An interview with Professor Stuart Burgess: 'Science & Faith: Harmony or Conflict'

Earlier this evening I interviewed Stuart Burgess, professor of Engineering Design at Bristol University. Among other things we discussed whether the Christian faith is compatible with science and whether it is possible for human beings to have personal knowledge of their Creator. I enjoyed our consersation. Hopefully you will too. 

 

'Faith and Science: Harmony or Conflict?' An interview with Stuart Burgess

On Sunday 27 September at 6.00pm I will be interviewing Professor Stuart Burgess on 'Faith and Science: Harmony or Conflict?'. The interview will be livestreamed here on our Church Facebook page.

Stuart Burgess is a professor of Engineering Design at Bristol University. He has worked for the European Space Agency on spacecraft design and also worked for the British Olympic Cycling Team, designing the chain transmission for the Rio and Tokyo Olympics. He has published over 170 scientific papers on the science of design in engineering and nature and received several national awards including the 2019 IMechE Clayton Prize for the biggest contribution to mechanical engineering science in the UK.

Can Science Explain Everything? by John C. Lennox

The Good Book Company, 2019, 127pp

I forgot to review this book when I read it sometime last year. Not sure why it slipped through the net. I think I quoted from it in a sermon shortly after reading it and a member of the congregation expressed an interest, so I lent it to them. When they returned the book the moment had passed and I simply popped it on a  bookshelf, unreviewed. 

I bought the title having watched a discussion between John Lennox and Peter Atkins chaired by Justin Brierley on Premier Radio. Here it is. Lennox came to my attention more recently when I noted that he's one of the speakers on Sing! Global, hosted by the Gettys. On seeing a promo clip I was pretty sure I'd read one of Lennox's books and tried searching my blog for the review to see what I thought about it. Nothing. The one that got away.

So, here's a review of a book I only vaguely remember reading and haven't gone to the trouble of re-reading, just a brief skim through. In my sermon I believe I quoted the bit where Lennox recalls a conversation he had with a senior academic when he was a student. The professor told him that if he wanted to get on in the scientific world he would have to abandon his Christian faith. Lennox responded that atheism had nothing better to offer than his faith, so he would maintain his beliefs. 

Some people like to suggest that scientists observe the world with chilly detachment. From their Olympian heights they hand down definitive explanations of how the universe originated and operates. The explanations proceed on the basis of physical laws of cause and effect. Everything can be accounted for on that level. Even if some stuff can't be scientifically explained at the moment, one day it will. God doesn't get a look in. The Bible, a book of primitive mythology has nothing to say to the world of science, which is based on observation and reason, not faith.

And what about Galileo? He turns up in chapter 1, Can you be a scientist and believe in God? Hint, yes. Science certainly offers explanations of how the material universe works that are cogent on one level, but meaning and purpose in the universe isn't exhausted once the equations have been reeled out. Lennox uses the illustration of a boiling kettle. At a scientific level the water is boiling because the electrical element in the kettle has heated the H20 to 100°c. That's good as far as it goes, but it would also be perfectly correct to say that the kettle is boiling because I fancy a cup of tea. To say that only scientific explanations count is reductionist 'nothing buttery'. (Not to be confused with Utterly Buttery). 

The Bible may not deal in scientific theories, but its message reveals the purpose of life; that human beings were made to know, love and glorify their Creator. By way of contrast, Richard Dawkins views the world as devoid of ultimate purpose, seeing only "blind, pitiless indifference". If that's all atheists have to offer, no wonder Lennox couldn't be persuaded to abandon his faith in God. 

Science has done a wonderful job in discovering the presence of natural laws such as gravitational force, but it cannot explain why those laws exist or how it is that we are able to understand their workings. Lennox exposes the logical flaw in Stephen Hawkin's argument that, "Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing." (p. 37). So, because there is something (gravity), the universe must have created itself from nothing? OK. And anyway, laws do not create, they simply describe how created stuff operates.

Self-creation is self-contradictory. But if God made everything, who made God? Lennox addresses that one too. God is by definition outside of the world of material causation. He is an infinite and eternal being, without beginning or end. Science depends on the universe working in orderly and predictable ways and assumes that human beings are able to decipher the laws of nature, That makes perfect sense if God created the world in his wisdom and to display his goodness. That we are able to make sense of things also makes sense if we were created in the image of God. Which is why the scientific method arose in a context where the Christian faith was the prevailing worldview. The scientific method in itself gives no rationale for the scientific method. 

