By Rich Deem

Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
In optics, mechanics, and mathematics, Newton was a figure of undisputed genius and innovation. In all his science (including chemistry) he saw mathematics and numbers as central. What is less well known is that he was devoutly religious and saw numbers as involved in understanding God’s plan for history from the Bible. He did a considerable work on biblical numerology, and, though aspects of his beliefs were not orthodox, he thought theology was very important. In his system of physics, God is essential to the nature and absoluteness of space. In Principia he stated, “The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being.”

This video lasts 8:55

Never, here or anywhere else, let us think while anthropomorphic images are a concession to our weaknesses, the abstraction [metaphysical and theological] are the literal truth. Both are equally concessions; each singly misleading, and the two together mutually corrective.

C.S. Lewis, Letters to Malcolm (published 1964)

By David Rogstad, Ph.D.

In the April 2008 issue of Nature, an essay by Phillip Ball explains how, in his view, modern science began “in the twelfth century…several hundred years earlier than we have imagined” through a break with the theology of medieval Christianity as it emerged out of the darkness of the Middle Ages. In his words, “The architects of this new philosophy [a naturalistic worldview] attempted to reconcile their perspective with the pervasive religious sentiment of the Middle Ages. But in so doing they opened the schism between faith and reason that has since widened to a chasm.” He goes on to describe this growing tension by recounting a number of scientific contributions made in pre-enlightenment days and how these were opposed by the religious institutions.

Near the end of his article, Ball argues:

“By degrees, such secular learning was found to have so much explanatory power that it rivalled, rather than rationalized, theology itself. The consequent rift between faith and reason has now left traditional religions so compromised they are susceptible to displacement by more naive and dogmatic varieties.”

I do not feel qualified to argue with the picture he paints except to say that, based on my impression from reading works of some historians of science, like Stanley Jaki in The Savior of Science, Rodney Stark in The Victory of Reason, or Alister McGrath in Science & Religion: An Introduction, Christianity contributed far more to the scientific revolution than Ball gives credit.

However that argument may end, there is another path I would like to pursue here. Suppose Ball is right and real science began when medieval thinkers were able to break free from the shackles of a theistic worldview to follow a naturalistic one. Then I think it’s fair to ask, like Ken Samples has in his article “The Historic Alliance of Christianity and Science”, does a naturalistic worldview provide the presuppositions necessary to sustain a continuing scientific endeavor? Or is it that those early scientists, as well as scientists today, are borrowing their presuppositions from a theistic worldview?

According to naturalism, the world is a product of blind, nonpurposeful processes. We, and our reasoning ability are, in the end, the result of an accident. How, then, does naturalism account for such things as the scientific method, assumptions about the uniformity of nature governed by laws, or abstract reasoning and the laws of logic? How can we have any confidence in our reasoning processes if the mind is a mere accident of nature? In the words of C.S. Lewis from his collection of essays God in the Dock:

“I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.”

Agnostic theoretical physicist and popular author, Paul Davies, is more candid than most in admitting the role that a theistic worldview plays in science (as cited here):

“People take it for granted that the physical world is both ordered and intelligible. The underlying order in nature—the laws of physics—are simply accepted as given, as brute facts. Nobody asks where they come from; at least they do not do so in polite company. However, even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd, that there is rational basis to physical existence manifested as law-like order in nature that is at least part comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview.”

In the end, we must answer the question posed by Ken Samples, “Is it more reasonable to believe that the universe came into existence from nothing by nothing or that, as the Bible says, ‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth’?”

Posted at Reasons.org

IF GOD IS SO GREAT, WHY WOULD HE CARE ABOUT US? 

By Greg Boyd

Question: I’ve read that scientists estimate that the number of stars in the universe is 10 to the 24th power (10 with 24 zeros after it). I’m told that finding the earth amidst all these stars would be like finding one particular grain of sand in a sand pile the size of the United States piled 25 feet deep! Plus, the universe has been around for 13.5 billion years, while humans have only existed the last 10,000 years or so. This is a mere nanosecond of the cosmic clock. If this is all created by God, it seems far beneath him to care about us little — and very recent — humans on this little planet.

Answer: The question presupposes a dichotomy between greatness, on the one hand, and caring for little people, on the other. I would argue in the opposite direction, however. Rather than saying God is too great to care about us little humans, I’d say God is great precisely because he cares about us little humans. For the essence of God’s greatness is love, and love between unequals is greater than a love between equals. A story of a prince who willingly sacrifices his whole kingdom out of love for a peasant girl demonstrates a greater love than a story of a prince who marries the daughter of a king. In this light, the story of God caring about us little humans, to the point of becoming one of us and dying for us, despite the fact that we didn’t deserve it, must be seen as the greatest love story ever told. Calvary reveals the greatest, most beautiful, most loving conception of God humans have ever dreamed of.

In fact, I don’t believe humans dreamed this story up. It’s beyond what we are capable of dreaming. And, in any case, there’s a wealth of historical evidence that it’s actually true. (See P. Eddy and G. Boyd, The Jesus Legend [Baker, 2007]). Our most poignant love stories are faint echoes of the love story given us in the Gospels.

By Chris Knight 

The story of the blind men and the elephant is well known, but there is a lesser known account of the blind men in a parallel universe visiting a zoo. This second story is far more interesting and, I would argue, far more enlightening.

