Advent 09- Science and Technology

When Christians think about giving thanks to God or about his greatness, so often the images that come to mind are from nature- mountains, sunrise, oceans, autumn leaves, summer warmth.  And of course this isn't wrong, there's much biblical precedent especially in the psalms.

But now I want to give thanks for something different, for scientific and technological advancement.  And I don't think that's as incompatible as it first sounds.

It's all too easy to use technology as an example of humanity's own unaided achievement.  Popular culture and the media today are fond of using science and religion as two opposing systems of belief, or world views.  But that's a very different view from many of those who we see now as founders of modern science.  Early scientists who helped define the genre, such as Isaac Newton, were interested in discovering more about the world and how it worked and saw this as part of their worship of God- praising God for the intricacies of his creation.  I think that's still a very valid response to science- to consider the wonders of the world, and to let that lead us to praise of God (although I wouldn't say that it forces you to believe in a God).

And science and technology have, of course, made life better for humanity, with medical advances saving lives and improving many people's quality of life, while technology has made the world a much smaller place by helping us communicate and travel faster than our ancestors would have thought possible.  How have we done this?  By using that piece of tissue that scientists still struggle to understand: the human brain, another part of God's creation.

So it's not really down to us.  Not that I want to take away from the men and women who have made amazing discoveries or leaps forward.  But neither do I think we should scorn (as some Christians do) modern technology or medicine, because it is the product of humanity, not God.  It is through the intelligence that God has given that these advances have been made, and the products of them are (mostly) to be thankful for.  This does not, of course, absolve us from the responsibility to be good stewards of this planet that is our home.  We have to ensure that skills and technologies are used for good, not for bad.  But overall, I'm grateful for their existence.

Bananas, Bibleman and banging my head against a brick wall.

Why are Christians (or some Christians) so bad at communicating their message? I mean, it's not as if it can't be communicated simply. Take John 3.16 for example: "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish, but have eternal life." That's at once simple and incredibly deep, but even small children can understand it (on one level).

So why do some Christians make such a mess of trying to communicate the message? Ok, I admit that it's not always easy to explain what we believe, and I'll admit to having made a mess of it myself on occasion. But some attempts, rather than just failing to get the message across, can do actual harm to people's understanding of Christianity.

Channel 4's "You have been watching" last week looked at religious broadcasting as part of the programme. British broadcasting got off pretty lightly- a quick giggle at Songs of Praise in a semi-affectionate way, then moved on to what's on US TV. Oh dear.

I'm sure not all Christian TV programmes are as bad as the ones featured. But really, you have to wonder who they think is watching them.

A couple of weeks ago they showed a puppet show, with some hideous puppets that would be guaranteed to frighten off any children that could have withstood the shows' moral tone without feeling slightly sick. This week it was the turn of "Bibleman." A bloke, encased in plastic armour and a superhero suit that would look more at home at a kids party rather than on TV, running around helping kids with spiritual or moral problems and destroying comic-book bad guys by quoting the Bible at them.

Now, the idea itself isn't necessarily a particularly bad one. Children's workers and publications use similar things all the time. But it was so badly done all I could do was cringe. Even more than I usually do at kids work. Apart from that, giving kids the idea that all they have to do is memorise bits of the Bible and spout them at bad things and it'll all be ok is rather deceptively simple. You have to learn how to apply that particular bit of scripture and what it is actually telling you to do. You can't just quote it and sit back. The devil is quite capable of using the Bible for his own purposes (see Matthew 4 v6).

Then the programme looked at a kind of chat show presented by two cheerful guys of the type who do their best to perpetuate myths such as that religion the enemy of reason, and that it is impossible to be a Christian and believe in evolution.

For example, did you know that the ergonomic design of the banana proves the existence of God beyond doubt? No, I didn't either. Apparently the fact it fits in your hand so well proves that God designed it to be of use to humans. I was actually pleased when someone pointed out that it fits just as well in an ape's hand. You know, the apes the same people say we didn't evolve from.

They also claim (on their website) to be able to prove intelligent design over evolution in 3 minutes, and to show you a "biblical" way to convert your friends by bypassing their sense of reason. I must say, I haven't watched the videos that teach you this. It would just get me too frustrated, angry and sad.

I hate it when my brothers and sisters in faith are mocked for their beliefs. It makes me very, very sad to see what they consider essential to their faith. But really, you can't help but cringe and laugh at some of the things they say. It makes me want to bang my head against a brick wall when I see that somehow, the church has managed to be its own worst enemy when it comes to communicating the gospel message. Satan must be very happy.

