Northwind Theological Seminary had its journal club last week, and on line attendees to this event are those who are studying or have graduated from the Open & Relational Theology program at Northwind. Our journal club tends to discuss scientific issues in the setting of theology. This combination makes sense when one considers that any observation, including scientific observations, can have associated metaphysical implications whether one is a theist or atheist.

Our two articles were:

“How ‘green’ can religions be? Tensions about religious environmentalism” written by Jens Koehrsen, Julia Blanc, and Fabian Huber (2022) and published in Zeitschrift für Religion, Gesellschaft und Politik. The English translation is open access.

“The Imago Dei: A Bridge to Faith-Infused Reconciliation Ecology” written by Abigail Tamkin and David Wituszynski (2025) and published in Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith. The article is open access.

The former article is more of a sociological study; the latter article is theological in nature.

I would like to highlight some of the interesting topics from the 2 articles that we discussed.

From the Koehrsen, et al. article:

The authors state that “…tensions are an inherent part of religious environmentalism.” This statement is very true. In my opinion, religions that lean toward the apocalyptic side of thinking about the world, seem to be against environmentalism. A good review article about this issue is here. If one thinks Jesus is coming back very soon, one risks thinking that they do not need to worry about the current state of the environment. If one belongs to a religious group that is anti-science and anti-education, then the purpose of environmentalism is lost. If one puts one’s nation ahead of one’s faith (for example, Christian nationalism which is not Christian), then one puts a priority of one’s nation over others, thus risking environmental degradation.

The authors point out that “indigenous religions and new spiritualities” tend to have a stronger belief in environmentalism. They tend to have a closer relationship with nature and likely consider nature as divine. I think this is quite true in the vast number of circumstances. I would point out that Evan Connell’s book (Son of the Morning Star: Custer and the Little Bighorn) points out some possible exceptions to this idea. In the end, humans are humans, and individual humans can cause environmental waste regardless of culture. The readers of this blog can read that specific book to consider his opinion.

Photo from the Alaska Wildlife Alliance

Genesis 1: 28 is read completely wrong by many Christians. The verse states, “God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” Subdue it. I think there are some interpretation issues here made by Christians that our Jewish brothers and sisters find lacking in us. Even if “subdue” was part of the original translation, this verse in Hebrew was written thousands of years before modern technology, modern pollution, modern warfare, and the modern risk of global warming. What if “subdue” initially meant “to farm” and further meant “to farm while protecting the land”? By protecting the land, H. sapiens can be the equivalent of a good king, not a tyrant. Good references for such ideas are here and here.

The authors point out that even when the head of religions want their adherents to be better stewards of the environment, the followers under the religious leaders typically ignore such messages. I think this idea is quite true, and I don’t know how to fix the issue. As a physician in an academic medical center, we often do quality improvement studies to improve patient outcomes by changing small things in patient flow or patient care structure. Often the changes occur in small group settings (such as one clinic) first before being implemented throughout the hospital system. Medicine is not religion, but one wonders if a quality improvement-adjacent system could be used in the religious setting in promoting environmentalism.

From the Tamkin and Wituszynski article:

The authors state that Christians should reconcile ourselves to the environment using the FIRE mnemonic. FIRE would be “Faith-Infused Reconciliation Ecology.” I do not always like mnemonics as I think they tend to lose their importance over time in the setting of repetitive use. However, if FIRE helps one to remember that humans need to restore their relationship with non-humans / the environment / nature, then I am all for it.

I took this picture from Alta where I skied today.

The 5 steps mentioned by the authors to reconcile humans with the environment include:

“Recognizing the wrong that was done
(Awareness).

Lamenting personal complicity
(Repentance).

Minimizing further harm and working to fix
the wrong that was done (Restoration).

Accepting forgiveness extended by the
agent that was wronged (Acceptance).

Moving forward in a new relationship
marked by mutual flourishing (Renewal).”

Honestly, I love these 5 steps. I think they are easy to remember personally and in the church setting. I think the steps can be followed in other religious traditions as well as the 5 steps could be considered ideal for interfaith dialogue.