Yes, but what about the scientific claim that the universe is 13.8 billion years old, rather than a mere thousands of years old as the Book of Genesis seems to claim. Lennox distances himself from 6 x 24 hour creationists, saying that their view is a 'particular interpretation' of Genesis 1, one that he doesn't hold to himself. He advances a 'gap theory' position, which isn't especially convincing either. I'll return to the length of the creation days in my forthcoming review of Interpreting Eden, by Vern Poythress. 

Anyway, the Christian belief isn't ultimately a worldview that is worth holding to because of its explanatory power. The faith is founded upon the historic claim that in Jesus God became man to die for our sins on the cross and that he rose bodily from the grave. As the author shows in chapter 8, if that claim isn't true, Christianity can be disproved and dismissed as false. But it is true and the New Testament provides compelling evidence for us to believe that Jesus lives. 

Here's where it gets personal. We must believe in order to understand. By faith in Jesus we are reconciled to God, experience the forgiveness of sin and know the hope of everlasting life. Science can't explain everything. The ultimate purpose of life is disclosed in Christ, though whom and for whom God created all things. 

People who have fallen for the oft-repeated claim that 'science has disproved God' would do well to give this book a read. Christians studying the natural sciences in an atheistic environment will find reassurance here that their their faith is not incompatible with science. In writing Can Science Explain Everything? John Lennox has provided a handy apologetic tool that will enable believers to give a reason for their hope in a sceptical age.

There. done it. 

Inventing the Universe by Alister McGrath

Hodder & Stoughton, 2016, 247pp

Many people believe that science has disproved the Christian faith, or at least that science and Christianity are in conflict, with science the hands-down winner. As a teenage atheist the author of this book would have pretty much agreed with that scenario. But then he began to have doubts. It dawned on him that while science has helped us understand the workings of the natural world, it cannot provide a framework for living a fulfilled and purposeful life. For that kind of thing we have to go beyond the confines of empirical research and scientific theory.

The likes of Richard Dawkins seek to perpetuate the conflict between science and faith, but as McGrath demonstrates, a more harmonious relationship between these two perspectives on life can be achieved. Christian thinkers believed that the rational world is capable of rational explanation because it was created by a wise and rational God. That very idea helped to give birth to modern science. 

In calling in to question the conflict narrative beloved of the new atheists, McGrath explodes some of their dearest myths; Galileo vs the Church, Huxley vs Wilberforce and all that. The facts are quite different to the accounts trotted out by scientistic propagandists. 

Reality is so big and complex that no one perspective on life can give us a glimpse of the whole. When both science and faith are allowed to contribute to our view of reality, a more richly textured picture emerges. Conflicts emerge when science tries to do the job of faith and visa versa. Science can explore the natural world and devise theories on how the world works, but it cannot provide answers to ultimate questions such as; 'Why does the universe exist?', 'What is the purpose of life?' and 'What is a well-lived life?' That is where faith comes in. But faith cannot tell us that the chemical composition of water is H2O, or provide an explanation of how traits are passed on via DNA. Science and faith are mutually enriching, with the former offering answers to 'How?' questions, and the latter to 'Why?' ones. 

Sometimes the boundary between science and faith is not easy to discern. For, example, McGrath cites an experiment designed to prove the existence of the human soul by showing that bodies decreased in weight at death. The experiment was flawed. McGrath concludes that there is no such thing as the human soul, the idea of which he attributes more to Plato than the Christian faith. But if souls exist at all, they are spirit, not matter and are not therefore capable of being weighed. You don't have to be a card carrying Platonist to notice that the Bible speaks of the human spirit existing beyond death in some way, 2 Corinthians 5:8, Philippians 1:21, 23. 

Rather than Christianity acting as an impediment to the scientific enterprise, it has on occasion provided a necessary corrective to the prevailing scientific viewpoint. Many scientists held to the 'steady state' view of the universe. Partly because if the universe has always existed, there is no need to invoke a Creator. However, the discovery of background radiation in the 1960's pointed to the afterglow of a 'big bang'. The universe had a beginning after all, just as the Christian faith had claimed for two thousand years. 