For those unfamiliar with the traditional story of the blind men and the elephant, here it is:[1]

Six blind men encounter an elephant – although how they knew that it was an elephant the story does not recount. The first touches its trunk and says that an elephant is like a palm tree, another touches its side and says that an elephant is like a rough wall. Another feels its tail and says that an elephant is like a piece of rope. Each comes into contact with a different part of the elephant[2] and is convinced that their own explanation is correct and that the others are wrong. None of them realises that they are all experiencing just one part of the same elephant and that none of their explanations are complete.

In the same way, so it is argued, different religions experience different parts of ‘God’ but fail to realise that each is just one part of the complete truth.

The problem with this interpretation of the parable is best phrased as a question: How does the interpreter know that every religion is just a part of the overall conception of God? In order to know this, one would have to be able to see God in all his fullness and understand how each religion reflects just a part of that complete picture.

The updated story of the blind men and the zoo

Here is an alternative version of the story, which to me rings far more true about mankind’s search for God.

Six blind men[3] are in search of an elephant, to discover what it is like. So they visit a zoo[4] and go their separate ways, exploring the animals with which they come into contact. One man goes up to the first animal that he encounters – a camel giving rides. He decides that it is an elephant. After a thorough investigation, he concludes that elephants are hairy, with two humps on their back, foul breath and long thin legs. The second blind man passes the elephant, ignoring the Braille sign next to it. Soon afterwards, he encounters an ostrich and concludes that this is an elephant, with feathers, two legs and a rather dangerous beak. The third and fourth men have equally unfruitful encounters with other animals. The fifth blind man ends up at the elephant enclosure and, oblivious to everything else around him due to the volume of his iPod, concludes that an elephant is like a castle, with four columns to support the armoured walls and two spears jutting forward either side of a large hollow hosepipe, which must be used for washing away its enemies.

A little later, the final blind man also reaches the elephant enclosure, having consulted the Braille direction signs scattered around the zoo and having asked one of the many friendly zookeepers in order to ensure that he really was in the right place for the elephant. Feeling his way around the elephant, this man mutters to himself, ‘I wonder what an elephant is really like.’ To his amazement, he hears the reply, ‘If you really want to know, I will show you.’ Immediately, his vision clears and he can see the whole elephant. He engages the elephant in earnest conversation until closing time, finding out just what the elephant thinks about the zoo, the visitors and the surroundings. At the same time, the man carefully takes note of all of the elephant’s characteristics.

On meeting up with his friends on the bus home, the sixth man finds that his friends have different and strange ideas about what an elephant is, but none of them have any idea what an elephant is truly like. The blind man explains to them his own encounter with the elephant – not just what it feels like, but that an encounter with this elephant can literally open their eyes and ears and reveal the inner nature of the elephant. Some believe him and return to the zoo to encounter the elephant for themselves. The others ignore him, continuing to listen to their iPods or dismissing him as crazy.

The moral of the story [5]

Most of the blind men did not encounter an elephant at all – despite the signs and the zoo keepers giving directions. Of those who did, one reached only a limited understanding of the elephant – the pleasures and cares of the world deafening him to the words of the elephant. Only one man truly encountered the elephant, being open to what the elephant wanted to reveal to him.

In mankind’s search for God, people can fumble around on their own, seeking to know what they cannot, by themselves, hope to grasp. Indeed, many look entirely in the wrong place, ignoring the signs that are pointing to the one true God, while others are too busy trying to distract themselves from the realities of life with various pleasures and activities. People’s different interpretations of God are not necessarily aspects of one truth, but descriptions of entirely different things – not an elephant, but a camel or an ostrich.

Click here to read the full article with active footnotes.

Capernaum was a fishing village and trading post on the northwest shore of the Sea of Galilee during the first century AD. In the Bible, Capernaum was described as the village along the border of Zebulon and Naphtali where Jesus made his home after leaving Nazareth and starting his ministry (Matthew 4:13). It’s at Capernaum where we have early accounts of Jesus teaching both Jews in the synagogue and Romans in the homes. Jesus called four fishermen (Peter, Andrew, James and John) and a tax collector (Matthew) as disciples at Capernaum.

From AllAboutArchaeology.org

Nothing can vex the Devil more
Than the name of him whom we adore.
Therefore doth it delight me best
To stand in the choir among the rest,
With the great organ trumpeting
Through its metallic tubes, and sing:
Et verbum caro factum est!
These words the devil cannot endure,
For he knoweth their meaning well!
Him they trouble and repel,
Us they comfort and allure,
And happy it were, if our delight
Were as great as his affright!

Henry Wadsworth Longfellow (1807-1882)

“Et verbum caro factum est” is Latin for ”And the Word became flesh.” 

This video lasts 9:05

By Rich Deem

Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
Descartes was a French mathematician, scientist and philosopher who has been called the father of modern philosophy. His school studies made him dissatisfied with previous philosophy: He had a deep religious faith as a Roman Catholic, which he retained to his dying day, along with a resolute, passionate desire to discover the truth. At the age of 24 he had a dream, and felt the vocational call to seek to bring knowledge together in one system of thought. His system began by asking what could be known if all else were doubted - suggesting the famous “I think therefore I am”. Actually, it is often forgotten that the next step for Descartes was to establish the near certainty of the existence of God - for only if God both exists and would not want us to be deceived by our experiences - can we trust our senses and logical thought processes. God is, therefore, central to his whole philosophy. What he really wanted to see was that his philosophy be adopted as standard Roman Catholic teaching. Rene Descartes and Francis Bacon (1561-1626) are generally regarded as the key figures in the development of scientific methodology. Both had systems in which God was important, and both seem more devout than the average for their era.