The authors state that we should treat the environment just as Jesus treats us in the setting of the munus triplex. In the Christian setting, we consider Jesus the ultimate 1) king, 2) priest, and 3) prophet (a triplex). What does this mean in the setting of how we should treat the environment? As “king”, we should be the good king of the environment who is a steward, not a tyrant. As “priest”, we should provide loving care for the flock which should be expanded to our planet and to all of nature. As “prophet”, we should speak truth about nature and about how we should protect it. I like this idea.

Earth (image from NASA)

My one issue as an American is that I have a difficulty with the “king” concept as our country has never had a king (even though we have had United States presidents who have wanted to be or tried to be kings). I have a hard time relating to the word. Perhaps, our species should be “regents” and not “kings.” As regents we are assisting God who is the ultimate divine authority. This ultimate divine authority is simply love. We are not God, but as creatures who should love nature and all that it entails, we are there to protect, love, and speak truth to the importance of protecting our wonderful little planet.

I have been reading Juan V. Mayoral’s excellent new biography of Thomas Kuhn titled Thomas Kuhn: From Physics to Philosophy of Science. I imagine I will be using this book as a reference for future posts. I highly recommend it.

Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996) was one of the more important philosophers of science in the 20th century. Besides his concept of the “paradigm shift“, he came up with many other concepts about science that are still influential today. Here is short biography from the on-line Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. It is a good read. The idea of the “paradigm shift” is an important aspect of this book.

Kuhn came from a family of pacifists. Yet, he joined the military in World War II, and in fact, he was a member of the Radio Research Lab which was a secret military facility.

Raised a pacifist; joined the military. This change was fairly upsetting to Kuhn. He wrote an essay titled “The War and My Crisis.” It is a hard essay to find because he wrote it very early in his life before he became famous. Some publications have discussed this essay in detail.

Mayoral (and others) have suggested that his subjective turn from pacifism to joining the U.S. military may have been a nidus, of sorts, for his eventual publication of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions in which the whole idea of the paradigm shift became fully mature. In short, he recognized the capacity for change.

Kuhn changed. We all change. I would argue that all entities change. Change involves the concept of “prehension”, especially in the fields of process philosophy and process theology.

Prehension is when an entity is presented the panoply of possibilities before an event occurs. This panoply is based on all past events…from the very small to the very large. The entity “chooses” a reaction to these past events. This choice comes together concretely (called a “concrescence” and is the act “of becoming”). The choice becomes a unique “actual occasion” in real time which then passes on to become a fixed occurrence from the past while also being a possible influence in future prehensions. The process of past events influencing actual occasions with actual occasions becoming past events is an eternal process that is accomplished in real time.

I made this image in Google Gemini Advanced. I hope it makes sense.

Let’s look at Kuhn’s example from his personal life. He had many, many past events that changed his mind about participating in World War II.

Think about every event that you have been involved in. Some are significant; some are mostly insignificant. Now think about the sheer mass of past events leading to how you chose to be in a specific moment. You can consider your past relationships with family, friends, and strangers as you decide to act at a current moment in time. However, what about your genetic history, your ancestors’ prior genetic mutations, your serotonin levels, your altitude, your longitude on Earth, the effect of gravity on your actions, and on and on and on?

In fact, there is the potential for an infinite number of events in the past to affect how you ultimately make a decision (at least from a metaphysical perspective). If the universe is infinitely large, then perhaps a quantum wave effect thousands of light years away (thus, a very ancient event) would have some incredibly small effect on how you might make a decision. Conversely, having an important conversation with a significant other one hour before you might make a decision would be exponentially more important.

Thus, we change, and this change is influenced yet not necessarily determined by all that has happened to us in the past. A helpful reference is here. In a way, this idea matches the “Ship of Theseus Paradox.” If Theseus’s ship is around long enough, eventually all parts of the ship will need to be replaced. In the end, is it the same ship? In the end and as time passes, are we the same person that we have always been?

