I recently watched Richard Dawkins on a Sunday morning BBC program expounding the awesome wonder of the world science has uncovered and how meaningful a life without pretensions to an existing  Deity can be.

This is not an unfamiliar comment from an atheist-but I cannot get my little head around it no matter how many words are spilt , there remains to me a few questions that have yet to be answered:

1.Why do atheists evangelise ?

If the chief final end of man is to spend countless eons in  a cold,empty, ever expanding  ’nobody at home’  universe -what does it matter what a person believes, as long as they are happy for the few  short years that they are alive  -who cares about whats right, whats wrong, whats true whats false ? In the final analysis how will atheists promoting atheism change the end result of man one iota ?

If what we do has no effect on the fianl outcome -why does really matter what we do in the now ?

Why should atheist care ? Why should we be seeing the rise of nu-atheism, a more virulent aggressive  form of the old atheism, which  has spawned a whole section on its own in my local bookshop! Its a great money spinner -but is that the only motive for spreading the word, the ‘good’ news of Gods death ?

2.What has a sense of wonder to do with anything ?

Dawkins said:

‘I have a very positive, I’d almost say poetic, vision of the universe from a scientific point of view. I feel people are missing something if they content themselves with what I think of as an outdated, medieval view of the world, when they could be latching on to something much more exciting.’

I’d like to know whats scientific about a poetic view of the universe,sounds subjective to me and  not the stuff of  science  at all ? What does it matter if you have feelings of a poetic nature -there just neurons and neural networks firing -so what ? Why should that be valued more highly such that it deserves mention more  that the fact that my neck itches (different neurons firing) for example?

All this sense of awe atheists are feeling …so what ? It doesnt change the end result -with nothing that went before having any impact on the final outcome…so be good  or be bad it really makes no difference -as it doesn’t impact the final final outcome for you and me of death.

Athesits talk about family and friends adding to the meaning of life-but why?

What does it matter in the end ?It doesnt matter at all.

I read this on a forum recently:

Pascal :

“We run heedlessly into the abyss after putting something in front of us to stop us seeing it.”

Phillipm (whom I couldn’t contact-sorry Philipm) wrote this :

‘Whenever atheists address the claim that without God life is meaningless, I feel like they really stop thinking about it in an objective mindset. The point is about our ultimate meaning, which is a category in everyone’s minds I think. It is not a point about your life from point A to point B, but rather is a thought about humanity’s place in the universe.’

I agree its the ultimate final outcome thats important.Within Christianity there is the notion that what is done now has eternal consequences this has the effect of making every moment charged with import and precious.

 

 

 

‘I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient.

It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.’

Erwin Schrödinger

James reminds us in James chapter 4 verse 6, that ‘God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble’. Pride comes in two flavours –the puffed up –self proclamation of achievement or ownership, an orgy of arrogant self importance and then there’s the less obvious less extravagant pride which denies; it denies our value before God, calling God a liar and stops us accepting compliments from others, making men out to be mistaken.

The Uriah Heap stance of wringing hands and bowing acceptance of our lot ,not wishing to trouble others or offend. The type of pride that tries to closely resemble Humility yet is nothing like it.

Reading the Telegraph this morning, there is an article about a new TV adaption of the Passion to be shown on BBC 1 on Sunday .In the article the actor playing Jesus Joseph Mawle describes what it is like to play this person, what caught the interest of the Telegraph Writer Cassandra Jardine was that Joseph had to deal with being both dyslexic and deaf,these ‘thorns in the flesh’ may  propell us towards God, Mawle provides the antidote to pride:

Jardine writes, quoting Mawle:“…As I learnt more about Jesus, I found he had a more positive message: use your gifts” That thought gave him Joseph Mawle courage, but still he was often so nervous that he turned for help to David Oyewolo, who played Henry VI  for the RSC and is Joseph of Arimathea in The Passion . “He’s straight down the line religious and that was very calming. I was getting mixed up with words and so I asked him what it meant to be humble. He said, ‘It means asking for help’.” Mawle’s humility turned out to be his best qualification for the part.’

Andrew Fellows (English L’abri) my brief notes on his –‘The future of Christianity in Europe’ lecture Europe as part of western Christianity no longer represents the future of Christianity –that now lies elsewhere-we in Europe are in a desperate situation.Psalm 11 1-3: In the LORD I take refuge.
How then can you say to me:
“Flee like a bird to your mountain.

2 For look, the wicked bend their bows;
they set their arrows against the strings
to shoot from the shadows
at the upright in heart.

3 When the foundations are being destroyed,
what can the righteous do ?

When the foundations are being destroyed what can the righteous do?

King David is being tempted to hide, the real world is dangerous, just bring a few souls into the kingdom and keep our collective heads down –this is the temptation of the European church today as we become more and more ‘the beleaguered church’.Europe is now being referred to by those outside of Europe as the Dark Continent – a term once used to describe India in the 18^th century by European Christians!

