The Questioning Christian

Science is necessarily atheistic (but of course, that’s not necessarily the end of the inquiry)

Cosmologist Lawrence M. Krauss writes in today’s Wall Street Journal:

J.B.S. Haldane, an evolutionary biologist and a founder of population genetics, understood that science is by necessity an atheistic discipline. As Haldane so aptly described it, one cannot proceed with the process of scientific discovery if one assumes a "god, angel, or devil" will interfere with one's experiments. God is, of necessity, irrelevant in science.

Faced with the remarkable success of science to explain the workings of the physical world, many, indeed probably most, scientists understandably react as Haldane did. Namely, they extrapolate the atheism of science to a more general atheism.

While such a leap may not be unimpeachable it is certainly rational, as Mr. McGinn pointed out at the World Science Festival. … [T]he scientific process … is in fact rationally incompatible with the detailed tenets of most of the world's organized religions. [¶¶]

(Emphasis added.)

Of course, the atheists can’t categorically rule out another possibility, held out by others such as scientist-theologian John Polkinghorne, namely that ‘God’ might interact with the world in ways that we simply lack the capability to understand or even observe, perhaps at the level of quantum mechanics.

That doesn’t mean we should premise significantly-risky decisions on the assumption that God acts in the world, only that it’s important not to get locked into an anti-religious dogma that insists he does not.

And indeed, Krauss nails it when he says, "The current crisis in Iran has laid bare the striking inconsistency between a world built on reason and a world built on religious dogma.”  The same would seem to apply to any variety of dogma.

Multiple universes might still need a Creator

"Our universe is perfectly tailored for life. That may be the work of God or the result of our universe being one of many." (Emphasis mine.) So says the slug of a very readable article by Tim Folger published yesterday in the on-line version of Discover magazine:  Science's Alternative to an Intelligent Creator: the Multiverse Theory.

The slug is wrong about one thing:  It's not an either-or proposition. Even if multiple universes have been created, and ours is the one we happen to live in, we're still left with the question: How did that come to pass?  (So says the Rev. Dr. John Polkinghorne, quoted in the Folger article, in one of his books.)

There's no reason to think a Creator would not create multiple universes instead of just one. That would be roughly parallel with the way we think evolution works in our particular universe:  Lots of 'experiments,' with the ones that work, continuing on.

Or as Paul says in 1 Thess. 5.20: Don't scorn people who come up with novel ideas; instead, test everything, and keep that which seems good.

The Great Commandment and Evolutionary Success

This posting is adapted from a response I posted to a pseudonymous atheist's question at TitusOneNine.  It's long, so here's a summary:

• The Great Commandment — that we must love God and our neighbor — was Jesus' core message.

• But we can't will ourselves into emotional love; so how can we obey the Great Commandment?

• We can "love" God by humbly facing the facts ("it is what it is").

• We can "love" our neighbors by seeking the best for them:  which goes hand in hand with trusting that all will be well.

• These forms of "love" are also sound evolutionary strategies.

• The Great Commandment is a powerful engine of the continuing creation.

Birth of the Universe - Nat'l Geographic show

I just finished watching an excellent National Geographic TV show, Birth of the Universe.  It gives a very understandable explanation of how a cosmic "assembly line" produced all the atoms we see around us, over the course of billions of years after the Big Bang. 

My favorite line was by a professor whose name I didn't get.  He was talking about how all heavier-than-iron elements — including gold — were forged in supernovae explosions.  He said:  "If it weren't for exploding stars, Paris Hilton wouldn't have anything to wear [...] she wouldn't have any bling."

The show is on again tomorrow night at 1 a.m. and Saturday at 2 p.m. (Eastern time in both cases).  Definitely worth setting your DVR for.

Big Bang vs. Steady State: A 1961 Showdown

In the NY Times, George Johnson reviews the book Conflict in the Cosmos, recounting an episode in which Fred Hoyle's steady-state theory of an infinitely-old universe was contradicted by actual data from Big-Bang proponent Martin Ryle:

[The steady-state theory] was a minority view, but [Hoyle] and a few like-minded theorists were able to keep the plate spinning for years. Another Cambridge luminary, Martin Ryle, finally brought it crashing down. An irascible, hardheaded experimenter, Ryle thought theorists like Hoyle were daffy. In a colloquium on sunspots, Mitton reports, Ryle became so incensed by Hoyle's speculations that he dashed to the blackboard and angrily erased the equations.

