Firbush Retreats Firbush retreats are organized and led by Robert T. Walker. Firbush retreats are designed to make the best theology accessible to as many people as possible and especially those not trained in theology and often not familiar with routine technical terms. They combine times of worship and prayer with reflection on a theme related to Torrance theology. For more information see https://tftorrance.org/firbush. ----------- Nov 11, 2015 Firbush Retreat Fall 2015 Andrew Torrance, "Christ and the God of the Gaps" https://tftorrance.org/firbushF2015 The audio recording for this presentation is available on the Firbush Retreat section of the website for the Thomas F. Torrance Theological Fellowship. The following AI transcript is too rough to rely upon, but perhaps useful for word searches and time-stamps. It is unretouched; if anyone wishes to listen to it and clean it up we will be happy to post an improved version (contact the webmasters). We invite speakers to send us slides for their talks, which we will post alongside the audios and transcripts. If any speaker wishes to have their talk removed from the website, just let us know and we'll take down both the audio and the transcript. ------------ 00:00-00:12 Okay, well, it's great to be here and to be able to talk with all of you about some of 00:12-00:16 the, I think, some of the work that I've been doing and my reflections on it over the past 00:16-00:17 two years. 00:17-00:23 As Bob said, as I mentioned as well, I've been running a program that's been working 00:23-00:29 with scientists and congregations across Scotland and trying to encourage a constructive conversation 00:29-00:33 about science and faith within the life of the church. 00:33-00:39 And I came into that with a sort of a background, well, my first year at university was actually 00:39-00:42 in astrophysics and then I transferred over to theology. 00:42-00:50 And what was, I think what's been interesting for me is I'd spent a lot of time, yeah, when 00:50-00:57 I was doing theology, thinking deeply about what good theology was, what it meant to understand 00:57-00:58 the Christian faith. 00:58-01:04 And a lot of the time you get deeper and deeper into these conversations and you could very 01:04-01:09 easily find yourself making a lot of assumptions and assuming what good theology is in a way 01:09-01:14 that isn't necessarily always recognized, I think, within, with people in congregations. 01:14-01:23 And so I went into this, I think I went into this project with a certain set of assumptions 01:23-01:30 that almost held me back from being able to communicate with a lot of the scientists and 01:30-01:34 lay people for lack of a better word and sometimes pastors as well. 01:34-01:39 Because there are certain assumptions I think I'd learned working particularly on Karl Barr 01:39-01:45 and so on Kierkegaard that brought me to a particular way of thinking that didn't necessarily 01:45-01:48 communicate directly with the people who I was talking about. 01:48-01:53 So over these sort of two years I've spent a lot of time, I think, wrestling with the 01:53-01:57 question of what it means to both learn from those that I've been in conversation with 01:57-02:03 but also communicate some of the theological concerns that I've had and have come to appreciate 02:03-02:06 during my time studying theology. 02:06-02:11 And so in many respects that kind of took me right back to square one and encouraged 02:11-02:18 me to think a lot more about what it means to go through the process of getting to the 02:18-02:23 theological approach that I'd come to hold to, thinking about what does it mean to communicate 02:23-02:28 that to people that haven't necessarily had the time thinking about theology in the way 02:28-02:32 that I've been fortunate enough to have. 02:32-02:38 And so when you come into the kind of context that I've been working with, I think straightaway 02:38-02:43 you see all these problems everywhere because you've got a particularly quite strict understanding 02:43-02:49 of the way in which theology works and everywhere you sort of see people doing theology in the 02:49-02:53 ways that you're not going to be very happy with. 02:53-02:59 And so straightaway you're listing off these problems and you think what does it mean to 02:59-03:01 address them. 03:01-03:06 And so I think as it's come to the, well, towards the end of this program I've been 03:06-03:12 trying to think now what are the real concerns I have for the way in which theology is developed 03:12-03:16 in the conversation about science and faith within the life of the church. 03:16-03:22 And so I think what this paper, what I set out to do with this paper is to begin with 03:22-03:28 work out what I felt the problems were, what are perhaps driving some of the problems that 03:28-03:35 I think are compromising the way in which Christian theology is done by Christians within 03:35-03:37 the scientific world. 03:37-03:40 And so that's one of the concerns. 03:40-03:44 So at the beginning of this paper, the first almost two-thirds of this paper is actually 03:44-03:45 quite negative. 03:45-03:53 So it's actually thinking what do I see to be the problems with the way in which Christian 03:53-03:56 theology is discussed within the conversation about science and faith. 03:56-04:01 And I think when you observe a situation and then you actually come to write a paper about 04:01-04:10 it you end up with a kind of a big challenge of actually being able to, I think, represent 04:10-04:18 the problem in ways that can be systematic enough to be fair to the people that you're 04:18-04:19 concerned about. 04:19-04:25 And so I spent quite a lot of time just thinking through these issues, reading different works 04:25-04:29 by various scientists within the conversation about science and religion and thinking what 04:29-04:35 is it that's perhaps behind their minds when they're coming to the task. 04:35-04:41 And that actually meant that I had a lot less time, I think, to get into the theology. 04:41-04:47 And so I think in many respects this paper isn't perhaps as theological as I intended 04:47-04:49 it to be. 04:49-04:54 And it actually probably gets more and more explicit theological issues towards the end. 04:54-04:58 And so I think in that respect it's perhaps slightly different from some of the papers 04:58-05:00 I've heard here in the past. 05:00-05:05 But what I hope it will do is, I think, try to raise an awareness of some of the ways 05:05-05:13 in which conversations are happening within this field of science and faith within the 05:13-05:21 church and recognize ways in which there's perhaps some problematic things happening 05:21-05:22 there. 05:22-05:25 And I actually think that some of the problems that we see in the conversation about science 05:25-05:31 and faith actually track and even are mirrored in the way--mirror some of the problems I 05:31-05:35 think we also see in other academic disciplines and the way in which I think theology and 05:35-05:41 biblical studies perhaps are done in the academic world. 05:41-05:42 OK. 05:42-05:47 So that's a sort of an introduction that's the kind of mindset that I had when coming 05:47-05:53 to write this paper, which is--it's also--it's not quite finished. 05:53-05:58 So it's not as nuanced as it would normally be when writing a paper. 05:58-06:00 And it's perhaps not as careful. 06:00-06:04 But I actually think that probably makes it more interesting because I'm perhaps more 06:04-06:05 provocative. 06:05-06:09 There's a few things--there's a few sort of maybe grand claims which I don't spend as 06:09-06:11 much time talking about. 06:11-06:16 So please come back and ask me to develop or talk more about anything I say that you're 06:16-06:20 unsure of or you think is unfair because there's probably quite a lot of things that--I think 06:20-06:24 I even think there's a few things I say in here which are probably slightly overstating 06:24-06:25 the case. 06:25-06:32 And had I had a bit more time, I probably would have nuanced a bit more. 06:32-06:37 And also, a lot of this paper has been very much coffee-fueled. 06:37-06:41 And so it's not quite as fresh in my mind as I'd like it to be. 06:41-06:45 So I'm afraid I'm going to be sticking a bit closer to my notes than I'd--yeah, than is 06:45-06:46 ideal. 06:46-06:47 But I'll get onto it. 06:47-06:49 I'll get onto it right away. 06:49-06:51 But actually, before we start, can we just pray? 06:51-06:55 I think that's how I'd like to start. 06:55-07:00 Heavenly Father, we thank you for this opportunity to gather together for this time of fellowship, 07:00-07:06 to come together as a community, as the body of Christ that wants to know your truth, to 07:06-07:11 know more about the Gospel and learn about what it means to be transformed by that in 07:11-07:21 a world that is so against so much of the good news that you bring to the world. 07:21-07:25 Lord, we ask now that you might--for the coming of your Holy Spirit, that we might be able 07:25-07:34 to further understand your word and that we might have our hearts and minds prepared to 07:34-07:40 know what it means to engage in a theological task and think faithfully about what it means 07:40-07:43 to know you within the life of the church. 