GroshLink

Terry Nichols, Chair of the Theology Department at the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, MN, began his Duquesne campus lecture by reflecting upon a recent visit to a Copenhagen congregation with 35 on a Sunday morning. I tried my best to keep pace, but I must confess that I didn't get it all down :-( But it will give you a good glimpse into the material which he presentated last week.

What happened to Christianity in the Scandanivian Churches? One can point to a number of factors including the state church and the War. But Nichols segued to the challenge of Philosophical Naturalism: 1. the belief that only nature exists. E.g., Sagan's statement, The universe is all that is, all there ever was, and all that ever will be. 2. Nature in this sense means what can be measured and tested experimentally.

The thesis was his presentation was 1. Philosophical Naturalism is philosophy not natural science. 2. Naturalism does not explain the world described by science better than Christianity; Christian philosophy and theology offers the more plausible explanation

So let's dig in, natural science explanations are limited to those based on observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists. Explanations that cannot be based on empirical evidence are not part of science. Science, therefore, explains natural phenomena by recourse to natural causes. Nature means what can be measured and empirically tested by scientists. Supernatural causes have not been considered part of natural science (they belong in theology). Note that this perspective is not scientifically testable, but has been held by signficant figures such Boyle, Kepler, and Newton.

In the Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy (the Principia), a landmark in early science in which Newton explains the motion of the plantes as due to gravity his laws of motion, Newton added a general scholium at the end, after the scientific explanation. This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being. Newton realized that this didn't belong in the body of scientific writing, but it is a conclusion of knowledge.

Robert Boyle, When with bold telescopes I survey the old and newly discovered stars and planets . . . when with excellent microscopes I discern nature's curious workmanship; when the help of anatomical knives and the light of chymical furnaces I study the book of nature. I find myself exclaiming with the psalmist. "How manifold are thy works, O God, in wisdom hast thou made them all!" (Some Motives and Incentives to the Love of God, 1648)

For a more recent scientist with a similar perspective, consider the work of the Director of the Human Genome Project, Francis Collins, e.g., The Language of God

Sagan and Flanagan are wrong that one can separate natural science and belief. A Christian explanation of the whole of reality is more plausible than is a naturalist explanation. There is not proof. Even Jesus is tempted to do this on the cross. He didn't do it. I can't either. 1. Cosmology: The Big Bang Theory (BBT) and Fine Tuning, 2. Evolution, 3. The Human Person, 4. Theology and Science

Cosmology: All matter/energy, space, and time emerge in a single explosion, about 14 billion years ago. The BBT does not explain the origin of the explosion. From the explosion matter/energy cools and condenses into hydrogen and helium. Hydrogen and helium condense into stars. In these stars, higher elements are built up through nuclear fusion. The early stars explode, and spread heavy elements into space. Some of these condense into our earth. Over a 4.5 billion year process, organic molecules, cellular life, higher animals, and humans evolve on earth.

Fine-tuning: The physical laws and constants that govern our universe have to be precisely what they are in order for intelligent living beings to evolve. E.g. 1, Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time: If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in ta hundred thousand million million, the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present state. (pp 121-2). E.g., 2 Martin Rees: Just Six Numbers, Six necessary numbers for any form of life.

How do we explain the fine-tuning? 1. Chance: Multiple universe exist: we just happen to live in the one where the laws and constants are just right for life. See Rees, a hunch.

Critique: where did the multiverses come from brings the question one step back. Why a fine-tuned one? Violates Ockam's razor. Why is it ordered this way is still a question on the table? Chance degrades order.

2. Necessity; the laws of the universe had to be what they are. E.g., string theory, easy to imagine gravity as something different?

3. Intelligent creation: our universe was created by an intelligent Creator, who designed it so that intelligent life could emerge.

Most plausible is intelligent creation. You have to decide this for yourself.

Some physicists changing their opinion, e.g., Fred Hoyle's conversion over carbon production in the starts. A resonance in the carbon atom. Would you not say to yourself: Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chances of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule? Of course you would . . . A common sense interpretation of the facts suggest that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as w/chemistry and bio.

Evolution: Darwin's descent with modification in which living species descended from a few simple ancestors by natural selection acting on variation within population.

Neo-Darwinism: combines modern genetics and Darwin's theory of natural selection: evolution proceeds by random genetic variation and natural selection and other mechanisms such as sexual selection, genetic drift, etc. Master theory in biology today. Automatic production of life. Not goal directed. Completely blind, purposeless process.

Richard Dawkins: Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of life . . . .

Stephen J. Gould's Wonderful Life: Wind back the tape of life to the early days of the burgess Shale. Let it play again from an identical starting point, and the chance becomes vanishingly small that anything like human intelligence would grace the reply . . . Homo sapiens is a tiny twig on an improbably branch of a contingent limb on a fortunate tree . . . In Darwin's scheme, we are a detail, not a purpose or embodiment of the whole.

Critique: 1. ignores the enormous amount of order on the front end of the BBT. Fine-tuning argument of Francis Collins in the human genome project (3 billion characters would generate a standard paper stack higher than the Washington Monument): How marvelous and intricate life turns out to be! How deeply satisfying is the digital elegance of DNA! . . . Evolution, as a mechanism, can and must be true. But that says nothing about the nature of its author. For those who believe in God, there are reasons now to be more in awe, note less.