The draft constitution of Europe was refused and voted down –the draft constitution was devoid of all references to Christianity in Europe –described by some as a Christophobic constitution, the commitment was to secularism and saw Christianity as the problem.Why? Fellows considers that two vacuums existing today in Europe:

1. The decline of ALL European populations –‘demographic suicide’ –Niall Ferguson described this as ‘The greatest suicidal reduction in European population since the black death’. Financial incentives are being rolled out to encourage a third child. The outworking of this is an increasing aging populations coupled with a lack of economic growth. Why aren’t we concerned –this is the sign of a declining civilisation. There is a lack of forward thinking, a lack of vision for the future. There is a turning inwards a narcissistic tendency. What is going to fill the demographic vacuum of Europe?

1. There is an ideological vacuum-which ideology will fill the vacuum?

The Europe we are seeing is committed to exclusive Humanism –excluding all transcendent reference points-Christianity is seen as an obstacle to a peaceful Europe –Christianity is a problem-beyond that we have a collective amnesia about the Christian foundations of Europe –we are pretending that they do not exist.

The ideology that supports Europe currently has an anti-ideology. We look back at our recent history –which has had the most devastating impact for Europe, leading to an attitude where there’s a neutrality of all worldviews-‘Never again!’ Perhaps Europe’s recent past has brought us to the point of fear in regard to worldviews.

The worthy goals of Europe are tolerance and freedom as part of the EU constitution –that’s excellent –but with an anti-worldview stance there is no basis for this commitment other than a pragmatic one. The foundation is not there, we need reasons for freedom and tolerance.

 Within Christianity there is a basis for these ideas of Europe.Freedom is about choice –the exercise of the will –self expression –freedom is reduced to individual choice, very Nietzsche, the will to power that creates the self-Freedom is no longer related to anything outside of our selves.

 There is a loss of universals-the idea is that we gain more freedom the more we strip away these worldviews such as Christianity. From a Christian perspective Freedom has to be FOR SOMETHING –freedom includes a historical memory and moral imagination as well as choices. We must have freedom and responsibility.The Christian worldview provides a basis for the public square and continues to provide a foundation for modern Europe. 4 foundational pillars from Christianity:

1. The reality of the trinity, the principle of the one and the many: The Lord our God the Lord is one –as a unity God exists as three persons with unique roles and functions –also displaying diversity. The reality of the trinity guards against 2 movements: a. An emphasis on unity to the exclusion of diversity-if we allow unity to dominate we lean towards a totalitarian state. When unity becomes everything the individual looses everything. The other extreme is an emphasis on diversity to the exclusion of unity and here the individual becomes all there is, there is nothing bigger or any collective to belong to no health democracy can exist in that situation. A Trinitarian confederation of states would be loose association, allowing diversity and unity.

b. The reality of the creation order –our universe is not accidental or random but is purposeful and personal –the creator is dynamically involved in the unfolding of creation and we are part of a dynamic partnership ( A dance –a conversation –not coercion on the part of the creator , not the use of force –this represents a model for European civilisation) with God in ruling over creation.

1. The Imago Dei (image of God) Human beings created in the image of God-that is the foundation and basis of Human dignity-the individual has sacred value. This is the basis for a tolerant and free Europe –because we carry the image of God. We should resist brutal regimes where ever we find them, because of the Imago Dei.

1. The reality of a moral universe- the creator is a moral being there is a right and a wrong –these rights and wrongs are a reflection of what God is. The moral value has a transcendent character because it represents God character. It stands outside of people.

These four pillars built the basis of Europe. The state is there to support and protect which is why a limited state is a Christian ideal. Andrew Fellows talks about the Volunteer sector as an expression of the Imago Dei –in post Communistic Russia the voluntary sector is only just beginning –the state is not meant to be the sole arbiter of care we are citizens within a civic society.

Will Europe return to its foundations?

Who will help us?

Here is an example of David Robertson’s thoughts on youtube.

Also a more indepth discussion with Q&A from the audience can he obtained here.

He is the author of ‘ The Dawkins Letters‘ which grew out of a series of posts which were placed on Dawkins website and generated many responses most of which are unpostable regarding David’s oposition to the God Delusion.

As a response to the problem of a universe that looks increasing fine tuned for life (see here ), the multi verse (many universe’s) theory has been brought forward to answer the teleologists claim of apparent design.

Roger Penrose of Oxford University has calculated that the odds of our universe’s current low entropy condition being obtained by chance alone, are on the order of 1:1010 -I wouldn’t bet my worldview on those odds, but many people are willing to; in order to escape the teleological implications of a fine tuned universe just right for intelligent life.

Even if we have a multi verse situation, the chances of us being able to observe our universe are infinitesimally small -leading to the inference that this theory is a case of the cart leading the horse, -that is the metaphysical presuppositions of the theory maker demand another theory other than the accepted one,based , not on evidence but on a priori prejudice.