07:43-07:46 We ask all these things in your name. 07:46-07:47 Amen. 07:47-07:48 Amen. 07:48-07:49 So, okay. 07:49-07:57 So from a Christian perspective, God is the creator of all things. 07:57-08:00 God is the architect of the natural order. 08:00-08:06 Also, as we learn from Scripture, God freely intervenes in the created order in ways that 08:06-08:12 bring about--brings about occurrences that most scientists would observe as a deviation 08:12-08:17 from the directly knowable patterns of the natural order. 08:17-08:22 In the standard methodology of the natural and physical sciences, there is no room for 08:22-08:25 this kind of theological vision. 08:25-08:29 Scientists are in the business of dealing with things that are seen. 08:29-08:34 So they need to be able to go about their task by studying those things that are directly 08:34-08:37 observable and predictable. 08:37-08:43 This means, for example, that science cannot take into consideration the scriptural record 08:43-08:49 of water being turned into wine, a human being walking in water, human beings rising from 08:49-08:54 the dead, anymore than they can take in miracles of Muhammad. 08:54-09:00 Also, it means that when they observe an anomaly that seems to challenge the general consensus 09:00-09:05 of contemporary scientific understanding, they cannot jump to the conclusion, "God did 09:05-09:06 it." 09:06-09:12 So when it comes to the surprising coincidence of an answered prayer, God can never be the 09:12-09:14 explanation. 09:14-09:20 For this methodology to be challenged, the scientific world would probably need to observe 09:20-09:26 something akin to a flying priest, a nun who could walk through walls, or Jesus Christ 09:26-09:30 descending into the physical world on a stairway from heaven. 09:30-09:37 Unless such things happen, the scientist will not let herself interpret anomalies as miracles. 09:37-09:43 Again, the natural or physical scientist devotes her life to furthering our understanding of 09:43-09:47 the immediately apparent order and structure of the universe. 09:47-09:53 She looks to causes that can be observed and explained within the contingent order. 09:53-09:59 She does not concern herself with asking questions about the first or ultimate cause or the possibility 09:59-10:04 of that ultimate cause acting in the physical world. 10:04-10:10 A scientist, Harry Lupo and Chelsea Rose Maitik, write, "People may believe that God knitted 10:10-10:14 them together in their mothers' rooms on the authority of scripture. 10:14-10:21 To be science, however, it is necessary to describe what that knitting looks like physically 10:21-10:23 in the body." 10:23-10:30 So, given the hiddenness of God, we find that many scientists, both theistic and non-theistic, 10:30-10:35 Christian and non-Christian, adopt a methodology that is referred to as methodological naturalism 10:35-10:40 or, sometimes, methodological atheism. 10:40-10:45 This is a view that we should participate in the scientific task with the assumption 10:45-10:53 that God does not exist, with the assumption that there is no explanation that or who transcends 10:53-10:56 that which we can directly or immediately perceive. 10:56-11:01 Recourse cannot be made to a hidden God to help us better understand the order and structure 11:01-11:08 of the universe because God is not a demonstrable part of the creator of the natural order. 11:08-11:15 God's active involvement within the natural order is neither quantifiable, measurable, 11:15-11:18 falsifiable, nor reproducible. 11:18-11:23 As Peter Harrison describes, "Methodological naturalism is characterized by a commitment 11:23-11:30 to study the world as if God plays no part in the secondary causes of nature." 11:30-11:32 But it also says something more. 11:32-11:37 It is committed to studying the natural world as if the natural world is all that there 11:37-11:40 is, as if God does not exist. 11:40-11:49 However, there would seem to be an inconsistency here, as well as a certain insincerity. 11:49-11:54 It is not only the existence of God that cannot be directly demonstrated to the scientific 11:54-11:58 world with the resources available within the contingent order. 11:58-12:03 The non-existence of God is every bit as indemonstrable to the scientific world. 12:03-12:11 So technically, just as there might be no room for theology in the natural and physical 12:11-12:16 sciences, there should also be no room for a theology, for the belief that God does not 12:16-12:17 exist. 12:17-12:22 It would be inconsistent for the scientists to develop a methodology that rules out the 12:22-12:25 existence of God a priori. 12:25-12:29 But this is precisely what methodological naturalism does. 12:29-12:36 By so doing, the scientific world finds its methodology committed to metaphysical assumptions 12:36-12:42 that are just as much beyond the scope of scientific inquiry as the existence of God. 12:42-12:46 As such, it would seem that methodological naturalism oversteps its mark in the realm 12:46-12:47 of scientific inquiry. 12:47-12:54 But, and I think we need to be clear here, methodological naturalism only insists that 12:54-12:58 God does not exist for the purpose of disciplinary method. 12:58-13:04 In this respect, it differs from what is referred to as metaphysical naturalism, which insists 13:04-13:08 that there is no God full stop. 13:08-13:14 Metaphysical naturalism insists that the only things that exist are the natural phenomena 13:14-13:17 that can be observed within the natural order. 13:17-13:22 Methodological naturalism, however, only assumes this as a part of the methodology, as part 13:22-13:25 of what we do in the lab. 13:25-13:31 So because methodological naturalism only assumes a closed world for the purposes of 13:31-13:37 method, it has become commonplace for many Christians to view it as an appropriate methodology, 13:37-13:43 not only for scientific analysis, but also for historical analysis. 13:43-13:49 This methodology has also, to varying extents, begun to have an enormous influence on the 13:49-13:56 way in which many Christians participate in other vocations, perhaps most notably in biblical 13:56-13:58 studies. 13:58-14:03 In every instance in which methodological naturalism is taken up by a Christian, there 14:03-14:10 is a compartmentalization between the person's vocation and her Christian faith, between 14:10-14:13 her office or laboratory and the church. 14:13-14:19 So, to provide some examples of Christians advocating this position, so it's not just 14:19-14:24 my observations of people that have actually written this down, Paul de Vries contends 14:24-14:30 that Christians should be enthusiastic supporters of the naturalistic methodology of natural 14:30-14:31 sciences. 14:31-14:37 Harry Lee Poe and Chelsea Loth-Mytik remark that this methodology can help us to uncover 14:37-14:41 many of God's mysteries and give him praise. 14:41-14:48 And they go on to add, "The natural sciences must be regulated by methodological naturalism." 14:48-14:55 Nancy Murphy notes that we have inherited a way of participating in the natural sciences 14:55-15:02 in a way that is methodologically atheistic and suggests that we must embrace this inheritance. 15:02-15:08 Christians and atheists alike must pursue scientific questions in our era without invoking 15:08-15:09 a creator. 15:09-15:16 The conflict between Christianity and evolutionary thought only arises when scientists conclude 15:16-15:23 that if the only scientific explanation that can be given is a chance happening, then there 15:23-15:25 is no explanation at all. 15:25-15:32 I think quite a lot of these quotes are on the sheets, so that might help you to follow 15:32-15:33 me along. 15:33-15:38 So one of the well-known ways in which methodological naturalism has famously been advocated in 15:38-15:43 the world of science and religion is via Stephen Jay Gould's account of what he refers to as 15:43-15:45 non-overlapping magisteria. 15:45-15:53 So what Gould insists is that science and religion are involved in very different pursuits, 15:53-15:56 albeit pursuits that are equally important. 15:56-16:02 He suggests that science is interested in the hard facts about reality of the natural 16:02-16:08 world, whereas religion is interested in value and meaning. 16:08-16:13 Religion allows us to recognize that there is purpose to the world beyond what the natural 16:13-16:16 sciences are able to observe. 16:16-16:21 While Gould I think makes some valid and actually I think fair points, I think it is entirely 16:21-16:25 disingenuous for Christians to compartmentalize in this way. 16:25-16:32 One of the many problems with this kind of methodology is that it encourages Christians 16:32-16:40 to associate Christianity primarily with purpose, meaning, morality, beauty, etc. 16:40-16:48 The reality of God as creator and provider then becomes irrelevant. 16:48-16:54 Someone to have offered a firm challenge to the approach that is to methodological naturalism 16:54-16:57 is the well-known philosopher Alvin Plantinga. 