Ryle, an expert at measuring stellar radio waves, was determined to disprove the steady-state theory. Continuous creation of matter would mean that galaxies everywhere are about the same age. But if the universe began with an explosion, more distant objects would appear younger, for their light has been traveling toward Earth since the beginning of time.

When Ryle's numbers were plotted on a graph, the outcome of the great debate came down to the slope of a single line. For years it seesawed, as the first Cambridge Survey of Radio Sources was followed by a second and a third. In 1961 Hoyle and his wife were invited to attend a press conference in which Ryle would present the fourth survey's results. That turned out to be a setup. Hoyle squirmed onstage while Ryle unfurled his data. ''Would Professor Hoyle care to comment?'' In a bizarre twist, The Evening Standard of London headlined the outcome: ''Universe -- Bible Is Correct.'' In the beginning was the Big Bang.

Not that Hoyle was persuaded. He was as overly impressed with his sense of cosmological aesthetics as Eddington had been with his. Big bangs popping out of nowhere, stars disappearing into gravitational holes -- call it ugly, if you like, but don't expect the universe to care.

Star Wars: Episodes 1 and 2 - New York Times.

Good Scientific American Articles About Religion

Scientists on Religion:  Theist and materialist ponder the place of humanity in the universe.   George Johnson reviews:

• God's Universe, by scientist-believer Owen Gingerich;


• The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, by scientist-believer Francis S. Collins


• The God Delusion, by scientist-atheist Richard Dawkins; and


• The Varieties of Scientific Experience: A Personal View of the Search for God, by astronomer-agnostic Carl Sagan, edited by Ann Druyan

Let There Be Light:  The SciAm editors observe that:

[...] Americans are famously religious, but according to studies by the National Science Foundation, they say that they hold science in higher regard than do the people of any other industrial country.

Surveys indicate that scientists are only half as likely as the general public to describe themselves as religious, but 40 percent still do. 

As Albert Einstein wrote, it takes fortitude to be a scientist--to persevere despite the frustrations and the long lonely hours--and religious inspiration can sometimes provide that strength.

Unquestionably, the findings of science conflict with certain religious tenets. Cosmology, geology and evolutionary biology flatly contradict the literal truths of creation myths from around the world. Yet the overthrow of religion is not a part of the scientific agenda. [...]

(Paragraphing edited.)

Natural de-selection: Man climbs into lion enclosure, is promptly killed

Some say that if humans were the direct result of intelligent design, God certainly could have done a better job of it.  As if we needed more evidence of this, here's a Reuters report about a man who doubtless will be a Darwin Award finalist:

KIEV (Reuters) - A man shouting that God would keep him safe was mauled to death by a lioness in Kiev zoo after he crept into the animal's enclosure, a zoo official said on Monday.

"The man shouted 'God will save me, if he exists', lowered himself by a rope into the enclosure, took his shoes off and went up to the lions," the official said.

"A lioness went straight for him, knocked him down and severed his carotid artery."

Happily, there's a silver lining, for the rest of us if not for the unfortunate star of the story:  We have the ability to grasp the lessons of episodes like this.  We pass along the stories and their lessons to others, not least to our kids.  And gradually, painfully — thanks [added 6-6:  in part] to the blessings of memory, reason, and skill — progress happens.

Unless you happen to be the one who becomes the lioness's lunch, you have to admit it's a pretty slick system.  Maybe that system is what was intelligently designed ....

Scientists Call Fish Fossil the 'Missing Link' - NY Times

From Scientists Call Fish Fossil the 'Missing Link' - NY Times

Scientists have discovered fossils of a 375 million-year-old fish, a large scaly creature not seen before, that they say is a long-sought "missing link" in the evolution of some fishes from water to a life walking on four limbs on land.

In addition to confirming elements of a major transition in evolution, the fossils are widely seen by scientists as a powerful rebuttal to religious creationists, who hold a literal biblical view on the origins and development of life.

Don't Teach Creationism, Says ABC

See this NY Times article.

Using Our Brains in God's Continuing Creation

Here's an excerpt from an essay from August 2005 by the Rt. Rev. Katherine Jefferts Schori, Episcopal Bishop of Nevada and nominee for Presiding Bishop:

... We believe that revelation continues, that God continues to be active in creation, and that all of the many ways of knowing -- including geology, evolutionary biology, philosophy, and arts such as opera, punk rock or painting -- can be vehicles through which God and human beings partner in continuing creation.

Given this worldview, we are compelled to use the resources God has given us. Not to use our brains in understanding the world around us seems a cardinal sin.