Blind Science vs. Blind Faith

Students in our colleges and universities live constantly in a tension between two authority systems: one more or less vaguely associated with science and the other with religion. Both systems are “blind” in the sense that the edicts they impose on thought and behavior are never, for the vast majority of people, reduced to anything close to understanding, verification, or proof. An illustration comes from a recent experience reported by one of my friends.

This student was walking across campus with a professor whose field is religious studies. In their conversation, the student happened to mention the resurrection of Christ. The professor's response: The resurrection is inconsistent with the laws of physics. Now, in fact, the laws of physics lie at a considerable conceptual distance from phenomena such as human death and decay and their possible reversal. This particular professor in any case, would have little if any idea where to begin showing that resurrection conflicts with physics—or why it matters, if it does conflict. Indeed, who would? Very few, I would imagine. "Science" was vaguely invoked to end the discussion, just as in other contexts, "religion" is used for the same purpose.

But then the professor probably will never be confronted with the task of actually demonstrating how the resurrection is inconsistent with the laws of physics. The student in question, an extremely bright as well as devout young man, was too gracious (and perhaps stunned) to force the issue; and certainly he would have found it difficult to show that the resurrection and physics are not inconsistent or why it doesn't matter if they are.

It is painful to observe that our culture provides no friendly meeting place for the authorities of science and religion to engage in good‑faith efforts to understand the truth about our life and our world. How many people seek or find the preparation required to deal profitably with issues such as resurrection and the laws of physics? To be genuinely open to truth and able to seek it effectively is surely one of the greatest human attainments. I am convinced that it can come only as a gift of God’s grace. It implies faith in a cosmic context where one no longer feels the need to hide, to invoke explanations that really explain nothing at all but simply enable one to hold a position with an appearance of reasonableness.

The professor who invoked physics is surrounded constantly with things and events for which no physical explanation yet exists, nor even the beginnings of one. Just look at the physics texts and see. A most obvious case is the existence of the physical universe itself, as well as of life and human consciousness. When confronted with the de facto inability of physics in this respect, the academically sanctified dodge is to invoke chance, along with huge spans of time, for everything to "work," and further, to invoke the promise of what science (really, physics) supposedly will be able to explain in the future as it continues to make progress. But chance is not something that can produce or explain anything. Rather, it is invoked precisely at the point where there is no known explanation or cause. And if something is, indeed, impossible, it will not help to have more time to get it done. We need a demonstration of the possibility, for example, of life's emerging from the inorganic, and then we can talk about time. But the assumptions of this "scientific" evasion are so complicated and culturally protected that most people confronting it do not realize they have been handed intellectual sawdust instead of bread.

Unfortunately, religion frequently invokes its own non‑explanations as a means of holding its ground. Usually these involve the idea that God's power is so great that we can say with reference to anything simply that He did it and thus have an explanation that protects us. There's no need to look further or think further.

Now God's act as an explanatory principle has an advantage over chance in that we all know something of what it is like for an act or choice to bring something about. Nothing comparable can be said of chance. Personality is a source of energy and causation with an intelligible structure. It simply is not a physical structure. But there is no good reason it should be, and once you think about it, every reason it should not. For if it were, the fundamental feature of human life and consciousness would be destroyed or reduced to illusion. As long as we recognize that knowledge does not reduce to physics, and as long as we understand that science is just knowledge, we have every right to speak of the possibility of a science that encompasses consciousness in divine and human forms along with the physical and whatever else there may be.

The impasse of authorities confronting authorities (or intimidating others) begins to dissolve when prepared and thoughtful people devote themselves to the humble examination of facts and evidence rather than to defending their positions. It is difficult to imagine anything more necessary and Godlike than this. We must escape the cultural deadlock that is turning universities—and churches—into places of “right views,” rather than thought and knowledge, and producing a Christian personality split into a religious side and a professional, intellectual side which never come into contact.

Important work of reconciliation needs to be done. Progress is possible if a vast number of Christians, devoted and qualified, will permeate all dimensions of society and bring the Spirit and power of Christ to bear upon the points where the authority structures of the intellectual professions are in blind conflict with genuine faith in Jesus Christ.