The relationship between the Christian faith and Darwin's theory of evolution has been fraught with tensions. Some Christians have been strongly opposed to the theory, others have tried to reach an accommodation with an evolutionary account of origins. McGrath is in the second camp. Certainly the theory of evolution does not in itself disprove the existence of God, as some have claimed. Few would dispute that some form of evolutionary process helps account for the wide variety of plant and animal species we see today. Sticking points would be whether God created the original 'kinds' of Genesis 1:11-12, 1:20-21, 1:24-25, which then diversified into myriads of different species, and of course, the special creation of human beings depicted in Genesis 1:26-27. McGrath prefers Augustine's approach to Genesis 1 to that of modern day Creationists. He has little difficulty with the idea that human beings evolved from primates. 

But as McGrath stresses repeatedly, even the most widely accepted scientific theories are subject to revision or even rejection as better understandings of the facts are achieved. The shift from the 'steady state' to the 'big bang' account of origins is a case in point. On the other hand, theology sometimes needs to correct its understanding of the Bible in the light of scientific developments. Galileo's discovery that the solar system is heliocentric brought into question the church's overdependence on Ptolemy's earth-centred astronomical model. In that case a model that was alien to the Bible had skewed how people understood its teaching. 

What of the discrepancy between the the age of the universe as held by the scientific consensus, and what is apparently taught in the Bible? The Dutch Reformed theologian Herman Bavinck regarded the creation days of Genesis 1 as "workdays of God", or "the time in which God was at work creating", which he thought not likely to be the work of a few hours. Unlike the good Bishop Usher, who posited that God created the world in 4004 B.C, Bavinck admitted that the Bible does not provide exact data on the age of the earth. As McGrath points out, Bavinck's contemporary B. B. Warfield did not believe that the antiquity of man was a theological issue. What mattered for him was not the age, but the unity of the human race. Once more, science had called into question a common approach to reading the Bible in terms of the age of the universe, and theologians took that unto account.

Nevertheless, there are also times when theology needs to hold its ground against the scientific consensus, as with the insistence that the universe had a beginning. Bavinck argues,

As the science of divine and eternal things, theology must be patient until the science that contradicts it has made a deeper and broader study of its field and, as happens in most cases, corrects itself. In that matter theology upholds its dignity and honour more effectively than by constantly yielding and adapting itself to the opinions of the day. 

Perhaps theologians need to exercise a little more patience before giving wholesale acceptance to a Darwinian account of the origin of human beings. The special creation of human life in God's image and the historic fall of man into sin are difficult to square with the theory of evolution. How can they be accounted for in evolutionary terms? Especially as the reality of human sinfulness is a key feature of McGrath's case. 

Criticisms aside, the author makes some telling arguments against new atheist writers such as Richard Dawkins who claim that religion is the root of all evil. If only we could get rid of God in favour of science, they say, all would be well. As McGrath points out, things aren't quite so simple. Anti-God advocates of scientism fail to take into account that science can be harnessed for harmful ends, such as the production of napalm. 

Besides, notions of good and evil make little sense if there is no God. And if there is no God, then the idea of the divine is but a human invention that has been used to justify all manner of bad stuff. In that case, it's not God's fault, but our own. Religion is the product of our twisted human hearts that are inclined towards evil. Just as the Christian account of human fallenness suggests. John Calvin taught that the heart is a 'factory of idols'. Man-made religion as opposed to the worship of the living God is always destructive and debasing. The fact that new atheists are so outraged at the the impact of 'bad religion' is a backhanded compliment to the standard of absolute good and righteousness may be ascribed to God alone. 

Contrary to what is sometimes claimed, McGrath points out that science in itself cannot adjudicate on matters of good and evil. Such value judgments take us beyond the realms of  empirical investigation or rationalistic theorising. Many of the moral principles that we hold most dear are not the product of atheistic humanism, but the Christian faith. Christianity posits that all human beings are of equal worth and value, and should therefore be treated with dignity and respect. Early adopters of Darwinism advocated eugenics. The survival of the fittest, and all that. Richard Dawkins recently took to Twitter to counsel a pregnant woman that she was morally obliged to abort her baby should it be discovered to have Downs Syndrome. Evidently we need to look above and beyond science for a sense of moral purpose. 

