends purely on observation and misses the

bigger picture about why we are here.

Why do they think this? Well, they see the problem arising with Isaac Newton who

laid the foundation for understanding the world as a machine and God as a watch-

maker who winds up the world up and lets it go on its own way. On this basis there

was no longer any need to admit of divine intervention in sustaining the world and

that any divine intervention would take place through cause-and-effect relation-

ships. With God reduced to this level of intervention, all science has to do is provide

the reason for these cause-and-effect relationships and God is gradually surplus to

requirements.

Creationists take the Bible as literal truth. In the early part of the 20th century, a

movement arose among conservative Protestant Christians in the United States that

sought to defend the basics of the Christian religion. Over time it focused its atten-

tion on defending certain key doctrines, notably the literal truth of the account of

creation given in the Book of Genesis. They were also opposed to the idea of evolu-

tion.

!16

Definition

Creation Science –

The term used for a

range of arguments

put forward to argue

for an understanding

of nature based on

the idea of creation

by God, including the

idea of intelligent de-

sign. It claims to be

science rather than

religion.

Those who keep to a literal understanding of Genesis are sometimes referred to as

‘Young Earth Creationists’, since they believe that the Earth is only a few thousand

years old. In spite of all the evidence to the contrary, this view is held by a substan-

tial number of people, particularly in the United States, where is it taught within

some evangelical churches. It is the view that suggests that humans lived alongside

dinosaurs, denies that the fossil record shows any intermediate stages between one

species and another, and may even claim that the fossils were deposited as a result

of the biblical flood. This form of creationism, although widely held, is broadly in-

compatible with mainstream science, where the evidence for the age of the earth

and the slow process of evolution is overwhelming.

Conservative creationists

Hold to a strictly literal interpretation of Genesis and claim that the world was cre-

ated exactly as described in the Bible. A major problem for a conservative creation-

ist, if the world really was created only a few thousand years ago, is to account for

all the evidence to the contrary, from galaxies that are millions of light years away

from us, to the apparent age of rock strata and fossils. One explanation they suggest

is that God planted all such evidence as a test of our faith.

Progressive creationists

They suggest that the world was made as described in Genesis, but that the refer-

ence to ‘day’ in the account did not literally mean a 24 hours, but a more general

description each successive period of time. This may allow someone to accept scien-

tific data about the age of the Earth, without thereby being disloyal to the Genesis

account.

!17

Analysis The key feature of the debate between those who accept the scientific basis of evolution and creationists, is the question of authority. For scientists, authority comes from the impartial analysis of experimental data and the acceptability of a theory by the scientific community. For creationists, ultimate authority comes from the Bible.

A summary of the Creationist views about the origins of the universe.

• Every word is true and infallible (no errors).

• The bible gives us FACTS about all things including origins of

the universe and life.

• The six days of creation are six 24 hour periods.

• There is no ‘real’ evidence of the Big Bang – what ‘evidence’

there is not ‘proof’ that it took place.

• The world was made between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago. 1

• Human reason is so corrupted by ‘sin’ that there is no way

that humans could determine the truth of our origins – it has

to be revealed by God in the Bible.

• If you do not take the Genesis story literally then you question the whole

Bible’s authority and accuracy. This would logically lead to the doubt or re-

moval of the existence of God Himself…

• If Genesis is not accurate then the idea of God creating humans in His image

(Imago Dei) means that there is no difference between animal life and human

life – humans are not special, we are just another animal.

• There is no mention of the Big Bang in the Bible; therefore, since the Bible is

without error it cannot be true.

• Atheist scientists do not want to consider the concept of God since there is no

tangible evidence for the existence of God in their minds.

• Creationism should be given an equal standing in schools alongside the scien-

tific views on the origins of the universe.

• The Genesis story also gives an explanation of how things went wrong with

humanity and how ‘sin’ entered the world – this is known as ‘The Fall.’ God

made everything perfect but humans chose to ignore the simple rules God put

in place and they rebelled against God – this sin still happens today because

people reject God…

Archbishop James Ussher - (1581-1656), was highly regarded in his day as a churchman and as a scholar. Of his 1

many works, his chronology of the earth has proved the most durable. Based on an intricate relationship of Middle Eastern and Mediterranean histories and the Bible, he concluded that the first day of creation as Sunday 23 Octo-ber 4004 BC…

!18

Archbishop James Ussher - (1581-1656) concluded that the first day of cre-ation as Sunday 23 Octo-

ber 4004 BC…

Strengths Weaknesses

Requires faith alone – no need to understand complicated scientific theories.

Does not take into account scientific evidence which contradicts biblical teachings.

It means that the Bible can be accepted as an authoritative source without having to spend too much time interpreting it – it is simple.

Is too simplistic. Ignores the possibility that the Bible is there as a general guide rather than as something which is to be taken completely at face value.

If the Bible is taken at face value then that means that many other teachings in it might have to be accepted too – some which might not seem all that desirable in today’s world.

!19

Genesis - A Symbolic (Progressive) Interpretation

Most Christians however do not take a literalist view of the

Bible when it comes to creation. Most Christians take a

metaphorical or symbolic approach and look for the mean-

ing of the passage rather than facts about creation. One

person whose understanding of the Bible supports this view

is St. Augustine.

St Augustine was worried that an interpretation of scrip-

ture should not be presented in a way that contradicted

reason and evidence (what we would call ‘science’ today).

He was afraid that such interpretations might result in the

Scriptures being mocked. This comes long before the sci-

ence of today, but shows that the issue of taking the Bible

literally could be a mistake and an embarrassment in terms

of explaining Christian beliefs to those outside the faith

even 1400 years ago. Today some still make the mistake of

taking the words in the Bible as if they were literal, scien-

tific facts even when they contradict science.

!20

Key quote:

‘Let no one think that, because the Psalmist says, “He es-

tablished the earth above the water”, we must use this

testimony of Holy Scripture against these people who en-

gage in learned discussions about the weight of the ele-

ments. They are not bound by the authority of our Bible;

and, ignorant of the sense of these words, they will more

readily scorn our sacred books than disavow the knowledge

they have acquired by unassailable arguments or proved by

the evidence of experience.’

St. Augustine

St Augustine was a Christian

writer, who influenced later

issues in religion and sci-

ence.

He was convinced that,

since God was the creator,

something of his nature

could be seen in his cre-

ation. In particular he saw

God reflected in the high-

est feature of creation:

human reason.

He also felt that the won-

der people feel in examin-

ing the world, should lead

on naturally to worshiping

God, its creator.

His view is that the world is

rational and purposeful,

and this leads us to ac-

knowledge the existence

Following the ideas of St. Augustine the teaching of the Catholic Church focuses on

the symbolism of the story. From this it says Christians can take a number of key

principles.

1.Nothing exists that was not called into being by God

2.Everything that exists is good in its own way

3.Created things are interrelated and interdependent

4.There is an order of complexity

The Catholic Church recognises the value of both theology and scientific research.

They argue that a Christian can accept the theory of evolution as a helpful explana-

tory model, but should avoid thinking that we are the product of some random bio-

logical process. But it also describes as naive, people who take the Genesis 1 & 2 lit-

erally.

What is in the Bible can be a source of truth which is symbolically expressed as well

as factually expressed. The ‘truths’ were presented to their original audience in a

manner that they could appreciate and understand. Chapters 1 & 2 of Genesis were

not written in the light of scientific discovery, so it is mistaken to hold them ac-

countable to scientific examination. The Bible is a handbook of faith, but we still

need to use our intelligence and match religious claims with scientific findings –

symbolically interpreting the creation story allows us to do that. The Biblical cre-

ation story points to God as the creator but it does so through a story which has to

be interpreted as symbolism and myth.

!21

And now in plain English:

‘Don’t think for a minute, that just because it says in the psalms, “God made the earth

above the water”, we must use take the word of the Bible over the words of people

who investigate how our world works. They don’t have to worry about the Bible; and,

unless we help them understand their real meaning, they will much rather reject the

Bible than turn away from the knowledge they have found by valid arguments or

proved by the evidence of experience.’

St. Augustine

For this reason, many Christians look at the Biblical account of creation and see it

for what they believe it actually is: a symbolic account of God’s creation, communi-

cating very important truths about the purpose and meaning of creation. They do

not believe that they have to accept this as what actually took place. This is not

to deny what is revealed in the Bible about creation, but is rather a way of under-

standing the origins and context in which the writing of Genesis occurred so that it

can speak to them in today’s context. For these Christians, science does not under-

mine faith but rather enhances faith so that it does not, in the end, matter if there

was a ‘Big Bang’ that started the universe.

SOURCE:

The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of

many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age

and dimension of the cosmos, the development of life forms and the appearance

of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the Creator,

prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and

wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers.

(The Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 283)

SOURCE:

Times newspaper (Nov 2010)

‘THE hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has published a teaching document

instructing the faithful that some parts of the Bible are not actually true.

The Catholic bishops of England, Wales and Scotland are warning their five million

worshippers, as well as any others drawn to the study of scripture, that they

should not expect “total accuracy” from the Bible.

“We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete his-

torical precision,” they say in The Gift of Scripture’.

Comment:

According to the RC church there are some things that are ‘true’ in the bible and

others that are not. Catholic Bishops make a distinction between ‘religious’ mat-

ters (which are true) and ‘secular’ matters which we should not expect to be writ-

ten with ‘total accuracy’ in the Bible. !22

A summary of the Symbolic (Progressive) Christian view

• God communicates to people through the Bible.

• The Bible was written by people who expressed their own thoughts and ideas about

God as they reflected on their experiences and how they saw the world.

