However, it is commonly argued that, even though there is no proof that the physical is everything, physical science has had such success in explaining the universe that we can expect it, one day, to complete its task and demonstrate with a `theory of everything' that nothing from `without' impinges on our world. 

Two responses could be made to that. 

First, with many breakthroughs in the advance of knowledge, new discoveries often bring with them greater not less mystery. It is as if scientists thinking that the door they are opening will be the final door to reveal the inner room where all mysteries are solved only find that the door reveals that the newly discovered room has itself many more doors waiting to be opened from within it. This is particularly true when science penetrates nearer and nearer to the fundamental structures of all physical existence, especially life and human self-awareness. 

Second, there are now many who would argue from physics and mathematics that a `theory of everything' to give us all the answers is in principle impossible. More of that later.

It would have been more accurate for the newspaper to say `scientism says there is no life after death'. Scientism is the faith that there is nothing in all reality whose explanation cannot be reduced to impersonal atoms, which together with chance have the ability to bring about the universe and world of life we have today; there is nothing `spiritual' which is not amenable to analysis in the laboratory. Unlike Christian Theism scientism can have no evidence to support it. It is a blind faith. (How could it ever be shown that there is nothing beyond and behind the world of physics?). The philosopher Professor John Haldane rightly says:

Is the universe really a closed physical entity with no opening to that which lies beyond the mere material? Is life, and especially our human life with all its experiences of conscious and voluntary decision making, really just the result of the jostling of atoms whose motions are entirely governed by physical laws? The popular notion about science, so evident in the Daily Mail's introduction to its `life after death' series, is that it assumes that all reality can in principle be explained entirely by the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology. As noted above this `scientism' can never be proved from science itself. However it is often spoken of as is there were conclusive evidence for it. So `materialism' is still widely believed to be the scientific understanding of the way the world is. Many scientists themselves remain materialists. This is more likely to be the case if their researches do not deal with what are the ultimate questions about the nature of reality. 

Derek Tidball in his `A World Without Windows' says about his book's title:

There have been many books that have been written about science and belief. Stephen Hawking's: `A Brief History of Time' became an immediate best seller. It quickly became the book to possess. Surveys showed that few who had bought it had actually understood it. Its popularity must have been a great deal to do with its title. It implies that its contents will tell us about our origins and therefore give some clue as to who we are, and why we are here. For some there may have been the hope that it would show that there is a God and for others the hope will have been quite the reverse. The former would have hoped that their lives do have eternal meaning and that evil may one day be vanquished. The latter might have hoped to be shown that there is no God to bother them so that they really are accountable to no one and can be master of their own lives. These conflicting hopes might even exist together in the hearts of many individual people. In fact the book gives comfort to neither side. Although the word `God' occurs throughout the book, and in some chapters it appears that Hawking does believe in a Creator, in other chapters he seems to try to do away with the need for belief in God. Yet he can't quite accept that unbelief is satisfactory for he strongly hints that even if we learn every thing about the universe, the question why the `universe goes to all the bother of existing?' still remains.

Another reason the title of the book is so significant is that most of us think of histories taking place within time. Events that happen to kings, armies, and nations, as well as ourselves, happen in time. The title `A Brief History of Time' implies that time itself is a `thing' with its own story. That finds echoes in our souls. Although most of us think of time as something infinite that contains all the events that ever take place, the very infinite nature of time must be a mystery to us, making us wonder whether time is infinite after all. Did it have a beginning? If it did, was there time before time began? We will return to this later.

Most of our time we are too busy to ask these questions but as soon we allow ourselves to be still and alone these ultimate questions are likely to come to our minds. Before long they return to the back of our minds. But when a book on our origins is written for the non-professional by such a famous scientist we buy the book. Children have not learnt to be so busy as to squeeze out these ultimate questions. They are also not too shy to be open about their wonder. In his Introduction to Stephen Hawking's book, Carl Sagan tells us:

We live in a wonderful world. Every cell of life is a marvellous structure of beauty and language way beyond the imagining of the most ingenious of mathematicians and scientists. The `wisdom' it contains is necessary for its growth into the plant, animal, or human being of which it is the basis. All non living things are composed of `atoms' that themselves are packed with beauty and information. It is this information that governs their behaviour and perhaps even the very rational structure of nature that hold the universe in being.

We humans can send members of our own species to the moon but we cannot make a single blade of grass. (Except from other grasses.) Yet Jesus tells us: 

When science deals with such questions as `Did the Universe have a beginning, or has it always been in existence?', and `If it did begin how did it begin ?', it has, in principle, reached a boundary area of its enquiry.