The Nature of Genesis & The Role of Science

Vern Poythress in his book Redeeming Science begins with a thoroughly Christian worldview. God is the creator of the world. Everything came into being by Him and through Him (Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1-3). God revealed Himself and reveals Himself through special revelation (scripture) and general revelation (providence and nature, laws of physics …). We all know however, that the real sticking point is the apparent conflict between the interpretation of the data arising from exploration of God’s word in general revelation (science) and the interpret of God’s word contained in the special revelation of Scripture. So how is this apparent conflict to be reconciled?

In Chapters 5-10 of his book Poythress discusses the nature of Genesis, the role of science and the dating of the earth, and the relative merits and flaws of several possible interpretation of Genesis:

1. 24-Hour-Day view: “Literal” reading of Genesis 1 and following - often supplemented by Flood Geology to account for the geological/biological discrepancies.

2. Mature Creation Theory: World brought into being in a short period of time (6 days - probably 24-hour days) with an appearance of age. Reconciliation with science then does not deny the science but simply asserts that Genesis teaches that God created the world in a short period in the form that would have arisen through his created natural process.

3. Religious-Only Theory: Scripture is only intended to address matters of religious not scientific fact.

4. Local Creation Theory: Genesis 1:1, John 1:1-3 assert God as creator of all, but the specific descriptions following in Genesis only refer to a small region of the world around the Garden of Eden in modern day Iraq.

5. Gap Theory: There is a large time gap between Genesis 1:1 and the remainder of Genesis. Most of Genesis only refers to the restoration of creation after the fall of Satan.

6. Day-Age Theory: Each day in Genesis refers to a long period of time, an “age” of billions, millions or thousands of years. Each day-age is of a different length. As I understand it this is the view championed by Hugh Ross and his organization. Audio files of lectures describing his approach can be found on the Veritas Forum website.

7. Intermittent Day Theory: The suggestion here is that each day of creation described in Genesis is a “real” day, but the text is silent on vast periods of time between the specific days of creation.

8. Revelatory Day Theory: This theory holds that the days of creation in Genesis refer to the days over which God revealed his creative work to Moses. It recounts the vision through which Moses was inspired to write his account, not the actual days of creation.

9. Framework Theory: The days refer by analogy to God’s work and the account in Genesis is a literary framework describing God’s work in creation, not a literal account. Among others, Lee Irons champions this approach.

10. Analogical Day Theory: God created the world in six days of work followed by one day of rest - but these days of divine work are an analogy rather than an identity with days of human work.

Poythress considers only three of these alternatives as attractive: Mature Creation, Framework, and Analogical Day, although it should be noted that the distinctions between the Analogical Day and Framework theories are subtle.

The mature creation option raises several objections that Poythress considers less than convincing. Most notably: Mature creation implies God as deceiver and mature creation invalidates scientific investigation. Although Poythress doesn’t set much stock in the God as deceiver objection, I find this argument compelling - in part because of the willful appearance of age argument that Poythress discusses, but more importantly because of the intricate and unnecessary web of evidence contained in the fossil record, the geological make-up of the earth, and especially that embedded within the DNA of living creatures.

Despite his unwillingness to rule out the Mature Creation view - Poythress does not feel that the evidence contained in the special revelation of scripture requires this view and instead prefers the Analogical Day interpretation. In coming to this conclusion Poythress borrows from the approach of John Calvin, who took the view that in the inspiration of scripture God is speaking to ordinary people in ordinary language appropriate for all times and all conditions. God accommodates Himself equally to the understanding of the ancient Israelite and the modern engineer and our understanding of scripture should reflect this fact. Our interpretation of scripture should not attempt to impart an unintended technical meaning. Two key citations from Calvin come from his commentary on Genesis - particularly the passages dealing with Genesis 1:6 and 1:16, although there are additional examples in his consideration of other issues and other passages of scripture. As an example consider the following excerpt from the commentary on 1:16:

16. The greater light I have said, that Moses does not here subtly descant, as a philosopher, on the secrets of nature, … Moses makes two great luminaries; but astronomers prove, by conclusive reasons that the star of Saturn, which on account of its great distance, appears the least of all, is greater than the moon. Here lies the difference; Moses wrote in a popular style things which without instruction, all ordinary persons, endued with common sense, are able to understand; but astronomers investigate with great labor whatever the sagacity of the human mind can comprehend. Nevertheless, this study is not to be reprobated, nor this science to be condemned, because some frantic persons are wont boldly to reject whatever is unknown to them. For astronomy is not only pleasant, but also very useful to be known: it cannot be denied that this art unfolds the admirable wisdom of God. …Let the astronomers possess their more exalted knowledge; but, in the meantime, they who perceive by the moon the splendor of night, are convicted by its use of perverse ingratitude unless they acknowledge the beneficence of God.

