Knowledge of God – Deeply Personal.

Howard Taylor.

It is one thing to be convinced that there must be a Great Mind behind the universe and the mystery of human conscious experience, it is another to go beyond that conviction and respond to what we believe.

In this article we will consider what I expect, on reflection, we will regard as the only appropriate way of knowing God under the following headings:

¨      Prayer and the Personal Knowledge of God.

¨      What place the wonders of nature have in leading us to a knowledge of God.

¨      Science and Theology in dialogue

¨      A resistance to the knowledge of God in some scientists which has lessons for us all.

Prayer and the Personal Knowledge of God.

Once we are aware that there is probably more to reality than a collection of atoms and physical laws that govern their interactions; and further, once we have recognised that there is probably Personal Being above all and yet closely related to all things, then the most obvious thing to do is to try to communicate: Lord Hailsham puts it as follows:

........once you have come to the conclusion that there does exist a Person or rather an Entity transcending Person at the heart of the universe, some sort of prayer life is inevitable, and automatic.  It is unthinkable that, having reached the point, one should not at least attempt to communicate.  When one does seek to communicate one finds at once that one's first thought is not to ask for something.... There are moments of simple adoration and thankfulness for all the beauty and glory of the world, the goodness of other people. There are moments of horror at the suffering of men, of agony at one's own suffering, of misery and self-accusation at one's past misdeeds or present inadequacy. Ask for things? Why of course. Obviously if one's mind is troubled by this or that, when one collects one's thoughts and submits oneself to the presence of the Divine, the desire of one's heart comes bubbling forth.[1] 

Once we have prayed that prayer or a similar prayer we are opening our lives to something essentially different from that which can be reached by natural science.  And yet this way of knowing is in a sense still science. That is the case if we define scientific method as using ways of knowing that are appropriate to the object that is before us. This is important for we don't want an impersonal theology where we try to make logical deductions from nature about what God is like, and then make images of Him using our own reasoning skills. That would just be a modern form of idolatry.

The only appropriate way of knowing persons or The Person is by `methods' appropriate to personal knowledge namely speaking, listening and trusting. That is to say it is by faith. It will lead to a personal knowledge of a Personal Being to whom the whole natural world owes its own being.

As in the knowledge of all persons our knowledge of God will depend on Him revealing His Mind to us. Our fellow humans reveal their mind to us in words as we spend time in their presence. So it is reasonable to speak of God's self-revelation in terms of a Word which we hear when we are in His presence.  Our speech to one another reveals our own consciousness and we can speak of our own true self.

As we have seen when we considered the mind and consciousness this cannot in principle be reached by studying the physical processes of the brain. `Qualia' are characteristics of the `inside -out-world'[2] that cannot be seen from `outside-looking-in'. The Apostle Paul's words are relevant here and they are worth quoting again:

"For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no-one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. "For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ."[3]

To know God we need His own way of revealing Himself to us. So we do not find God by looking at nature, or seek to find Him as part of the data of natural science. Nature prompts us to look away from itself to God who is its Creator.

In all forms of knowing we have to know an object in the way appropriate to its own being. It would be foolish to use a microscope to try to see a star, just as it would be silly to use a telescope to learn about bacteria.

But there is much more to it than that simple example.

We must allow the way we think to change if we wish to advance in knowledge.

¨      If we had continued to believe that the earth is the centre of the universe we would have always found the motions of the celestial bodies a complete mystery.

¨      If scientists had clung to the seemingly common sense opinion that space and time are infinite containers of objects and events, we would never have grasped the nature of light nor understood how light from distant objects seems to bend round massive objects like our sun.

¨      If our logic had been governed by the belief that all of matter is made of tiny particles whose behaviour is governed by the fixed laws of physics we would never have understood how electrons seem able to influence one another even over huge distances although there is in principle no way in which they can communicate.  We would have been wedded to the opinion that there is no such thing as real freedom and that humanity itself was no more than a complex mechanism.

It is only as scientists are open to question their own fundamental presuppositions that science is able to proceed to a deeper knowledge of reality. As they discover a more profound logic than they had previously imagined, coming from the very reality they are seeking to know, true understanding of reality progresses.

