The marriage of science and religion’
As a Christian I see no conflict between science and religion. I would argue that science is the empirical study of God, a window into his mind and machinations. Many scientists would agree, indeed Sir Isaac Newton was an ordained priest.
Like many Christians, I don’t believe that everything in the Bible is meant to be taken literally. We see the book of Genesis, for example, as purely symbolic. Of course, there are groups of Christians who would disagree
with this, viewing the creation story as an accurate portrayal of our origins whilst completely discounting evolution, but one shouldn’t confuse a fundamentalist stance with the mainstream, and it would be a
mistake to think that this is representative of Christianity as a whole.
This interpretation doesn’t undermine Christianity, or my faith, rather it is the source of its strength and enduring relevance. As in all belief systems: political, ethical, spiritual or philosophical – various denominations agree on different interpretations of the same central theme. Just as the Conservative and Labour parties advocate their views on democracy (having accepted it over socialism) , Christianity has a rich array of theological perspectives and approaches to worship and scripture. Since a core concept of the faith is ‘free will’, it
seems appropriate that we can make an informed choice about our beliefs that allows us to worship, reflect and engage in an environment
and amongst a peer group suited to our personal values, and through which we are best able to identify and connect with God.
James Ussher, Bishop of Ireland in 1625, points out that if Genesis was to be taken literally, the world would have been created at 9am on 26th of October 4004 BC (which wouldn’t bode well for the Mesopotamians).
The work of Christian scholars and theologians like these ensure our faith is grounded in realism and help us understand scripture in a historical, cultural and social context.
For most Christians then, the Old Testament Bible is largely allegorical, while the New Testament gives testimony to the life of Jesus. As a guidebook to life there can be no better resource or companion. Christianity is as much a way of life as it is a faith and the core principles
and philosophies behind the Christian message are invaluable in hemselves. To believe that God is in everything (pantheism), and his love is all encompassing, is to view the world and those around us in a spiritual sense (animism or panpsychism). It encourages an awareness of self and of others that enriches our lives, so that we may lead better ones.
In this sense, the Bible is about seeking a different kind of knowledge, a knowledge that transcends our physical being and universe – a form of enlightenment you might say. To say religion or faith is scientifically flawed is to misinterpret its purpose. If you are looking for science in the Bible you are looking in the wrong book, because that’s not what it’s about.
We live in a universe finely tuned for life. If any of the essential parameters of nature, be it the mass of particles forming hydrogen (which makes nuclear fusion possible) or the strength of forces like gravity and dark energy (that determines the size of stars, or prevent the
universe expanding too quickly or collapsing altogether) were fractionally different ‘we’ could never have arisen. Our luck has been equally striking on earth. 4000 million years ago self-replicating entities spontaneously
arose from the primordial soup. This has never been replicated; we simply don’t know how life, even in its most basic form, can be created
from inert compounds. Life is neither a natural nor inevitable state of things. Our very atmosphere only exists by virtue of earth’s perfectly
balanced gravitation. The pressure levels mean life forms don’t need to worry about imploding either. These miracles alone are not enough however; consider the chain of events that followed: cyanobacteria arbitrarily evolved to absorb green light, transforming our once purple oceans and giving rise to plants. Integral to our existence – they not
only turned our toxic atmosphere into an oxygen rich haven, but they turned an otherwise sandy and stony landmass into a fertile and habitable world. Plant evolution fuelled diversity, but up to 65 million years ago, the oxygen levels were so much higher that insects and animals had been growing to outlandish sizes. Productivity was colossal, but survival brutal. The rogue asteroid that struck our planet with the power of a billion Hiroshima bombs was an evolutionary
panacea, heating our planet by 200 degrees. It was up to plants to absorb the carbon dioxide and heat, but over time they cooled our planet. With the reptiles gone and oxygen levels as they are now, mammalian life was suddenly viable and sustainable. Christians do
not see this as a mere coincidence.
We only need to look around us to see the work of a God. Consider the beauty and perfection of geometry, mathematical equations and chemical formulae: how did this complex array of rules and algorithms that define and govern our universe that give spring to life and consciousness itself, come to be? These calculations are not human inventions, but nature’s. They came to be in one defining moment that
has ruled us for at least 4 billion years and which sets the boundaries of our very existence and every breathing minute. Ultimately we must look to our atomic origins and ask ourselves this; what came first, before the ‘Big Bang’? If we are to say ‘nothing’ then we must contemplate the concept of ‘nothingness’, and so question: what was the spark, the casual link, the source? How can ‘something’ come from nothing? How did particles spontaneously invent a system of self-regulation and establish equilibrium? This isn’t just the creation of an inert blob of
‘something’; it is the formation of an entire rule set of dazzling complexity that we are still decoding today. When you consider the essence of mathematics and physics, that is to say: their origin as an ordered construct of principles – God is the only answer.