16:57-17:05 So Alvin Plantinga has demonstrated with impressive clarity that assuming naturalism for the purposes 17:05-17:08 of methodology is not itself scientific. 17:08-17:15 If a scientist believes that God exists, why would he proceed to assume that God does not 17:15-17:20 exist for the purposes of engaging in the scientific task? 17:20-17:27 To quote Albert Einstein, and this is I think a great quote, "The right to search for truth 17:27-17:30 implies also a duty. 17:30-17:34 One must not conceal any part of what one has recognized to be true." 17:34-17:43 Surely, if a scientist believes in God, her methodology should also believe that God exists, 17:43-17:49 albeit in a way that acknowledges the inability of the natural sciences to observe the work 17:49-17:52 of God within the natural world. 17:52-17:59 Can the scientist really draw a fine line between what she practices and what she preaches? 17:59-18:06 So what are perhaps some of the key reasons for avoiding methodological naturalism? 18:06-18:11 I think there are many reasons for the Christian to avoid taking up methodological naturalism, 18:11-18:16 which we could discuss and we could perhaps discuss later if you'd like. 18:16-18:20 But for the purposes of this paper, there is one reason in particular that I would like 18:20-18:26 to consider, and one that's I think particularly important for thinking about how we can understand 18:26-18:29 the conversation between science and faith to be constructive within the life of the 18:29-18:31 church. 18:31-18:36 So that is, I think that the Christian should avoid methodological naturalism in order to 18:36-18:44 avoid inviting scientific theories that, due to the naturalistic assumptions of the methodology, 18:44-18:48 end up being essentially incompatible with theism. 18:48-18:54 So the Christian should avoid methodological naturalism in order to avoid inviting scientific 18:54-19:01 theories that, due to the naturalistic assumptions of their methodology, end up being essentially 19:01-19:04 incompatible with theism. 19:04-19:10 Also -- and this is another reason -- when the Christian approves of this method, it 19:10-19:15 invites a culture that I think tends towards a metaphysical naturalism. 19:15-19:21 The nature of human existence is such that the practice that a person participates in 19:21-19:26 shape their existence, their philosophies, and their perception of the world. 19:26-19:31 I think that this is perhaps one of the reasons that so many scientists have actually ended 19:31-19:35 up becoming resistant to the possibility that God exists. 19:35-19:43 Again and again in society, we find that methodological assumptions end up informing and shaping a 19:43-19:47 person's metaphysical assumptions. 19:47-19:52 Now this does not necessarily need to be the case, but when a person spends so much of 19:52-19:58 their time assuming that God does not exist for the purposes of method, there is a likelihood 19:58-20:03 that those assumptions will end up informing and shaping the way in which they interpret 20:03-20:04 the world. 20:04-20:10 This is why we see, amongst some scientists, I think, a tendency toward what is referred 20:10-20:17 to as scientism, towards the belief that the sciences have the ability to help us understand 20:17-20:21 all aspects of existence. 20:21-20:27 So in sum, I think that it is helpful to be aware that when the scientist who is a Christian 20:27-20:33 fails to practice what she preaches, she contributes to a culture, to the habitual mindset of a 20:33-20:38 society that is disenchanted, that is secular. 20:38-20:44 That is, she promotes a dynamic that is disinterested in the possibility of a reality beyond that 20:44-20:47 which we can directly observe. 20:47-20:52 Now to get a clearer idea of some of the problems that methodological naturalism raises, I think 20:52-20:57 it would be helpful to consider an example. 20:57-20:59 And I'll turn back to Plantinga now. 20:59-21:06 So in his essay, "The Games Scientists Play," Plantinga provides some examples of theories 21:06-21:12 that assume that God does not exist, even although such theories could easily be developed 21:12-21:18 in ways that allow us to maintain that God exists. 21:18-21:26 So for example, the sociologist Rodney Stark advances a theory of religion that sees religion 21:26-21:33 as something that rational thought has constructed over time as it sought to realize the possibility 21:33-21:39 of acquiring nonexistent goods, eternal life, a right relationship with God, salvation, 21:39-21:45 remission of sins, by negotiating with nonexistent supernatural beings. 21:45-21:54 So for Rodney Stark, rational thought has constructed over time as it sought to realize 21:54-22:00 the possibility of acquiring nonexistent goods, and it has constructed religion for itself, 22:00-22:06 which he describes as this negotiating with nonexistent supernatural beings. 22:06-22:11 Stark's view is that through the process of evolution, human thought develops in such 22:11-22:18 a way that a tendency arises for human beings to dream up fantasies for themselves, which 22:18-22:23 delude them into thinking nonexistent goals are real. 22:23-22:30 This leads to the development of religion, which envisions an economic exchange between 22:30-22:36 people and imagined supernatural agents for goods that are scarce, rain during a drought, 22:36-22:44 for example, or things that are impossible, what he describes as impossible, immortal 22:44-22:47 life, to be obtained in the real world. 22:47-22:53 So for example, in times of desperation, communities might convince themselves that offering a 22:53-22:59 sacrifice might help them to bring about a change in the state of affairs. 22:59-23:05 Now even as Christians, we might see other religions that we want to think must have 23:05-23:11 been developed in ways that probably weren't drawing on Christian revelation, and as Christians 23:11-23:16 we could perhaps see that this might make sense of those other religious traditions 23:16-23:18 if we're not going to recognize them as being true. 23:18-23:23 So we can see that there is something that makes sense to the sociology of Rodney Stark 23:23-23:24 here. 23:24-23:33 So for Stark, religion is devoted to the pursuit of nonexistent goods by way of negotiation 23:33-23:38 with nonexistent supernatural agents. 23:38-23:44 Now Paltinger notes that taking meat, and I think this is on your sheets, Stark's position 23:44-23:50 is clearly incompatible with Christian belief, according to which at least some of the natural 23:50-23:56 beings and some of the goods mentioned do indeed exist. 23:56-24:03 But Paltinger suggests it is possible to alter Stark's theory in a way that does not stop 24:03-24:10 it from being scientific, but at the same time allows it to remain non-committal to 24:10-24:14 the question of whether or not a supernatural agent exists. 24:14-24:18 Such a theory could be compatible with Christianity. 24:18-24:24 Paltinger refers to this alternative account of Stark's theory as Stark minus. 24:24-24:31 Stark minus would be something like the claim that a, religious belief is a pursuit of certain 24:31-24:37 kinds of ends or goods, salvation, eternal life and the like, by way of negotiating with 24:37-24:47 alleged supernatural beings, and b, that it arises as a kind of byproduct of the evolution 24:47-24:50 of the capacity for rational thought. 24:50-24:56 So on this account, rather than referring to the supernatural beings as non-existent, 24:56-24:58 it refers to them as alleged. 24:58-25:04 By so doing, it takes a much more neutral stance to the question of whether or not God 25:04-25:11 exists, a stance that seems to be much more appropriate to the scientific task. 25:11-25:17 What Paltinger demonstrates in this example is a way in which methodological naturalism 25:17-25:24 biases the mindset of a scientist or sociologist in a way that needlessly makes a theory incompatible 25:24-25:30 with the existence of God, when there is no scientific reason for biasing it against the 25:30-25:32 existence of God. 25:32-25:38 So Paltinger asks, why do scientists come up with such theories that are incompatible 25:38-25:39 with Christian belief? 25:39-25:45 He answers that this feature of their scientific activity is connected in one way or another 25:45-25:52 with the methodological naturalism that characterizes science and indeed, according to many, necessarily 25:52-25:55 characterizes science. 25:55-26:04 So rather than proceeding as if God does not exist, surely it makes more sense for the 26:04-26:11 scientist, who is a Christian, to proceed as if we cannot directly see God in our scientific 26:11-26:13 study of the natural world. 26:13-26:18 This at least leaves room for us to look to Revelation to help us make sense of the world 26:18-26:22 without incorporating it into the scientific process. 26:22-26:28 At this point, Alvin Plantier would agree with Ross McCulloch's concerns. 26:28-26:31 I quote here, I think again this quote should be on the sheet. 26:31-26:39 "If a divine explanation is possibly the true explanation, why would we not entertain it? 26:39-26:44 Perhaps we are confident that it will not turn out that way. 26:44-26:47 But why then prejudge the matter? 