• The evidence for the Big Bang theory is convincing and it suggests that the uni-

verse came into existence 13.7 Billion years ago and earth is roughly 4.6 Billion

years old.

• Humans can use the reason when studying the world and draw their own conclu-

sions from the evidence that they gather.

• If Genesis is read as a symbolic story and metaphorically this leaves the concept of

God open since He is not rejected along with a non-scientific world view and that

humans do have a special place because of attributes that many animals do not

share – e.g. conscience.

• It is possible to believe in the Bible and in Big Bang Theory – see the Christians in

Science website (www.cis.org.uk/)

• The more we learn about the universe and the development of life the more we

can learn about God.

Tasks

Create 2 mind maps One on how Creationists understand and interpreted the Bible and their views about

the origins of humans and life and one on how Christians with a symbolic under-

standing of the Bible view the Bible and their views about the origins of humans and

life.

Make a table in your jotter detailing the strengths and weaknesses of a symbolic in-

terpretation of the Creation stories in Genesis.

Strengths Weaknesses

!23

http://www.cis.org.uk/

Creation and the existence of a Creator God

St. Thomas Aquinas said that the existence of the universe was the best argument

for the existence of God. Many Christians still share this view. They look at the uni-

verse and our world and cannot imagine how it could exist without God causing it to

exist. When Aquinas looked up at the stars:

• He saw meaning and significance because the Earth was at the centre of the

universe,

• He believed the life of mankind was the special object of God’s concern

• He saw a rational universe, established by an ‘unmoved mover’

• He saw something that protects the human mind against the randomness of a

world where everything is a product of chance.

• He believed it gave a sense of meaning and purpose to human life.

Aquinas came up with his 5 Ways or ‘five proofs’ of the existence of God. The first 3

‘proofs’ or ‘ways’ are the basis for the cosmological argument. It is based on the

process of reasoning from effect to cause, based upon observation.

The FIRST way: The Unmoved Mover

Aquinas said that whatever is moved must be moved by anoth-

er which was itself moved or changed. He said that eventually

we get to something which was not moved, because infinite

regression is impossible. Aquinas said that in the universe

everything moves from ‘potentiality’ to ‘actuality’ – e.g. a log

has the potentiality to become a source of heat/fire or a chair

– even the log has to come from somewhere, it moves from a

seed to a plant, to a tree… Again, there must be someone /

something to begin this process – the ‘un-moved mover’ or

‘un-changed changer’. For Aquinas this was God. In short…

1 Some things have been moved

2 All things that are moved are moved by a mover

3 An infinite regress of movers is impossible

4 Therefore, there is an unmoved mover from whom all motion proceeds

5 This mover is what we call God

!24

You cannot have infinite regression

The SECOND way: The Argument of the First

Cause

1 Some things are caused

2 Everything that is caused is caused

by

something else

3 An infinite regression of causation is

impossible

4 Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all that is caused

5 This causer is what we call God

The THIRD way: The Argument from Contingency.

Contingency means something has a dependency for its existence because it did not

have to exist in the first place, or could have been different to what it actually is.

When we look at a chicken for example we know that, even though they exist at this

present moment, there was a time when they either did not exist or existed differ-

ently from the way in which they do now.

For Aquinas it made more sense that there was something that was not a contingent

being. In other words not dependent on another being for its existence. A being like

this is called a necessary being. It is an uncaused being. It is the first cause. The

only being that fits this description is…

!25

Some problems with these arguments:-

• You can’t prove that there is no infinite regression.

• Even if things do go back to a starting point which created

everything, it doesn’t have to be in the form of the Christian

idea of God.

• The world may have no cause.

• If we are saying that we can’t infinitely regress because we

can’t accept infinity, there must be a starting point or a God.

But then something must have created God. How can we ac-

cept that God is an infinite being if we have just rejected infinity?

• If numbers can go on and on forever then why can’t regression do the same?

• This argument depends on your belief in God.

• Why does there have to be a point where nothing existed?

• Objects may come into existence and then perish, but the matter from which they

are made is eternal and carries on necessarily. The world therefore could not not

exist.

• There doesn’t have to be a reason for everything.

!26

The Rise of Science

!27

Aristotle’s Influence on Christianity

Christianity's ideas were shaped partly by the Bible, partly by

the philosophy of Aristotle and partly by the work of Ptolemy.

Aristotle believed that you could learn about the nature of

things by studying them closely but he also believed in per-

fection. This could be seen in things which were complete or

had fulfilled their purpose. It could also be seen in geometry.

The belief was that the circle was the perfect shape.

Ptolemy’s model of the universe was widely accepted for

1400 years. He was influenced by Aristotle. His ‘circular’

cosmology was based on Aristotle’s ideas about the nature of

perfection. Medieval Christianity had a view of the world

which was based on Genesis on Aristotle and on Ptolemy’s

model.

In that view of the universe, Earth was at the centre, sur-

rounded by 10 glassy spheres on which were located the mov-

ing planets and the fixed stars. Everything in the spheres

above the Moon was thought to be perfect and unchanging and God’s power was be-

lieved to filter down to Earth through the influence of the planets, stars etc.. The

heavens were believed to be perfect, and so the movement of the planets had to

follow a perfect form – namely, it had to be circular.

The ideas of Aristotle and Ptolemy were widely accepted and became ingrained in

Christian understanding of the universe. This way of thinking meant that religion not

only allowed itself to be tied to ideas that were going out of date but that it tried to

use the Bible to give these ideas ‘authority’ from God. In a bid to defend their way

of thinking they assumed that any observations which appeared to contradict this

must automatically be wrong because God had to be right.

For example, Aristotle had a huge influence on Thomas Aquinas. Inanimate things

(stars, planets etc) to him seemed to be working together for some purpose and

since inanimate things cannot give themselves a purpose so the purpose must come !28

Aristotle was a Greek philosopher whose ideas of order, purpose and perfection had a huge influence on Christianity. Aristotle and Christianity believe that we can use our intelligence or reason to learn about the universe, ourselves and

from somewhere or someone else. He got the idea of first cause from Aristotle and

used that idea to explain God’s role in the universe. In this way Greek philosophical

ideas had become embedded in Christian thinking e.g.

Ideas of perfection in shapes and movement = the circle

Over time these were backed up by religious authority. So they concluded…

• God made the earth and heavens

• What God makes is perfect

• The circle is perfect.

• Therefore the planets will move in perfect circles.

It was good that Aristotle's teachings were rediscovered because of the insights he

had because it is always good to know how people thought in the past. But it meant

Christianity tied itself too closely to his method and ideas. The ideas of finding the

purpose of things and perfection rather than simply observing them did not help re-

ligion and science grow together

However, Aristotle’s influence was not all bad. Remember he believed that you could

learn about the nature of things by studying them closely. This led medieval Chris-

tians to believe that the world is created good and is therefore worth examining.

The also believed that since God had made the world in a rational and ordered way,

and it is capable of being understood correctly by human reason.

The also believed that nature is not holy or untouchable. Therefore it may be exa-

mined and, if necessary, changed. As we read in the book of Genesis, humankind had

been given the right to ‘subdue the earth’ and that would justify the development of

technologies for human advancement.

!29

The Rise of Science

Astronomers struggled against this back-

ground of religious authority, which gave

Greek philosophical ideas of perfection pri-

ority over fresh observations and experimen-

tal evidence. Christian beliefs in the me-

dieval period were so closely linked to the

philosophy of Aristotle that those who de-

fended Christian teaching against the rise of

new science were actually defending an old philosophy against a new one. They did

this because they felt an attack on Aristotle was an attack on Christian teaching.

Modern science has its origins in ideas that developed between the 16th and 18th cen-

turies. Early scientists developed a way of working with ideas and evidence, a way of

conducting experiments and evaluating results that set up the distinctive features of

science.

SOURCE: Paul Davies (British astrophysicist)

‘To me, the true miracle of nature is to be found in the ingenious and

unswerving lawfulness of the cosmos, a lawfulness that permits complex order

to emerge from chaos, life to emerge from inanimate matter, and conscious-

ness to emerge from life, without the need for the occasional supernatural

prod; a lawfulness that produces beings who not only ask great questions of

existence, but who, through science and other methods of enquiry, are even

beginning to find answers.’ 2

Davies is a scientist who accepts that there are different types of knowledge that

come through different methods of enquiry. As you would expect the questions you

ask give different answers to questions you also get different perspectives by looking

at the world through different ‘goggles’. If you wear scientific goggles all the time

you see scientific answers and that is all. If however you wear religious goggles,

http://www.firstthings.com/article/1995/08/003-physics-and-the-mind-of-god-the-templeton-prize-address-242

!30

again you will only see religious answers. However, if you see the world with both

you might see ‘the BIG picture’.

SOURCE: If you look with the eyes of faith you see God in nature, both in creation

and in the continued existence of the universe. But if you look only with the eye of

reason and of cause and effect you may not see Him. This is why the Creationist can

see God while the man who does not look on the phenomena of nature with the

same faith does not see him there.

(John W. Klotz, Creationist Viewpoints, in A Symposium on Creation, Vol.1, Baker

Book House 1968, pp. 34–52)

The first scientists were actually religious people! They were usually philosophers

and theologians who, marvelling at the wonders of the world they lived in looked for

explanations for how the work of the creator God actually functioned. However, this

common purpose and vision became fragmented and by the 16th century there was a

separation of religion and science.

Up until this time, our understanding of the world relied on observation and mathe-

matical calculations based on the belief that the earth was the centre of the uni-

verse. Science basically tried to fit itself to the Christian view of the universe as

found in the Bible and as presented by theologians, using the physics and philosophy

of Plato and Aristotle. The reality of the universe was explained in religious terms

with a specifically earth-centred (geocentric) view of the universe being taught as

supported in the book of Genesis. God made the world and everything that moved

therein was caused to do so by him.