This is the reason the theologian Karl Barth so strongly rejected natural theology.[4]  He believed we could only know God in the way He reveals Himself to us in the Person of Christ as the Scriptures testify about Him. This has led some to criticise Barth for seeming to give the impression that the wonders of nature are completely irrelevant to our knowledge of God.[5]

But do the startling discoveries about the astonishing structure of all creation really have no place in the knowledge of God?

Let us think of a human example.

I greatly admire the marvellous design of the computer on which I am now typing this. I conclude that its designer must be very ingenious for its abilities never stop surprising me[6]. But by examining the computer I can only deduce that he (or she) is clever. I have no idea whether he is generous or mean, honest or dishonest. I can gain no personal knowledge of him at all. I may rightly reason that he exists and that he is clever but that is all.

What, according to the Bible, does nature tell us about God?

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature-- have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.[7] 

That does not mean that we can go on to construct any personal knowledge of God by applying our human logic to His deeds of creation.

Another human example might help. We can talk with friends about another person who is not with us. We may, for example, discuss his achievements. If that person then enters the room where we are, we stop speaking about him. Our choice is now, either to speak to him, listening to what he has to say, or to ignore him. If we choose not to ignore him then true personal knowledge can begin. So it is with our knowledge of God. Only when we are brought to the point where we are willing to listen to Him, theology truly begins.

Although, according to the Bible, nature leaves us without excuse for not seeking God, it is not in the analysis of that nature, using our own reason, that we shall come to know Him. We may, from nature learn something of His deeds, but true knowledge of any person only really starts when we engage in conversation and talk with him.

Science and Theology in Dialogue.

This is why science and theology should engage one-another in dialogue. However this Natural theology is not just a prelude to the real thing. The universe is more than the mere stage on which the drama of revelation, redemption and personal faith takes place. The natural world is very much part of the act. John Polkinghorne reminds us that in Newtonian physics space and time were considered the stage on which the drama of physical processes took place, so that the geometry of space "was capable of being pursued in isolation from the mechanics of matter."[8] However he continues:

In General Relativity this is not the case. Space and matter, geometry and physics, impinge upon each other. What we think of as the force of gravity is due to the curvature of space, which is itself due to the distribution of matter. While it may at times be profitable to concentrate one's attention on geometry and at times on matter, one is always conscious that they together form an integrated whole.[9]

He then goes on to agree with T. F. Torrance's contention that "the same is true for natural and revealed theology."[10] He says of Torrance's view:

"His view is congenial to those of us who believe in the unity of knowledge and who consequently think that theology must take account of all that we know about the world in the course of its enquiry."[11]

Why should anyone struggle against openness to God?

Fred Hoyle who claims not to be a Christian and for many years was a strong supporter of the British Humanist Association says concerning one of the purposes of his book `The Intelligent Universe' in which he argues for an extra terrestrial intelligent designer of the universe:

"This indeed is just what orthodox scientists are unwilling to admit. Because there might turn out to be religious connotations, and because orthodox scientists are more concerned with preventing a return to the religious excesses of the past than in looking forward to the truth, the nihilistic outlook .... has dominated scientific thought throughout the past century. This book is as a vigorous protest against this outlook as I have ever launched."[12]

Whether or not Fred Hoyle is justified in expressing himself so strongly, it is true that the pursuit of ultimate truth does have personal consequences which may tempt the seeker to resist that which he is discovering.

Let us think again of the advance of scientific knowledge.

To recap on what we said earlier in this section: the great leaps forward have often come when men and women have allowed their previously held convictions about the `logic' of nature to be changed by the sheer pressure of what they are discovering in their observations. This is not always easy for it may mean giving up a whole way of thinking, that up to that point, has provided a secure framework for the way they think about the world.

In the knowledge of God we are faced with a similar situation. Any acknowledgement of Him will deeply affect our whole person and call in question the attitudes we have had in each of our lives. This is especially true in our knowledge of God for knowledge of Him is deeply personal. As we have said above, knowledge of God means dialogue.

It will not however be a talk between equals for He is far greater than we are and it will be He who sets the agenda, not us. In this relationship we will simply have to trust Him, believing that our Eternal good is near to His heart. That humble and deeply personal trust is what we call faith. It is the appropriate way of knowing. Just as the telescope is appropriate for knowledge of a star, so faith is the appropriate way of knowing God.