26:47-26:51 Why exclude a class of possible answers? 26:51-26:53 Why be atheistic as a matter of method? 26:53-27:01 Why not instead choose a more Catholic science, admitting a broader range of hypotheses, excluding 27:01-27:09 conclusions based not on predetermined criteria, but on what best fits the data?" 27:09-27:13 So Plantinger has a lot more to say about this, and I would encourage you to read up 27:13-27:21 on this, but to focus more on Plantinger, would take us away, would take us off track. 27:21-27:27 But what is relevant for our purposes here is the way that methodological naturalism 27:27-27:33 can influence the scientific mind into developing theories that are essentially incompatible 27:33-27:34 with Christianity. 27:34-27:39 And although I've only mentioned one here, there are plenty more examples that can be 27:39-27:46 found, particularly I think within sociology and evolutionary psychology. 27:46-27:49 So it's not just a one-off. 27:49-27:53 And Plantinger, for example, provides some other examples. 27:53-28:00 Okay, so when scientists find that their practical perception is shaped by methodological naturalism, 28:00-28:06 we often find that scientists who are Christians go on then to make moves that will enable 28:06-28:10 them to negotiate their science and their faith. 28:10-28:18 So when their methodology is continually assuming this incompatibility between science and faith, 28:18-28:23 they feel much more of an urge, and I think particularly with their more atheistically 28:23-28:28 inclined colleagues, to try and think, "How can we hold these two things together?" 28:28-28:34 And I think this happens in particular when the culture of methodological naturalism undercuts 28:34-28:36 their confidence in theism. 28:36-28:44 To be clear, again, it is not necessarily the case that methodological naturalism will 28:44-28:45 undercut theism. 28:45-28:49 However, again and again, and this is one of the things I've observed within the work 28:49-28:53 I'm doing, this seems to be an inevitable outcome. 28:53-29:00 This is because it is rare for persons to be able to clearly distinguish their methodological 29:00-29:05 naturalism from metaphysical naturalism, and to be able to clearly put these in different 29:05-29:06 boxes. 29:06-29:13 And for the person who is committed to methodological naturalism, and especially if they're not 29:13-29:18 a Christian, it is not necessarily obvious to that person why she should understand the 29:18-29:25 world in a way that would be incompatible with her vocational practice. 29:25-29:30 So one of the approaches that is developed when theism finds itself on the back foot 29:30-29:36 is a theology that sees God as a "God of the gaps." 29:36-29:41 So what is a God of the gaps argument? 29:41-29:45 I spent a lot of time trying to work this out, because when you go through all the literature 29:45-29:50 on this, it is incredibly difficult to work out precisely what people mean when they refer 29:50-29:51 to it. 29:51-29:54 Everyone refers to it in the conversation about science and faith, but I don't think 29:54-29:58 anyone is entirely clear about what they mean by this. 29:58-30:03 But I've given a couple of accounts here that will hopefully give us some idea of what people 30:03-30:04 are talking about. 30:04-30:11 So the simple version seems to be that when we refer, we can refer to gaps in our scientific 30:11-30:15 understanding to help us demonstrate the existence of God. 30:15-30:22 A gap points to a limit in our current scientific knowledge, and a limitation suggests that 30:22-30:27 there is perhaps more to the universe than currently meets the eye. 30:27-30:33 For example, the apparent gap in science's ability to understand human consciousness 30:33-30:39 might provide warrant for suggesting that there is a kind of duality to the human person, 30:39-30:46 that there is a sense in which a person has both a physical body and a spiritual soul. 30:46-30:51 The possibility of this spiritual realm could then be seen to point to a realm in which 30:51-30:53 God is present. 30:53-30:58 So that's one example in which what is perceived to be a gap in scientific understanding can 30:58-31:00 be used to point to God. 31:00-31:07 It's not a great example, but there's not very many good examples for us to work with. 31:07-31:11 So there are many problems with this approach, and I don't think we need to spend too much 31:11-31:16 time discussing them because I think to do so we cannot be to beat the Burros Pinata, 31:16-31:22 because no one takes it seriously, and whenever anyone talks about the God of the Gaps argument, 31:22-31:25 they're using it in a very pejorative sense, and it's normally to critique someone else 31:25-31:28 and the argument they're making, so there'll be a lot of pointing. 31:28-31:30 That's the God of the Gaps. 31:30-31:34 But you get very few people kind of saying, "I'm committed to a God of the Gaps understanding 31:34-31:35 of God." 31:35-31:43 So it's not really something that people readily embrace. 31:43-31:47 And again, it is actually very difficult, I think, for us to think of gaps that can 31:47-31:55 then leave room for the possibility of suggesting that God exists. 31:55-32:01 And there's a lot of ambiguity as to what precisely can be said to be a gap in our scientific 32:01-32:04 understanding. 32:04-32:12 There is, however, a form of apologetic reasoning that is taken much more seriously than I think, 32:12-32:16 as I understand it, could also be described as a certain kind of God of the Gaps reasoning, 32:16-32:21 and which I think also can run into problems. 32:21-32:26 Christian thinkers within the field of science and religion will often talk about how the 32:26-32:31 sciences inspire a sense of wonder. 32:31-32:35 By making it clear that there are limits to the sciences, they're able to take the conversation 32:35-32:42 forward by helping scientists with more naturalistic tendencies to move beyond their naturalism 32:42-32:44 or beyond their scientism. 32:44-32:50 Again, if scientists are able to recognize that perhaps their science isn't able to explain 32:50-32:56 anything, they're perhaps going to be more open to the conversation about theology. 32:56-33:00 So wonder, I think, can be promoted by a number of things. 33:00-33:04 And there are three things in particular that come up in the conversation about science 33:04-33:08 and religion that invite wonder that I'm going to mention now. 33:08-33:17 So the first is what is referred to as the apparent design of the universe, or fine-tuning. 33:17-33:20 So what do I mean by fine-tuning? 33:20-33:27 The eminent philosopher Robin Collins writes, "Almost everything about the basic structure 33:27-33:31 of the universe, for example, the fundamental laws and parameters of physics and the initial 33:31-33:38 distribution of matter and energy is balanced on a razor's edge for life to occur." 33:38-33:44 As the eminent Princeton physicist Freeman Dyson notes, "There are many lucky accidents 33:44-33:46 in physics. 33:46-33:51 Without such accidents, water could not exist as liquid, change of carbon atoms could not 33:51-33:57 form complex organic molecules, and hydrogen atoms could not form breakable bridges between 33:57-33:58 molecules. 33:58-34:02 In short, life as we know it would be impossible." 34:02-34:07 And they're able to show these incredible statistics that just show just how unlikely 34:07-34:11 it would be for everything to work out kind of on its own. 34:11-34:17 And for some, this would seem to point to the possibility of a designer who seems to 34:17-34:19 give order to the universe. 34:19-34:25 Again, there's much more we could say here, but I think you probably get the gist. 34:25-34:28 And it would take us beyond, I think, the scope of this paper. 34:28-34:38 So the second point that is seen to inspire wonder on the part of scientists is the apparent 34:38-34:45 existence of moral reality, a concern to say that there are some things that are just plain 34:45-34:47 wrong. 34:47-34:53 If there is no objective basis to morality, if there is no purpose that is established 34:53-34:59 for the world beyond the realm of the natural world, we cannot recognize any underlying 34:59-35:02 moral order to the world. 35:02-35:07 We cannot, therefore, say that there is anything that is just plain wrong. 35:07-35:12 Again, so this again should be something that should be there to inspire wonder. 35:12-35:18 Many scientists want to recognize that there perhaps is some kind of moral reality to the 35:18-35:24 world and when they're asked where this comes from, there's a sense in which if they really 35:24-35:28 want to be consistent, they've got to point beyond the sciences. 35:28-35:33 And so again, this is seen to be something that promotes a sense of wonder. 35:33-35:38 So the third thing that is often talked about which can again promote a sense of wonder 35:38-35:44 is a question of why is there something rather than nothing. 35:44-35:49 There seems to be a gap in our understanding or a gap in scientific understanding of what 35:49-35:53 the non-contingent first cord is, causes. 35:53-35:57 Science is unable to explain why there is something rather than nothing. 