There are several very significant discoveries of the science of twentieth century that concern this and related primary issues. 

1. Recent cosmology (that branch of science which tells us about the universe as a whole) has told us that the universe has a history. It is not a mere brute fact that has always existed. It had a beginning and will have an end.

2. The smallest constituents of matter from which, in different combinations, all material existence is composed are not `things' at all. They seem to have a mysterious `ghostly existence' that hinges in to a non material world.

3. Space and Time are not the mere containers of the objects and events which go to make up the story of the universe but are themselves the very fabric of the universe that can me measured by the only unchanging standard in nature - light.

Besides these fairly clear boundary areas of enquiry there are three others, which I believe, also bear upon these borderland regions. They are:

4. Events in the macro world are inherently unpredictable. This leads to both chaos and emergent beautiful order that could not in principle have been predicted from initial conditions.

5. The discovery that life in its very simplest forms is composed of nature's own computers, translation systems and factories all contained within the tiny cells that are the building blocks of their respective life forms.

6. The age old mystery of how human self-awareness can be related to the brain.

Nothing that we know with our five senses, (seeing, hearing, smelling, touching, and feeling) is everlasting. The houses in which we live, our own bodies, the planet earth, the moon, the sun and the stars all once began. The sun and the rest of the stars are each huge nuclear furnaces what will one day burn out. 

It is common sense that there has to be something that is everlasting - something that is not dependent for existence on something else. An atheist has to say that the material universe as a whole is this thing. It exists and there is no explanation for its existence. It is `self-existent'. Since everything we know about material existence shows how finite and temporary it is, the atheist's position seems to me impossible. The normal atheist response to this is to say that just because things in nature need explanation that does not mean that nature as a whole does. I discuss that point later, but here simply say that the advance of science is making it even more clear - what the great majority of the world's population have always intuitively believed, namely that the universe does cry out for an explanation beyond itself. 

If nothing we see, hear, smell, touch, or taste is everlasting, then if we wish to know the That Which Is Eternal we must find `It' in a different way. This other way of knowing which brings us in communication with that which is beyond material existence must be different from any of our five senses.

In the New Testament the letter to the Hebrews tells us that the way of knowing God is `Faith'.

Interestingly, although the Hebrew teaching is clear that this God is ONE LORD, the Hebrew word for God is a plural word. Different scholars have different ideas why this should be. I simply note that as this universe has produced personal beings, the One from whom all things have their being cannot be less than personal. Personality means at least relationship with other persons. If God is personal (and even more Eternal Love) then there must be fellowship and relationship in the Eternal Being of God. If He were purely singular He would not be personal being. 

Even in nature nothing is entirely on its own. There are no such things as isolated basic building blocks of matter just floating about in the universe. The existence of such `things' can only be defined in terms of relationships with other fundamental building blocks. These relationships are not caused by fixed laws that are external to them. Rather these relations are fundamental to what these `things' are in themselves. I deliberately use the term `relationship' rather than `interconnectedness', because the latter implies that they are joined by bonds external to themselves. 

To be lonely is contrary to nature itself. Human sin is that which has breaks relationships with God the source of all true relationship. This has the consequence of breaking relationships within the human family and also between the human family and nature itself. Thus sin inevitably leads to non being decay and death - a decay and death that becomes part of nature itself.

The great 17th Century scientist Isaac Newton is the man to whom we owe so much for our understanding of how the laws of nature, such as gravity, seem to work in a mechanical way. Since his time `Newtonian Physics' has come to mean science that is based on the belief that we live in a clockwork universe with all its constituent parts externally connected by fixed laws. Newton regarded gravity as a force that existed independently of matter but which acted upon matter. In Newtonian science everything moves in the way it does according to definite rules. This includes everything including, of course, the atoms in our brain that have to do with our thinking and deciding. If this were the whole truth it would mean that in principle everything that happens could be predicted from the past. It means that I could not help writing this and the reader could not help reading it. He would have no right either to criticise me or thank me for writing it. I could not but have done anything else. His reaction to it also would be simply governed by the fixed laws of nature as they react with the atoms in his brain and nervous system. 

As I have said above this view of nature is now very much out of date. It is however what many people still think of when they speak about the `scientific view of the world'.