Based on the evidence...

Lately the science vs God debate has been getting lots of coverage in the media again, this time because of the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth. Most coverage still assumes that belief in a God who created the world and belief in science- in this case evolution- are mutually exclusive. I beg to differ on this point.

I use belief here in the sense of "something you base your thinking on." One thing I notice when talking to my friends is that the reasons many of them give (or imply) for not believing is that they cannot see the evidence for God on which to base a belief. I think this attitude comes from the scientific mindset, where a theory (in this case that there is a God) is tested in controlled conditions and the results evaluated to see whether or not they constitute proof that the theory is likely to be true.

The problem with this way of thinking is that, as I've said before, you cannot prove the existence of God with scientific or logical evidence. This seems to be the problem that so many people come up against (including, it appears, David Attenborough). There's also a problem that as a historian I know only too well- what counts as 'evidence?' How do you know that your evidence is reliable? Evidence is a tricky thing- something we consider proven today may be overturned completely in the future because of the discovery of a new piece of evidence.

The thing is, of all the people I know who have faith, I don't think any would say they believe because of evidence. I don't mean they discount evidence- only that they recognise that the evidence is not, in itself, enough. Evidence from within our experience, from within our world, cannot prove or disprove the existence of something which is totally outside our frame of reference. It can act as a signpost, but a signpost doesn't prove the existence of the town to which it points the way. People who want clear, incontrovertible evidence for the existence of God are looking in the wrong place.

What this doesn't address, of course, is the question of how, then, people come to a belief in God. Something is required to convince, to demonstrate who God is. The answer is different for everyone, but involves God working in and with us to demonstrate this truth, to give us the faith we need to respond to God. More on this another time, perhaps.

I also find it interesting what the writer of this piece says about how faith has transformed communities in Africa- not just the infrastructure built by 'missionaries' but also the changed lives and attitudes. It's refreshing to see that to even a confirmed sceptic the change that faith makes in people's lives is evident, and wonderful to hear it applauded by somebody who you would naturally expect to be suspicious. It's a shame that the difference isn't as evident in Britain today- or at least, if it is, no one's shouting about it.

Darwin, women, the church...and an unintentional rant!

So it seems Darwin may actually have been right after all, the Catholic church says. Science and religion aren't necessarily at odds. Some influential theologians saw evidence for evolution long before the Origin of Species was written. Christian doesn't mean creationist*.

Well about time too.

I hope people actually listen to statements like this and get the message. Christians aren't weirdos who deny all modern science and insist on believing fairy tales in the face of logical evidence. Yes, some Christian beliefs may sound odd, (people being raised from the dead? A God who's simultaneously three and one? What's all that about?) but we're not hopelessly outdated people trying to maintain medieval beliefs and values in the face of all the odds. The church has much to say that's relevant to people here and now, in today's postmodern world.

The sooner the world realises this, and starts taking us seriously rather than laughing us out the door, the better. The sooner some sections of the church realise it the better too.

If only this was the only story about the church that's in the news at present. What the rest of the world must make of some Anglicans' views on women bishops I dread to think. If some C of E members think women shouldn't be in authority, or allowed to teach, how do they reconcile their consciences with female doctors, teachers (especially in Sunday schools!), judges or even a female Prime Minister?

We're looking at a world that's reeling from the shock of global economic recession. I think God wants to use this to speak to the world- to show what a mess we've got ourselves into with (let's be honest) no idea how to get ourselves out. How the human race has wasted its resources and made life hell for some people at the same time as others have had millions to waste. To call us back to his love that will restore the world. The church should be there, ready to listen to God, to do his work by helping people, and setting an example of what human life should be like. Are we up to it? Not as we are. But with God's help, we can be.

Ooh, unintentional rant. Sorry! I didn't mean to write that last paragraph when I started, it just sort of slipped out. Make of that what you will.
And before you start worrying, I don't actually read the Telegraph. I found the story here.


*In the sense of denying scientific evidence for evolution in favour of a too-literal reading of Genesis.

Unthinking faith? (part 2)

So many people, when they argue against faith, suggest that believers are easily deluded, because they don't think, that they accept what they're told without looking at the evidence. I've had several conversations where people have implied that's true about me. If you must argue against faith, and Christianity in particular, please don't say that it discourages thought, or that it teaches people not to think. In the past, this may have unfortunately been true of the church in some places, but it's neither healthy nor encouraged by the mainstream church today. I think far too much. I just don't think the rationalist way of looking at things should be seen as the only way.