A few years ago, I was asked to give a lecture at a memorial lecture series for one of my mentors in the field of medicine. In retrospect, I probably did the wrong thing and talked about the microbiome and the philosophy of causation / change. I say “the wrong thing” as I think the conference organizers really wanted a lecture on hard science, not philosophy. My mentor’s daughter liked my talk which is really all that mattered in the end.

As part of my lecture, I discussed the difference between “endurantism” and “perdurantism.” Perdurantists believe that ordinary things like animals, boats, and planets only have temporal parts (things persist by “perduring”). Endurantists believe that ordinary things do not have temporal parts; instead, things are wholly present whenever they exist (things persist by “enduring”). 

Perdurantism (from https://medium.com/@lukeschrager/persistence-of-concrete-particulars-through-time-endurantism-vs-perdurantism-3442e044b376)

Endurantism (from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11098-024-02194-8)

In my opinion, the human body is very much an example of perdurantism, and thus, the human body is an example of prehension –> concrescence –> actual occasion –> repeat.

Image from: Sinicrope FA. Increasing Incidence of Early-Onset Colorectal Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2022 Apr 21;386(16):1547-1558.

In my lecture, I discussed the myriad of events that cause a human to change over time. These events are a complex web of past history that affect our physical health, mental health, and our decisions through time.

So, atoms change. People change. Galaxies change. Even our universe is changing. All of this change is based on past events in which there is a spectrum of decisions or reactions to such past events.

My blog posts are typically theological in nature. Where does God fit in here? Many of you who read my blog (or who know me personally) are aware that I believe in the concept of Naturalismppp. This term means that God fits neatly into the natural world via the 3 concepts of 1) prehension, 2) panentheism (the universe is in God), and 3) panexperientialism (all entities experience — even God).

Thus, if we all have a current state at each moment in time and if our current change or decision status is based on prior events, then we can state that nature exists in change itself. Reality, in many ways, is change itself.

Consider: If change if paramount for the physical world (prehension) and if this change is in God (panentheism) and if God experiences all of the experiences of nature (panexperientialism), then God at a minimum experiences change. God is present in the change.

We individually change. Nature changes. God changes. All change is based on the influence of past events. If God is love (which I very much believe), then God’s change over time is to desire creativity and to want love throughout God’s creation. This is a universal love luring for the best outcome for all entities. However, this love does not force change. It is simply a desire for the most loving outcome. God tries to relate to me. Thus, I can try to be loving aim for the best outcomes in events close to me and even events far away from me. I can try to be a loving husband and father. I can spend time learning the medical literature better for when I take care of patients. I can try to send money or other resources to strangers in need both locally and far away. I can pray for my enemies.

Thomas Kuhn has helped the world in many ways by exploring the world of science. His life experiences are a good reminder of how we each decide to live our lives through time. We have influences, and we have a choice in how we utilize these influences.

Image made by Gemini Advanced

First of all, biological evolution is a real thing. The effect of organisms changing through time can be seen in the fossil record as well as in the science of genetics. Inherent mutation rates at the DNA level exist. Human diseases and human adaptations occur in the setting of genetic change. Epigenetics is real. Biological evolution is real simply because change itself is real. Time encompasses change.

Irenaeus (125 – 202 CE) was an interesting church father. I think he differed in some ways from how Augustine (354-430 CE) conceived of sin. For example, in Irenaeus’s The Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching, he states the following:

“And Adam and Eve—for that is the name of the woman— were naked, and were not ashamed; for there was in them an innocent and childlike mind, and it was not possible for them to conceive and understand anything of that which by wickedness through lusts and shameful desires is born in the soul. For they were at that time entire, preserving their own nature; since they had the breath of life which was breathed on their creation: and, while this breath remains in its place and power, it has no comprehension and understanding of things that are base. And therefore they were not ashamed, kissing and embracing each other in purity after the manner of children.”

Irenaeus

The paragraph is certainly interesting to consider theologically. Animals eat animals (and plants). Plants compete for niche space. Bacteria compete for resources. One might point to such ideas as “natural evil” which certainly could be a true. However, the actions of the majority of living organisms on our planet occur due to nutrient needs, daily survival, and reproductive potential. They do not eliminate each other out of thoughts of cruelty. I say “the majority” because there appears to be the one exception of Homo sapiens.