Twentieth Century science - in contrast to Newtonian Physics -although not `proving' religion, does help us to grasp a little better how there is room for God to be immanent and continually creative within nature. There is also, I believe, room for us to commune with God and freely act upon nature for good or for evil.

The Biblical view of human beings is that we are part of nature and yet are made in the image of God the Creator. His command to us is to fill the earth, have authority over it and subdue it. 

What then is the purpose of pure science? (By pure science is meant that enquiry which pursues knowledge without it having any immediately clear application to the world.) An example of Pure Science is astronomy - the study of the stars. It happens that my brother is an astronomer. I mentioned this to an Archbishop with whom I had got into conversation. He told me that he could not think of anything that was more useless than astronomy. It does not feed the hungry and has no other practical application to the needs of the world. In reply I asked him why he thought that the only purpose for which God had put us here on earth was to be practical. In my view, I explained, the purpose of the pure sciences such as astronomy is that they enable us to explore the wonders of nature to the glory and worship of God the Creator.

We then see the purpose of technology to be the care for the earth and the use of its resources for the good of nature and humankind. The intention behind art and music is surely to share in God's creative work by filling the earth with ever more beauty.

In the Bible the heavens can either mean `the dwelling place of God', or `the skies' - what we see when we look up. The earth means the dwelling place of the plants and animals - what we see when we look around us. Humankind is to be the link between earth and heaven representing God to nature and voicing the praise of nature to God. Because we are free we are free to break that link between heaven and earth and misuse our authority. To do so is to cut off the world from the creative Word and Spirit of God so that it becomes subject to the merely materialistic processes of increasing disorder (entropy). By itself nature cannot restore itself to the wonderful order once given it. The second law of thermodynamics inevitably means that nature decays into disorder and death. There may indeed be marvellous local increases in order and beauty, but they will always be at the expense of increasing over all decay. 

Yet among many scientists and theologians is the belief that science and religion have nothing in common. Science, it is said, deals with physical facts and theology with spiritual values. To suggest, however, that science's discoveries may have relevance to faith in God or one's understanding of the gospel immediately raises their hackles. There may be several reasons for this reluctance to see any need for dialogue. 

First, the vast majority of professional scientists are not working in the boundary areas of scientific enquiry. That is to say their research does not take them anywhere near the questions mentioned earlier. Not surprisingly then, most scientists are no more or less likely than anyone to ask these fundamental questions. 

The second reason is fear of the `god of the gaps'. In the old days it was considered that certain phenomena could be explained by human beings, but that there were a vast number of occurrences in nature for which there was no natural explanation. These gaps in our knowledge were filled by God. Let us take as an example the understanding of what goes on in a thunder storm. There was a time when we had an idea how natural processes of warmth and wind brought moisture from the sea to land as rain. We could not, though, understand where the lightning came from. So it was attributed to God. He filled that particular gap in our knowledge. As science advanced we began to understand that lightning was a form of electricity. So that gap was then filled by science and the need for God as an explanation had diminished. 

As science proceeds further and further, so the gaps in our knowledge get less and less and therefore our need for God is reduced. The expectation is that it will one day be reduced to vanishing point. There are many mysteries remaining in our study of nature. Of course it would be foolish simply to fill these gaps with God as an explanation. But questions such as `How did nature begin?' are not questions relating to gaps in our knowledge of how nature behaves, but questions about the origin of nature itself. The answer to the question `How did nature begin?' cannot in principle be answered from within nature. It is a question that lies at the boundary of science and faith. 

Let us consider again the example of the thunder storm. Once we have discovered that lightning is electricity we are left with the question `What is electricity?' We can answer that by saying that it is a flow of electrons. But then we ask `What is an electron?'. The answer to this question takes into the ghostly world of quantum physics and which as we will see challenges the pre-suppositions of an old materialistic science.

The chemist and militant atheist, Peter Atkins, attacks the Christian faith. His arguments are really an assault on this supposed `god of the gaps'. In his book `The Creation' he attempts to show that the only `god' needed to explain the development of the universe is an infinitely lazy god because there is nothing for him to do. In the Spring of 1992 he appeared on the TV news program `Newsnight'. The big news that evening was that discoveries had recently seemed to confirm the belief that our universe had begun with a `Big Bang'. Peter Atkins said in most vehement terms that this discovery did away with any need for belief in God. (It seems to me that this discovery should have quite the reverse effect, but we come to that in more detail later.) The Christian believers who opposed him on the program attempted to counter his points by saying that science cannot answer the `Why?' question. Science cannot tell us why there is a universe. Peter Atkins responded by saying that the `why?' question is itself a silly question because it makes the religious assumption that there is a purpose. He denies there is any purpose. This is a point that Richard Dawkins too often makes. In a revealing passage at the beginning of `The Selfish Gene' he says:

However those who deny the validity of the `Why?' question have to say that the universe is in being and that is all there is to say. For them the only appropriate question to ask of nature is the `How' question. How do natural phenomena occur? 