Historically people have been aware that "there are more things in heaven and earth" than are dreamt of or given credence in the rational or scientific philosophy that has characterised the last few centuries. The rational thought movement grew from roots in Renaissance Europe and to it we owe many great advances in thought and scientific knowledge. The empirical method of research (basically gathering evidence to test a hypothesis) and thus the idea that before you accept the truth of something, before you believe it, you must be convinced by the evidence, is one reason why many people today say they don't believe in God.

There is, I think, evidence for the existence of God. The testimony of people who believe they have experienced his power in their lives, miracles, arguments constructed by theologians and philosophers. But none of it- not even all of it together- proves beyond doubt that there is a God.

But it's no good saying "I don't believe in God because there isn't enough independent evidence." It's not a question of evidence. God, by his very nature as supernatural and uncreated, is outside normal human experience and explanation. So we can't unthinkingly apply the usual rules to his existence. Evidence can help us decide whether the idea of God is worth taking seriously or not, but there's another factor to consider before deciding whether God exists.

That elusive, mysterious quantity called faith. That something that means you can be sure of something which you can't prove. That lets you trust in the unknowable. It isn't rational, isn't reasonable. And that, I think, is one reason why people often struggle with it. It's counter-cultural to believe something you can't know. It can be dangerous. Even if you can think of some evidence or reasons for you faith, it can still be scary.

If God's existence could be proven, there would be no need for faith. If God's existence was evident, if we were made with an awareness of him, if there was no mystery, we would have no option but to do as he commanded. We couldn't choose. We couldn't love. God doesn't want robots, he wants children. So we have to be free to choose to love, or to reject him.

But other cultures (for example the far east) have always acknowledged a broader viewpoint. Some aspects of modern culture also seem to be coming back to that point of view-(for example the various meditation groups) although not always in a helpful way.


So just because Christians, or people of other faiths, believe things they can't empirically prove, that doesn't mean they can be criticised for not thinking. There's more to thought than rationalism.

Unthinking faith? (part 1)

Firstly, it's good to see that some people in even the C of E haven't lost their sense of humour over Dawkins: a stray cat found at Southwark Cathedral has been named Doorkins Magnificat Wish I'd thought of that...

Anyway. I read this article about people believing UFO's are responsible for damage to wind turbines, and my first reaction was "some people will believe anything." Even the company that owns the turbines, Ecotricity, have so far refused to rule out the 'possibility.'

To relate the previous two paragraphs together, I remembered something Dawkins had said in when the buses first came to my attention: "thinking is anathema to religion." I disagreed at the time, and still do. But his point of view agrees with the suggestion (was it Marx? I think so, but all of his work I ever read was The German Ideology and it nearly sent me to sleep- and that was before I stayed up all night for an after-show party during the open exam!) that religion is a "crutch" or "opium" that keeps people quiet, happy, and stops them thinking too much. That gives them something to lean on, a promise of help in hard times, of reward, if not in this life then at least after death.

No doubt that's a gross simplification of the argument, for which I apologise. However, I have neither the knowledge nor the time, at present, to go into more depth. My point is that many people today see religion, faith, belief as naive, groundless, blind trust in things which although once incomprehensible, are now explained by science. They see it as unreasonable- against reason or logic, which modernism has led us to see as the only worthwhile way of looking at things.

Apart from my belief that science and religion address different questions and that neither rules out the veracity of the other, I think the people who assume (and many do without even realising it, so common is the attitude in modern culture) that those who have a faith don't are gullible or wilfully deceiving themselves are being highly unfair. Even leaving aside the contribution Christians (and believers of other faiths) have made to modern knowledge, I'd dispute that being a Christian is an easy alternative, a first-class ticket guaranteeing a smooth ride through life and death.

I doubt that many Christians- people who are truly committed to living their lives as God calls them to- would agree with the picture of their faith as a crutch. I doubt that the hundreds of people who have been killed, and are still being killed, kidnapped, beaten, having their homes, cars and churches burnt and their families threatened in China, India, North Korea, the Middle East, parts of Africa would say that it is a way of making their lives easier- and I defy anyone to say it for them. Yes, it gives them hope for the future, hope that there's something beyond death. But they know the risks. Even in the face of certain persecution, of making their lives worse, the church is growing in many of these places. Explain that, if you think religion is the "opium of the people."