The people who developed these ideas were often Christians, and their conclusions

did not necessarily conflict with religious ideas. However, the main feature of this

rise of science was the belief that human reason – our intellect, unaided by God, was

capable of understanding the way the world works. This threatened both the autho-

rity of religion. There are a number of important people whose observations contra-

dicted religious ideas from the past and whose arguments with the Church set the

tone for later confrontations between science and religion.

!31

Nicolaus Copernicus (1473 – 1543) The first person to challenge this geocentric view of the

universe was a Catholic priest named Nicolaus Copernicus!

He was employed by the Church to produce a new calen-

dar and, as a good astronomer, he set about gathering ev-

idence from his observation of the stars to be able to do

this. He noticed that there was no change in the position

of the stars when they were viewed from two different

places on earth and so he calculated that the stars must

be further away from the earth than the sun. He pub-

lished his findings in his work ‘De Revolutionibus Orbium’ in which he claimed

• that the Sun was at the centre of the universe

• that the Earth rotated every day and revolved around the Sun once a year.

This was a very important development because it challenged the geocentric view of

the universe held by the Church (informed by the philosophy of Aristotle) with a sun

centred (heliocentric) view of the universe based on mathematical calculations and

observations. This suggested that the view held by the Church was wrong.

This seemed to demote the Earth from its position in the centre of the universe,

making it difficult to see why humanity should have any importance in the universe.

This view contradicted the cosmology of Ptolemy, which had become an important

part of the Christian view of the universe. When Copernicus’ book was published,

the preface by a Lutheran theologian suggested that Copernicus was simply offering

a more useful way of thinking about the universe, but not claiming that his ideas

were the way things actually were.

!32

Key thought:

The preface to Copernicus’ work clearly recognises that religious authority might feel

threatened by the development of new theories based on observation and reason, rather

than on an unquestioning acceptance of the authority of ancient thinkers.

Two principles were established by Copernicus’ work, which are important for under-

standing religion and science issues:

1. Scientific theories should be based on carefully gathered evidence.

2. Ideas established by the ancient Greeks about the universe which had become

incorporated into Christian religious thinking, might actually be wrong.

This last point is most important. Christian teaching had identified itself with Aristo-

tle’s thinking to such an extent that any challenge to that philosophy was regarded

as a challenge to Christian teaching itself. Defending Christianity and defending Aris-

totle became linked in a way that brought Christianity into unnecessary conflict with

the emerging sciences.

Other Discoveries In 1572, Tycho Brahe (1546-1601) observed a new star. This

meant that the medieval belief that everything above the

Moon was perfect and unchanging could not be true. He had

discovered something that the theory at that time said could

not happen.

Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) used both observation and mathematics to develop the

laws of planetary motion. He discovered that the orbit of Mars

was not circular at all, but elliptical. This was a huge break

with Aristotelian thought which held onto the idea that per-

fect motion was circular; therefore the stars and planets must

move in circles.

Key question:

In what ways did the discoveries of Tycho Brahe and Johannes Kepler challenge both

the old science and Christian teaching of the day?

!33

Galileo (1564 – 1642)

The key to understanding Galileo’s ideas is based on the

importance he gave to reason and observation in reaching

his conclusions. Galileo came to the conclusion that the

world was not the centre of the universe and reasserted

the Copernican view that the sun is at the centre of the

universe. He believed that what occurred in the universe

was based on mathematical laws and he came to these

conclusions by making his observations using a telescope!

In 1616, the Holy Office said that it was ‘revealed

truth’ (i.e. found in the Scriptures) that the Sun moved round the Earth, and

Galileo’s view was therefore condemned.

Rather than accept this old view based on the Bible and Aristotle, Galileo challenged

them and based his challenge not on how we understand the Bible or Aristotle but

based this on his observations. He observed several things that led him to conclude

that the earth could not be at the centre of the universe and that Ptolemy’s model

did not properly explain things e.g. sunspots, the moons of Jupiter and the fact that

Venus had phases. In 1632, Galileo went on to publish his Dialogue of the Two Chief

World Systems, in which he compared Copernicus’ view with the traditional one

based on Aristotle and Ptolemy. He came to the conclusion that Copernicus was right

and moreover claimed that Copernicus had described the actual universe and not

simply offered a useful alternative way of making calculations.

Galileo was not anti-Christian, but his theories were considered to challenge what

had been revealed by God in the Bible, and, because the Christian world-view of the

time was a blend of theology and the philosophy of Aristotle, Galileo seemed to be

challenging the whole system on which the Church’s world-view was based. He was

put on trial as a heretic and was found guilty, forced to take back what he had said

(recant), and his works were banned. His trial marks a very negative turning point in

the relationship between religion and science. He was condemned because he chal-

lenged a literal interpretation of scripture, and the authority of the Catholic Church.

In its place he had set reason and observation. [350 years later the Vatican ac-

cepted his findings… ]

!34

Galileo actually believed that in discovering more about the universe we actually

discover more about God, and that science and the Bible were complementary to

each other. However, by showing that we could gain knowledge about the world by

observation and mathematical calculations, his theories paved the way for under-

standing the universe without a need for God.

Scientists no longer needed theology, the Church or the Bible to decide on the way

the world worked because they could discover this for themselves. This marked a

massive shift in how humanity eventually came to understand its place in the world.

If science can provide the answers to the great questions concerning the origins of

the universe, then religion only has any use in supplying the answer to questions that

science hasn’t managed to answer yet, but probably will do in the future. This gave

rise to the view of religion as belief in a ‘God of the gaps’. God was the answer to

the gaps in human knowledge.

This does not mean that Galileo was not religious. His own view was that God had

provided two different but complementary ways of looking at the world and under-

standing God: one through scripture and the other through nature. Those who con-

demned him would not allow the second of these to contradict a literal interpreta-

tion of the first.

!35

Key thought:

Galileo wasn’t quite right about things either. He said that the sun was fixed and that

the earth moved. The Church said that the earth was fixed and the sun moved. That was

the principle difference between them. From the standpoint of relativity, however,

Galileo was (strictly speaking) no more correct than the Church. The sun and the earth

move relative to one another. The crucial difference was that Galileo was prepared to

consider a perspective that did not place humankind at the centre of things.

Isaac Newton (1642-1727)

Newton developed a natural philosophy (science) using

mathematical principles. He set out the laws of motion

and, famously because of an apple, recognised the nature

of gravity. Newton devised a system of physical laws that

explained planetary motion. Therefore the world moved

and changed according to fixed laws and, once started,

would continue to do so without further external influ-

ence.

This overall approach had two enormous implications for religion:

• Aristotle thought that divine spirits were the cause of movement, without which

everything would remain at rest. Newton provided an alternative explanation for

movement.

• Although the idea of God might be useful for explaining how the world started,

God was not needed to explain its continuing existence

and motion, because it was all a natural working out of

previous causes, following mathematical principles.

Newton himself was religious, and he used an argument

from design to support belief in the existence of God –

namely that God lay behind and designed the mechanistic

world. The world might work on mathematical principles,

but God had provided those principles.

Newton’s science was welcomed by many Christians because

it was rational. He ideas were used as a basis for a ‘Natural

Religion’ – based on deism and the idea that a rational uni-

verse had been created by a rational God. Newtonian sci-

ence offered the prospect of a world which itself displayed

reason and order, as a sign of its divine creator.

!36

Key thought:

Once God is removed

from active involve-

ment in the world,

and is identified sim-

ply as the author of

its rational and pre-

dictable physical laws

and structures, it is

only one further step

to accept those struc-

tures but deny that

they had a divine de-

signer. What was seen

by some as making

God rational, others

saw as making him op-

Questions:

An Analysis Question

Explain how developments in science challenged the beliefs of Christianity and the

philosophy of Aristotle that were part of those beliefs.

An Evaluation Question

To what extent was the Christian view of the universe challenged by the discoveries

of scientists like Copernicus, Galileo, Brahe and Kepler?

!37

The Big Bang Theory

!38

The Origins of the Universe

Theories about the nature and origins of the universe have an impact on understand-

ing how humanity fits into the overall scheme of things. This fact alone places cos-

mology at the heart of issues connecting religion and science.

The Big Bang theory

Big Bang – popular way of describing the event, about

13.7 billion years ago, that marks the origins of the

present known universe. The theory is an effort to ex-

plain what happened at the very beginning of our uni-

verse. Scientists have shown that our universe did in

fact have a beginning. Before that moment there was

nothing; during and after that moment there was

something: our universe. The big bang theory is an ef-

fort to explain what happened during and after that

moment.

According to the standard theory, our universe sprang

into existence as "singularity". Singularities are thought

to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are ar-

eas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is

thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually

squished into infinite density. These zones of infinite

density are called "singularities." Our universe is

thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, in-

finitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity.

Where did it come from? We don't know.

Why did it appear? We don't know.

Why did it expand? We don’t know.

After its appearance, it inflated (the "Big Bang"), ex-

panded and cooled, going from very, very small and

!39

SOURCE:

“And so, from nothing our

universe begins…

In a single blinding pulse…

the singularity assumes

heavenly dimensions, space

beyond conception. The

first lively second…

produces gravity and the

other forces that govern

physics. In less than 1

minute the universe is a

million billion miles across

and growing fast. There is a

lot of heat now, 10 billion

degrees of it, enough to

begin the nuclear reactions

that create the lighter

elements – hydrogen and

helium, with a dash of

lithium. In 3 minutes, 98 %

of all the matter there is or

will ever be has been

produced. We have a

universe. And it was all

done in about the time it

takes to make a sandwich.”

very, very hot, to the size and temperature of our current universe. It continues to

expand and cool to this day and we are inside of it. This is the Big Bang theory.