It is very difficult, if not impossible, really to know someone from whom we are estranged. Their real needs and the pressures from which they suffer will remain hidden from us. Before true knowledge can grow, there must be reconciliation[13].

In the Christian revelation that must lead us to the cross. 

In our knowledge of God there can be no detached objectivity. `Man's search for God' can never be a purely academic exercise or an exercise in curiosity. If he wants to keep it on that level he will simply be playing games and avoiding knowledge of reality.

In both science and theology, the subject (the person seeking to know) and the object (the `thing' we seek to know), are involved in any true advance in knowledge. This has become even more evident in the 20th Century since the discovery of relativity and quantum theory. In relativity theory the relationship of velocity between the observer (the subject) and the thing observed (the object) affects the whole time and space reference of the measurements made.  In quantum theory the scientist's own consciousness is bound up with the measurements he makes of the quanta.

This is relevant to the study of the Bible. If we do not allow our own consciousness or soul to be influenced by the Scripture we are studying, our analysis of Scripture may have the appearance of being scientific, but nevertheless miss the mark completely.

All of us are scientists in the sense that we observe nature. It may only be to wonder at the roses in our garden or to admire the beauty of a sunset followed by a star lit sky. Most, if not all of us, conclude that there must be `something' behind or beyond it all.

¨      In all of us there will be times when we do long for it to be true that, at the heart of the universe, is a Personal Being who knows and cares about us.

¨      Also, though, in all of us there will be times when we wish we could dismiss the thought of God. We would rather be the master of our own souls and ultimately be accountable to no-one. We may also, from time to time  hope that death will provide a way into non-existence so that ultimately there will be an escape from the sufferings of the world and our own participation in the guilt of humanity. 

It is not just non-religious people who have this negative feeling, nor is it just religious people who have the more positive feeling. At one time or another many, if not all, experience both.

Many ordinary people think that scientists are inherently non-religious. This is a great mistake. After Paul Davies wrote his book `God and the New Physics', he was surprised to discover that many of his scientific colleagues were Christian believers and regular Church attenders.[14]

Angela Tilby, in her book `Science and the Soul'[15], tells us that Fred Hoyle, who, as we have noted, is not a Christian believer, says that scientists are obsessed with God and think of Him more than do clergymen![16] This is particularly true among scientists who are asking the ultimate questions such as `How did the universe begin?' or `How did life begin?'

It isn't though always true.

A professional academic molecular biologist friend whose full time speciality is examining the fundamental structure of life in the amazing DNA molecule, tells me that he once asked his colleagues in the same field how they thought the DNA had ever got started in the beginning. They answered by saying they had never thought of that before! [17]

Nevertheless most scientific books that deals with these and similar subjects have plenty of references to God. Occasionally it may be simply to dismiss Him as irrelevant. Even in these anti-theist writings one detects a certain passion about the subject that seems a cover for a deep unease about the professed unbelief. 

My evidence for saying this is a short passage in The Blind Watchmaker, by Richard Dawkins. He says that until Darwin published his Origin of Species in 1859, "it was not possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." Although philosophers may have said that no explanation was needed for the complexity of nature, Dawkins believes that in their "heart of hearts" they knew such an explanation was needed.[18]

Angela Tilby describes her discussions with scientists and others about the program she was making on science and the spiritual. When she approached Jonathan Miller, the "polymath of theatre, medicine and television" he responded by telling her that he thought religion is a form of mental illness.[19] Richard Dawkins says that religion is akin to a computer virus that had got into the genes of humankind and was now passed on from one generation to another.[20] Dawkins believes natural selection is not aiming at producing anything. It is a blind process that merely preserves random improvements. He therefore has the problem of explaining why humans are religious when he also believes that religion is actually harmful to the individual human being. His invention of the computer virus theory is his way of getting round the problem. One is tempted to wonder whether he is looking for a materialistic explanation for what he is feeling in his own `heart of hearts‘ [21].