Atheistic scientism is a form of reductionist 'nothing buttery' that offers an impoverished view of reality. The perspective offered by science needs to be supplemented by that of faith. Science has expanded our understanding of the vastness of the universe, in which the earth is but a tiny blue dot. When viewed in that way, human life can seem insignificant and worthless. Those with faith are also overawed by the magnitude of space, but we are assured that this is God's world and he cares for us,

When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers,
    the moon and the stars, which you have set in place,
4 what is man that you are mindful of him,
    and the son of man that you care for him?

(Psalm 8:3-4)

McGrath's work will challenge the thinking of those who have been influenced by Richard Dawkins and others. He exposes the inadequacy new atheism's take on science and proposes a more constructive engagement between science and faith. He doesn't so much set out to give a defense of the Christian faith, as offer his readers a compelling vision of the intellectual depth and coherence of the Christian worldview. Inventing the Universe will also prove stimulating for Christians as they reflect on the relationship between science and faith. Not all will agree with every point, I certainly didn't. Tensions between science and faith will always exist to a degree, as there is some crossover between the two perspectives on life. They offer differing origin narratives, which can only be reconciled with some difficulty, for example. But McGrath's main proposal that the 'maps' supplied by science and faith may be combined to provide a more richly textured account of reality is surely welcome. If taken on board it will help provide a way to move on from angry conflict to a more fruitful, engagement between science and the Christian faith. 

God's Philosophers by James Hannam

God's Philosophers: 

How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science,

by James Hannam, Icon Books, 2009, Kindle edition, £4.79. 

In an article entitled Even Christianity is not really Christian in Saturday's edition of The Times, A. C. Grayling weighed in to the 'Christian Nation' debate sparked by David Cameron's sudden conversion to the virtues State-sponsored evangelism. It's one of those 'What has Christianity done for us?' pieces. While writing with an air of grave expertise, Grayling's use of the historical evidence is, in fact as selective as a bag of good of Woolies' Pick & Mix. He trots out the tired old cliché that the Early and Medieval Church suppressed learning and inquiry with the effect that scientific progress was retarded and human ingenuity stifled. Grayling alleges that Christianity banned study of Greek and Roman philosophy, and so plunged Europe into a Dark Age that only ended with with the rediscovery of the classical wisdom at the Enlightenment. The writer opined, "There was little learning worth the name in the first seven centuries of Christian dominance because it had suppressed inquiry". 

However, as Hannam shows in God's Philosophers, if anything, the Medieval world wasn't held back by its ignorance of Antiquity, but by too much deference for the philosophers of old. It was only when Medieval medics began to question Galen's four humours-based quackery that medicine began make progress. Early natural philosophers tended to accept Aristotle's ideas without question, not realising that many of them were incorrect. Aristotle argued that that a heavier weight will fall faster than a lighter one. That was empirically disproven by John Philoponus in the sixth century. Even then, some chose to believe Aristotle rather than the empirical evidence. Early Merton Calculator Thomas Brawardine (c.1290-1349), propounded a theoretical basis for what Philiponus had discovered experimentally, thus blowing Aristotle's theory out of the water. 

In an odd section Grayling argues that because words such as medicine, technology and telescope are derived from Greek and Latin that the ideas and inventions they describe also derive from that culture. But since when had etymology been a sound guide to the origin of concepts? Anachronistic, or what? The telescope was originally invented by Hans Lipperhey of Holland (d.1619) and further refined by Galileo. But Lipperhey and Galileo would have got nowhere had not spectacles been invented in Venice in the 1300's. As Hannam points out,

the people of medieval Europe invented spectacles, the mechanical clock, the windmill and the blast furnace by themselves. Lenses and cameras, almost all kinds of machinery and the industrial revolution itself all owe their origins to the forgotten inventors of the Middle Ages. Just because we don’t know their names, this does not mean that we should not recognise their achievements. (Hannam, James (2009-08-07). God's Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science (p. 5). Icon Books. Kindle Edition.)