Even in the relatively free and open West, I'd suggest that following a faith- really following it, rather than just the surface conformity you meet all too often in churches- presents too many challenges to be an easy option. Jesus taught his disciples to follow a radically different lifestyle, different at the time and different now. That doesn't make for an easy life. I should know. And when you do try to live as Jesus taught, somehow things often seem to go wrong. Because the rest of the world doesn't live like that, and to them what you're doing doesn't make sense.

Christianity isn't putting one's brain on hold or being satisfied with not knowing the truth. It's not even about a 'God of the gaps', where God suffices as an explanation for anything we can't explain rationally. That kind of explanation doesn't wash for me. There are many things about God that I don't understand. That's where I say that I don't understand now, and I maybe never will, but it doesn't stop me wanting, or trying, to find an answer. It's not really that much different from saying that we don't understand this or that about the origins of the universe, or the causes of cancer. We're sure there is an answer, we just don't know what at this time.

Another word on creationists...

Just seen this on a friend's blog, and thought I'd share it with those of you who read my earlier post on science and Christianity. Very interesting, though not surprising, I thought.

The love of wisdom about natural things

Now, it's not often this happens, but I sat through most of the sermon at my church on Sunday night grinning broadly. Anyone sitting near me must have been quite worried as to why I looked so cheerful, but really they didn't need to worry. It was just that it was one of those times when you agree with pretty much everything the speaker says, and just wish that it had been said before. The speaker was a physics professor from Leeds Uni, and he was speaking on "Is there a conflict between science and Christianity?" The answer was a resounding no, of course, but what he said made so much sense that it was just good to hear.

Afterwards, there was a question and answer session. It was easy to predict what questions were going to come up- 7-day creationism and evolution. Sure enough, they did. And it was nice, having felt in something of a minority for a while due to the media's tendancy to only report the headline-grabbing extremists, to know that there are other Christians who believe that the world was created by God, but don't believe in the literal seven-day creationism that is often used by the media as a caricature of Christian belief, especially in North America. Similarly with evolution- believing evolution happened doesn't stop me believing that God created humans "in his own image." The book of Genesis was never written as a science textbook, -the people who wrote it had no concept of ''science'' as we know it today. It wasn't intended to be a literal explanaion of how the world and humanity were created. What it says is: God created the world, humans have messed it up. In view of man-made natural disasters like the food shortages in Zimbabwe or global warming I don't think we can argue with that.

Speaking as someone who's interested in science, even if I haven't studied it academically since A level, I found what he was saying interesting and quite freeing. Sometimes I get annoyed with the general view in society that "science means we don't need God any more, because we can explain everything without the need for a creator." As the speaker said, science and religion actually try to answer two different questions (simplified, science looks at how things happen, religion at why). Few scientists, I believe, would claim that we can- or will ever be able to- explain how and why everything has happened. Even fewer would claim that science has disproved God's existence. That's not the question science is trying to answer.
I quite liked what he had to say about the origins of "science" as we know it today (the historian in me coming through!) Science (meaning knowledge) is quite a recent word, and previously the study of the physical world was known as natural philosophy, which according to the speaker, means "the love of wisdom about natural things". And that theme really chimed in with the passage from the book of Job, chapter 38, that he looked at, where God answeres Job by reminding him of the wonders and complexity of creation:

"Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand."
"Have you journeyed to the springs of the sea or walked in the recesses of the deep?"
"Have you entered the storehouses of the snow or seen the storehouses of the hail?"
"Can you bind the beautiful Pleiades? Can you loose the cords of Orion?
Can you bring forth the constellations in their seasons or lead out the Bear with its cubs?"
"Do you know when the mountain goats give birth? Do you watch when the doe bears her fawn?"
Selections from Job 38-39

The appropriate response to the world, he suggested, is wonder and amazement that something so complex and intricate can exist. As a scientist (or a "lover of wisdom about natural things"), studying the world, whether it's the process of DNA replication, the collision of tiny particles or the composition of distant stars can lead to that sense of wonder, even if you don't believe in a God. Wonder at creation, he suggested, brings us closer to the God who made it.

I have to admit at this point to not being an expert on the subject. And as the speaker said (and I agree- I've heard too many preachers mangle philosophical ideas because they don't understand them or take historical texts at face value) one should be careful not to speak about things one doesn't understand, that are outside one's area of expertise. That includes me. So don't be offended if you think I've got something really wrong here- but do think about it.


You can listen to the talk here: (well theoretically you should be able to, it doesn't seem to be there at the moment! Hopefully it'll appear before too long...)