35:57-36:04 As Wittgenstein notes, it is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that 36:04-36:07 it exists. 36:07-36:14 But each of these things is able to prompt wonder because of an apparent inability for 36:14-36:19 scientists to be able to explain these things either empirically or naturalistically, that 36:19-36:25 is without reference to something that transcends the contented order. 36:25-36:32 Such inability, I think, could reasonably be described as a gap in scientific understanding. 36:32-36:36 However, there's some debate about this. 36:36-36:45 What such gaps allow for is a sense of wonder-- such gaps allow for a wonder behind the observable 36:45-36:49 universe that some scientists who are religious will associate with God. 36:49-36:55 So again, as soon as you've got the possibility of something transcending science in the conversation, 36:55-37:01 some Christians think, great, here's the opportunity for us to bring God into the conversation. 37:01-37:05 It is on the basis of this wonder that some Christians will then attempt to develop a 37:05-37:07 theology. 37:07-37:11 God is the reason that there is order, that there is life. 37:11-37:14 God is the reason that we can talk about moral reality. 37:14-37:18 God is the reason that there is something rather than nothing. 37:18-37:23 Indeed, many scientists who are Christian are happy to recognize that God is, in a certain 37:23-37:29 sense, a designer of the universe. 37:29-37:32 So what is my particular concern here? 37:32-37:39 My concern here is that a God of the Gaps argument, or a God of the Limits argument, 37:39-37:46 ends up degenerating into God of the Limits theology-- a theology that is grounded in 37:46-37:51 an understanding of God as the one who lies beyond the limits of science. 37:51-37:58 This will often prompt an understanding-- this will often prompt an understanding of 37:58-38:05 God as a God who is much more distant from, removed from, and uninvolved with the created 38:05-38:09 order than the God that we find described in the biblical witness. 38:09-38:16 Scripture, I think-- it's probably beyond debate-- makes it clear that God is actively 38:16-38:20 involved in creating and sustaining the whole world. 38:20-38:25 The problem with this sort of God of the Gaps, or God of the Limits arguing, or God of the 38:25-38:31 Limits theology is noted by Bonhoeffer in a passage that is often quoted. 38:31-38:36 Again, this should be on your sheets. 38:36-38:41 It has again been brought up to me quite clearly that we shouldn't think of God as the stop 38:41-38:45 gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. 38:45-38:50 Because then, as is objectively inevitable, when the boundaries of knowledge are pushed 38:50-38:56 even further, God too is pushed further away, and thus is ever on the retreat. 38:56-39:02 We should find God in what we know, not in what we don't know. 39:02-39:11 God wants to be grasped by us, not in unsolved questions about death, suffering, and guilt. 39:11-39:18 We must recognize God not only where we reach the limits of our possibilities, God wants 39:18-39:23 to be recognized in the midst of our lives, in life, and not only in dying, in health 39:23-39:30 and strength, and not only in suffering, and action, and not only in sin. 39:30-39:34 The ground for this lies in the revelation of God and Jesus Christ. 39:34-39:41 God is the center of life and doesn't just turn up when we have unsolved problems to 39:41-39:43 be solved. 39:43-39:50 Now, while I would agree with Bonhoeffer, I do think that an awareness of the limits 39:50-39:55 of science can serve an important apologetic purpose. 39:55-40:00 I'm also of the view that apologetics can have an incredibly important role to play 40:00-40:05 in the mission of the church in the current secular climate. 40:05-40:11 However, apologetic arguments must be recognized for what they are. 40:11-40:17 They are arguments that can help some people become more open to the possibility that God 40:17-40:19 exists. 40:19-40:24 They must not be seen to be providing a building block for theological understanding. 40:24-40:31 Now, I think it will be helpful here again to provide a clear example of one of the ways 40:31-40:37 in which I think scientific observations or scientific theory can end up trying to make 40:37-40:40 positive theological statements about God. 40:40-40:43 How much did my jumper off? 40:43-40:46 It's warm in here. 40:46-40:51 One of the more prominent examples is evident in the way in which the theory of evolution 40:51-40:58 can encourage Christians to assume a more deistic vision of God, to assume that God 40:58-41:03 created the world and then left it largely to itself. 41:03-41:09 Such a theology is far removed from the biblical account of creation and providence. 41:09-41:11 So why does this happen? 41:11-41:17 Why does evolutionary theory tend to promote a more deistic vision of God? 41:17-41:23 So even if a Christian is happy to accept a non-literal reading of the Bible, the theory 41:23-41:28 of evolution still presents Christians with a number of challenges that are difficult 41:28-41:29 to negotiate. 41:29-41:32 And again, I think these might be on the sheet. 41:32-41:34 I can't remember what's on the sheet. 41:34-41:41 But on the first one, it would appear that genetic variation is a result of mutations. 41:41-41:43 So this is in the theory of evolution. 41:43-41:50 It would appear that genetic variation is a result of mutations that are purely random. 41:50-41:58 That is, it is hard to see consistent purpose in these mutations given that so many mutations 41:58-42:04 bring about death and suffering to creatures and what seems to be needless death and suffering 42:04-42:07 to creatures. 42:07-42:13 Second, the theory of evolution understands that creatures advance because the fittest 42:13-42:17 survive while the weakest suffer and die out. 42:17-42:25 As John Hort notes, this points to the underlying indifference of natural selection, the mechanism 42:25-42:29 that so mercilessly eliminates the weaker organisms. 42:29-42:34 Again, not a very Christian understanding of the way providence might seem to be worked 42:34-42:35 out. 42:35-42:39 Third, the process of evolution takes time. 42:39-42:45 It is hard to imagine why an intelligent creator would take so much time, put creation through 42:45-42:52 so much suffering, and leave so much up to chance to create creatures that are made in 42:52-42:54 the image of God. 42:54-42:59 Okay, so these are some of the problems that are put to theologians and there's a lot of 42:59-43:03 conversation about these within the conversation about science and religion. 43:03-43:07 Because again, normally within the conversation about science and religion, people are taking 43:07-43:13 the theory of evolution seriously and so it's a problem that we have to try and think about. 43:13-43:18 So one systematic theologian, John Hort, offers the following theological response to these 43:18-43:20 problems. 43:20-43:26 He notes that, and again I think these should all be on the sheets, genuine love never forces 43:26-43:28 or compels. 43:28-43:32 Love allows others sufficient scope to become themselves. 43:32-43:40 So if there is truth in the biblical conviction that God really cares for this world as something 43:40-43:47 other than God, then the universe must also have some degree of autonomy, even during 43:47-43:49 its long pre-human evolution. 43:49-43:56 Otherwise it would have been nothing more than an extension of God's own being, an appendage 43:56-43:57 of deity. 43:57-44:03 In that case, it could never have become genuinely other than God. 44:03-44:09 There has to be room for contingency and chance in any universe how to be both distinct from 44:09-44:12 and simultaneously loved by God. 44:12-44:19 So for Hort, who's again trying to develop a Christian theology, to give creation the 44:19-44:25 freedom to be itself and to go its own way, God must also allow creation, the whole of 44:25-44:32 creation, a freedom to go astray and must therefore allow for natural evil and suffering 44:32-44:37 to occur, such as that which we see in the process of evolution. 44:37-44:43 Creation must have the autonomy to mutate in its own random ways. 44:43-44:49 John Hort argues further, "A coherent theology may argue that God could not truly care for 44:49-44:57 the universe unless the universe is allowed in some sense to be self-actualizing, though 44:57-45:03 self-actualizing in a way that occurs within the boundary of relevant possibilities proposed 45:03-45:04 to it by its creator." 45:04-45:07 You get a little nod to God there. 45:07-45:12 So the enormous epochs of gradual evolutionary emergence and the autonomous evolution of 45:12-45:19 life by random variation and natural selection are consistent with the idea of a God who 45:19-45:25 loves the world enough to allow it to become distinct from its creative ground. 