St Thomas Aquinas best summed up in his seminal work, The Summa Theologica of 1274, with five simple arguments as to why God must exist (Quinque Viae): There must be a first mover, himself unmoved; a first cause in the chain of causes; an absolutely necessary being; an absolutely perfect being; and a rational designer. God is ‘primum movens immobile’: the first cause, himself uncaused.
Science is a gift we would do well not to misinterpret. It is an endeavour to understand the workings of life, and it is through this that we may see into the mind of its architect. In understanding science, we understand God and his genius. Thus, the more we discover, the more our faith in his existence can be assured. This is the marriage of science and
religion. The very existence, intricacy and efficacy of our lives all bear testament to the works of a greater power, God.
Mark Alexander is currently resident at HMP Gartree
So many logical fallacies, so little time, so i\’ll handle a couple before moving onto the overall premise:-
\”The very existence, intricacy and efficacy of our lives all bear testament to the works of a greater power, God.\”
But which god? The human race have worshipped thousands of them over their time on this planet, so how can you know, with 100% certainty, that the god most popular within your social group is the correct one? Billions of people have felt the same way as you about all of the gods who have ever been worshipped, and most would most likely defend their god the same as you.
\”For most Christians then, the Old Testament Bible is largely allegorical, while the New Testament gives testimony to the life of Jesus.\”
What do you mean by \”largely allegorical\”? From which authority do you deign to decide which parts are literal, and which parts are allegory? Is it just the parts that do not appear to agree with modern scientific, geological, and archaeological findings, or is it that which you find unpalatable within a modern moral framework? Take away that which is proven false from the OT, and you are left with virtually nothing.
\”As a guidebook to life there can be no better resource or companion.\”
Oh really? So Jehovah hardening the heart of the Pharoah when he was asked to let the Israelites go was a moral thing? The Pharoah was going to let them go, but Jehovah stopped him from doing it, leading to the death of thousands of children (first-born sons). Moses, on the orders of Jehovah, ordered the Israelites to kill every man, boy, and non-virgin girl in a couple of cities, and to keep the virgin girls for the Israelites. Is that a moral thing to do? Lot was favoured by Jehovah, even though he offered his virgin daughters to a baying mob instead of giving up two men that had come to him. After this, he got both his daughters pregnant. Moral again? Jehovah murdered everyone on the planet except Noah\’s family, and this included every innocent baby and child, not to mention those thousands of miles away who\’d grown up without the ability to ever learn of him. Is this genocidal nature one to follow?
Jesus consistently contradicted himself, saying one thing at one time, then saying the opposite at another. I have a list of 40-odd. Give me time, and i\’d be able to give you 140 more contradictions in OT and NT scriptures. Which of the contradictory passages do you need to follow?
\”As a Christian I see no conflict between science and religion. I would argue that science is the empirical study of God, a window into his mind and machinations. Many scientists would agree, indeed Sir Isaac Newton was an ordained priest.\”
No conflict? The claims made in the Bible are specious at best. Bats are not birds, the cities allegedly destroyed by Moses and Aaron (yet another list of heinous genocidal atrocities) weren\’t destroyed from without, but from within, and over 100-200 years, far too long for the lifetimes of two people, and even then the list in the Bible includes many cities with absolutely no sign of destruction.
The flood is another falsity, as there is absolutely no evidence of a global event of that size. Where did all that water come from, and where did it go to? You do realise that to cover every piece of land on the planet, you\’d need 8 times as much water as there is today? That doesn\’t just seep into the ground! Then there\’s the simple fact that there\’d have to be some serious incest going on between Noah, his wife, his three sons, their wives, and even their children and grandchildren, for there to be a repopulation of the planet. How did all those animals fit onto the ark? Where was their food stored? What about all the faeces?
If any god is not to conflict with science, then they and their teachings must stand up to rigorous testing using the scientific method, and unfortunately no deity ever has done. The historical accuracy of every holy book i\’ve read – and i\’ve read many – has been terribly poor at best, so they pretty badly fail their first hurdle. Scientifically, they generally make claims that are quite easily proven false, but where they aren\’t, it\’s because the claim they make is nigh on impossible to prove. It\’s like me saying I worship an invisible teapot halfway between us and the sun (see Russell\’s Teapot); its existence is unprovable.
It\’s commendable that you believe in that which science gives us, instead of being a literal interpreter, but you must accept that as time moves forward, more and more of the Bible becomes proven false, pushing your god into an ever smaller box. We do not need a book to help us be good people, we can just be good people.