But is the `Why?' question so silly? 

Surely there must be other questions that follow the `how?' question. The first one is surely the `what?' question. What brought the Big Bang into being? What lies behind (if not before) it? Even granted that the Big Bang is the beginning of time, this is still a very real, obvious and legitimate question to ask. However when we begin to think about it, the `what?' changes to `who?'. As the zoologist Richard Dawkins (another of TV's favourite militant atheists) says, any God who created the universe would have to be at least as wonderful as the greatest thing that exists in the Universe. Accepting this argument we can say that since personal beings exist, that which brought the universe into being cannot be less than personal. `What?' has to change to `who?'. Once we have begun to ask `who?' then the `why?' question of purpose naturally follows. Professor T. F. Torrance tells us that in 1929 Einstein said that science has now reached the stage where it cannot be satisfied simply with describing how nature is what it is in its ongoing processes, but must press on to ask "why nature is what it is and not something else". 

At these very fundamental levels of enquiry when we have reached the boundary of the natural world, the questions `how do things behave as they do?' and `why do things behave as they do?' converge into the one question. Once we have accepted the validity of the `Why?' question we have admitted that there may be purpose to the existence of the universe. If nature and our lives might have purpose then it is beholden upon us to seek that purpose so that we can discover how we should behave in this world. The universe forces not only to consider what `is' the case but what `ought' to be the case and what ought to be our part in it. 

Torrance has further made the point that science has operated with a false dualism between these two questions which has led to a false separation between the natural and moral sciences. It is this false distinction between the `public world of facts' and `the private world of values' about which Lesslie Newbigin so ably challenged us in his book `Foolishness To The Greeks'.

At the time of writing the scientific establishment is complaining about the declining interest in science shown by school and university students. It is hard for such departments as Physics to recruit the students they need. This is certainly a sad and serious problem. But if it is the case, as we are often told, that there is no purpose to the universe then can we wonder that young people don't see the point or purpose in exploring the wonders the natural world contains, and instead simply turn to the utilitarian subjects which will make them more money?

Although natural science by itself cannot answer the `Why?' question it is the irrational denial of the legitimacy of the `Why?' question of purpose that is, in the long term, the greatest enemy of science.

It would be a great sadness for our human condition if we lost interest in discovering the wonders of nature. One of the mysteries of the human mind is that it's intelligence and ways of thinking seem just right to be able to grapple with nature so as to uncover its inner logic and this doesn't look to be the sort of thing that could have an evolutionary explanation. That is to say the ability to understand abstract concepts such as quantum theory and the structure of the atom (say) seems irrelevant to evolution as simply `the survival of the fittest'. 

Paul Davies says:

1. The natural world is orderly and therefore open to rational investigation.

2. Its rational order is open to understanding by the human mind.

3. Nature's order is a contingent order. That is to say its rational structure did not have to be as it is but was chosen to be as it is. If the orderliness of nature were simply the orderliness of mathematics (where such truths as 3 times 4 = 12 are not dependent upon anything but are necessarily true), then the rational structure of the universe could be simply discovered by mathematics alone. Experiments would be unnecessary. However if we believe that its order was `chosen' to be as it is then experimentation is necessary to delve deeper into its own rationality.

4. The natural world is good. Belief that it is evil, might make us try to understand it as we might try to understand the tactics of an enemy but there would be no joy in or love for the subject. Belief that it is neither good or evil would rob its study of real purpose. 

5. There is hope for the natural world. Even though it contains much suffering, the conviction that it will finally be redeemed by the love of its Creator, strengthens our desire to love and know its secrets. The Incarnation and Atonement are the great seals of God's affirmation of His redeeming love for the physical world which He will not finally forsake. 

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

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/book review etc you are referring.
Howard Taylor welcomes questions and comments (critical or not).

'Faith and the Modern World' Home Page.

Articles ; Articles in Summary ; Courses; Sermon Outlines ; Comment on Society Today ; Book Reviews ; Feedback ; Essays from my students; Biography; Moral and Social Philosophy; Other Links.