Introduction.

Faith and Reason.

Much of the Western World has been dominated by beliefs in human dignity; the equality of all races; universal access to education; universal access to health care; and also democracy for all. Although all of this is good, we must not take it for granted. There is growing cynicism. There can be no rational basis for any of these beliefs unless there is also a belief that human life on earth has real value (independent of an individual’s opinion or that of a particular society) - a value which comes from a transcendent reality that created us for a purpose. There can, and indeed are, individual opinions supporting these beliefs but they will be devoid of rational foundation unless there is, at least an implicit acknowledgement that there is a transcendent purpose for which we exist.. Without a belief in purpose, (other than individual opinion which may or may not believe in purpose) there can be no lasting (down the generations) belief, in value. At the time of writing there is increasing concern about websites that promote, with some success, suicide among the young[1]. Unless there is a common belief in value, the efforts of governments, which want to stem the tide of bad behaviour, will be doomed to failure (however imaginative are their efforts). It is reported in a recent edition of the Daily Telegraph[2] that there is a Conservative – Labour report which is calling upon the two party leaders to address the issue of social breakdown in Britain. The answer is not to revive the Church in its many forms because its behaviour, past and present, can provide little inspiration. This is true of the Church in all of its many denominations – both ancient and modern.  It is the message of God and His everlasting love that needs to be made known.

But which god? I believe that the goodness of the actual Creator shines through all His creation and therefore all peoples everywhere have a universal agreement about what is good and what is evil. (Though their customs might differ on relatively small points.) There are no people who regard cheating as good or kindness to the needy as evil. Therefore any religious teaching that goes against these views must be wrong. If the founder of a religion believed human life on earth had no value or that people were born into different racial groups – some privileged, some not – then we would know that this religion was wrong in its teaching about God. If a religion taught that the true God is everlasting love then this would correspond to what we all intuitively know.

It seems reasonable to believe that, assuming there is a transcendent world, (this will be shown in this book), that at the heart of this transcendent world there is a Person (because he cannot be less than us). It also seems reasonable to believe that this Person is very great love (after all most of us know a little of love). Love is always self-giving and therefore the Cross, in which the transcendent world experiences human suffering, death and the consequences of human sin, stands at the heart of human history. ‘God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself.’[3] The Resurrection, quickly following the Cross, guarantees that death and human foolishness will not have the final say in the destiny of the world.

Because he is a Person, our knowledge of him must be personal, i.e. not be subject completely to law and contract but it must be based on trust which itself is based on hearing or reading what a person says (his word) and speaking to him (conversation or prayer). This is how we know any person. Household rules may be useful and needed, but obeying them is not what the relationship between parents and children is all about. Law is meant as a restraint against evil during the time when our personal relationship with God is imperfect. Personal trust is primary and eternal, and law, though given by God as a temporary expedient, is secondary. So often in the Church’s history, the Church has made law primary and grace there to enable us to keep the law. But this is wrong. It is the relationship of grace and faith that is all important. A good illustration of this is Jesus’ own words when He said that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath.[4] There is a Sabbath law but it must not be so elevated that it gets in the way, stopping the proper relationship between God and humans to develop.

The Church is commissioned to give this message to the world but she herself has not really lived up to it, having succumbed to many of the evils of humankind. In one way this is not really surprising since the Bible itself predicts it. [5] Nevertheless this does not mean that the basic message of the Church cannot be trusted. One thing that we should note is that this fact actually bears witness to the grace of God because despite the appalling faults of the Church down the ages, the gospel is being accepted today, through the Church, in many lands where it was not known before.

Most people in the world intuitively recognise that there is more to life than mere atoms and laws of physics – more that is, than naturalism, materialism or physical science, can describe. The physical may well be important and be part of what a human being is eternally but there is more to life than that which is open to physical/investigation. Science is good, but is not all embracing, because there is more to life than an examination of the physical can describe. People may not be able to articulate their realisation; nevertheless they recognise their conviction as true. That is why religion (good or bad) is so widespread in the world. Attempts to remove the Judeo/Christian heritage from any country will create a spiritual vacuum which will inevitably suck in other less pleasant forms of spiritual belief. However it is my conviction that the realisation, that there must be a transcendent world should be respected, even though some of the manifestations of religion may be harmful.

There is only one way of knowing the transcendent world, and that is by faith, because ‘scientific’ methods will be inappropriate to examine that which cannot be defined in terms of atoms and natural laws. Faith, it is said, believes in things without evidence. Is that true? Rather faith is entrusting one’s life to Something, which although it is unseen (by us), there is ample evidence that it exists.