Evidence to support the Big Bang Theory

1. The universe had a beginning

“ The very early universe was structurally very simple, be-

ing an almost uniform expanding ball of matter/energy.

One of the reasons why cosmologists can talk with a fair

degree of confidence about that early stage is that things

then were uncomplicated and they are therefore easy to

model. After almost 14 billion years of evolving process,

the universe has become very complex, with the human

brain the most complicated system that science has en-

countered.

These evolutionary processes involve an interplay between two aspects of the natur-

al world - ‘chance and necessity’. Only a very small proportion of what is theoreti-

cally possible has actually happened and ‘chance’ stands for the contingent detail of

actual events. For example, in the very early universe there were slight fluctuations

in the distribution of matter… The actual details of this cosmic structure were mat-

ters of chance, but the process also involved lawful ‘necessity’ in the form of the

action of gravity. Slightly more matter ‘here’ implied slightly stronger gravitational

attraction towards ‘here’, initiating a snowballing process by which the galaxies

condensed.”

!40

Sir John Polkinghorne is

a British particle physi-

cist who, after 25 years

of research and discov-

ery in academia, re-

The Universe is Expanding

Fr. Georges Lemaître, a Belgian cosmologist, Catholic

priest, and father of the Big Bang theory proposed the idea

of an expanding universe. Lemaître realised that his calcu-

lations predicted the expansion of the universe that obser-

vations were only then beginning to suggest. Other scien-

tists including Einstein had concluded that the static mod-

els of the universe they had worked on for many years

were unsatisfactory.

Attention was drawn to Lemaître’s work because when

combined with Edwin Hubble’s observations, which had

shown that the distant galaxies all appeared to be moving

away from us it supported the idea of an expanding uni-

verse. Lemaître’s work convinced most of astronomers that

the universe was expanding. Hubble later confirmed that

the universe was expanding - proving all of the galaxies

aremoving away from each other. He detected the redshift

of a galaxy's spectrum. Red shift can easily be explained by

comparing it to The Doppler effect. As light travels away

from the observer...it shows more red. If objects in space

are static there is no change in the wavelength of light.

A year later, Lemaître proposed that the universe began at a finite point in time. If

the universe is expanding, he argued, it was smaller in the past, and working back in

time should lead to a time when everything in the universe was packed together in

an extremely dense state. Appealing to the new quantum theory of matter, Lemaître

argued that the physical universe was initially a single particle - a “primeval atom”

as he called it - which disintegrated in an explosion, giving rise to space and time

and the expansion of the universe that continues to this day. This is know as Big Bang

cosmology.

!41

Cosmic Background Radiation

In 1965 astronomers found that their recep-

tion had a noisy fuzz in the background. This

fuzz seemed to be coming from every point

in the universe. Eventually they agreed that

this background fuzz was leftover heat in the

form of radiation from the Big Bang. The

background heat is still there and still cooling

some 15 billion years later. This cosmic background radiation can be observed and

measured and mapped today. This is evidence of a moment in the Universe’s past

where everything began in an instant.

The Relative Abundance of Elements:

The theory predicted the existence in the universe of stable, light

elements (including, mainly, hydrogen which makes up about 90% of

the atoms in the universe) produced at the earliest stage and this has

been found to be the case. The Universe today contains the ele-

ments, the basic atomic and chemical building blocks for everything

that exists.

The next development came with particle physics and a new theory for the very ear-

liest moments – the ‘inflation’ stage – the point at which energy and matter seemed

to appear from nothing. It is triggered by what is called an ‘instanton’ – a micro-

scopic object of extreme density, but without any ‘before’ or ‘outside’, but capable

of expanding into an infinite universe.

Activities & Tasks:

1. What evidence is there that the universe had a beginning and is expanding?

!42

What could this mean for Christianity?

• a universe that is self contained has no need of a creator.

• it deprives ‘God’ of any possible evidence for or against his existence, for all

evidence is limited to the world.

It is worth remembering that one of the key people responsible for the Big Bang the-

ory is a Catholic priest – someone who believed in a creator God.

Some Christians who would say that, even if the universe was created by the stan-

dard ‘big bang’ theory, there needs to be some supernatural force to explain why

that happened – and that, of course, is beyond the realm of science. It also takes it

into the realm that is beyond the limits of human reason and experience, and one

that the atheist will say is irrelevant.

!43

Key question, posed by Stephen Hawking

‘So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the

universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would

have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?’

Key quote:

Professor Neil Turok who developed the idea of the ‘instanton’ commented:

‘Many people ask whether this has implications for the existence of a creator or divine

intervention. Personally I don’t think it does. But if a divine being wanted to create a

universe, the simplest way to do it would be to use our instanton.’

The Daily Telegraph, March 14th, 1998

So is the universe Designed or Pure Chance

On current scientific thinking, the elements we are made of were

cooked up in giant nuclear furnaces—stars—bigger than our sun. Then

the stars expanded scattering the atoms into space. Some of the scat-

tered atoms eventually became human flesh and bone. So it seems

that if the universe were not as old or huge, the atoms of our bodies

would not have been made, which rather stands the argument for in-

significance on its head. It could be said that God went to an awful

lot of trouble to create us! However, the sense of human smallness

was around long before modem astronomy. This psalm also shows why

we are significant according to Christian teachings.

!44

SOURCE:

George Ellis (British astrophysicist):

"Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws

that make this [complexity] possible. Re-

alization of the complexity of what is ac-

complished makes it very difficult not to

use the word 'miraculous' without taking a

stand as to the ontological status of the

word."

SOURCE:

Paul Davies (British astrophysicist):

"There is for me powerful evidence that there is

something going on behind it all....It seems as

though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers

to make the Universe... The impression of design is

overwhelming".

SOURCE:

Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic):

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in

the power of reason, the story ends like a bad

dream. He has scaled the mountains of igno-

rance; he is about to conquer the highest peak;

as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is

greeted by a band of theologians who have been

sitting there for centuries.

SOURCE:

Charles Darwin

‘Another source of conviction in the exis-

tence of God...follows from the...impos-

sibility of conceiving this immense and

wonderful universe, including man with

his capacity for looking far backwards and

far into the future, as the result of blind

chance or necessity.’

SOURCE: Psalm 8

‘When I consider your heavens... the moon and the stars... what is man that you are mind-ful of him, the son of man that you care for him?’

The Goldilocks’effect…

Whatever way the universe began, it appears to be very ‘fine-tuned’ for our existence. If

any number of physical properties were minutely different, even by about one part in 10 to

the power of 60, we would not be here. So if it is out by as little as 1 in

1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 we

do not exist.

The physical constants and laws of nature, like Baby Bear’s

bed and porridge, are ‘just right’ for us. This doesn’t provide a knockdown argument for the

existence of God, but it is fully consistent with a universe planned by God.

For further information read pages 95 - 103 of Belief and Science

Essay:

Discuss the impact of the Big Bang theory on our understanding of the universe

and how it affects Christian beliefs about the origins of the universe.

!45

Key quote:

The big bang cries out for a divine explanation. It forces the conclusion that nature

had a defined beginning. I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a su-

pernatural force that is outside of space and time could have done that.

Francis Cousins The Language of God, p67

The Scientific Method

!46

Scientific enquiry

The word ‘science’ comes from the Latin word scientia, which means knowledge.

Science is about gaining knowledge about ourselves and the world we live in. How-

ever, there are different types of knowledge: the study of how the human body

works is called biology; the study of the use of colours, shapes and composition is

called art; the study of numbers and formulae is called mathematics; and the study

of the existence of God is called theology. These are all forms of knowledge and so

they are ‘sciences’ in their own right. However, today we tend to think of biology,

chemistry and physics as science because we believe that science is about knowl-

edge. Why is this?

The Scientific Method

Science is based on an analysis of evidence, and the development of hypotheses

about the universe and life. Historically, the foundation of the modern scientific

method required three things:

1. A trust in evidence and experiment as a way of increasing knowledge.

2. A willingness to challenge all claims to truth, including the Church and

Aristotle.

3. A belief that the world is both orderly and intelligible.

There is no reason, in principle, why these should bring science into conflict with

religion, because:

1. The evidence of the senses had always been taken into consideration by

religion.

2. Human reason and the ability to study and discuss ideas in scripture did

not destroy but enlivened religion.

3. The traditional cosmological argument for the existence of God was a clas-

sic example of linking religious belief with the conviction of orderliness in the

universe & science looks for orderliness.

The only real challenge was that the emerging scientific method was organised, self-

contained and – above all – successful at understanding the universe. !47

Key Principles in Science

Deduction

Deduction is really all about knowing the rules. Take a

game of chess. If you know the rules of the game and

you know how each piece moves, then you can deduce

what moves are likely to be made by someone playing

the game. Deduction is fine, as long as you know what

the rules of the game are and understand the assump-

tions that a given deduction is based on.

Let’s go back to Galileo to illustrate the point we want to make here. If you work on

the mediaeval Christian view of the universe you make the assumption that the

planets are perfect and move around the earth in a circle because that is the perfect

shape, then you will make certain deductions about the planets based on this as-

sumption. This is fine, until Galileo turns up and suggests that the planets do not ac-

tually travel around the earth in circles. He challenges the assumption based on his

own observations and shows that the previous deductions were inaccurate!

Empiricism the view that all knowledge starts with sense experience

Hypotheses An idea used to explain something which has not yet been proved

Deductionthe process of working out the logical conclusion of a general princi-

ple

InductionIf something happens in all observed situations then it must happen

in all situations no matter where.