\”With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil
why do we on the outside do nothink about our loved ones inside if anythink happened to our children at school we would be the first there to correct the situation but we just let those holding our family members get away with holding them in cells 24/7 with limited facilitys bad hygein bad food animals get better treatment and no not all prisoners are bad some just lost there way for awhile i think this goverment have a responsabilty to help bring these inmates out to be of use to the tax payer and not a liability to society my son is just that MY SON and i want him to come home a better man not a broken one so that he can show his son the meaning of life
– Terry is an inspiration to all and a testment to mans ability to survive when up against the greatest adversity, which is no hope, how can anyoe survive a regime that takes away hope.
I have never been to prison but have visited my son on a few occassions, one was in a YOI and I took him Christmas gifts. I had a very large box of chocolate bars and I asked the prison if they would share them out between the boys who were there. Christmas morning I had a call from a young man who thanked me for his gift. It broke my heart to think of these young lads having no one to help them as I learned that many of their families turn their back on them, and yes Neil, it was supposd to be a comment about story book dads 🙂 but also about humanity.
I would like to share part of this article with all those people, especially MPs and such, who do not see any problem with the IPP sentence.
There are so many prisoners with the IPP attached to their sentence who feel as if they might just as well give up trying – why should they if they are not getting anywhere?
The ones who are waiting to get on courses feel frustrated while those who have done the courses are just in limbo; what can they do to be released.
Then there are those who have done the courses, had a parole hearing, and been told to do another course which applies to those who have a higher risk assessment, not to them.
There has to be something that can get this awful sentence moving in the right direction to enable all these prisoners out of Limbo and into a proper system towards release.
– sorry i thought this was about what a good idea storybook dads is. 🙂
I would like to pose some questions on Christianity although it could equally apply to other religions.Why when people are terminally ill do others pray for them to get well. After all, the so called afterlife is such a wonderful place to be that millions should be jumping off the nearest cliff to get there? What was there before God and did God invent him or herself. Can\’t be sexist here although it is always described as him. Given that the Bible was written in the age of ignorance when thunder and lightning were described as being God\’s wrath, is the Bible therefore wrong on that point? Given that the four main gospels of the New Testament were written at least 70 years after Jesus\’s death and with so many inconsistencies between the stories how can anyone be sure that any one of them is an accurate account Of Jesus\’s life? When I am told that Jesus is making a second coming, when is that likely to be as I would like to meet him? I would like to sell my daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. What would be a fair price for her? Lev.2120 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. Does my vision have to be 20/20? I have a neighbour who works on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states that he should be put to death.Who is going to carry out this function? When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice I know it creates a pleasing odour for God – Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbours. They claim that the smell is unpleasant.Should someone smite them? Anyone willing to answer?
– I know plenty about the recent escapee, he is my brother John massey, yes your biased i hear you say, and i probably am but no one knows John better than i do, he lived here for 10 months when we lost our sister… If John was a risk to life and limb and a danger to society then Why did it take them 10 months to come and look for him? ill tell you why because he wasnt high up on their agenda as a dangerous man… When he escaped from Pentonville the only reason they came with guns blazing (thats a figure of speach) is because he has embarassed the authorities by getting out. at(64) they said this was impossible why is it impossible…John has earned that right to be fit, lets face it what else has he had to do the last 37 years…A keen badminton player John has beaten professionals so his leval of fitness is high. Enough is enough let him home… We as a family have traveled for miles over the years and we are not giving up, so once again let the battle begin.
– It must be very self defeating for the lifer you mentioned in your over the wall article, maybe the country will take this on board now coming from you. Your guards main responsibilty was to see that you did not escape, but Terry I am convinced after your incarceration and the no hope future you had, if you could have escaped…………. Thats what happened to this lifer all avenues were blocked, a hunger to see your last surviving parent before it\’s too late!! well done on your article, wake up britain.
\”As far as listening to the greatest minds ever then, what about Albert Einstein, Max Planck, Werner Heisenburg, Erwin Schrodinger, Freeman Dyson; I could go on\”.
Einstein did not believe in God. Planck and Heisenberg were deists, and so did not believe in a personal god. Scrodinger, I\’m unclear on, but I suspect he was also a deist. Freeman Dyson is the only one out of them who is unequivocally religious, and even then he is non-denominational.
\”…don\’t try to make out that the \”clever\” people are all atheists. It simply isn\’t true\”.