Let suppose Dawkins is right that there are physical causes for religious belief. Would that be so surprising since according to him only physical things exist? Therefore all beliefs (including the atheist belief and also the belief that beliefs have physical causes), would have a physical cause. Therefore all beliefs and thinking could be simply explained away.

Tilby tells us later in her book that the scientist Alan Guth told her that scientists liked the now outdated  'Steady State ' (the theory that believes that there was no big-bang and that the universe has always existed), because they assumed it got round the creation problem.[22] All this goes to show that scientists like the rest of us are only human and they do, after all, let their prejudices influence their thinking. Indeed in discussing these matters Paul Davies in his `The Mind of God' says:

Indeed scientists are very emotional people in these matters. There is no greater misconception about scientists than the widespread belief that they are cold, hard soulless individuals.[23]

There are indeed scientists who get very angry at the suggestion that fundamental scientific enquiry must have relevance to belief in that which is beyond the material universe. Angela Tilby even speaks of the:

"fanaticism of some scientists in their shrill reductionism who resist the new world picture with every fibre of their being because it opens them to anxieties they have spent their lives avoiding."[24]

Drusilla Scott comments that to "shut out of science the very processes by which all knowledge is gained could only be done by men who were afraid"[25].

Steven Weinberg's `The First Three Minutes'  was one of the first books to explore the relationship  of the tiny world of particle physics with the opening moments of the genesis of the whole universe. The last pages deal with the end of the universe. It is striking that he cannot not avoid the metaphysical question though he chose (without any attempt to justify his choice) the belief that everything is meaningless. He says:

The more the universe seems comprehensible the more it seems pointless .... The effort to understand the universe is one of the few things that lifts human life a little above the level of farce, and gives it some of the grace of tragedy.[26]

What really, in the depths of his mind, lies behind this statement? One can only surmise that if he believes that the universe is becoming more and more comprehensible in exclusively materialistic terms, then there is less and less room for the belief that it has purpose from beyond itself. Yet the driving spirit of the scientific enterprise comes from the belief that it is worth knowing about and this belief depends upon it not being pointless.  Without this spirit of science, life would be merely farce - but the efforts of science take it from pure farce to a story which appears to have meaning but can only end in death.

A problem for him is using the word `tragedy' for `human life' in that tragedy implies that something with purpose has not realised that purpose. If, in principle, life could have no purpose it would be a farce but could not be tragic!

Einstein spoke about the fact that the universe is comprehensible (that is that it has a rational structure that can be investigated by minds capable of making the appropriate investigations). As we noted earlier he uses it to criticise atheism. It is worth quoting again:

"And here is the weak point of positivists and professional atheists, who feel happy because they think they have pre-empted not only the world of the divine but also of the miraculous. Curiously we have to be resigned to the miracle (my emphasis) without any legitimate way of getting any further. I have to add the last point explicitly, lest you think that weakened by age I have fallen into the hands of Priests."[27]

So here we have Einstein wanting to combat atheism without falling under the influence of clergymen or other professional religious personages.  Elsewhere he says that he does not believe in a personal God. Yet he was in the habit of referring to God as the dear Lord. This could reflect a struggle in his own mind, although as T. F. Torrance argues that his rejection of a personal God was a rejection of anthropomorphic views of a God. That did not mean he believed in an impersonal God but rather in a `superpersonal' God. [28]

Certainly we see this struggle in the mind of Paul Davies. His first book `God and the New Physics' revealed the strange world of sub- atomic physics. In the book he goes backwards and forwards between belief and unbelief. [29] Repeatedly he seems to argue for the existence of God and then to wriggle out of this belief. Significantly he always says he has a feeling of `unease'[30] about these latter arguments for of course they only push the problem one stage further back.

In the Preface to the book he says that science is a surer route to God than religion[31]. He now says this is not so. In his more recent book `The Mind of God' he tells us that science cannot take one to that Reality which is the ultimate explanation of nature[32].  He proposes mysticism as a way to know God.[33] Other well known scientific authors who were/are clearly struggling with the question of God are Stephen Hawking[34] and Fred Hoyle[35].

Several references have already been made to John Polkinghorne who is not only a scientific author of real distinction but also is a Christian believer who makes very good and successful attempts to bring his faith and science together. In his `Reason and Reality' he speaks of disappointment that there are very few theologians who take an interest in the frontier areas of science.[36]

.