FalsificationScientists must be prepared to have their theory disproved or modi-

fied

VerificationThe process of confirming something through observing evidence that

supports it

Occam’s Razor The simplest explanation is usually the correct explanation

!48

Induction and hypothesis

Science uses the inductive method of enquiry by gathering

as much relevant evidence as possible and drawing conclu-

sions from it in the form of what are called hypotheses.

A hypothesis comes from the Greek word hypotithenai

which means to propose, suppose, or literally: put under.

This means that a hypothesis is an assumption that is put under an argument to sup-

port it, or a suggested explanation for a group of facts or phenomena, accepted as

likely to be true. Based on a hypothesis, scientists would expect results to follow

from an experiment. If this proves to be the case then the hypothesis would be tak-

en as verified, or it would be modified according to the results of the experiment, if

this was necessary. Then the scientist would then argue for a theory which will pre-

dict what will happen if a series of events are put in place.

This is not a cast-iron guarantee of certainty. What induction provides is a high de-

gree of probability that, given x and y, z will naturally follow. But this is not neces-

sarily the case because it is entirely possible that an additional piece of information

will prove the hypothesis wrong. Here’s one model of the induction method and a

way to remember it.

Only Hippos Eat Vultures

ObservationYou observe something and you want to find out how it works, how it came to be, what caused it to be the way it is… You ask a question

Hypothesis

You gather as much evidence as is possible, making sure the evidence is relevant, and then we draw conclusions from the evidence to get a potential answer to the question

ExperimentationYou carry out a number of experiments under controlled conditions to test your hypothesis to prove or disprove the hypothesis

VerificationYou share your hypothesis and results with other scien-tists who can verify what you have found

!49

If the experiments do not support the hypothesis then the hypothesis needs to be

adapted or rejected. If at a later date new evidence comes to light to disprove a

theory in science then it is rejected.

The scientific method relies on ‘Empirical Evidence’ – that which can be obtained by

the 5 senses…

Strengths of the method

• It is objective not based on opinion.

• It is based on physical evidence which we can test.

• Science works. It has produced space travel, mobile phones and computers.

Weaknesses of the method

• Nothing can be absolutely proved by science.

• A theory is the best available explanation of the data. It is always open to

correction.

• There are many different scientific methods.

• Science progresses through hunches and guesses which are not really objec-

tive.

• Also, the progress is subjective because it can be influenced by institutional

concerns and vested interests.

The main thing is that for science, the importance of testing, observing, measuring

and verifying is all that matters and that seems to conflict with what is claimed by

religious language. It seems to be a choice between having a religious explanation of

the world and risking being accused of living in the dark ages, or choosing a scientif-

ic approach to explaining the world and being accused of rejecting belief in God.

Evaluating the scientific method

Science’s greatest strength is also the thing that limits its claims. Science moves

forward by challenging existing ideas and replacing them with new ones based on

new evidence. In the past science challenged the teachings of Aristotle that were

used by Christianity to support a literal understanding of the early chapters of Gene-

sis. Now the ideas that science is challenging are its own earlier ideas, using the

same principles that gave rise to the earlier theories.

!50

If a scientific statement has any positive content and value, there will always be

a chance that it will be proved false. (Falsification)

Proof is obtained by the interpretation of the best available evidence.

In a sense, science is only partially true, by definition.

There is no absolute certainty when it comes to theories

All scientific observation is subject to analysis and interpretation

Even the way the question is phrased can affect the outcome of the research

A good scientist will never say: “This is the truth!” They will say: “This is the best

explanation!”

That does not mean that observation and experiment are not the best method of

discovering facts about the physical world. They are!

Falsification

Karl Popper devised the falsification principle. The idea

is that no theory is completely correct, but if not

falsified, it can be accepted as truth. For many of the

sciences, the idea of falsifiability is a useful tool for

generating theories that are testable and realistic.

The advantage of Popper's idea is that theories can be

revised or replaced when more knowledge and resources

are available. Even long accepted theories such as

Gravity, Relativity and Evolution are increasingly

challenged and adapted.

This is how science moves forward. It accepts that the

knowledge we have today might turn out to be the

mistakes of tomorrow. The constant search for new information will either support

or challenge existing theories.

!51

Occam’s Razor

Occam’s Razor is basically this; “All things being equal the simplest solution is

usually the best”. Originally there were two parts that are considered the basis of

Occam's razor, and they were originally written in Latin:

• Plurality should not be posited without necessity

(Don’t assume there is more to it if there is no evidence for it)

• It is pointless to do with more what is done with less

(Keep it simple and efficient)

What this means is that simple explanations come from evidence we already know to

be true, like empirical evidence -- information gathered through our senses.

Logical positivism

Scientists come to their conclusions based on observations, testing, measuring over a

sustained period of time. In philosophy, their methodology is called empiricism be-

cause it is based on what is learned from experience. Logical positivism is actually

logical empiricism because it says that the only real knowledge is based on what was

empirically verifiable. When it comes to the origins of the universe, logical posi-

tivism rejects the idea of a creator God because…

• God is not something that we can prove God’s by observation, measurement

or testing.

• Therefore God does not exist,

• The concept of God is entirely meaningless because it is not verifiable!

This is a view that many scientists take today, as well as many ordinary people who

believe that science has provided all the answers. The problem with this view, how-

ever, is that it falls prey to its own premise of verification (testability). It cannot be

verified that a statement is only meaningful if it can be verified!

!52

Is science really objective

Until the 19th century, it was accepted that the scientific method was as ‘objective’

as possible, (not influenced by our ideas or beliefs) and that evidence should not be

distorted because of the particular views of the scientist. By the 20th century it was

recognised that the way in which we observe things affects what we observe. It does

not mean that we are unable to assess evidence in an impartial way.

Essay Question

Analyse the strengths and weaknesses of the scientific method

!53

Key thought:

In criticising Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion, Alister McGrath (in The Dawkins Delu-

sion, 2007) makes the important point that evidence needs to be examined objectively,

recognising that there may be more than one valid interpretation and conclusion to be

drawn from it. It is all too easy for those who have a particular belief, whether it be

science’s monopoly on truth, or the inerrancy of the biblical account of creation, to

refuse to take seriously any alternative interpretation.

The Theory of Evolution

!54

Evolution

The theory of evolution, based on natural selection, provides a way to explain the

appearance of ‘design’ in nature. This is why it is at the heart of the debate be-

tween science and those who hold a literal view of the Bible, with each species cre-

ated separately by God.

Geology

Most people including Isaac Newton, saw the wonders of the

world as pointing to an intelligent designer and creator: God. Un-

til the end of the 18th century, most people believed

• the world was less than 6000 years old

• each species had been created separately

• no species could develop out of another.

These beliefs matched a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 & 2,

but they were about to be challenged by developments in geolo-

gy and biology.

As geologists collected information about rock strata and the fos-

sils contained in them, they noticed that the deeper layers were

older than those at the surface, and the fossils in the older layers

showed life forms very different from anything found today.

Some geologists believed the six days of creation in Genesis meant

six geological periods. They imagined separate acts of creation tak-

ing place successively. This gave rise to a number of ‘catastrophe’

theories, in which there were several acts of creation, followed by

catastrophes, the latest of which had been the flood as described

in Genesis.

Other geologists argued that the process of change was going on

all the time, and there was no need for separate acts of creation

in order to account for the different strata and fossils. On its own,

this was not a problem for religion but it did require some rethink-

ing of the mechanics of creation.

!55

Key thought:

The idea of succes-

sive catastrophes

and creations might

come closer to the

truth than was re-

alised.

We now know that

there have been

major global ex-

tinctions of species

– the most recent

was about 65 mil-

lion years ago and

wiped out the di-

nosaurs.

Darwin and Natural Selection

In 1831 he was offered a place of board HMS Beagle as a

naturalist, to explore wildlife in South America. He re-

turned in 1836, convinced, by the variety of species he had

seen, that one species must indeed develop out of another.

He spent the next twenty years gathering evidence and de-

veloping his theory of natural selection, publishing The

Origin of Species in 1859.

The book was hugely controversial because for the first time it suggested a mecha-

nism - natural selection - by which species might develop.

What happens in the process of evolution is that primitive forms of life give way to

more sophisticated forms of life. Life today can be traced back to a common origin.

This means that one species can be traced to another species. Human beings can

therefore be traced back in this process of linking to a type of ‘ape’ species, which

in turn developed from some form of mammal and so on, to the most basic form of

life at the beginning of life itself.

On the Galapagos Islands in the Pacific Ocean,

there are a variety of different finches, which

vary in the shape and size of their beaks. It ap-

pears that the finches came from mainland South

America, and then diverged in form. The distance

between the islands meant that the finches on

different islands could not interbreed. Different

populations also became specialised for different food sources, birds with thin, sharp

beaks eating insects and birds with large, sturdy beaks eating nuts. Darwin collected

some of these finches when he visited the Galapagos Islands, and it is often stated

that the finches were key to the development of his theory of evolution. !56

Key question

The theory of natural selection provides a natural and straightforward mechanism

that explains the appearance of ‘design’. This renders the idea of a ‘designer’ (God)

unnecessary. But does that automatically mean that God does not exist?

How Natural Selection Works

• within any species there are individual members whose characteristics help

them to survive better than others.

• those who survive to adulthood are able to breed, passing on those character-

istics to the next generation.

• in successive generations, those characteristics which improve the chance of

survival will be found in an increasing number of individuals within the

species, because they will be the ones who survive to breed.

• so the characteristics of a species are gradually modified in favour of those

that boost survival.

• In this way nature selects those fittest to survive.