This is not what Steven Battram said. Religion is about faith and very likely influenced by facts of emotional susceptibility, upbringing, ethnicity, community tradition and custom, politics and other social factors that are, largely, independent of one\’s intelligence and intellect. No-one is suggesting that atheism is a prerequisite for intelligence, or, conversely, that atheists are invariably wise and balanced individuals. However, I think it is undeniable that rates of religious adherence tend to be markedly low among scientific and technical communities across a range of nationalities and cultures. People who have studied science at advanced levels and come to an understanding of the way the world is tend to either reject religious explanations altogether, or develop a more refined or subtle attitude to religion that is epitomised by Einstein\’s God or a deist-type perspective. That has to be of some significance to our discussion.
If, as I think you imply, religion should remain an acceptable explanation for the Real World and a precept for our social, moral and civic foundations, then why isn\’t there more evidence of religious devotion among serious scientists?
Maybe the reason is that religions – certainly in the West – have given up this struggle. It seems to me that Western religions at any rate have undergone an \’Invisible Reformation\’, ceding the scientific ground to science and taking up the behaviourist mantle instead, which is still fertile ground.
I would describe Richard Dawkins, as frustrated, rather than a ranting polemicist. He is attempting to enlighten the religiously brainwashed. As he states: people are brainwashed into the faith of the country they\’re born in. One argument he uses against the perfect designer, the \’one\’ who created this incredible universe and everything in it, is the Laryngeal Nerve of the giraffe, which proves the theory we evolved from fish.
When my stepson was 8-9 yrs old, we had the: is Father Christmas real argument? He was almost certain Santa wasn\’t real. But when I mentioned if he didn\’t believe in Santa, he might not get any presents, his hopes for a reward overtook his natural instincts. But on the question of god, he instinctively said, \’it\’s crap.\’
Another anecdote is a reporter interviewing Chistopher Hitchens, stating he left it late to baptise his daughter, and when the priest was sprinkling the water over his child\’s head and chanting in the name of god etc, the child says: \’who\’s god?\’ Put that child into any religious country in the world and the child will, if brainwashed from an early age, believe in the religion that\’s drummed into it.
Religion is a by-product of man\’s evolution. I\’m confident in the not too distant future, governments will be legally made to order religious organizations to issue the warning to it\’s flock, \’For entertainment purposes only.\’
– Storybook Dad\’s is crumbs, the barest minimum a repressive organization can do to assist an incarcerated parent maintain contact with a sibling. The prison services main objective is to create regimes that slowly erode family ties, ensuring an offender leaves prison with family ties and social ties destroyed; when there is video links available via Skype, imagine how that could help a child needing to see their imprisoned parent: instead security excuses are invented to stop prisoners using technology. The prison service aims to be repressive and destroy, maintaining high levels of recidivism – as it keeps POA members employed – more prisoners, more prisons, more screws, more power for POA.
Richard Dawkins, who used to be a persuasive writer and an excellent scientist, has to my mind become a ranting polemicist; an atheist to the point of it becoming, ironically, a faith.
Stephen Hawking is not an atheist, but rather an agnostic.
As far as listening to the greatest minds ever then, what about Albert Einstein, Max Planck, Werner Heisenburg, Erwin Schrodinger, Freeman Dyson; I could go on. There vast numbers of scientists through history and hundreds of geniuses working in science today, many of whom like those above have won the world\’s most prestigious prizes in science and yet beleive in a god. That doesn\’t mean they are correct, but don\’t try to make out that the \”clever\” people are all atheists. It simply isn\’t true.
– great article. you are an inspiration to many. yes, storybook dads is brilliant. more positivity can never be a bad thing when in a Dark place but too many people dont think prisoners have any legitimate talents, and it is a real shame that it takes a spell in prison to drag that talent out of them. There are some amazing artists and musicians. A prison x factor, with the winner gaining release and a contract on the out could be a winner. best wishes. neil.
– There is no conflict between science and religion, both are man inspired. Richard Dawkin has stated religion is a by-product of evolution, which, in my opinion, is the most logical conclusion. Christopher Hitchens is correct in his appraisal: \’religion poisons everything.\’ Man doesn\’t need a dummy or an imaginary friend. Governments should expose the fraud that is all religious teachings. Nothing sickens me more than children being brainwashed with religious teachings. We should now see religion for what it is, dump it, and evolve into an higher intellect.
I have heard the argument: nothing comes from nothing, so many times in religious debates, it\’s hackneyed. Stephen Hawkins has stated religion is man-made, he has one of the greatest minds ever. Do we listen to a genius, or someone who has been brainwashed at birth to believe religious nonsense, and then goes on to preach it?
There is no heaven, if there is an afterlife, then it is shrouded in mystery. As Hitchens says when a christian says, \’I\’ll pray for you.\’ he says, \’And I\’ll think for you.\’