Grayling of course mentions the case of Galileo, claiming that the Church shut him up for championing the heliocentric view of the universe propounded by Copernicus as contrary to Scripture. Hannam offers a fair and nuanced account of the trial of the great man at the hands of the Inquisition. Contrary to Grayling's article it was not so much the teaching of the Bible that was at stake, as the Roman Catholic Church's deference for the Greek philosopher Ptolemy's vision of an earth-centred universe. Once more, it is a reminder that while classical civilisation had much to offer in terms of Pythagoras' mathematical theories and so on, the ideas of Greece and Rome could sometimes be an impediment rather than a stimulus to the advance of scientific understanding. 

Now, Hannam doesn't pretend that what used to be called the Dark Age was in fact a glittering Golden Age. The Church wasn't always an ally of progress. Medieval natural philosophers were often as interested in magic and astrology as exploring the wonders of nature. But the Christian belief that God created an orderly universe encouraged natural philosophers to explore and understand the world in which they lived. In doing so they laid the foundations of modern scientific inquiry. Theology was a friend rather than an enemy of natural philosophy. As Hannam writes,

However, the most significant contribution of the natural philosophers of the Middle Ages was to make modern science even conceivable. They made science safe in a Christian context, showed how it could be useful and constructed a worldview where it made sense. Their central belief that nature was created by God and so worthy of their attention was one that Galileo wholeheartedly endorsed. Without that awareness, modern science would simply not have happened. (Hannam, James (2009-08-07). God's Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science (p. 336). Icon Books. Kindle Edition). 

Grayling doesn't seem to appreciate that point. In fact his understanding of Christian theology is as lamentable as his grasp of history. He alleges that Paul taught that the faithful dead will "see no corruption", but will sleep in their graves until the last trump and the resurrection of the dead. Quite the contrary. Paul believed that Christ uniquely saw no corruption while he lay in the tomb prior to his resurrection (Acts 13:35-37). But of the believer the apostle wrote, "the body is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption" (1 Corinthians 15:42). 

Also, Grayling is wrong to suggest that early Christians borrowed the idea of an immortal soul from Plato as a way of getting around the inconvenient truth that the bodies of believers did in fact return to dust in their graves. In the New Testament the language of immortality is reserved for the resurrection body, 1 Corinthians 15:53-54). That is about as un-Greek as you can get. Plato believed that that physical matter was evil and the body a prison house for the soul, of which it is well rid at death. The idea of bodily resurrection made no sense at all in the world of Greek philosophy. Note the reception that Paul received when speaking to intellectuals at Athens, Acts 17:31-32. The resurrection of the body makes perfect sense However, in the Judeo-Christian worldview, where God created the spiritual and material realms and declared them very good. Jesus came not simply to 'save our souls', but to rescue complete human beings from sin and its deadly effects. In Christian teaching eternal life means not simply the soul of the believer going to heaven when they die, but the resurrection of the body to immortal glory at the return of Christ.

Having said all that, I agree with Grayling that Britain today is not a Christian country. David Cameron was wrong to suggest that it is (see here). But it is foolish to deny that the Christian faith has had a positive impact on world history. As David Bentley Hart has shown in his Atheist Delusions, the Classical world wasn't quite as full of light, love and virtue as Grayling suggests. Many of our most cherished values such as the unique dignity and personhood of every human being were Christian in their origin, not pagan. Moreover, Hannam's God's Philosophers decisively puts the lie to Grayling's claim that, "There was little learning worth the name in the first seven centuries of Christian dominance because it had suppressed inquiry". Hardly. 

Adam where art thou?

The other at week our Bradford on Avon Ministers' Fraternal, Robert Oliver spoke on the controversy over the historicity of Adam among American Evangelicals. A recent John Owen Centre Conference was devoted to this theme. Here are some notes on Robert's talk. 

Barbara Haggerty an American journalist wrote an article on the National Public Radio website on Evangelicals Question The Existence Of Adam And Eve. Surveys show that 4/10 Americans believe the Genesis creation account  But some conservative scholars doubt that Adam was an historical figure. According to Dennis Venema, studies on the human genome show that humans emerged from earlier species thousands of years ago. The idea that the whole human race originated from two ancestors over a relatively short period of time gives no time for genetic mutations that are currently present in the genome.