Humans had done this artificially for a long time and bred domestic animals for par-

ticular characteristics e.g. greyhound racing, a breeder could, through a process of

selection, developing a faster greyhound is very similar to what occurs in nature.

Competition for food

He also observed that populations were

controlled by the amount of food avail-

able, and where there was competition

for available food, only the strongest

were able to survive. He thus provided a

key component in the theory of natural

selection. Darwin came to the conclusion

that random variations which gave an advan-

tage to a plant or animal in relation to sur-

vival resulted in the survival of the fittest

species.

!57

DNA

All living things have DNA. Human DNA has about 25,000 genes. So,

every cell (of which the human body has about 30 trillion!) contains

the persons DNA.

There is also a basic similarity between all forms of life. The genetic

difference between species is often quite small. Today the evidence

for evolution comes also from genetics. Certain genes play very sim-

ilar roles in different species, and this suggests that, if you trace

those species back, you will come to a common ancestor, from

which each has inherited its particular genetic material.

The genetics of evolution is presented as though the whole process were random.

This is not correct. Gene mutations do arise at random, but once those mutations

have appeared, some succeed and some do not. In other words, there is a self-se-

lection process that operates, depending on the ability of that particular muta-

tion to survive in its environment. Change only builds on mutations that have given

a positive advantage.

When 2 of a species mate, their offspring is a unique mixture of the DNA

each of the 2 partners has.

Sometimes DNA mutates and things change slightly in the next genera-

tion.

Sometimes this mutation can be bad...

Sometimes this mutation can be good and useful.

Useful and good DNA are passed on to the next offspring.

Sudden changes in the environment can affect evolution.

This mechanism is very simple. In fact Professor Steve Jones writing about his book

Almost like a Whale (Doubleday, 1999) describes life as ‘a series of successful mis-

takes’, since it is the genetic errors that produce the variations that give rise to nat-

ural selection. That is exactly what evolution is, and it highlights why, as a theory, it

is so amazing but also so threatening to those who see God as the designer of every-

thing. !58

Why was the theory of evolution a problem for Christianity?

• It challenged the unique status of the human species

• More crucially, it challenged the notion of purpose in creation.

• There is no externally determined purpose in their survival.

• The whole of the natural is based on a process of change that is fundamentally im-

personal.

• That appeared to be contrary to the idea of a God who created the world for a

purpose, and whose will is being worked out within it.

Recent Christian responses to Darwin’s theory of evolution.

Some problems for Christians.

⇨ God, as a designer, becomes ‘redundant’ with evolution.

⇨ The authority of scripture is challenged – the Bible is not literally ‘true.

⇨ The universe has no purpose, evolution is an impersonal mechanism.

⇨ God using natural selection as the mechanism of creation is cruel since crea-

tures only make progress when they are forced to adapt to their environment

when they suffer.

⇨ Some religious leaders feared that a less-than-literal reading of the biblical

story of creation would result in a loss of faith.

Key area of debate:

The source of knowledge and how we can be sure of what we know…

• Scientists base their understanding on empirical evidence and experimental

data.

• Creationists place their ultimate authority for knowledge of origins in the

Bible.

!59

Key thought:

From a scientific point of view, creationism is simply wrong, because it makes a dis-

tinction between human and other species which is simply not in line with the common

body of genetic information through which all species are formed. Species are not as

different from one another as creationists wish to assert.

Conservative Creationists – strict, literal interpretation of Genesis. The age of the

rock strata are seen to be irrelevant – God planted the evidence to test people’s

faith.

Progressive Creationists – the world was made as described in Genesis but the ref-

erence to ‘day’ did not literally mean a 24-hour period. The Hebrew word for day

‘Yom’ can mean both a 24 hour period and an indeterminate period of time. So each

day should be taken as a period of time. This allows someone to accept the scientific

evidence without being disloyal to Genesis account.

Catholicism: Evolution can account for the development of species, but there are

moments when God intervenes directly. In 1950, the official Catholic teaching stated

that the body of Adam may have been developed by a process of natural selection

from other species, but that his soul was created directly by God.

A different Catholic approach, argues that human beings are made wholly by evolu-

tion, but also – from a religious point of view – wholly by God. In such an approach,

God and evolution as not seen as mutually exclusive explanations of human origins,

but evolution is seen as the mechanism through which God operates.

In 1996 the Pope said that evolution could be recognised as ‘more than a

hypothesis’.

Intelligent Design - is the claim that "certain features of the universe and of living

things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as

natural selection." It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for

the existence of God, but one which avoids specifying the nature or identity of the

designer. This view is held by many American ‘Bible Believing’ Christians. Intelligent

design supporters question whether random mutation and natural selection com-

pletely explain the deep structure of life. But they do not doubt that evolution oc-

curred.

!60

In the 19th century, the religious reception given to Darwin’s ideas was mixed – some

church leaders welcoming his ideas, others opposing them. This was because it

linked humans to other species, and gave the sense that humans were no longer

unique and special in the order of things.

It was really only in the 1920s, particularly in the southern states in the USA that a

major clash occurred between the idea of evolution and a literalist approach to the

Biblical account of creation. In particular it took the form of a challenge to the idea

of evolution being taught in schools – a debate that continues to the present day.

Paley’s Teleological/Design Argument

‘If you were walking across a field and came

across a stone, you would presume it had always

been there, requiring no purpose or design. If you

came across a watch however, you would ask

what it was and where it came from. You would

see that it is very complex. You would conclude

that such an object could not have just appeared

randomly, or have just existed forever, but that

someone must have made it. If you studied the watch working, you would conclude

that it was made to carry out a purpose (to tell time). Therefore, you could finally

conclude that there had to be an intelligent watchmaker who designed this object

with a purpose in mind…’

Paley compares the universe with the watch. If you look at the world we live in you

will see how complex it is. You could examine it and see that it has very complex

systems. It also has so many complex organisms living on it, perfectly suited to their

environments. You would conclude that such complexity and harmony could not have

just appeared randomly, but that it must have been designed somehow. You might

also conclude that everything seems to be working together to a purpose. Therefore,

you could finally conclude that there had to be an intelligent ‘world-maker’ who de-

signed this universe and all of life with a purpose in mind. This ‘world-maker’ must

be God.

!61

Paley’s argument is essentially an argument from design. Paley uses the watch to

demonstrate a design, or purpose, in the world. Just as the watch has been made for

an intelligent purpose and has clearly been designed, so too the earth has a designer

because it is clear from the way the world works that it must be the product of a de-

signer.

Opposition to Paley

Richard Dawkins, in his book The Blind Watchmaker, dismisses any notion of their be-

ing a creator God and believes that anyone who argues for the existence of a God

who creates human life is basing their belief on what he calls ‘Arguments from per-

sonal incredulity’. By this he means that because a person cannot think of any other

explanation for the existence of the world they simply opt for belief in God. For

Dawkins, the order in the world is not due to God, but rather is due to a blind, un-

conscious and automatic process.

Dawkins argues that humans have a selfish gene and that we are inherently selfish

because that is the way in which we have developed to survive through natural se-

lection. We act the way we do because we are effectively robots/machines pro-

grammed to preserve our gene pool and transfer it to the next generation.

Dawkins would reject any claims that the book of Genesis says anything of value

about the origins of human life. Dawkins rejects the existence of an immortal soul in

human beings, but he still accepts that there is human dignity. This comes from the

way in which an individual’s genetic code is passed on to future generations so that

we have now reached the point where we can actually try to discover the meaning

of life. This, for Dawkins, is the most marvellous aspect of human development that

humans can reflect on the fact that they are in the universe!

Irreducible complexity

This is a term used to describe complex systems where all of their individual compo-

nent parts are needed in order to function. In other words, it is impossible to reduce

the complexity of the system by removing any of its parts and still work. E.g. A typi-

cal mousetrap is made up of five parts. If any of these parts are removed the entire

system will fail to function.

!62

In nature, the e coli bacteria’s flagella

system as an example of an irreducibly

complex system which some believe

could not have evolved because it is

extremely complicated. The system is

an incredible microscopic outboard mo-

tor which e coli use to move around.

It is made up of 40 individual, integral

parts. If any of these parts are removed, the entire system will fail to function. If it

fails to function then it cannot evolve into the life form that it is. If this is related to

Darwin’s theory it questions the gradual development of ‘life’ over millennia.

A key religious question in deciding about evolution from a Christian point of view, is

what Christians believe about scripture, and particularly the book of Genesis. Those

who believe that the truth of scripture can only be upheld if it is interpreted literal-

ly, believe that creation must take place over a period of one week in the very re-

cent past. Those maintaining this position have the problem of explaining the ap-

pearance of more ancient life forms, e.g. dinosaurs.

Those Christians who do not believe that all scripture should be taken literally, are

likely to interpret the scriptural image as a poetic or symbolic way of expressing re-

ality. So we get the argument that the days of creation in Genesis are not to be

thought of as days, but as periods of history. Sometimes very long ones. This follows

the tradition of Galileo, Bacon and others, who in the days of the rise of science had

seen truth as being contained in two separate books – the Book of Scripture and the

Book of Nature – which were essentially complementary, rather than opposed. Such a

view allows the possibility of accepting the meaning of Genesis, while also accepting

the long time scale required for the process of evolution.

!63

SOURCE: Charles Darwin conceded, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex

organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, succes-

sive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down” (Origin of

Species, 1859, p. 158).

Activities & Tasks:

1. Watch Did Darwin Kill God? TAKE NOTES… http://www.y-

outube.com/watch?v=9x3JJILFmU4

Essay:

Describe Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and the impact it had on Christinaity.