45:25-45:33 He then later adds, "The idea of a world perfectly constituted from the beginning would, in other 45:33-45:40 words, be logically incompatible with any idea of divine creation emerging from the 45:40-45:44 depths of selfless love." 45:44-45:49 This being the case for Hort, the apparent randomness that we see in the evolutionary 45:49-45:57 process is not itself random, but an inevitable consequence of God determining that creation 45:57-46:01 should have an autonomy to develop in some of its own ways. 46:01-46:07 This, he notes, is essential to evolution's recipe. 46:07-46:11 Now there's someone, Michael Murray, who writes a response to this and really takes Hort's 46:11-46:17 position apart and shows that there are many ways in which John Hort overstates his case. 46:17-46:23 And I can point you towards that article if you like, but we don't have time to go through 46:23-46:30 all the issues that we might see in the kind of theology that I think Hort is advancing. 46:30-46:40 However, the general point that he is attempting to make is widely appreciated within the conversation 46:40-46:42 about science and religion. 46:42-46:52 That is, for God to love the world, he must, to a certain extent, leave it to create itself. 46:52-46:57 And this is the reason why there is so much chaos within the natural order. 46:57-47:03 It's kind of like if you leave your kids in a kindergarten by themselves, you're not going 47:03-47:07 to come back and see a well-ordered kindergarten room. 47:07-47:09 So that's the idea. 47:09-47:15 That's why there's so much chaos in creation, because God's left us to ourselves. 47:15-47:21 So we find a similar position being advocated by many well-known scientists who have been 47:21-47:26 actively involved in the conversation about science and religion. 47:26-47:30 John Polkinghorne, for example, who I'm sure some of you will know, Bob White, Kenneth 47:30-47:37 Miller, Michael Corry, are old persons who have argued for positions that are quite similar 47:37-47:46 to this idea of a free creation that is, to a certain extent, able to freely create itself. 47:46-47:53 What we see in this position is an example of a certain apologetic argument being advanced 47:53-47:59 with a concern to help Christians make sense of why God might allow for chaos and natural 47:59-48:04 evil, for the chaos and natural evil we see in the world, particularly in the process 48:04-48:05 of evolution. 48:05-48:09 So we see a kind of an apologetic argument being made. 48:09-48:16 It is a kind of a sort of free will argument for the whole of creation. 48:16-48:22 The problem with this argument is that within the conversation about science and Christianity, 48:22-48:26 it often ends up informing Christian theology. 48:26-48:32 And this prompts a theology that, again, pushes God further and further away from the world. 48:32-48:43 As it does so, it sees God to be more and more removed and makes God more and more anonymous. 48:43-48:49 In response to this dynamic, another scientist, Ronald Larson, notes, "We must bear in mind 48:49-48:55 that while God is the ultimate explanation of creation, science only reveals secondary, 48:55-48:59 tertiary or higher order explanations. 48:59-49:05 Thus, since we cannot empirically examine the ultimate source of nature, apologetics 49:05-49:09 cannot become an impregnable fortress for belief. 49:09-49:15 Moreover, the scriptures indicate that it is the Holy Spirit, not apologetics, that 49:15-49:19 produces belief in God's truth." 49:19-49:22 So something I think that we need to be clear about in the conversation about science and 49:22-49:30 Christianity is that if our attempts to respond to problems we see in the natural world end 49:30-49:40 up compromising archaeology, then for Christians, these attempts must not be deemed solutions. 49:40-49:45 So at this point, let me turn again to Pansinger to note what we might describe as a difference 49:45-49:49 between theodicy and apologetics. 49:49-49:56 So apologetics attempts to defend the possibility that God exists against possible defeaters, 49:56-50:02 so arguments put forward by people who want to undermine the possibility that God exists. 50:02-50:10 Theodicy, however, as Pansinger describes, "attempts to speculate over the mind of God 50:10-50:13 and explain why God permits evil." 50:13-50:19 According to Pansinger, the latter project is tepid, shallow, and ultimately frivolous, 50:19-50:23 whereas the former project is a vastly less formidable undertaking. 50:23-50:31 So to be clear, apologetics defends Christianity in response to arguments against Christianity, 50:31-50:34 however, it does not attempt to do Christian theology. 50:34-50:42 Theodicy, however, tries to explain why God permits evil, and as it does so, ends up making 50:42-50:47 theological statements that are shaped by a concern to make sense of the existence of 50:47-50:49 evil. 50:49-50:56 So why should we allow for a role for apologetics? 50:56-51:02 In Isaiah 40, 26, we are told, "Lift up your eyes and look to the heavens. 51:02-51:04 Who created all these? 51:04-51:11 He who brings out the starry host one by one and calls forth each of them by name, because 51:11-51:17 of his great power and mighty strength, not one of them is missing." 51:17-51:23 I think there's something really important about encouraging persons to look up to the 51:23-51:28 heavens and ask the question, "Who created all these?" 51:28-51:30 Apologetics is a kind of way of doing this. 51:30-51:36 There are many people in the contemporary Western world in particular, particularly 51:36-51:42 in younger generations, who think that Christianity is rational, and in particular, think that 51:42-51:49 it is incompatible with the scientific worldview. 51:49-51:55 And there is no question in my mind that apologetics offers us a key way to respond, to challenge 51:55-51:57 this dynamic. 51:57-52:04 This does not mean that apologetics will make people Christian, but what it can do is encourage 52:04-52:07 a greater openness to belief in God. 52:07-52:13 And this, in turn, can then encourage people to walk through the doors of a church, be 52:13-52:18 more attentive to the proclamation of the gospel, pray, read their Bibles. 52:18-52:23 There are a whole lot of things that they would be a lot less likely to do if they believed 52:23-52:26 that it was irrational to believe in God. 52:26-52:32 The reason that I think it is important to say this and to stress this is because certain 52:32-52:40 strands of the Reform tradition, including Karl Barth, have been and still are highly 52:40-52:43 resistant to the role of apologetics. 52:43-52:47 I actually think, and I'll say this because it's the current retreat, the TF, in certain 52:47-52:52 respects, was more open to a kind of apologetic, and we see this, I think, particularly in 52:52-52:54 the way in which he engaged with the sciences. 52:54-52:59 However, that's, again, it's another discussion, which you shouldn't have with me because I 52:59-53:00 don't know much about it. 53:00-53:05 It's a bit of a speculative point. 53:05-53:11 In sum, I think that in the current secular climate, the role of apologetics becomes more 53:11-53:13 important every single day. 53:13-53:20 Today, we see a new species of secularism that wasn't present, or at least wasn't prominent, 53:20-53:21 in biblical times. 53:21-53:28 That is, we see a firm denial of any kind of spiritual reality. 53:28-53:33 In response to this situation, apologetics is able to help re-enchant society. 53:33-53:41 That is, it is able to help society, help a society that is becoming increasingly secular, 53:41-53:47 become open to the possibility that there is more to reality beyond that which we can 53:47-53:50 directly perceive. 53:50-53:55 So how does this relate to the sciences? 53:55-54:02 The contemporary scientific method, or what is often becoming kind of a scientistic method, 54:02-54:08 can and does contribute to the disenchantment of society by promoting what Max Weber refers 54:08-54:15 to as the knowledge or belief that there are, in principle, no mysterious incalculable powers 54:15-54:17 at work. 54:17-54:23 It is because of this that the conversation about science and Christianity has essentially 54:23-54:27 become apologetic in nature. 54:27-54:29 So much is a conversation about science and faith. 54:29-54:33 And so much of the conversation that I've been involved in is rarely talking about Christian 54:33-54:34 theology. 54:34-54:39 It's always talking about what it means to defend the possibility that God exists in 54:39-54:41 light of contemporary science. 54:41-54:46 And when that is driving the conversation, it ends up informing theology in some of the 54:46-54:52 ways I've mentioned and other ways in ways that aren't really getting to the heart of 54:52-54:55 Christian theology. 54:55-55:00 So yeah, so most of the energy in this discussion ends up going towards attempting to create 55:00-55:04 the erroneous assumption that science has the power to disenchant our perception of 55:04-55:06 the world. 55:06-55:13 In response to this, apologetics is able to try to re-enchant a society that has become 55:13-55:18 confused about limits of the sciences. 55:18-55:24 So apologetics serves the purpose of re-enchanting society and helping it to become more open 55:24-55:27 to the possibility that something like God exists. 