Our species has a long history of injuring the other, destroying the environment of the other, and killing the other. This “other” consists of life on our planet, including the life of others of our own species.

Biological evolution causes new species to appear, and it causes older species to go extinct. This is change in the setting of time. It is a natural occurrence which can be tragic for the species that dies but beneficial for the species that survive. In a way, the process is no different than stars exploding at the end of their lifetimes, galaxies losing star-making ability, or our universe eventually (as far as we can tell) using up all useful energy. This is change, and the death associated with this change is not due to malicious intent.

In other words, these are natural occurrences.

The Cassiopeia A Supernova from Scientific American

Humans, unfortunately, have the unique ability to make such changes even drastic, especially in the setting of biological change / evolution. By consciously ending the life of an individual or species, we also are making a conscious decision to end the evolutionary potential of that individual or species. We are consciously deciding to limit change and the potential of biological creativity.

If we kill a fellow human out of anger, we prevent that person’s ability to affect future generations either through genetics (reproduction) or societally (their emotional or material consequences on others). If nations create war on other nations, we affect entire populations in their ability to make new generations of people as well as destroying or modifying the general emotions, finances, food supplies, and leadership options of all nations involved.

If we destroy a species or group of species of other animals or plants, we are preventing their ability to continue on as a species.

Perhaps extinguishing a species or group of animals is beneficial at times. I am not sure. I very much despise mosquitoes as they bite and can carry diseases such as malaria. However, these insects can be beneficial.

Almost completely extinguishing a species can be harmful. An example is the American bison (Bison bison) extermination in the 19th century. Besides almost completely destroying a species simply to rid the United States of a food source for native communities (thus causing human starvation and an inability to reproduce), the destruction of the bison affected some Native American cultures permanently.

American Bison

Humans make these conscious decisions. We are not ants just trying to find resources to keep their colony alive. We are not trees sending out pollen to hopefully fertilize or be fertilized. We are not lions looking for limited resources on the Serengeti with feelings of satiety after eating a gazelle and not needing more.

Humans typically make conscious decisions to hurt of kill the “other.” As we hurt or kill, we are limiting the evolutionary potential of an individual or a species. If an individual is killed in the setting of murder or drunk driving, they have lost any potential ability to pass on their genetics, have lost subsequent ability of their genetics to undergo potential beneficial mutations, and have lost their genetic life be passed on to other generations. Their genes are gone as is their individual’s influence on their family, culture, and society. If we kill a whole group of humans (as in war), this effect is horribly magnified. We prevent the potential for that group to undergo potential passage of genetics to future generations and thus prevent their evolutionary potential. The same idea goes with other individuals, groups, and species throughout our planet.

Image from Nelson University

I would propose that a definition of “sin” would be our wanting to remove the evolutionary capacity or potential of others in a pointless manner.

Humans can consciously make a real decision to remove the evolutionary potential of other creatures. Humans can consciously make a real decision to remove the evolutionary potential of a people group. Humans can consciously make a real decision to make a species go extinct. We make these decisions often full well of the tragic consequences.

In my opinion, humans are a very violent species. Perhaps it is part of our phenotype to be destructive.

Where is God here?

Readers of my blog know that I think the model of process theology and especially the model of open & relational theology make sense when understanding the world around us. In my belief system, God lures for us to be creative and not destructive, to be novel and not monotonous, to consider life’s existence as a manifestation of love and not as life’s existence manifesting as hate of the other. God desires us to choose to do better. God does not interfere here. God is not a control freak, and if we are truly made in the image of God, then we should not be control freaks either.

We can choose to prevent spoilage of the environment. We can choose to conserve and to limit death of other species in meaningful ways. I think we are probably the only species on the planet that has evolved the cerebellar volume and conscious ability to choose in such a manner. Perhaps Chimpanzees come closest here when considering Jane Goodall’s work on the Gombe preserve in Africa. These animals apparently had war-like behavior on each other with the resultant unnecessary death of individuals. On the other hand, human interruption of their environment (again, humans choosing to destroy an ecosystem) may have been the primary cause of such activity.