There is such a thing as faith without evidence. Physical science examines physical things therefore it could never show that non-physical things don’t exist. It has been very successful in examining physical things. It could hold the lesser view that the physical world is entirely self-contained. However, it could never reach that view unless it had reached a theory of everything (TOE). Not only has it not reached that point but, as will be seen, mysteries about the physical world’s behaviour increase (not decrease) the further physical science advances. Some have claimed that Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem shows that, in principle, a TOE can never be reached. Yet in spite of all this many people continue to hold to naturalism – the belief that only physical things exist - or that non-physical realities are not needed to explain the physical world. However successful physical science has been in explaining some of the physical world, it does not follow that the physical is everything in nature or creation.

This is a faith without evidence – so this kind of blind faith does exist after all!

=================================================

The 17th C French mathematician and philosopher, Pascal, in his Pensees (12) said:

Men despise religion. They hate it and are afraid it may be true. The cure for this is first to show that religion is not contrary to reason, but worthy of reverence and respect. Next make it attractive, make good men wish it were true, and then show that it is:

¨      Worthy of reverence because it really understands human nature.

¨      Attractive because it promises true good.

Many people will think that this is written in response to Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion. That is understandable but wrong. It was written before that book hit the press. Nevertheless I do really think that Richard Dawkins is both mad and bad. Anyone who thinks that extremely complex systems like the most primitive forms of life (before the alleged processes of evolution could get started) are the result of some cosmic fluke is mad, and anyone who says human life has no purpose (and therefore no value other than individual opinion which may or may not believe in purpose) is bad.

The first chapter demonstrates that the belief that an analysis of the physical world can reveal all knowledge is not only without evidence, it is also incoherent and that is true however far science advances.

The second chapter draws on that religious sceptic Bertrand Russell. It begins to reflect on those questions that Bertrand Russell considered most important for the human race – questions which cannot be answered by science or philosophy.

Chapter 3 continues with those questions especially as they relate to right and wrong[6].

But Richard Dawkins might ask as he has often done before which god – Zeus for example? Chapter 4 seeks a reason for believing the Bible’s revelation. It is a reason that is not often given but is truly external to the Christian Faith. I leave it to the reader to judge the validity or otherwise of the case made.

Some people have no response to the scientific or philosophical issues raised in much of the book but their problem is the one of evil and suffering. I give a short (though I hope not facile) response to this most troubling of troubling questions in chapter 5.

Bertrand Russell according to one modern philosopher tried to reduce everything to impersonal constituents[7]. He also claimed he could not know anything. In my view these two points are connected. Both mind and matter have at their base something deeply personal. I try to illustrate the necessary very personal nature of scientific discovery in chapter 6.

This theme is continued in chapter 7 when I illustrate the engagement with God using the Lord’s Prayer.

Some may protest that I engage ‘modernism’ but not ‘postmodernism’. Postmodernism uses reason to show that ‘reason’ itself is invalid. But any system which is arrived at by reason and then uses reason to invalidate reason must be self-refuting. Nevertheless postmodernism is right in saying that there is no room for reason in the ‘modernist/atheist’ worldviews. In my view only theism can be reconciled with human reason, so I will use reason to argue against materialist atheism.

So much of the book raises the question What is a human being? This question is much in people’s mind when they consider the question of genetic manipulation as it relates especially to humans. The issue of bioethics is raised in the first Appendix.

The second appendix relates to the question of evolution. If the theory of evolution is true it makes life more comfortable for the atheist but does not prove his position. However he desperately holds on to it even in spite of the difficulties. The second appendix considers Richard Dawkins’ exposition of this theory as found in his book explaining it for the layman. This writer is very unconvinced as he explains in this appendix.

The third appendix is a continuation of the former as the Intelligent Design movement is considered.

The final appendix considers the mind-brain problem (considered in this book) as it is discussed by the Oxford Mathematician Roger Penrose.

Who is the book meant for? The thinker and seeker that comes to it holding any worldview but with an open mind.

Throughout, much of history the search for knowledge has assumed that there is more to reality than can be described by the analysis of the physical world. Materialism was a minority belief. Sadly this has changed. No evidence has been found for the change but the change dominates much scientific thinking. This relatively new belief is without evidence – so a belief without evidence dominates the way we are taught to think. This faith without evidence must be challenged. That is the purpose of this book.