55:27-55:35 However, and this is extremely important, a concern for re-enchantment can also confuse 55:35-55:36 matters. 55:36-55:43 The Christian faith is not grounded in the re-enchantment of our imaginations, as if 55:43-55:48 it seeks to help people recognize, or at least to become open to the possibility, that there 55:48-55:50 is more to reality. 55:50-55:55 God is not the more to reality. 55:55-55:58 God is the very foundation of reality. 55:58-56:06 If you like, it would be more accurate to say that creation is the more to reality. 56:06-56:12 Second, and I think that point is particularly important for the conversation about science 56:12-56:14 and faith. 56:14-56:22 The second reason why the re-enchantment of our imaginations should not be seen as foundational 56:22-56:28 to the Christian faith is that Christianity emphasizes the importance of the reconciliation 56:28-56:36 of our minds by way of a reality, Jesus Christ, by the power of the Holy Spirit. 56:36-56:45 Christianity is not primarily concerned about persons being able to invite the idea of God 56:45-56:47 to participate in their minds. 56:47-56:54 Rather, it is concerned with God, the reality of God, drawing persons to himself and to 56:54-57:01 loving communion in Jesus Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit. 57:01-57:04 This is salvation. 57:04-57:10 As T.F. Torrance was able to make so clear, Christianity does not await a process of demonstrative 57:10-57:17 reasoning nor does it sit and wait for the re-enchantment of the human imagination. 57:17-57:21 The Gospel does not wait. 57:21-57:28 It is us in our sinfulness who falsely imagine that God is waiting, keeping to himself in 57:28-57:30 his eternal transcendence. 57:30-57:37 We are the ones with our eyes and ears closed, stubbornly confusing the imminence of our 57:37-57:41 created lives as the be all and end all. 57:41-57:49 So when a Christian primarily focuses on the unknowability of God or the mystery of God 57:49-57:56 because she cannot seek God in the terms of her own particular scientific hermeneutic, 57:56-57:58 she is making the wrong move. 57:58-58:02 To be clear, the Christian knows God. 58:02-58:08 The Christian knows that God exists and the Christian wants to know more about that God 58:08-58:10 that exists. 58:10-58:16 Therefore, she reads her Bible, she prays, she participates in the life of the church, 58:16-58:22 she partakes the Eucharist, she seeks to follow Jesus Christ and she keeps going. 58:22-58:29 The Christian does not dwell on what she does not know because her natural or secular mind 58:29-58:32 cannot directly know God. 58:32-58:36 And this is another important point that is important for the conversation about science 58:36-58:37 and faith. 58:37-58:41 I'm probably preaching to the converted a bit here, but some of these issues are, I 58:41-58:47 think, really key to the conversation that I've been such a part of in the last two years. 58:47-58:53 It is not humble to acknowledge the mystery of God if one's acknowledgment of the mystery 58:53-58:59 is determined or is at least largely influenced by a secularized mind. 58:59-59:04 It is not humble to acknowledge the mystery of God if one's acknowledgment of that mystery 59:04-59:12 is determined or at least largely influenced by a secularized mind. 59:12-59:16 So to sum up what I've been saying so far. 59:16-59:22 In the conversation about science and religion, there is a tendency to focus on what we cannot 59:22-59:26 know directly by way of the scientific method. 59:26-59:33 And what cannot be known directly is referred to as the mystery or wonder behind the universe. 59:33-59:35 And this is God. 59:35-59:40 Now, I should mention that I actually think there are some important moves that are being 59:40-59:44 made here and are actually, I think, fair enough. 59:44-59:50 But one of the things that particularly concerns me is the way in which a focus on the unknowability 59:50-59:54 of God can make God anonymous. 59:54-01:00:01 When God is pushed out of the conversation about things we can know, God becomes anonymous. 01:00:01-01:00:06 And on a side note, I think this is not just happening with the conversation about science 01:00:06-01:00:12 and religion, but I think we can see it happening more and more so within the field of academic 01:00:12-01:00:13 theology. 01:00:13-01:00:20 And what is also interesting is that a focus on the unknowability or ineffability of God 01:00:20-01:00:25 is evident in both the liberal and the conservative movements. 01:00:25-01:00:30 But again, that's another conversation that I would be happy to talk a bit more about 01:00:30-01:00:34 afterwards. 01:00:34-01:00:39 So when God becomes anonymous, the reality of God is pushed out of the academic conversation 01:00:39-01:00:44 and we return to focusing on the history of ideas on theologies and theologians of the 01:00:44-01:00:45 past. 01:00:45-01:00:50 We focus on what we can know directly. 01:00:50-01:00:55 When this happens, theology ceases to be theology. 01:00:55-01:01:02 Talk about God becomes displaced with talk about theology. 01:01:02-01:01:09 My dad describes this as we end up moving from doing God talk to doing God talk talk. 01:01:09-01:01:14 So we end up talking about God talk, but not actually doing God talk within the field of 01:01:14-01:01:17 theology. 01:01:17-01:01:22 So what I think the Christian theologian should be attempting to do is to help her audience 01:01:22-01:01:28 become open to listening to the proclamation of the gospel, to thinking about what we can 01:01:28-01:01:32 say about God in light of scripture. 01:01:32-01:01:37 The Christian theologian should continually be thinking about what it means to be a witness 01:01:37-01:01:43 to God, a witness to the living God who discloses himself to the world in ways that we cannot 01:01:43-01:01:45 possibly perceive in advance. 01:01:45-01:01:51 That is, without revelation, according to our minds that are stuck in the confusion 01:01:51-01:01:52 of this world. 01:01:52-01:01:57 Again, there is a lot more that can be said here, but I'm going to finish now, because 01:01:57-01:02:03 I think this weekend is supposed to be a bit more about Jesus, and I haven't been talking 01:02:03-01:02:06 that much about Jesus so far, so I'm going to turn to Jesus now. 01:02:06-01:02:11 So one of the big questions that needs to be posed to the conversation about science 01:02:11-01:02:17 and Christianity, which I actually think continually needs to be posed to the theological world, 01:02:17-01:02:26 is why is it that Jesus Christ becomes someone who we turn to in second place? 01:02:26-01:02:30 So now, in second place, I want us to turn to think about why we shouldn't be turning 01:02:30-01:02:33 to God to turn to Jesus Christ in second place. 01:02:33-01:02:37 So there's better hypocrisy there, I know. 01:02:37-01:02:40 But I actually think in many respects it's more serious than that. 01:02:40-01:02:45 I think Christians within the conversation about science and religion are actually failing 01:02:45-01:02:48 to talk about Jesus Christ at all. 01:02:48-01:02:54 Again and again, we find that the God that Christians talk about when discussing science 01:02:54-01:03:00 and religion is not the triune God, is not the God who discloses himself in Jesus Christ, 01:03:00-01:03:02 but the God of wonder. 01:03:02-01:03:07 And I think again, many of the moves that are being made here are mirrored in the world 01:03:07-01:03:09 of theology. 01:03:09-01:03:14 When Christians end up focusing on God, not primarily as the triune God, but the God who 01:03:14-01:03:21 discloses himself in Jesus Christ, but on God as the omnipotent, unknowable, impassable, 01:03:21-01:03:27 omniscient, omnipresent, simple God, and end up getting caught up in these philosophical 01:03:27-01:03:34 debates about how we hold all these things together in ways that as human beings we probably 01:03:34-01:03:37 aren't able to do very well. 01:03:37-01:03:45 So what we find in both cases, that human ideas of transcendence and perfection become 01:03:45-01:03:48 the cornerstone for a theological conversation. 01:03:48-01:03:54 And there's something incredibly counterintuitive about this, something that Barthes and Torrance 01:03:54-01:03:57 made so clear. 01:03:57-01:04:04 Why is it the case that when God takes on our humanity in Jesus Christ, when God assumes 01:04:04-01:04:10 our humanity in Jesus Christ, there's this tendency for Christians to instead end up 01:04:10-01:04:16 focusing all their attention on the God behind Jesus Christ to then engage in the task of 01:04:16-01:04:19 theology? 01:04:19-01:04:24 So how might we turn things around? 01:04:24-01:04:30 The first thing I think that needs to happen in a conversation about science and religion 01:04:30-01:04:37 is that there needs to be a deeper appreciation for miracles, for God's active involvement 01:04:37-01:04:39 in the natural world. 01:04:39-01:04:45 When it comes to the resurrection, for example, it should be quite clear, as Ross McCulloch 01:04:45-01:04:50 notes, that there is no natural explanation for the resurrection. 