Gombe National Park

There appears to be something specific in human behavior in which we can actively decide to destroy a species, an evironment, or a people group voluntarily and without regard of consequences. In other words, when we deliberately decide to destroy the potential of a species or an environment or a people group, we destroy the evolutionary capacity of such entities. We destroy their inherent creativity. We destroy the “grandeur in this view of life” per Darwin.

I think Irenaeus stating that metaphorical Adam and Eve’s “no comprehension and understanding of things that are base” points to a very concrete reality. H. sapiens eventually reached a point evolutionarily that we understood we could kill or maim for personal benefit. We could interrupt continuing creativity in the world God created simply for individual gain or nation building. No other life form on our planet can be this dangerous. There are alternatives, however.

We can do agriculture in sustainable ways. We can eat meat products in sustainable ways. We can take antibiotics or use vaccines to prevent infections from interfering with human evolutionary potential from a species perspective.

Perhaps our evolutionary potential will allow us to better recognize the importance of the world around us. It is a potential that, I believe, is freely given by God. We get to make the choice.

Image created by Gemini Advanced

Morality is a difficult idea to process. One can think of the recent U.S. capture of Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela as an example. One can believe that the U.S. shouldn’t be involved in the politics of other countries for moral reasons. One can believe that an outside agent removing an autocrat who has crashed a country’s economy is good for moral reasons. I have friends who have escaped from Venezuela. It is clear that the Hugo Chavez and subsequently Maduro regimes destroyed the country’s economy and threatened their relatives. It sounds like the removal of Maduro was a good thing. Yet, I personally am troubled about U.S. involvement in other countries.

Moral decisions are difficult.

Recently, a well-known Evangelical writer confessed to having an 8-year affair with another woman while he was married. He has been married to his wife for many, many years. The writer (and a nationally-known speaker, by the way) subsequently has decided to quit his public life and to retreat into a private life to deal with his marriage difficulties. This change is probably the right thing to do. I am not going to mention this person’s name. You can find it easily on the internet.

I have heard this person speak live at an event that I attended many years ago. I found him moving, especially since he was a big proponent of the reconciliation of religion and science. He walked right past me on the way to the speaker stage. I never knew the person, but this recent tragic news made me reflect on my “interaction” with him.

Here is the rub to the whole story. This person has been diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease (let’s abbreviate it as “PD”).

PD is a neurodegenerative disease of the brain that is universally fatal. It is more common in men and typically presents with symptoms at around 60 years of age. For unclear reasons, dopamine-producing neurons begin to die off in the part of the brain known as the substantia nigra pars compacta. Most people are familiar with PD due to its progressive and debilitating muscle movements. Helpful links are here and here. Treatment consists of using the medicine, levodopa, which replaced dopamine. Other treatments also are available. Regardless, this disease is progressive and fatal.

Image from Practo

Not every patient with PD has the initial muscle movement changes. Some patients can present with emotional dysregulation and psychiatric disease. In fact, I know of someone who mainly presented with memory loss before an official diagnosis of PD was made. In other words, PD is in on the spectrum of dementia disorders.

Here is a great open access article about PD.

The psychiatric diseases associated with PD can be vast, including, “…depression, anxiety, hallucination, delusion, apathy and anhedonia, impulsive and compulsive behaviors, and cognitive dysfunction…” See this open access link for information. It also is important to consider that disinhibition and hypersexuality are much more common in men with PD.

Back to the person described above, what if, what if, what if, this person had neurological changes leading to personality changes leading to bad decisions. This particular person is 76 years old, so if the affair that he was having occurred 8 years ago, then he was 68 years old when it started –prime time for neurological manifestations of PD to kick in.

I have had personal experience with the personality changes associated with the various types of dementia. My father was a well known academic in the field of military history and had a long career. He developed dementia that was likely due to chronic infarctions (strokes) of the brain associated with advancing age. My father was a very decent person who tended to be on the side of kindness when it came to strangers. As his dementia progressed, he became an extremely angry person. He was angry in the ICU until he went unconscious and died. Honestly, I didn’t even recognize my father at that point — even though I loved him.