Venema is a senior fellow at BioLogos Foundation, a Christian group that aims at reconciling faith and science. The group was founded by Francis Collins, an Evangelical and current head of the National Institute of Health. John Schneider, who once taught theology at Calvin College in Michigan said, "it's time to face facts: There was no historical Adam and Eve, no serpent, no apple, no fall that toppled man from a state of innocence." 

Geneticist Francis Collins is a converted atheist. He became a Christian as a result of reading Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis. In The Language of God, he argued for a form of theistic evolution. BioLogos means life-truth. The foundation exists to promote belief in theistic evolution. Influential American Evangelical leader Tim Keller is an advocate of theistic evolution, although his relationship with BioLogos is difficult to discern.

Al Mohler responded to Haggerty's article on his blog with a post, False Start? The Controversy Over Adam and Eve Heats Up. Mohler argues that, "this question is now a matter of Gospel urgency." Paul saw Adam and Eve as the first parents of the human race and took the fall as a historical event. However, in Saving Darwin, Karl W. Giberson advocates the view that the biblical creation account not to be read as history. According to him, the Bible a library not a book. In any library there will be works of fiction such as the Harry Potter  books, and factual biographies of Abraham Lincoln. So with the Bible, Genesis 1-3 is the biblical equivalent of Hogwarts, while  Jesus is an historical figure like Abraham Lincoln. 

Peter Enns attacked Mohler for defending the historicity of Genesis 1-3, see here. Enns, author of The Evolution of Adam says that Conservative Evangelicals make too much of Adam. Adam was a symbol of Israel rather than a historical figure. Genesis 1-3 is about the origin of Israel not history. Genesis is not intended as history. 

To what extent are Evangelicals seeking academic approval in trying to accommodate the bible to theistic evolution? In trying to do so, Evangelical advocates of theistic evolution are putting the gospel metanarrative of good creation/fall/redemption/restoration under threat. That is why Al Mohler was right to say that this question is a  matter of "gospel urgency".

You can order recordings of addresses given at the John Owen Centre Conference on Adam in the Church, the Bible and the World. 

Who Made God? by Edgar Andrews

Who Made God? Searching for a theory of everything,
by Edgar Andrews, EP Books, 2009, 303pp.

Some Christian critiques of atheistic Darwinism resemble an unseemly scrap over some old dinosaur bones. The attitude is strident and ill tempered. Arguments in favour of the Christian position are often tired and unconvincing, amounting to little more than than variations on the theme of Paley's well-designed watch. But, to coin a phrase, here is something completely different. For starters, Andrews does not propose to argue from the presence of design in nature up to a some kind of a divine Designer. He begins with the hypothesis that the God of the Bible is the true and living God who made all things. From that starting point the genial professor attempts to show that reality is exactly as we should expect if his underlying assumption is true.

The book is full of detailed scientific discussion on the origin of the universe and Darwinian evolution. With his multidisciplinary expertise Andrews ranges over many different fields in his quest for a 'theory of everything' - an all encompassing description of the material universe that makes best sense of all the available data. He skilfully guides the reader through the complexities of the Big Bang account of the origin of time and space, Einstein's theory of general relativity, the laws of nature, quantum mechanics, string theory and much more. The writer subjects evolution by natural selection to critical scrutiny, demonstrating that random genetic mutations cannot account for the evolution of all living things from a single cell "jelly pod". Andrews concludes that no merely naturalistic 'theory of everything', not even one that reconciled general relativity with quantum mechanics could explain why an ordered universe exists in the first place. If all that sounds a bit highfalutin and technical for those (like me) with a non-scientific background, then be not afraid. Sooty is on hand to help, as are countless other handy metaphors from a breakfast of cereal, yoghurt and toast, to ferrets and steam engines.

Here is an example of Christian apologetics at its best; appealing, well argued and based on the the biblical presupposition, "In the beginning God" (Genesis 1:1). While the book was not written simply as a rejoinder to Richard Dawkins and his neo-Darwinian fellow travellers, Andrews ably shows that atheism is ill equipped to explain the origin of the universe and the development of life on earth. The author concludes by telling us the good news that our Maker is also the Redeemer of fallen human beings through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Reading Who Made God? will strengthen Christians in their faith and better enable them to witness to their non-believing friends. Atheists who happen upon this book should be prepared to have their views challenged and undermined by the compelling force of professor Andrews' arguments.