(Read also ‘Some Problems for Darwin’, page 161 in Belief and Science)

!64

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9x3JJILFmU4

Is there any compatibility between Christian be-

lief and scientific theory?

For many people science seems to provide the only

reliable path to knowledge. Many people view sci-

ence as objective, universal, rational, and based on

solid observational evidence. Religion, is seen to be

subjective, , emotional, and based on traditions or

authorities that disagree with each other.

Scientific materialism is at the opposite end of the spectrum from biblical literalism.

But they share several characteristics. Both believe that there are serious conflicts

between contemporary science and classical religious beliefs. Both seek knowledge

with a sure foundation -- that of logic and sense data, in the one case, that of infal-

lible scripture, in the other. They both claim that science and theology make rival

literal statements about the same domain, the history of nature, so that one must

choose between them.

Scientific materialism makes two claims:

(1) the scientific method is the only reliable path to knowledge;

(2) matter (or matter and energy) is the fundamental reality in the universe.

According to this view the scientific method is the only reliable form of understand-

ing. Science starts from reproducible public data. By contrast religious beliefs are

not acceptable, in this view, because religion lacks public data, experimental test-

ing, and criteria of evaluation. Science alone is objective, open-minded, universal,

cumulative, and progressive.

Many Christians believe that their faith and scientific theory can go together. E.g.

John Polkinghorne and Denis Alexander. They believe that, rather than disproving the

existence of God, science actually points to His existence and Christian belief and

science shed light on the same truths. This is because they are asking different ques-

tions but their aim is to find answers to similar problems.

!65

Some Christians believe we can still ask why the universe exists and why it is the

way that it is. The universe is contingent and this has been shown by scientific de-

velopments in modern times that allow us to describe the behaviour of the universe

as a whole. Not only do the things in the universe obey the laws of science, the uni-

verse itself obeys them! This could mean that the Big Bang points beyond itself to a

cause because if the universe obeys the laws of science then the cause of the uni-

verse cannot be part of the universe itself but must be outside of the universe. This

would seem to suggest for these Christians that there is indeed a creator God who

sets the whole process in motion through the Big Bang. God is necessary if we are to

make sense of the existence of the universe at all!

SOURCE: My conclusion then is that the physical universe is not compelled to exist

as it is; it could have been otherwise. In that case we are returned to the problem of

why it is as it is… We have no choice but to seek an explanation in something beyond

our outside physical world – in something metaphysical – because, as we have seen, a

contingent physical universe cannot contain within itself an explanation for itself.

(Paul Davies, The Mind of God: Science and the Search for Ultimate Meaning, Pen-

guin 1992, pp. 170–1)

These Christians also take another very interesting approach to demonstrating com-

patibility between Christian faith in a creator God and the Big Bang. They do this by

arguing for a Unity Law, which is based on the scientific fact of the existence of

harmony and order in the universe. When Sir Isaac Newton ‘discovered’ gravity, what

he actually did was discover the universality of gravitation. The force that makes the

apple fall to the earth is the same force that makes the moon stay in orbit around

the earth and makes the earth orbit the sun; the same gravity is responsible for the

formation of the stars and the formation of the universe as a whole from the time of

the Big Bang onwards.

Scientists have now shown, through investigations in physics, that all the fundamen-

tal laws in the universe are actually aspects of two laws – quantum mechanics and

general relativity. This points to the very real possibility that there will be a Grand

!66

Unified Theory that is the foundation of all the variations that exist in the universe,

which these Christians would call a ‘Unity Law’. This would clearly demonstrate that

the whole physical universe is not just the accidental development of the Big Bang,

but is rather an ordered unity because it obeys a single law of unity.

Thus science is discovering a single law or principle behind or above the material

universe, a law which brings about everything that exists and everything that hap-

pens in the universe. This is of the greatest importance, because this discovery is

remarkably similar in many ways to the idea of God. God the creator is a unity, who

causes everything that exists and everything that happens in the universe. This is re-

ally strong evidence that science is rediscovering God…

However, there is a crucial difference between the Unity-Law and God himself. No

law of science can exist by itself. The laws of science are properties of matter; they

just describe how matter behaves. So the laws only exist where matter exists. Con-

sequently, the laws of science cannot explain how matter comes into existence…

Scientists suggest we do not need a first cause if the cause of the Big Bang was an

infinite time ago – based on expansion, deflation, expansion models of the universe

(the one we are in is the product of many, many others before it).

Christians have responded to this by saying: If the chain of ‘causality’ (what caused

the universe) is infinitely long then it does not mean that the universe has to exist…

• Therefore, the universe needs a reason to exist…

• There is no way of proving the expansion deflation theory – all that can be

proved using empirical evidence is the fact that the universe as we know it

had a beginning.

• Therefore for many Christians God is not simply the ‘God of the gaps’…

• God is necessary to make sense of the question why there is a universe, with

scientific laws that can be discovered rather than nothing at all.

• The Bible; letter to the Colossians 1:17 - He existed before anything else,

and he holds all creation together.

!67

SOURCE: The last sentence of his book… "If physics is the product of design, the

universe must have a purpose, and the evidence of modern physics suggests strongly

to me that the purpose includes us."

Paul Davis, Superforce--The Search for a Grand Unified Theory of Nature.

SOURCE: The only answer is that where there is a law there must be a lawgiver. The

law itself cannot be the cause of the universe. God is the lawgiver, the First Cause.

The Unity-Law is the expression of the wisdom of God. It shows us that God’s cre-

ation manifests his supreme intelligence.

(David Barrett and Stephen Dingley (eds), Can we be sure God exists?

Faith-Keyway Publications, p. 9 at www.faith.org.uk)

For many Christians, science does not put an end to belief in a creator God. Rather

the complexity of the universe, as revealed through scientific investigation, points

to the existence of God. The Bible, in its own way, teaches that God is the creator of

all that is, and so reveals the purpose of creation.

!68

Some Final Thoughts

!69

The End of Religion?

In 18th century Europe, philosophy developed in a way referred to as the Enlighten-

ment. One example of this new philosophy is found in the work of David Hume

(1711-1776), the Scottish philosopher particularly known for his view that all knowl-

edge starts with sense experience (empiricism). His arguments about the idea of

God as the designer of the universe – illustrate the intellectual freedom to challenge

tradition in the name of reason and evidence.

In France, Pierre Laplace (1749 – 1827), when asked how God influenced the move-

ment of the planets, whose orbits he had been re-calculating, answered:

‘I have no need of that hypothesis.’ In other words, God did not come into it.

On the other hand, during the time of the rise of science, a majority of thinkers and

scientists – including Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Bacon and even Laplace – still

claimed to hold religious beliefs that were not in conflict with their science. One

way of expressing that was to say that the ‘two books’ of nature and scripture

should be seen as separate but complementary. When you look at the writings of

Francis Bacon, you can see the careful way in which he looks at evidence and notes

potential pitfalls in assessing it, while at the same time is constantly quoting the

Bible and referring to the world as God’s creation.

However, by the end of the 19th century, God was being dismissed. As a result there

was no place for religion when it came to considering the origins of either the uni-

verse on human life. Scientific materialism was a new way of thinking about the

world that meant everything came from the material world and its laws. For this

way of thinking religion and freedom were illusions

Other thinkers saw religion as a phase in humankind’s understanding:

1. Magic – through which people try to manipulate nature

2. Religion – belief in supernatural powers that rule the world

3. Science – leading to human self-reliance, based on observation.

!70

The idea is that as humanity develops, religion is likely to diminish. Many people

now believe that the scientific method is the only way to gain true knowledge.

These things, taken together, represented a general growth in the view that science

could offer (in theory) an overall explanation of the world, without any need for

God. Meanwhile ‘God’ was relegated to the feelings of believers, or the hopes of so-

ciety.

What is clear is that, by the end of the 19th century, there was a feeling – encour-

aged by the debate over evolution – that religion had, for many thinking people,

been replaced by science. It was a view that was to influence the ‘logical positivist’

movement. Their idea was that all meaningful language should be backed by empiri-

cal evidence. If there was no empirical evidence then statements (including most

religious statements) could be considered meaningless.

However, it is hard to get away from the idea of purpose and our need for it. Human

beings live for the future; they plan what they want to do, look for improvement,

and act on the basis of intentions. To understand humankind, it is not enough to ask

where it came from, we should also ask where it thinks it is going.

From a scientific point of view we are virtually meaningless. No matter how great

our achievements on this earth, their impact on existence, the universe will be vir-

tually zero. If planet earth disappeared tonight, the universe would barely notice.

Virtually nothing would change. But from a religious point of view, even if we are

not physically at the centre of the universe we are infinitely important because, to

the best of our knowledge, we are the only ones asking these questions and wonder-

ing about the how and the why of our existence and the existence of the universe.

What is probably most surprising in the 21st century is that Christianity which is not

based on a literal interpretation of the Bible has no problem with either of the two

major theories which lie at the heart of the science and religion debate. The

Catholic Church has centuries-long history of promoting scientific inquiry. It has cer-

tainly struggled at times to come to terms with new ideas but it is always hard to set

aside long held ideas and beliefs.

!71

In his talk to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Pope

Francis warned against the image of God the creator as

“a magician, with a magic wand”, arguing that belief in

both theories around the beginnings of the universe and

the birth of humankind are consistent with the Catholic

faith.

“The Big Bang, which is today put forward as the origin

of the world, does not contradict the divine act of creation; rather, it requires it”,

he stated. Similarly, he argued, “evolution of nature is not inconsistent with the no-

tion of creation because evolution pre-supposes the creation of beings which

evolve.”