Brain of a patient with multi-infarct dementia (from International Psychogeriatrics)

My blog posts tend to be theological in nature. So, what does my writing above imply?

First, I think that the very essence of human nature or human personality is influenced by our biochemistry. Our essence is affected by time as our bodies become older, worn out, and scarred. Perhaps we live in a world of soft determinism. As animals, we have some degrees of freedom, but nature put limits on such freedom. Sponges rarely move. Pacific salmon have a semelparous life cycle that seems rather tragic. Humans can have a huge spectrum of emotions and behavior that lead to beautiful science, art, writing, engineering, and music.

Sponges (from One Ocean Foundation)

However, in the presence of time, the human brain typically atrophies or scars as we each get older. We don’t want to lose our good personality traits as we age, but many of us probably will.

This limitation of degrees of freedom will affect how we think about God, or conversely, no God. Our past experiences (including the physiology of the brain and diseases of the brain) can lead to changes or perhaps even lack of changes in how we think about God. I would imagine these changes could be problematic especially if one becomes anxious or angry in the setting of dementia.

Second, I believe that God allows nature to have complete freedom in how nature operates. God may “lure” for creativity / novelty / love at all levels of nature, but nature can “choose’ to do whatever. The Second Law of Thermodynamics could be a theological example if we consider that the increasing loss of useful energy over time occurs because the universe works just that way — even if God perhaps desires the universe locally to be a perpetual motion machine.

Thus, God may lure us to not make bad decisions, but God also gives nature the freedom to have our hormones work in certain ways, our genes to be expressed or mutated in certain ways, and our brains to change in certain ways that risks detrimental behavior at times.

There is some degree of inescapability here. After all, we all die. Perhaps this aspect is a good thing. God is not interfering directly with our lives. Philip Clayton has coined the term “Not Even Once.” in terms of God participating in the world…not even once. God cannot interact with the world outside of known physical laws.

Image from Semantic Scholar

Perhaps God has interfered once (the Christ event, the accumulation of the Quran, the rare appearance of the Buddha, etc.) based on various religious traditions. Such ideas are singular divine events. However, if God interferes once, humans will risk believing that God will interfere again and again and again. Perhaps the human tragedy is that we think God will keep interfering with our lives to make our lives better or worse.

Regardless of the potential of a singular God event(s), I think it is important to consider that nature progresses on with limits such as gravity, the human spectrum of vision, DNA mutation rates, the expansion of the universe, and other factors. God may lure for us to be better humans, but our efforts to be good to the “other” may necessarily be limited by limitation of natural laws or the limits of our neurological personalities.

What does this all mean? Well, to go back to the original example of the fallen religious leader, he did some bad things in his marriage, but perhaps, he was neurologically impaired in such a way that the risk of bad behavior increased. I think we need to consider such possibilities among people in our lives, especially the elderly.

By the way, I am not a complete cynic here. I think God lures in real time and eternally. There is always the real chance for the good. Such a real chance can include your making a real and positive difference in the generations to come and can include the possibility of God’s immense of love of all creation, including God loving us even in specific ways after we die. At this juncture, I am ever the optimist.

Image generated by Google Gemini

Recently, the Ark Encounter in Kentucky had a measles exposure due to an unvaccinated visitor visiting the park. You may wonder what the Ark Encounter is… It is simply an extension of the Creation Museum in Kentucky which is run by the group, Answers in Genesis. I’m not going to provide a link to either of these facilities or AiG because, simply put, they are 1) anti-science and 2) anti-religious. They are anti-science as they essentially support no real science. They state they support “creation science” which is a misnomer and is a fruitless endeavor in confirmation bias. They are anti-religious in that they only support a narrow view of religion and, honestly, a narrow view of Christianity. Being anti-science can kill people; being anti-religious (especially from a Christian perspective) can cause bigotry especially if it is associated with politics and nationalism.