Edgar Andrews interviewed at challies.com.

Order from PTS Christian Bookshop here.

An evening with John Blanchard

On Saturday evening we had John Blanchard come to speak at West Lavington Village Hall on 'Has science got rid of God?' A pretty packed hall heard him address the question with his customary clarity and insight. Science has not got rid of God because science is the attempt to discover truth in nature. It is not suited to adjudicate on the existence of God because he is transcendent - outside and above nature. Science has its uses, but it cannot speak dogmatically on the God question. It has no explanation for why the universe exists. Science cannot tell us why the laws of nature work as they do, nor why the universe if finely tuned for intelligent life. Contrary to the claims of Richard Dawkins and his ilk, modern science has not got rid of God. If anything discoveries like the complexity of even the most simple life-forms and the anthropic principle make belief in God easier.

The veteran evangelist concluded his lively and interesting talk by setting Jesus Christ before us in all his divine grandeur. It is only in him that we can find salvation and the hope of everlasting life. If you want to know more, then 'Has science got rid of God?' is available from Evangelical Press as a book, CD, and DVD.

Day One Publications have just brought out Travel With John Blanchard, detailing the life of 'Guernsey's evangelist, author and Christian apologist'. Dr. Blanchard has the distinction of being the only living subject of the popular 'Travel With' series. He kindly gave me a free signed copy, which was nice. A couple of our members also bought me Blanchard's The Complete Gathered Gold, 'A treasury of quotations for Christians'. Considering I didn't intend to buy any books on the day, I still managed not to leave empty handed. The Lord is good!

Is the fine tuning of the universe an evidence for God?

I don't know if readers have come across Premier Christian Radio's Unbelievable, aired on Saturday afternoons. In each programme Justin Brierley hosts a discussion between a Christian and a non-believer. It is often a really thought provoking show. The latest one is on the subject, 'Fine Tuning of the Universe - is it evidence of God?' Nicholas Beale, co-author with Christian physicist John Polkinghorne of Questions of Truth (WJK), argues that fine tuning is an evidence for God. The atheist Julian Baggini disagrees. You can catch up with this week's programme and previous shows online. Here are some critical reflections on the discussion as it developed.

Nicholas Beale, a mathematician by trade makes a good case for God on the basis of fine tuning and the so-called "anthropic principle", which is concerned with the question, "Why is the universe just right for human life?" Beale avoids falling into a "God of the gaps" approach, insisting that we see God at work in the understandable "laws of nature" as well as in the mysterious aspects of science that we have yet to comprehend. But he comes a little unstuck because he accepts a Darwinian theory of origins. In his view, God made the world complete with suffering and death because that is what was necessary for evolution by natural selection to work. Beale tries to get round the problem that this means a good God created an imperfect world, "red in tooth and claw", by saying that God took the suffering of the world upon himself in Christ. However this makes redemption seem like another act of fine tuning, as God acted in Christ to remove the suffering and evil that were present in the world as originally created.

A more biblical approach to the problem of suffering will insist that God made the world "very good" as Genesis 1 declares. Suffering and death are consequent upon the fall of man into sin (Genesis 3). Redemption in that case is not the Creator correctively fine tuning his flawed-by-design creation. It is an act of free, undeserved and astonishing grace towards rebellious sinners, who have brought his just wrath upon themselves and his curse upon the creation. Neal's approach shows the accommodation that theistic evolution makes with Darwinism plays havoc with the Bible's essential plot line of Creation/Ruin/Redemption/Re-creation. Now, I'm not saying that natural selection has no explanatory power when it comes to describing how the "kinds" of creatures God originally made developed into the diverse and varied species that exist today. In creating life, it seems that God made living organisms flexible enough to adapt to differing environments and so on. But the wholesale acceptance of a Darwinian explanation of origins seriously skews the basic plot line of biblical revelation.

