I’ve noticed a few people posting about science/evolution/creation etc lately, so I might as well add my two cents…
While I was stuck at Heathrow just before Christmas, I went to the bookstore to find something to pass the time. The only book that looked interesting was The Grand Design, by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow. Now, I only have a mild interest in things scientific, but I do have an interest in “the big questions of life” which the book seeks to answer, so here are my reactions:
- Overall, the introduction to Newton’s laws and to Quantum physics is enjoyable and understandable. Although the discussion covers some big and complex areas, it is done in a commendably clear way.
- The attitude toward philosophy in the book is peculiar: It begins by pronouncing that philosophy is dead; and that it is scientists who now have the right to speak to the big questions of life. But philosophy gave birth to science, and this very book carries philosophical assumptions and arguments - so I find this odd.
- I was really interested to see the authors’ concept of “model-dependent reality” – a concept which, although they don’t mention it, has a strong philosophical heritage. That is, one’s appropriation of empirical data cannot be naively assumed to match an objective “reality” – but rather, can fit within a particular “model” of reality (which is not exclusive).
- I was surprised and a little bit embarrassed on behalf of the authors that a book that evidences such creative and profound thinking in relation to the nature of our universe also evidences such a naive view of religion. Occasionally throughout the book, the fact that certain phenomena can be explained in scientific terms is presented as a smooth rebuttal of religion – as though belief in God evolved as an answer to perceived gaps in knowledge. I can’t speak for all religions, but I can at least offer a Christian perspective: As Christians, we don’t begin with the observation of knowledge-gaps and then develop the hypothesis of a deity; rather we begin with God as he has revealed himself – particularly in Jesus Christ. The God of Jesus Christ doesn’t come to us as the missing piece of a puzzle who brings calm order to our otherwise gap-filled world; rather this God comes to us as the spanner-in-the-works who throws our otherwise ordered world into question, with his insistence that we meet him at an execution site just outside Jerusalem.
All in all, not a bad read 
True: odd about philosophy
In “The Grand Design” Hawking says that we are somewhat like goldfish in a curved fishbowl. Our perceptions are limited and warped by the kind of lenses we see through, “the interpretive structure of our human brains.” Albert Einstein rejected this subjective approach, common to much of quantum mechanics, but did admit that our view of reality is distorted.
Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity has the surprising consequences that “the same event, when viewed from inertial systems in motion with respect to each other, will seem to occur at different times, bodies will measure out at different lengths, and clocks will run at different speeds.” Light does travel in a curve, due to the gravity of matter, thereby distorting views from each perspective in this Universe. Similarly, mystics’ experience in divine oneness, which might be considered the same “eternal” event, viewed from various historical, cultural and personal perspectives, have occurred with different frequencies, degrees of realization and durations. This might help to explain the diversity in the expressions or reports of that spiritual awareness. What is seen is the same; it is the “seeing” which differs.
In some sciences, all existence is described as matter or energy. In some of mysticism, only consciousness exists. Dark matter is 25%, and dark energy about 70%, of the critical density of this Universe. Divine essence, also not visible, emanates and sustains universal matter (mass/energy: visible/dark) and cosmic consciousness (f(x) raised to its greatest power). During suprarational consciousness, and beyond, mystics share in that essence to varying extents. [quoted from my e-book on comparative mysticism]
Thanks for these thoughts Ron. I can see the comparison you’re drawing – experiences of the divine that appear to be divergent might actually represent differently located perspectives on the same reality. As I think about this, the thing that seems to be a sticking point from the perspective of Christianity is that the crucial Christian experience of the divine is the incarnation of Jesus Christ – that which was invisible became visible; that which was dark became light, “and this light was the light of humans.”
I’ve recently reviewed a book on Christian mysticism for a journal, and might reflect on that here on the blog at some point soon
Matt
Jesus taught that “the Kingdom of God is within you.” That is the same teaching of most of the prophets and prominent mystics of most religions. We are all incarnate of the divine, although too few people realize it. You might want to look over my book for some of the similarities between Christian mysticism and that of other faiths.
It’s certainly true that mysticism across various faiths has a lot of similarity – but I’d also say that mysticism within Christianity is relatively minor, requiring some exegetical gymnastics to make it fit. I take the statement from Jesus that you quote to be better rendered as “the kingdom of God is among you”… the idea that “we are all incarnate of the divine” may be your position, but I can’t convince myself that that’s the message of Christianity, let alone all religions.
Matthew,
The mystical tradition of any faith often differs from its orthodox doctrines. Also, there are numerous interpretations of the New Testament:
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=jesus+kingdom+of+god+is+within&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
God of the gaps
I will begin this article with two postulates: 1) God has created this universe; 2) He has brought man in this universe with some purpose.
I am not claiming here that these two postulates are true, or that I can prove them to be true. But I want to show here that if these two postulates are true, then God will always be the God of the gaps. Anyone who will be reading this article should not forget that there is an “if” clause in the last sentence.
Now I will begin with the supposition that God has created this universe. If God has created this universe, then He could have created it in four different ways: 1) He created it in such a way that there was no necessity for Him to intervene in it after creation, 2) After creation He intervened in it, but these interventions were a bare minimum, that is, He intervened only when these were absolutely necessary. In order to clarify my point here, I will say that He intervened only when He found that without His intervention the universe would come to a standstill, 3) He created the universe in such a way that in order to keep it going He had to make very frequent interventions in it, 4) God’s total intervention after creation.
If it was the purpose of God to keep mankind crippled in every possible way, then He would have adopted either the third or the fourth way while creating the universe. This is because in these two cases man, in spite of his having sufficient intelligence and reasoning power, will fail to unveil the secrets of nature, because in almost every phenomenon of nature that he will decide to study he will ultimately find that there always remains an unknown factor, for which he will have no explanation. For him the book of nature will thus remain closed for ever. But if it were God’s purpose that man be master of His creation, then it is quite natural for Him that He would try to keep the book of nature as much open to him as possible, so that with the little intelligence he has been endowed with man will be able to decipher the language of nature, and with that acquired knowledge he will also be able to improve the material conditions of his life. In that case God will try to adopt the policy of maximum withdrawal from His creation. He will create the universe in such a way that without His intervention the created world will be able to unfold itself. However that does not mean that He will never intervene. He will definitely intervene when without His intervention the created world would become stagnant. In such a scenario man will be able to give an explanation of almost all physical events in scientific language. But in those cases where God has actually intervened, he will fail to do so.
So I think there is no reason for us to be ashamed of the “God of the gaps” hypothesis. Yes, if God has created the universe, and if God’s purpose was that man be master of His creation, then He would try to keep as little gap in His creation as possible. But the minimum gap that would be ultimately left can never be bridged by any sort of scientific explanation. God will also reside in that gap. Why should we be ashamed of that?
The whole matter can be seen from another angle. Those who strongly believe that God has created this universe also believe that He has created it alone. Now is it believable that a God, who is capable of creating such a vast universe alone, is not capable enough to keep a proof of His existence in the created world? So I think it is more reasonable to believe that while creating the universe God has also kept a proof of His existence in something created. This proof is open to us all, but we have not found it, because we have not searched for it. So even if it is the case that God has never intervened in the created world after its creation, still then there will be a gap in this natural world, purposefully left by God, for which science will find no explanation. This will be the ultimate gap that can only be filled up by invoking God.
Therefore, I can conclude this article in this way: If God created this universe, and if God wanted man to be the master of His creation, then God would willingly choose to be the “God of the gaps”.
So it is quite logical that a God who will create man with some purpose will always prefer to be the God of the gaps.