XKCD comics

Both the Ark Encounter and Creation Museum get about 1 million visitors per year from tourism estimates. It is unclear if this 1 million number is correct, but if one divides the amount by 365 (not counting seasonal variation), an unvaccinated person with measles may have exposed approximately 2740 people to a very bad and potentially deadly infection.

Measles is one of the most infectious viruses in the world. The virus kills approximately 1-3 of every 1000 children who are infected and not vaccinated.  Measles has been shown to cause life-altering permanent neurologic disease in 1 in 1,000 children who are infected and not vaccinated. It is terrifying to consider that 25% of children who are malnourished and are infected with measles will die. Considering the food insecurity rate in Kentucky where the Creation Museum and Ark Encounter are located, the potential mortality rate for Measles is concerning. For example, one can consider this graph from Feeding America.(https://map.feedingamerica.org/county/2023/overall/kentucky).

I have so many thoughts here:

One: Bad science typically begets bad science. This statement is quite true. Of course, one could point out that good science can be ignored while bad science continues. An example, to some degree, would be what happened to Galileo Galilei in the setting of his proving the heliocentric model. In the situation of Galileo, further studies proved his point and the idea of Earth rotating around the sun was eventually accepted notwithstanding that further research over time showed that our sun is one of billions of suns in the Milky Way galaxy and our galaxy is one of billions of galaxies in the observable universe. Social and religious pressure initially prevented but could not stop scientific observation. What I am stating here is different. I am stating the following: bad science such as that promoted by the anti-vaccine movement self selects for more anti-vaccine nonsense. Bad science such as that promoted by the anti-evolutionary movement self selects for more anti-evolutionary belief nonsense. These nonscientific belief systems have their own insular journals, have their own insular “experts”, and have their own insular “scientific” meetings. The results lead to promotion of dangerous anti-science belief systems in federal funding systems (especially in the United States) and a decline in life-saving medical therapies such as childhood vaccinations.

Graph from the New York Times

Two: Bad theology helps bad science. Bad theology such as wooden and weak literal interpretation of the Bible leads to a poor subjective understanding of how science works. If you think that praying for God to prevent measles in your child is how to treat this infection instead of vaccinating your child, then you have poor theology and very poor understanding of science. Have you considered that God was behind the miracle of childhood vaccinations? This poor understanding may not be your fault. You may have had poor education in public or private school. You may have been taught horrendously terrible theology growing up. I have posted about the following example in the past. When my children were young, we sent them to a Bible camp in northern Utah very close to the Idaho border. It all seemed to go well until some random pastor gave a sermon about evolution being wrong since pterodactyls have been seen flying around Idaho. I will limit my cussing here, but the response from my wife and from me was, “This is 100% excrement.” Our children were removed from the Bible camp because once a religious community is anti-science about one well-known concept, the community tends to become anti-science about other concepts. Experts have defined the increasing number of anti-science beliefs in some religious communities as the “spillover effect.” Good references are here and here.

Pterodactyl from 150 million years ago. It is NOT flying over Boise, Idaho. Image from the National Dinosaur Museum.

Three: We need better science communication. Here is a constant complaint of mine. At least in academic institutions (i.e, universities), there is minimal ability to get academic promotion and/or tenure by participating in public outreach. Sure, I personally have reached “full professor” level at my university, but my promotion was simply due to publications (lots of journal articles, a few grants, one edited textbook, one editorial board membership with associated writing). Patient care was emphasized to a degree as I was bringing in revenue to the institution. Medical education for medical students, residents, and fellows also was considered, but medical education is never considered a big component of “RPT” (“retention-promotion-tenure”). Outward facing speaking to the public has pretty much a nil component in any of my promotion packets. The problem does not just occur with my university. It is a nationwide problem in the United States. Perhaps in countries like Switzerland, public outreach is valued in academic culture. However, in many universities, the importance of scientific outreach is not considered valuable. In the world of trying to promote scientific understanding in the realm of Christianity, there are limiting cases of success here. Perhaps Francis Collins would be a well known exception.