I found this interesting quote by Physicist Brian Greene on Peter Williams excellent blog ‘ID.plus‘:

‘If true, the idea of a multiverse would be a Copernican Revolution realized on a cosmic scale. It would be a rich and astounding upheaval, but one with potentially hazardous consequences. Beyond the inherent difficulty in assessing its validity, when should we allow the multiverse framework to be invoked in lieu of a more traditional scientific explanation? Had this idea surfaced a hundred years ago, might researchers have chalked up various mysteries to how things just happen to be in our corner of the multiverse and not pressed on to discover all the wondrous science of the last century? …The danger, if the multiverse idea takes root, is that researchers may too quickly give up the search for underlying explanations. When faced with seemingly inexplicable observations, researchers may invoke the framework of the multiverse prematurely – proclaiming some phenomenon or other to merely reflect conditions in our own bubble universe and thereby failing to discover the deeper understanding that awaits us. ‘

William Lane Craig says:

‘if our universe is but one member of a multiverse, then we ought to be observing highly extraordinary events, like horses’ popping into and out of existence by random collisions, or perpetual motion machines, since these are vastly more probable than all of nature’s constants and quantities’ falling by chance into the virtually infinitesimal life-permitting range.’

Using my new Nano iPod (thank you Santa) I was listening to the podcast of Intelligent design the future –get yours here.

In the current podcast Dr Ralph Seelke is interviewed, he is involved in experimental evolution and has been looking at the capabilities and limitations of evolution.Currently he is looking at genetic changes in a population of bacteria over many generations, currently at 2000 generations and climbing- check out the podcast for more details.

He has an interesting brief definition of micro and macro evolution; Microevolution he defines as having the characteristic of having been observed; where as Macroevolution has never been seen –but is inferred from the fossil record etc.

The inferred bridge between Micro and Macro evolution is  stepwise beneficial  change, the problem comes  when many things need to change all at the same time, much like Behe’s edge of evolution argument.

Dr Seelke  looks  at what evolution can do –the point I find interesting  is that so few scientist have asked and designed experiments that tackle the question of what evolution can and cannot do –it is just assumed that’s the issue is settled.Dr Seelke:‘There hasn’t been an intense effort by scientist to find the limits of evolution in the evolutionary community; because they are convinced it is true.’ There are different levels of certainty within science, some phenomena, for instance are singularities and so cannot be observed and as such remain as inferences only, whereas other phenomena can be observed again and again and so the relationship between cause and effect is more certain.  

The bridge between the observed microevolution and the unobserved macroevolution looks to be flimsy and may need some empirical  shoring up if it is to manage the weight of one species turning into another using microevolution over many generations.For instance at some point some changes are required that are major –can a cell go from a single celled fully functioning organism to a multi-celled single organism in stepwise fashion? That is in one step?

With the advent of multicellular organisms comes the question of the origin of distinctive cellular function, multicelled organism have cells that are distinctive in function if not in form, the origin of intra cellular communication to name a few challenges to a exclusively stepwise walk across the bridge from micro to macro evolution.    

Bradford over at Telic thoughts wields the hammer and hits the nails squarely on the head:

He says :

‘He mentioned how struck he was by the reaction of biologists to the genetic code. They (and others) act as if this were an ordinary biological feature. It is far from it. The Big Bang and quantum physics get the attention of philosophers while the genetic code flies under philosophical radar. A symbolic molecular coding system is presumed to be a consequence of unobserved chemical reactions. But why? Because we find parallel results in chemistry? No, that’s not it. There are vague references to complexity arising. But the type of complexity cited (crystals for example) is of a different nature. All of this leads me to believe a philosophical predilection underlies which lens we choose to view data through. If the lens orients one to a telic perspective it is not likely to see the light of day.

When Darwinians challenge IDers to come up with some empirical results that strikes me as a strange demand. The empirical data is being churned out every day in labs all across the world.

Excellent point. Data is neutral with respect to where it comes from. Whether researchers believe in ID or oppose it the data remains the same.’

I am in complete agreement with the above statement,the data is there -there are no exclusively naturalistic empirical driven scenarios for how we got to the complexity of structure and function including the systems we see in place for maintaining fidelity of the message; that we find in the genome. Just as there are no exclusively naturalistic empirically driven scenarios for the cause of Hoyle’s distasteful ‘Big bang’ , that is why the field is wide open for interpretation.

History teaches that a consensus is not to be trusted, another bus will be along shortly. I read again and again that Intelligent design is dead ,yet not one piece of evidence is brought to the table to demonstrate its demise,while the big elephant in the room everyone is ignoring remains to be explained,where did this complexity and diversity we have recently and unexpectedly uncovered originate ?

Is it naive to expect the data to always lead and our ideas to meekly follow ?Are we unsullied by metaphysics and so free to see the data as it is ? The big invisible elephant suggests otherwise.

over the rhine featuring the angelically powerful voice of Karin Bergquist -words fail.