Lost in a World of Maps: Relations between Science and Theology

Faith & Science Conversation
21

@Bethany.Sollereder

Why do you find them unconvincing?

The real problem I find is that people challenge us to provide a rational argument for the existence of God and then reject that argument for irrational reasons.

A popular ploy is to say that they cannot accept any argument for the existence of God until we prove that God exists. That is a circular argument taken to the nth degree.

Speaking of a circular argument, Karl Popper, the great philosopher of science, rightly pointed to the fact that Natural Selection as fitness is survival and survival is fitness, is a non-falsiable statement. He was right even though he retreated from this statement to say that Darwinian Natural Selection is a good working hypothesis, but that working hypothesis has yet to be scientifically verified, and I would submit is false as explained in my book, Darwin’s MYTH.

Popper and theologians claimed that theological claims were non-falsible because God is Absolute. However according to Christianity God is not Absolute, which means without relationships. God is Love or God is Relational. God is not infinite in the sense that God is indefinite. God is Truth, which means that God is not Falsehood. God is Love, which means God is not evil or hate.

This means that the existence of God is falsible. If nature, created by God is incomprehensible, then God does not exist because God is Truth. If nature, created by God is evil, then God does not exist, because God is Love. The argument is not circular. The argument is perfectly logical and true.

The existence of the foundation of Reality is important to discuss with those who are interested in discussing. It is either accepted or rejected, which is important because our society needs to be based on truth and fact, rather than groundless speculation

Of course no one is unbiased. Everyone one has a position. The question is: Are you willing to consider the evidence? and What is the evidence?

22

I find the anthropic priniciple unconvincing because there are so many other things the universe is wonderfully suited for. If someone says that the whole universe is wonderfully fine-tuned for human life, I tend to think “Seems more fine-tuned for bacteria to me… they are more diverse, more abundant, and live in more eco-systems than humans.” So then, someone says “Ah, but only humans are made in the image of God” Which I agree with, but of course, the scientific evidence does not tell us that. At best the anthropic principle says "the evidence tells us we can exist here… and look! we do!"
Thank you for the kind offer of your book. I will message with how you might reach me with an electronic copy.

23

Bethany I think you’re making the same mistake that proponents of Intelligent Design do, that is picturing a God who puts thngs together Leggo-like. The value of the excited level of Carbon-12 is not in itself initiated by God; rather the physical laws that yield that value. The actuality is that the basic principles, physical laws, fundamental constant values, etc. are put all together at the beginning and from this blueprint springs the totality of being. Indeed, bacteria are a necessary component of life and it is not only we humans whom God enjoys, but all of life. Read the end of C.S. Lewis’s Perelandra, with the dance of all the beings rejoicing in God, and you’ll see the picture.

24

Hi Bethany,
Excellent article. I like the metaphor. In fact, I used the same metaphor back in 2013! Here: Faith, Science and Metaphors - Article - BioLogos
Thanks and blessings.

25

@Bethany.Sollereder

I guess Mahalia Jackson could sing, “His eyes are on the bacterium and I know He watches me,” but I prefer the original song. [If anyone is not familiar with it they are missing a blessing.]

However there is a big difference between humans and bacteria. Humans are just one species. Bacteria is a whole kingdom of prokaryotic life forms. According to the encyclopedia there is more genetic distance between two kinds of bacteria than there is between humans and some plants.

Also it should be noted that there is no clear division between bacteria and humanity.
There are some
10 trillion human cells
in the human body.
There are also some
100 trillion non-human, symbiotic microbal cells
living in and on the human body, which are mainly bacteria, but also fungi and other organisms.

This symbiotic character of Life is the reason that Darwin’s linear understanding of evolution is incorrect.

At best the anthropic principle says “the evidence tells us we can exist here… and look! we do!”

That is not really correct. As I understand it, the anthropic principle says that the universe is built for observers, seems to me very close to what Christians see as a person created in the Image of God. Human existence is much more active than the existence of other types of life, and of course this is related to the human mind and spirit. Evolution has been designed by God to give humans an “evolutionary advantage” for their ability to think, communicate, and cooperate, that no other species has.

The anthropic theory is a scientific theory that has produced solid scientific results. It is an important interface where science and theology come together. Indeed it seems to be a source of the multiverse concept.

It has occurred to me God created a world with great unity and diversity. The diversity is found in the multiplicity of ecological niches, which produces a multiplicity of life forms, symbolized by the multiplicity of bacterial forms. This is close to the concept of the multiverse, except there is no unity in the multiverse. In our universe the unity is found in the Ecological Process and Humanity.

28

@Bethany.Sollereder Considering that you are only 10% human -and even that only if you laugh or cry - on the genetic level you are only 1% human if you think the symbiosis with the microbiome is not part of what makes you human. The ability of an individual to survive is dependent on your ability to love your neighbour and we will learn the hard way that throwing A-bombs at them in the form of antibiotics will make us vulnerable. For example to be able to benefit from phytoestrogen as replacement of your own requires you to have two types of bugs in your gut that do the biotransformation. In the end we are the result of an awful lot of fine tuning, of things that have to come together in harmony to allow us to exist which is precisely why most people do not understand evolution as they see it to be the result of the individual to beat the odds whilst it is the result of their environment to nurture the individual to survive. This explains the generation of higher complexity and the godly principle of evolution which is described in the phrase to love thy neighbour like thyself. only those who are selfish would translate the word of God in “to love your neighbour like yourself” as they take the love they have for themselves as the reference point. That is the limitation of the golden rule by which those tend to live that the existence of a self above them that they have to submit to. The consequence of failing to serve the higher self is shown to us in cancer were the cells want to claim immortality and in doing so destroys it’s own universe prematurely.
Finetuning is the natural consequence of the law of existence as those things who set themself above the purpose to serve the system will remove themselves from the system. Thus your refusal to identify yourself with the system by being a self of your own puts you in conflict with it - makes you live in sin unless you submit yourself to it. For many it takes facing their own mortality to finally understand that when they have to entrust those they love to the support of others but you can as well learn that through the death of someone you carry with love in your heart, someone other than yourself.

30

@Shiao_Chong Delighted to see this! So much for my original thought! Ah well, the more people putting it out there, the better!
@Eddie Saw your questions. The universe may well be fine-tuned, but the way we write in the end value for which we assert fine-tuning was necessary (whether that is bacteria, human life, stars, or even the vast extents of space) depends on our own decision to decide that this particular thing is special. I’m familiar with Denton’s work, but I still prefer other sorts of argumetns to the fine-tuning.
@marvin Yup, symbiosis is great, and I am familiar with the ways we depend on (and in some ways, are composed of) our friendly bacteria.
@Relates I definitely would love to hear a rendition of “His eyes are on the bacterium!”

My two jobs have caught up with me, and so the fun of hanging out on the internet and chatting with you fine folks must come to an end! Thanks for the interaction, and I hope you will continue to interact.

32

This topic was automatically closed 4 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.