According to the Analogical Day interpretation the description of creation represents an analogy between the work of God stretching over six divine days followed by a day of rest, and the work of humans in understandable terms, laying groundwork for both the Sabbath day and the Jubilee year commanded in Leviticus. God speaks and teaches through analogy and thus accommodates his revelation to human understanding. In the interpretation of Genesis Poythress also suggests that we should look to different cultural approaches to time - including our current obsession of keeping to the clock and the more interactive experience of time tied to the rhythms of human existence.

“If one goes to Genesis 1 with a clock orientation, one focuses primarily on how long it took, as measured by a clock. But if one goes to Genesis 1 with an interactive orientation, one asks what important events took place, and what was their human social meaning. (139)” The rhythm of work and rest speaks to the ordinary human experience.

In the context of his discussion of the three attractive alternatives, Poythress also deals with two other objections to an extended creation.

First the Mature Creation view falsely implies that plant and animal death came about before the fall and future death would come about with or without the fall and in the other two views death came about before the fall. Considering this, Poythress concludes that nothing in scripture necessitates the view that all death originated with the Fall — only the death of mankind created in the image of God. The second objection is that all of these views undermine the biblical teaching about Noah and the flood. But the objections raised here again presuppose a modern worldview of the earth and the extent of the earth and the nature of the earth as a globe hanging in space. Again, God is speaking in scripture to ordinary people in ordinary situations at the time scripture was recorded and we must not allow our presupposition and assumptions to determine how the scripture must be interpreted.

So - a couple of questions here: In interpreting scripture, especially Genesis and creation, but also other passages and other issues, is it appropriate to include the understanding that God was speaking to ordinary people in ordinary situations in terms and ideas and analogies that they would understand? Given this accommodation, is it reasonable to view the general revelation of the Word of God in nature, learned through science, as filling in the blanks so to speak and revealing more of the mind, nature, and language of God?

90 Minutes in Heaven

The Bible tells us about three people who were privileged to see heaven on this side of the grave. All of these men, Stephen and the Apostles Paul and John, were alive when they were given a glimpse of the wonders of heaven. Don Piper, a Baptist pastor, claims to be a fourth, though unlike the other three, he first had to die first. Returning home from a conference, Piper's car was crushed under the wheels of a truck. Though medical personnel declared him dead at the scene of the accident, ninety minutes after this accident, a pastor, waiting at the scene, was told by God to pray for the dead man. He did so, and Piper immediately returned to life. For the 90 minutes that his body lay lifeless inside the car, Piper claims to have been in heaven. He now carries with him memories of paradise and in 90 Minutes in Heaven, a book which has sold over a million copies and which has been a long-time fixture on the New York Times list of bestsellers, he seeks to encourage other Christians with a description of our eternal home. "Because I was able to experience heaven," he says, "I was able to prepare [friends] for it. And now I am preparing you."

The title may be deceptive. A reader might assume, from the title, that a significant portion of the book is dedicated to describing heaven. The reality is that the author's time in heaven comprises only 15 pages of this 205-page book. A further seven pages, appended to the end of the book, engage very briefly (and unsatisfactorily) with the "why questions." The bulk of the book describes Piper's accident, rescue and convalescence with some attention to the ministry opportunities that have arisen since his time in heaven. The book is, in reality, a biographical sketch of Don Piper and a lengthy description of the trials he faced as he recovered from devastating bodily injuries. Following the description of heaven, there is little further reflection on paradise. There is little attempt to describe how the author's life and perspective on Scripture have changed because of his experience. There is little interaction with the Bible. There is little gospel.

