Paul Davies and John Lennox, 17th April — some thoughts

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Tommy on April 25, 2010 at 16:30

Thanks Paul for this review. I'm woefully behind on listening to Unbelievable shows (not enough hours in my day) and when I saw this one on the podcast list I thought I'd give it a miss since Lennox usually makes me tear my hair out with his absurd arguments. But now I'm intrigued enough to give it a listen. Just going to catch to the latest one first with Robertson versus an atheist trifecta*, which seems to have brought this forum suddenly back to life.

Edit: *My mistake, four horsemen not three - just read the feed description again. I'm guessing that Alex Bryce has yet to visit the forum with his topic. Downloading these shows now.

Permalink Reply by Dan Carollo on April 25, 2010 at 17:52

Strangely -- I found myself siding with the agnostic Paul Davies in many respects.
I see an important distinction to be made between God as the "architect" -- versus the "tinkering engineer" that the Intelligent Design movement seems to make him out to be. I'm not sure that distinction is obvious or not. Some believers seem rather uncomfortable with the idea of God who would allow so much contingency and randomness in the universe, and that in order for him to be "in control" --- he must personally have his finger on every atom/molecule. Otherwise, God becomes nothing more than a deist God. I think this is a faulty assumption (essentialy a category mistake about what God's involvement in or relationship to the universe means).

(See Kenneth Miller's "Finding Darwin's God")

I respect John Lennox, and agree with much of what he says -- although I'm uncomfortable with his subtle alliance with I.D.

And yet -- the rational intelligibility of the universe, it's laws, it's mathematical beauty, WHY were are able to understand it, why science is possible at all, why we are so intrigued and excited by discovery -- still raises significant questions -- none of which are ultimatley scientific questions, but rather personal/philosophical ones.

Questions of purpose, meaning, WHY, etc. are not going to go away anytime soon.

In some sense, I believe in a God who "upholds the universe" -- NOT in a scientifically explainatory way, but in a relational way. It's not something I can pretend to explain or fully comprehend. Nor, do I feel like I have to.

I doubt this will make a bit of sense to anyone here -- but there you have it.

Permalink Reply by Peter Byrom on April 26, 2010 at 13:05

I would find it interesting, Dan, to know what your thoughts on the seven days of Genesis represent. I am grappling with them, but I have certainly rejected the literal "week" interpretation. From what I understand, it suggests that God had six specific creative moments and, around those, the universe itself was (and is) free to unravel and work to its own laws. Could the ID movement (specifically their argument for design coding in DNA) be identifying one of those moments? I agree that the idea of God constantly "tinkering" with the universe sounds like he's a bit of a bumbler; however, if there were those handful of special creation moments I could happily accept that as giving those created things special significance - in that they require direct intelligent input so that there could be no mistake to dismissing them as mere "by-products" of nature; this could be, perhaps, like a great artist composing six paintings which are are held together in the perfect environment.

Just a thought, but don't get me wrong, I'm perfectly happy with (and believe in) evolutionary development.

Permalink Reply by Dan Carollo on May 9, 2010 at 14:51

Regarding the literal "day" (or week) interpretation --- I really think it's an untenable position to hold --- not just because of modern science, but because of the internal structure of the descriptions in Genesis 1 and 2 itself. This is a form of exaggerated narrative prose. There may well be an historical "core" to Adam and Eve, as real, neolithic people living somewhere in the fertile crescent of ancient Mesopotamia -- through whom the history of Isreal traces its ancestory -- but it certainly is not written as a straight-forward history at all, nor as a literal, word-for-word description of events. The first 11 chapters of Genesis most likely fall into this category. It's not until you get to the Abrahamic stories, that you find anything resembling straight-foward historical narrative in the Bible

You might consider checking out these resources for thoughtful scientitifc and theological reflectons on the meaning of Genesis, origins, etc.:

BioLogos.org
The Faraday Institute Lectures

I would also highly recommend Kenneth Miller's book "Finding Darwin's God"

Intelligent Design movement suffers from both bad science and also bad theology. It's what Ken Miller calls "looking for God in all the wrong places".

I think Charles Darwin mentions in his letter to Asa Gray (a friend and minister in America), that he could see the whole of biological history as following designed laws.. Indeed evolution itself would not even be possible without some regular, orderly laws underlying the fabric of life.

I can see Intelligent Design, generally speaking, as fitting in nicely with respect to a larger framework of "final cause" but not in respect to "efficient cause" (If I could use Aristotle's distinction).