Just as Paul Davies tells us that false assumptions are often made about the humanity of scientists, there also are popular misconceptions about theologians.

One would expect them all to be on the side of God, the Bible, and the Church.

But that is not always the case. There can even be a resistance to any idea that God really does interact with the physical world. So many have devoted their lives to Biblical research with the assumption that there is no real interaction between the physical and the spiritual that a challenge to this produces anger. It is as if they have wanted to maintain academic respectability in our secular age.

Angela Tilby thought some theologians she had met were afraid of dialogue with science. In her undergraduate days at least she judged them to be `craven and cowardly'.[37] But the individual theologian like the rest of humanity may have conflicting desires within himself - a desire to believe and a desire to be free from belief.

Christians who are Academic scientists also may not want to bring the physical and the spiritual together. Paul Davies says they like to keep Sunday for the spiritual and the weekdays for their physical sciences.[38] This may be too hard a judgement because of course it would be silly to expect a Christian chemistry teacher (say) to keep referring to religion in his lectures.

If we really believe that God is the Creator and Sustainer of the physical universe, and further that His redemption reconciles our fallen physical world with His Eternal Spirit; in short if we really believe in the incarnation, death and resurrection of the Son of God we must not allow a dualism that breaks up reality into unrelated categories. If we do fall into this dualism knowledge becomes depersonalised and we cut ourselves off from reality.

Prayer Changes Things?

Chapter 5 of John Polkinghorne's Quarks Chaos and Christianity is relevant to this small section.

He believes a scientist can pray.

It is only in the relationship of dependence upon God that nature's own order is continually renewed. This does not mean that God keeps wanting to interfere in His creation, adding new laws of nature and suspending others. His respect for all that He has made is too much for that.

John Polkinghorne does not agree with Richard Swinburne that a miracle is a "non repeatable exception to the operation of nature's laws, brought about by God."[39] He believes that miracles are "perceptions of a deeper rationality than that which we encounter in the every day, occasions which make visible a more profound level of Divine activity."[40]

If he is right, that deeper rationality must surely involve God's redemptive presence and work in His fallen creation - a work which must lie in and behind all His relationship with the world. Miracles must then be a window into that saving presence of God.

When God's people keep demanding more and more miracles He is angry with them for their lack of trust in Him.[41] They want the blessings that a Mighty God can give, without His personal presence. When miracles do occur they must be the exception rather than the rule. They certainly can never be demanded by humans as a sign of His presence. The devil would be more willing to astound people with the `wonders' he could do. Indeed the great miracle which God does is essentially to reunite a lost world with Himself. It is the miracle of New Creation in the birth life death and resurrection of the Son of God. All other miracles of God anticipate it or flow from it.[42]

To explain a little further how a scientist like John Polkinghorne believes ‘Prayer Changes Things’ I need to say a little about `Chaos Theory'. Not only in the micro-world of the very tiny is there indeterminacy but also in the macrocosm. It was mentioned earlier that it is impossible for weather forecasters ever to give meaningful predictions beyond a few days. This is not because of their inadequate knowledge, but because infinitely small variations in initial conditions have large inherently unpredictable consequences.

John Polkinghorne believes that this enables us to understand more clearly how there is room for God, in answer to prayer, not only to sustain the world in being, but also to act within the world - without upsetting the basis of the laws of nature.[43] Effective prayer that `changes things' he tells us is the alignment of our will with the will of God when we open our wills to His.

This `laser beam' alignment (as John Polkinghorne goes on to call it) between the purpose of God and the will of humans is a powerful medium through which the purposes of God are accomplished in the world. Because God really has given us freedom in the world to choose between one good and another, our prayer is not just passive acceptance of His will but active participation in it.

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

If any of the above has assisted you in your thinking, study or preparation please fill in a Feedback form (see 'Feedback' link below) stating to which article/sermon note etc you are referring.
 Howard Taylor welcomes questions and comments (critical or not).
 ' Faith and the Modern World' Home Page.
 Articles : Articles in Summary : Sermon Outlines : Comment on Society Today : Book Reviews : Feedback : Biography: Moral and Social Philosophy:Other Links, Courses.