What guides natural selection: chance. E.g., Gould's comments on the asteroid which killed the dinosaurs, but left the mammals (which were largely mice). What if no asteroid? No humanity.

Theistic evolution: God creates through evolution. There are many versions of this. Two are 1. God does NOT know the future (e.g., John Polkinghorne and Ian Barbour), 2. God DOES know the future (e.g., Francis Collins).

John Polkinghorne: The actual balance between chance and necessity, contincey and potentiality which we perceive seems to me to be consist with the will of a patient and understanding Creator, content ot achieve his purpose through the unfolding of process and accepting thereby a measure of the vulnerability and precariousness which always characterize the gift of freedom by love (One World, p. 69).

Francis Collins: God sees all the world across time set before him in eternity.

Kenneth Miller: A God who presides over an evolutionary process. God is not an impotent, passive observer. Rather, He is one whose genius fashioned a fruitful world in which the process of continuing creation is woven into the fabric of matter itself. He retains the freedom to act, to reveal Himself to His creatures, to inspire, and to teach. He is the master of change and time, whose actions, bother powerful and suble . . . (Finding God).

The Human Person: Naturalism states that humanity comes into being through a purely natural process; there is no God, no soul, no afterlife. Most religious experience is not real. E.g., Will Provine: Modern Science directly implies that here are no moral or ethical laws, no absolute guiding principle for human society. We must conclude that when we die, we die, and that is the end of us. Finally, free will as it is traditionally conceived is the freedom to make uncoerced decisions.

Critique: 1. Naturalism without good defense of free will, e.g., computer. 2. Cannot explain universal moral laws. They're conventions. 3. Doesn't explain religious experience, old and widespread. 4. Bad news for most people. Provine is happy, what about Joe and Jane six pack or those in great poverty. This is as good as it gets. No happy life after this.

Christian explanation: Animals subject to genetics. But humans are made in the image of God with free choice and rationality. More plausible because we can explain the whole role of human experience. If our religious experience is not automatically false, then why has it not been selected against? It is still with us. If it were simply an illusion than non-religious societies should have taken over as they were selected for.

The relationship of Natural Science and Theology: Conflicting (Dawkins, Provine), Independent (Gould), Complementary (Polkinghorne, Collins, Nichols).

Sciene and faith explore differing domains of reality. Sometimes these domains overlap as with the human person. Science describes the physical processes of nature. Theology speaks of purpose, meaning, value, and God's action in our lives. Together, they give a more complete picture of reality than either does separately.

Eg., My free choice to not drink like my parents/genetics and subculture relates to my spirituality. As Alcholic Anonymous has shown us over the years, God's grace can be a factor in overcoming alcoholism (note: this is right out of Augustine). It's been successful for over 70 years. All four factors necessary to provide a complete explanation.

I moved from studying chemistry and physics to working for a construction company to becoming a theologian. Why? Because, I want to understand ultimate questions and meaning. The quest for knowledge does not stop at nature. The mind continues to raise questions as to ultimate meaning. The goal of our quest for knowledge is the eternal wisdom which created the universe grounded in the Logos.

Questions:

1. Your thoughts regarding science-faith are based on Christianity, how would they compare to those offered by other religions? These arguments are valid for theist religions. Keep in mind, naturalism is a challenge to all religions.

2. If we have such a strong draw to religion, why the migration away from religion in Europe? The demise of religion has been predicted for a long time. Religion has returned even in former Communist countries. Marx has been proven to be wrong. Something in human beings is stubbornly religious.

3. Can science itself become a religion? It can become a religion, an idol, because it has become so successful. It is intended to be a method of investigation, not a religion.

4. What about the revival of evangelical religion? I'm distressed by it as I'm committed to a more sophisticated understanding of reality. Dawkins is an atheistic fundamentalist, but evangelicals also have fundamentalists. It's too big a price for Christians to pay. Thomas Aquinas never said believe it just because the Bible or the Pope said it.

5. Mutations are due to imperfections/chance, not related to the well being of organism. Why does God allow evil in the world at all? Not all events are directed toward good ends, e.g., tsunami. God creates a world in which the creation can work on its own. A chance within an ordered system is like a fumble in football. People have genetic defects, deficiency. He gives a certain amount of freedom for the creation to work(Polkinghorne). For us to reach a perfect world, we have to become perfect in our love of God and neighbor. To reach that we need to come through a world with suffering and be able to say yes and no to good. Death provides space for new life. The only good answer is that ultimately I have to come back to afterlife. Within the framework of this life, there is not a good answer. In the resurrection all things will be well. Difficult trial and growth in this life before we come back for a new life.

6. Evolution as more than a mere hypothesis is an unhelpful perspective. It is incomplete. It is only 140 years old. What happened to the ether calculations by Maxwell? One of the most certain theories in physics. Eventually it's just a historical story. The theories are provisional and changing.

Notes from The Nature of the Soul retreat in process . . . check back later.