Permalink Reply by Dan Carollo on May 9, 2010 at 17:49

Whoops - I already mentioned Miller's "Finding Darwin's God" in a prior post above! It must be the dementia

Permalink Reply by Oliver Tseng on May 10, 2010 at 15:32

I second the assessment that it was a "remarkably civil discussion".

What I found interesting was that Paul Davies admits that he had no scientific evidence to believe in the existence of extraterrestrials, yet because of purely philosophical reasons, he chooses to believe that they must exist. Isn't this precisely what skeptics charge theists of doing and ridiculing them for?

Permalink Reply by Dan Carollo on May 12, 2010 at 0:31

if there were those handful of special creation moments I could happily accept that as giving those created things special significance - in that they require direct intelligent input so that there could be no mistake to dismissing them as mere "by-products" of nature; this could be, perhaps, like a great artist composing six paintings which are are held together in the perfect environment.

One confusion often made is this: The idea that in order for something to be special (in this case, "humans"), God must have created it "specially". But I would argue (and many scripture passages seem to support this), that it is not how we are made (the mistake made by special creationists), nor where we are located in the universe (the mistake made by geo-centrists during Galileo's time) -- but rather who God is in relationship to us.

I think one clue here is in John 20:21-23
[Jesus speaking] "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22 And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit."

And then later at the Pentacost: (Acts 2):
" 1When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. 2Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. "

A similar imagery is in Genesis 2:
" the LORD God formed the man [e] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."

If you wanted to take a reductionist position here, you might say we are nothing but "mud balls"! But that is not the end of the story. The Old Testament word for spirit "ruah" is pretty much the same meaning as the Greek word "pneuma" in the New Testament --- which means "breath", as in breathing out or in the blowing of wind.

Some have become fixated on the specific anthropology here -- as if our significance were inextricably linked to the manner or substance out of which we are made. It is a misplaced preocuppation with questions of "what" and "how" --- rather than the "Who". Or, again -- to bring up Aristotle's distinction: a confusion between "material cause" vs. "final cause".

Our evolutionary development could be said to mimic the gestation development that happens inside the womb.
Indeed, my own coming into this world was not an act of direct, "special creation" or "intelligent design". Indeed -- the events surrounding my birth were apparently quite accidental and contingent. Not only that -- but I apparently had a deadbeat father who left the scene (In fact -- I was later adopted). I started as a single-cell creature, developed fins, later crawled on all fours before finally becoming "upright". But my gradual development over a 9-month period (and later abandonment) made me no less significant to my adoptive parents.

At the risk of being a bit corny here --- the story of the "Velveteen Rabbit" (Margery Williams) in a way, sort of illustrates the nature of our relational, rather than ontological significance (Which I also think happens to correspond to the main point of Genesis 1 and 2):

-------------------------

"The Skin Horse had lived longer in the nursery than any of the others. He was so old that his brown coat was bald in patches and showed the seams underneath, and most of the hairs in his tail had been pulled out to string bead necklaces. He was wise, for he had seen a long succession of mechanical toys arrive to boast and swagger, and by-and-by break their mainsprings and pass away, and he knew that they were only toys, and would never turn into anything else. For nursery magic is very strange and wonderful, and only those playthings that are old and wise and experienced like the Skin Horse understand all about it.

"What is REAL?" asked the Rabbit one day, when they were lying side by side near the nursery fender, before Nana came to tidy the room. "Does it mean having things that buzz inside you and a stick-out handle?"

"Real isn't how you are made," said the Skin Horse. "It's a thing that happens to you. When a child loves you for a long, long time, not just to play with, but REALLY loves you, then you become Real."

"Does it hurt?" asked the Rabbit.

"Sometimes," said the Skin Horse, for he was always truthful. "When you are Real you don't mind being hurt."

"Does it happen all at once, like being wound up," he asked, "or bit by bit?"

"It doesn't happen all at once," said the Skin Horse. "You become. It takes a long time. That's why it doesn't happen often to people who break easily, or have sharp edges, or who have to be carefully kept. Generally, by the time you are Real, most of your hair has been loved off, and your eyes drop out and you get loose in your joints and very shabby. But these things don't matter at all, because once you are Real you can't be ugly, except to people who don't understand."

"I suppose you are real?" said the Rabbit. And then he wished he had not said it, for he thought the Skin Horse might be sensitive. But the Skin Horse only smiled.

"The Boy's Uncle made me Real," he said. "That was a great many years ago; but once you are Real you can't become unreal again. It lasts for always."