The Big Bang theory, as we know was originally proposed in 1927 by Jesuit priest and

physicist Georges Lemaître. While it is the most accepted explanation for the begin-

ning of the universe, many scientists have been unhappy with the idea of a beginning

point, because this would represent a question which science could not answer – as

Professor Stephen Hawking concluded in his autobiography, “One would have to ap-

peal to religion and the hand of God to determine how the universe started off”.

On evolution, Catholic teaching has long professed the likelihood of human evolution

– while believing that this takes place under the guidance of the Creator, and that

special creation of the human soul is performed directly by God. As Pope Pius XII

stated in Humani Generis (art. 36):

“the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with

the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discus-

sions… take place with regard to the doctrine of

evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of

the human body as coming from pre-existent and

living matter – for the Catholic faith obliges us to

hold that souls are immediately created by God”.

Pope John Paul II specifically endorsed this position in

his own speech to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in

1996, declaring that since 1950, “new findings lead us !72

toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis… The convergence in

the results of these independent studies constitutes in itself a significant argument

in favour of the theory”.

What this means is that Catholicism at least has no issue with the mechanics of the

expansion of the universe or the process of evolution. Where the problem arises is in

the insistence of some in the scientific community to imagine the possibility that

what exists did not simply appear randomly 13.7 billion years ago, but was brought

into existence by God.

Some Conclusions

It is important to remember that very intelligent people, with hugely different back-

grounds and approaches to this subject can come to very different conclusions and

with very good reasons. The friction between them comes from the fact that they

are both interested in what exists - Us and Our Universe - but have different ways of

trying to understand it.

1.Religion is dead

For some people the advances in science and the shift in thinking about what makes

a meaningful statement has lead them to the conclusion that religion is dead. If you

accept that the only meaningful statements that can be made are ones that can be

backed up by empirical evidence, then yes. But not all statements can be backed up

in this way and yet they still have meaning. For example, a scientific hypothesis is

an as yet unproved idea. But that does not make it meaningless. Opinions are not

empirical statements but they still have meaning. However, it is possible to see reli-

gious statements as unique in that they are based on belief and for some that is

enough to say they have no meaning and therefore religion is pointless or dead.

2. Religion is not dead and science is good

For others the advances in science serve only to strengthen their belief in the exis-

tence of God, who deserves our faith because of all that he has done for us. For

them the orderedness of the universe, the fact that anything exists rather than noth-

ing and the fact that order seems to have come out of the chaos of the beginning of

the universe is sufficient to believe that there is a God. For many of them, science is !73

a way to deepen their understanding of their world and their place in it and poses no

threat to their beliefs.

3. Religion is not dead but science can be misguided

There are some religion people who find that the advances in science in terms of the

origins of the universe and life on earth do not match with their reading of the Bible.

They struggle with the idea that God’s Word can in anyway be contradicted by

science, no matter how strong the evidence.

!74

Appendix 1

In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a

formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God

swept over the face of the waters. Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there

was light… and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day,

and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the

first day.

And God said, "Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate

the waters from the waters.” So God made the dome and separated the waters that

were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so. God

called the dome Sky. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.

And God said, "Let the waters under the sky be gathered together into one place,

and let the dry land appear." And it was so. God called the dry land Earth, and the

waters that were gathered together he called Seas… Then God said, "Let the earth

put forth vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees of every kind on earth that

bear fruit with the seed in it." And it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation:

plants yielding seed of every kind, and trees of every kind bearing fruit with the

seed in it. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was

morning, the third day.

And God said, "Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from

the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, and let

them be lights in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth." And it was so.

God made the two great lights - the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light

to rule the night - and the stars. God set them in the dome of the sky to give light

upon the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light

from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there

was morning, the fourth day.

And God said, "Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly

above the earth across the dome of the sky.” So God created the great sea monsters

and every living creature that moves, of every kind, with which the waters swarm, !75

and every winged bird of every kind. And God saw that it was good. God blessed

them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds

multiply on the earth."

And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day.

And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures of every kind: cattle and

creeping things and wild animals of the earth of every kind." And it was so. God

made the wild animals of the earth of every kind, and the cattle of every kind, and

everything that creeps upon the ground of every kind. And God saw that it was good.

Then God said, "Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and

let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and

over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping

thing that creeps upon the earth."

So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male

and female he created them. God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful

and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the

sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the

earth."

God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good. And there was

evening and there was morning, the sixth day. Thus the heavens and the earth were

finished, and all their multitude. And on the seventh day God finished the work that

he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all the work that he had done.

So God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it, because on it God rested from all

the work that he had done in creation.

!76

Appendix 2

In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, when no plant of the

field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up—for the Lord

God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no man to till the

ground; but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the

ground— then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into

his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put the man

whom he had formed. And out of the ground the Lord God made to grow every tree

that is pleasant to the sight and good for food, the tree of life also in the midst of

the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it.

16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may freely eat of every tree

of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat,

for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.”

Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make

him a helper fit for him.” So out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of

the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he

would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its

name. The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every

beast of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper fit for him. So the

Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of

his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and the rib which the Lord God had taken

from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.

Then the man said,

“This at last is bone of my bones

and flesh of my flesh;

she shall be called Woman,[c]

because she was taken out of Man.”[d]

!77

APPENDIX 3

'A Day Without Yesterday':

Georges Lemaitre & the Big Bang

In the winter of 1998, two separate teams of astronomers in Berkeley, California,

made a similar, startling discovery. They were both observing supernovae – exploding

stars visible over great distances – to see how fast the universe was expanding. They

expected to find the rate of expansion to be decreasing, Instead they found it to be

increasing – a discovery which has since "shaken astronomy to its core".

This discovery would have come as no surprise to Georges Lemaitre (1894-1966), a

Belgian mathematician and Catholic priest who developed the theory of the Big

Bang. Lemaitre described the beginning of the universe as a burst of fireworks,

spreading out in a growing sphere from the centre of the burst. He believed this

burst of fireworks was the beginning of time, taking place on "a day without

yesterday."

After decades of struggle, other scientists came to accept the Big Bang as fact. But

while most scientists – including Stephen Hawking -- thought that gravity would

eventually slow down the expansion of the universe and make the universe fall back

toward its centre, Lemaitre believed that the universe would keep expanding. He

argued that the Big Bang was a ‘one-off’ event. The observations made in Berkeley

supported Lemaitre's contention that the Big Bang was in fact "a day without

yesterday."

When Georges Lemaitre was born in Belgium, most scientists thought that the

universe was infinite in age (it had no beginning) and fixed in its general

appearance. When Albert Einstein first published his theory of relativity in 1916, it

seemed to confirm that the universe had gone on forever, stable and unchanging.

Lemaitre began his own scientific career at the College of Engineering in Louvain in

1913. After becoming a priest in 1923, Lemaitre studied maths and science at

Cambridge University, where one of his professors, Arthur Eddington, was the

director of the observatory.

!78

For his research at Cambridge, Lemaitre reviewed Einstein’s theory. Lemaitre's

calculations showed that the universe had to be either shrinking or expanding.

Lemaitre decided that the universe was expanding. He came to this conclusion after

observing the reddish glow, known as a red shift, surrounding objects outside of our

galaxy. If interpreted as a Doppler effect, this shift in colour meant that the galaxies

were moving away from us.

In 1929 Edwin Hubble's systematic observations of other galaxies confirmed the red

shift. In England Sir Arthur Eddington realized that Lemaitre had bridged the gap

between observation and theory and proved the universe was expanding.

Most scientists who read Lemaitre's paper accepted that the universe was expanding,

but they resisted the suggestion that the universe had a beginning. They were used

to the idea that time had gone on forever. Eddington himself wrote in the English

journal Nature that the notion of a beginning of the world was unacceptable.

The Belgian priest suggested that the world had a definite beginning in which all its

matter and energy were concentrated at one point: If this suggestion is correct, the

beginning of the universe happened a little before the beginning of space and time.

In January 1933, both Lemaitre and Einstein travelled to California for a series of

seminars. After the Belgian detailed his theory, Einstein stood up, applauded, and

said, "This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I

have ever listened."

However, Cambridge University became a centre of opposition to Lemaitre's theory

of the Big Bang. In fact, it was Fred Hoyle, an astronomer at Cambridge, who

sarcastically coined the term "Big Bang." Hoyle and others favoured an approach to

the history of the universe known as the "Steady State".

But in 1964 there was a significant breakthrough that confirmed some of Lemaitre's

theories. Workers at Bell Laboratories in New Jersey were tinkering with a radio

telescope when they discovered a frustrating kind of microwave interference. It was

equally strong whether they pointed their telescope at the centre of the galaxy or in

the opposite direction. What was more, it always had the same wavelength and it !79

always conveyed the same source temperature. This microwave interference came

to be recognized as cosmic background radiation, a remnant of the Big Bang.

When word of the 1998 Berkeley discovery that the universe is expanding at an

increasing rate first reached Stephen Hawking, he said it was too soon to be taken

seriously. Later, he changed his mind. "I have now had more time to consider the

observations, and they look quite good.This led me to reconsider my theoretical

prejudices."

It took a mathematician who also happened to be a Catholic priest to look at the

evidence with an open mind and create a model that worked.

Is there a paradox in this situation? Duncan Aikman did not think so.

In the New York Times he spotlighted Lemaitre's view in 1933: "'There is no conflict

between religion and science,' Lemaitre has been telling audiences over and over

again in this country ....His view is interesting and important not because he is a

Catholic priest, not because he is one of the leading mathematical physicists of our

time, but because he is both."

!80

Documents

Philosophical Questions Origins - LT Scotland · 2019. 12. 14. · Christian revelation Revelation is basically how God makes two things known to humanity 1. Who he is 2. What he