Another thing that struck me was the atheist Julian Baggini's point that believers only see the fine tuning of the universe as an evidence for God because they begin with the prior assumption that he exists. As the philosopher argued, the existence of a loving Creator cannot simply be "read off" the data of science. That is true enough. Baggini helpfully reminds us of the importance of presuppositions. Evidentialist apologetics assumes that the data of science is neutral ground that the believer and unbeliever can examine together without prejudice. But that is not the case. The believer starts with the basic presupposition that God exists. It is from that standpoint he views the phenomenon of the universe. The consistent Christian theist does not argue from design to a designer. He begins with the God who has revealed himself in creation, the human heart and Scripture and understands everything in that light. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom! The Christian therefore is able to make sense of this originally good, yet fallen world which God created, and that he has acted in Christ to redeem. The heavens declare his glory and the earth is full of his goodness, even while the whole creation groans with frustration, awaiting its liberation from disorder and entropy. The unbeliever however views exactly the same data from the presupposition that God does not exist. The truth concerning his existence is suppressed (Romans 1:18ff). Conclusions drawn from the data are therefore faulty. It's all in the presuppositions.

Baggini claims that the theistic approach to science takes the mystery out of it all because every time believers see something unexplainable, they invoke God. That is a slight oversimplification. Besides, God is the ultimate mystery. He is beyond even the mystery of a finely tuned universe that is fit for human life. He is the one God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. He is sovereign, yet we are accountable to him for our actions. The triune God loves fallen human beings. In Christ, the infinite embraced the finite and became one of us to rescue us from our sin. There is no greater mystery than the mystery of God's love revealed at Calvary, and poured into our hearts by the Holy Spirit. "Tis mystery all, the immortal dies/who can explore his strange design?" Throughout eternity we shall remain baffled, amazed and surprised by the mystery of the triune God who is love. The task of theology is not to explain the mystery of God, but to set out the limits of God's self-revelation in Scripture. In the words of Augustine, the purpose of doctrine is to "erect a fence around the mystery" that will keep the faithful from attempting to pry into the hidden depths of God's being.

To conclude, arguments concerning the fine tuning of the universe and the anthropic principle may be used by believers as they seek to witness to their non-Christian friends. But such arguments only make sense once we have made it clear that we are arguing from the presupposition that God exists to show that the world as it is is consistent with biblical revelation. The function of apologetics in this context is to demonstrate that reality is in keeping with the presuppositions of Christian theism - the universe looks just as we might expect given that is was designed and made by a loving Creator. But that is not all we have to say. The fall has to be factored in to explain the presence of evil and suffering, death and decay in God's world. And we gladly proclaim what could never be deduced from observing the natural world; the revelation of God in a mystery that is the gospel of salvation. The ultimate anthropic principle is that God became man in Christ to rescue human beings from sin and death. In Jesus' incarnation, atoning death and bodily resurrection, God has acted not only to save individual human beings, but to renew the whole cosmos, Romans 8:18-22. We can only see all this when we start with the presupposition that God is there, and he is not silent. We believe in order to understand. There is no other way, Hebrews 11:3, 1 John 5:20.

On the next edition of Unbelievable, David Robertson will be discussing his book The Dawkins Letters, with an atheist blogger.

John Blanchard: Has science got rid of God?

An Evening with John Blanchard:
"Has science got rid of God?"

Saturday 21st March, 6pm,
West Lavington Village Hall,
Sandfield, West Lavington, Wiltshire
More details and directions here.

Many people seem to assume that modern science has got rid of God. Or at least got rid of the need to believe in a divine being. We now understand so much about the world that we don't need to invoke him as an explanation for the universe. This view has especially taken hold since the publication of Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species 150 years ago. But has science really got rid of God? If you are interested in this issue whether as a believer or a non-believer then you might like to know of a special event later this month. John Blanchard, an international speaker and bestselling author has been booked to speak at West Lavington Village Hall on the question "Has science got rid of God?"

While the likes of Richard Dawkins might claim that it has, there might be another side to the story. The Bible begins with the grand assertion, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". The fact that the universe exists, and that we are here to wonder at the meaning of it all is due to God's creative power. Time plus random forces do not provide an adequate explanation for the origin of the universe, and the teeming diversity of life on earth. But God is more than a convenient explanation for life, the universe and everything. We can have a personal relationship with him as Father through the Lord Jesus Christ who came into the world to bring us back to God.

Do the heavens declare God's glory or do we live in randomly created world that is without purpose and hope? If you are up for the challenge of thinking about this fascinating question then clear your diary for this event.

Book table

Light refreshments