Piper's description of heaven left me cold. I was dismayed to find that his heaven seems largely man-centered. In fact, if you were to ask your unbelieving friends and neighbors to describe heaven, they would probably create a place very much like this. Piper did not see Jesus, nor did he see God, though, to be fair, he saw only the "outskirts" and did not pass through the pearlescent gates. Despite this, he was exceedingly joyful and feels that he experienced the very joys of paradise. For ninety minutes he walked through heaven, greeted by those he knew in this life, all of whom were (quite conveniently), the same age they were when he had last known them. As I read this description of heaven I thought immediately of a quote from John Piper's book God is the Gospel. He asks:

The critical question for our generation--and for every generation--is this: If
you could have heaven, with no sickness, and with all the friends you ever had
on earth, and all the food you ever liked, and all the leisure activities you
ever enjoyed, and all the natural beauties you ever say, all the physical
pleasures you ever tasted, and no human conflict or any natural disasters, could
you be satisfied with heaven, if Christ was not there?

From the descriptions in 90 Minutes in Heaven we would would have to respond, "yes!" It seems that Don Piper's heaven is a heaven where we are fulfilled without Christ. Piper's heaven was a place of reunion with loved ones, a place of beautiful music and a place of literal pearl (or "pearlescent") gates and literal streets of gold. It is a heaven that can be so easily described to a human mind using mere human words, as if it had originated in a human mind. Piper is able to describe it in some detail, but what he presents is surely far too human to be heaven.

A further troubling aspect of the book is a clear lack of theological precision. For example, Piper continually describes miracles that surrounded his rescue and recovery, yet these are often not the type of events that theologians would classify as being miraculous. They may have shown God's grace and power, but they were not, strictly speaking, miracles. He also uses his experience to minister to people who lack assurance of their faith. But what true, lasting assurance can we find in the dubious experiences of another mere human? Our assurance is to be in God and His promises through Scripture, not in man.

I do believe Don Piper is a sincere man and one who loves God. He seems to sincerely believe that he experienced heaven and has been called by God to share his experience with others. But I do not believe that he did see heaven. I cannot say what his experience was, whether it was purely psychological or whether it was even some type of demonic deception. What I do know is that the Scriptures are wholly sufficient for believers. We do not need to see or experience heaven in this life. Nor should we desire Don Piper's heaven or to be encouraged by this experience.

I see no reason to believe that God wants us to know more about heaven than He has revealed to us in His Word. As the old hymn asks, "What more can he say than to you he has said?" God surely desires that we desire heaven, but only if we desire heaven primarily so we can be with the Savior. This is the heaven which we glimpse only dimly in Scripture, but which we await with eager expectation. It is most certainly not Piper's 90-minute heaven.

cc: Challies

Episcopalian Leadership: Disturbing

This blows my mind...

"Rough waters aren't new to Katharine Jefferts Schori, 52, a former oceanographer who is the Presiding Bishop-elect of the Episcopal Church of the U.S.A. Bishop Katharine, as she's known, takes over a denomination rocked by controversy at home and abroad for its liberal stance on gay clergy. She talked with TIME's Jeff Chu about her mission of social justice, the relationship between science and religion and whether faith in Jesus is the only path to heaven."

[excerpts from the interview with TIME magazine]

What will be your focus as head of the U.S. church?

Our focus needs to be on feeding people who go to bed hungry, on providing primary education to girls and boys, on healing people with AIDS, on addressing tuberculosis and malaria, on sustainable development. That ought to be the primary focus.
(Is this the Gospel Jesus preached? This is the Good News of God unto salvation? What good is it for man to gain the whole world and lose his soul? Hmm...)

What is your view on intelligent design?

I firmly believe that evolution ought to be taught in the schools as the best witness of what modern science has taught us. To try to read the Bible literalistically about such issues disinvites us from using the best of recent scholarship.
(What? Apparently Bible-believing, Christian scholars who oppose the theory of evolution aren't quite up to par with the "best of recent scholarship".)

Is belief in Jesus the only way to get to heaven?

We who practice the Christian tradition understand him as our vehicle to the divine. But for us to assume that God could not act in other ways is, I think, to put God in an awfully small box.
(I think Jesus may disagree with the Bishop on this one.)

*NOTE: In related news, the testosterone levels of male Americans has dropped significantly in the past twenty years.

5,000 Years of Religion in 90 Seconds

Click here.