01:04:50-01:04:53 The explanation is that God did it. 01:04:53-01:05:02 This being the case, he continues, "Here is a gap and a God we already believe in." 01:05:02-01:05:08 The inevitable theological conclusion is that there can be nothing wrong with the God of 01:05:08-01:05:12 the gaps, and this is a slightly different account of the God of the gaps, so long as 01:05:12-01:05:17 it is not a God made to fix the gaps. 01:05:17-01:05:25 The second thing I think we need to become more aware of is the mediation of Jesus Christ. 01:05:25-01:05:30 We need to become more aware of the fact that by way of Jesus Christ, we are given a much 01:05:30-01:05:35 greater possibility to talk about God. 01:05:35-01:05:43 So there's a diagram that I think is helpful here to understand some of the things that 01:05:43-01:05:44 are going on. 01:05:44-01:05:50 We have God, and we've got creation. 01:05:50-01:05:56 And there's a certain extent to which we need to recognise a complete distinction between 01:05:56-01:06:01 God and creation, in the sense that God is eternal. 01:06:01-01:06:07 For example, creation is contingent. 01:06:07-01:06:24 This sort of separation, what Aristotle refers to as a charisma, in the early church this 01:06:24-01:06:27 was seen as a major problem for the task of theology. 01:06:27-01:06:35 How is it going to be possible for us to do theology when there's this gap between God 01:06:35-01:06:36 and creation? 01:06:36-01:06:44 I mean, how can our ideas and our conversation cross this charisma such that our thinking 01:06:44-01:06:51 and our theology is in some way representative, is able to point or witness to God? 01:06:51-01:06:57 And I think one of the ways in which Athanasius, for example, responded to this was by recognising 01:06:57-01:07:08 the extent to which Jesus Christ becomes the one who is the mediator between God and creation. 01:07:08-01:07:15 So by participating in Jesus Christ, our theological language has a ground, a redeemed ground, 01:07:15-01:07:21 in which what we're saying and what we're talking about can refer to God. 01:07:21-01:07:30 So he becomes the mediator and so this would mean that to do theology properly we need 01:07:30-01:07:34 to be participating in Jesus Christ, we need to be participating in the life of the church 01:07:34-01:07:44 and the Holy Spirit realises that within our lives so that we are understanding, our perception 01:07:44-01:07:48 of reality is grounded in Jesus Christ. 01:07:48-01:07:53 And so that's the way, and again there's a lot more to be said here, but that's going 01:07:53-01:07:59 to be basically in which I think we need to recognise that Jesus Christ, mediation of 01:07:59-01:08:03 Jesus Christ is so foundational for the theological task. 01:08:03-01:08:08 Because otherwise, and this is again, we see this kind of model as kind of representative 01:08:08-01:08:14 of the way in which the conversation happens within science, in the conversation about 01:08:14-01:08:19 science and Christianity, we've got creation and then we've got this distant unknowable 01:08:19-01:08:24 God that is beyond what we are able to talk about within our contingent, within our created 01:08:24-01:08:30 order and so again and again we have to focus on creation and our own understanding of our 01:08:30-01:08:32 own ideas of God. 01:08:32-01:08:38 And again I think we see this in some other theologies as well that once again insist 01:08:38-01:08:46 upon stressing the creator creates a distinction and then only coming to Jesus Christ in second 01:08:46-01:08:47 place. 01:08:47-01:08:51 But again there's a lot more to be said there but that's just, and that's one way of helping 01:08:51-01:08:59 us to recognise the importance of a mediation of Jesus Christ for the task of theology. 01:08:59-01:09:05 Okay so this separation means that there is no possibility of creation being able to use 01:09:05-01:09:10 its own language to refer directly to God and this again, this is what led to the problem 01:09:10-01:09:12 of theology. 01:09:12-01:09:20 Third, we need to be aware that the kingdom of God breaks into the world in ways that 01:09:20-01:09:27 we cannot possibly anticipate according to our immanent or inner worldly understanding. 01:09:27-01:09:32 The kingdom of God, as David Bentley Hart writes, comes suddenly like a thief in the 01:09:32-01:09:39 night and so fulfills no immanent process, consummates none of our grand projects. 01:09:39-01:09:47 At the same time the kingdom has already at Easter been made visible within history and 01:09:47-01:09:54 now impends upon each moment a word of judgement falling across all our immanent trees of power, 01:09:54-01:09:56 privilege or destiny. 01:09:56-01:10:03 It is the work of the Holy Spirit that enables us again to participate in Jesus Christ in 01:10:03-01:10:08 ways that enable our theological understanding to be faithful to God. 01:10:08-01:10:14 So this means that our theological conversation needs to have the confidence that God is at 01:10:14-01:10:20 work in our conversations, giving people the eyes to see and the ears to hear. 01:10:20-01:10:27 This means that we do not need to play it safe by keeping God anonymous or unknowable 01:10:27-01:10:30 in our conversation. 01:10:30-01:10:35 As a mediator between God and creation and as one who brings about the coming of God's 01:10:35-01:10:40 kingdom, Jesus Christ grants new possibility to the theological task. 01:10:40-01:10:46 The incarnation makes it possible for us to talk about someone who we can directly see, 01:10:46-01:10:50 someone who is a mediator again between God and creation. 01:10:50-01:10:56 As creator, God is omnipresent and connected with every facet of creation. 01:10:56-01:11:01 As the incarnate one, God is involved in the particularity of the contingent order. 01:11:01-01:11:10 This means that creation is able to relate positively to God in its very contingency. 01:11:10-01:11:13 Again this is a strong convention of Athanasius. 01:11:13-01:11:20 For Athanasius, as John Bear writes, incarnation is not simply a unidirectional movement of 01:11:20-01:11:25 God to creation that results in our seeing God in the flesh. 01:11:25-01:11:32 Rather it is a reciprocating and transformational dynamic initiated by God and pivoted upon 01:11:32-01:11:38 the cross whereby we can see the word coming to creation and putting on a body. 01:11:38-01:11:44 This body is seen in those who put on the faith of the cross and live in creation, held 01:11:44-01:11:47 in existence by the word as his church. 01:11:47-01:11:54 He goes on to add, "In becoming human, the word does not lower himself to our state but 01:11:54-01:11:56 raises us to his stature." 01:11:56-01:12:04 So through Jesus Christ, history and creation is united with God in a way that inaugurates 01:12:04-01:12:11 a new history, a new creation that has opened up into loving fellowship with the God who 01:12:11-01:12:13 is love. 01:12:13-01:12:18 And this makes it possible for theology to relate to God positively. 01:12:18-01:12:24 That is, in and through the person of Jesus Christ, God becomes less anonymous to creation. 01:12:24-01:12:29 Through the mediation of Jesus Christ, the transcendent God communicates himself not 01:12:29-01:12:36 only to this world but he communicates himself to this world from within this world. 01:12:36-01:12:43 Also, Jesus Christ is the one who gives meaning and life to creation. 01:12:43-01:12:50 Extraordinarily, Jesus Christ is himself the means and the end for which creation itself 01:12:50-01:12:51 exists. 01:12:51-01:12:59 So for us, truly to understand the nature of creation, to study it and live in it wisely, 01:12:59-01:13:02 we must turn our eyes to the person of Jesus Christ. 01:13:02-01:13:06 Jesus Christ is the image of the invisible God. 01:13:06-01:13:12 For through him and in him, all things are held together, visible and invisible. 01:13:12-01:13:16 He is also the head of the body, the church. 01:13:16-01:13:27 To be clear, all things visible and invisible are created by him, for him, and all things 01:13:27-01:13:30 hold together in him. 01:13:30-01:13:36 By making himself and his purposes known in Jesus Christ, God makes it possible for Christian 01:13:36-01:13:39 theology to be more scientific. 01:13:39-01:13:46 That is, the person of Jesus Christ creates a greater possibility for theology to operate 01:13:46-01:13:53 in a way that is true to the object of its study, the reality of the triune God. 01:13:53-01:14:00 Christ does this not only through objective acts of revelation, but also through the power 01:14:00-01:14:06 of the Holy Spirit reconciling our minds so that we might be able to know him, to know 01:14:06-01:14:09 his revelation in truth. 01:14:09-01:14:15 To be clear, Jesus Christ does not just help us to understand the world by offering us 01:14:15-01:14:22 a message of what it means to be human, but by bringing new reality to the world. 01:14:22-01:14:28 The person of Jesus Christ creates salvation for the world by creating an order and purpose 01:14:28-01:14:37 for creation that is every bit as real as the space, time, and physicality of the contingent 01:14:37-01:14:38 order. 01:14:38-01:14:46 And it is just as life-giving as the oxygen and water that flows through creation. 01:14:46-01:14:47 Thank you. 01:14:47-01:14:52 [APPLAUSE]