Random university photo

Four: Strive to be a better Christian / be a better religious person when understanding science. I can speak for Christianity. Jesus is very clear. When one is caring for the poor, the ill, the needy, one’s mind so go back to specific verses in the Bible such as Matthew 25:40 or Luke 6:31. Not providing correct scientific education regarding how the world works would go against what Jesus has commanded us to do. Not vaccinating your child so that they get sick and potentially die from an easily preventable disease would go against what Jesus has commanded us to do. Not vaccinating your child so that they get sick and potentially cause others to die (infants, people undergoing chemotherapy, people with autoimmune disease, people with organ transplants, etc.) would go against what Jesus has commanded us to do. Interestingly, Quran 4:36 has parallel type statements (“To parents is owed kindness, as also to relatives, to orphans, to the needy, to a neighbour who is a relative, to a neighbour who is a stranger, to a companion by your side, to a traveller and to your slaves, God loves not the swaggering and the conceited…” Quran 4:36, Tarif Khalidi translation).

Loving others as Christ loves us…Kindness to the “other”… It seems that God wants us to promote good science not only in the setting of academics but also in general society and in our religious settings.

By the way, the Dr. Joel Duff’s Youtube channel has expressed my thoughts much more clearly. I would recommend the video, “Ken Ham’s Ark Encounter: More Effective Than Billy Graham? (Really?)” as an example. Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kt2ldTMStz8

Image generated by Gemini Advanced

As I get ready for Christmas Day, I have contemplated what it really meant for God to come as an infant to our planet and perhaps to our reality. I realize that December 25 is not the day of Christ’s birth, but it is the day when most of the world celebrates the birth of Jesus. Through many years of attending church services, I recognize the idea that Christ was born so that sin would eventually be defeated. However, it is pretty clear that we don’t know exactly what was going on in God’s infinite mind in regard to this singular occasion.

As W.W. Bartley has stated in The Retreat to Commitment, “All theological statements are forever conjectures about the Word of God. We can never know whether or not our statements do in fact express the truth about the Word of God or whether they are mixed with error stemming from our misinterpretations, or from our conscious or unconscious imposition of our own presuppositions on the historical event.”

The Christ event, whether historical, theological, metaphysical, or sociological, is a mystery. It cannot be solved. There is a point where one’s mind reaches a boundary about this event that cannot be crossed.

In many ways, the Christ event and the idea of God in general is a metaphorical “halting problem.”

Exploring God is a halting problem.

The halting problem is a computer science idea. Essentially, the problem shows that “…it is impossible to write a program which can examine any other program and tell, in every case, if it will terminate or get into a closed loop when it is run.” This helpful quote comes from the open access article here.

Let’s look at an example, from cs.wellesley.edu.

Suppose you have a program function called Halt(P, x). P is a program; x is some type of datum input.

The input of P and x leads to a binary output of “true” (program stops) and “false” (program loops infinitely). In this conjecture, the program function must give an answer.

Now suppose you have another program function called Sly. Sly does the opposite of what Halt predicts.

Thus, if Halt states “true” (program stops), then Sly states “false” (program loops infinitely). If Halt states “false” (program loops infinitely), then Sly states “true” (program stops).

Sounds good, right?

But what is Sly runs a program of Sly? In other words if Sly(Sly) is programmed, then:

Halt(Sly, Sly) means the following:

If Halt (Sly,Sly) is “true” (program halts) then Sly(Sly) will be “false” (program loops infinitely).

But if Halt (Sly,Sly) is “false” (program loops infinitely), then Sly(Sly) will be “true” (program halts).

There is just no answer here. If I am honest, I can use the halting problem with how we can think about God. I’m going to use a very simple example that really is just subjective.

Suppose you have a theological belief defined as God(P,x) where P is a program and x is some type of datum / data that you perceive in the world around you.

The input of P and x leads to a binary output of “true” (God exists) and “false” (God does not exist). Again, this program function must give an answer. By the way, you know already that the function will not give an answer, but let’s proceed anyway.

Now suppose you have another program function called No God. No God does the opposite of what God predicts.

Thus, if God states “true” (God exists), then No God states “false” (God does not exist). If God states “false” (God does not exist), then No God states “true” (God does exist).

Now you run a program No God (No God).

God(No God, No God) means:

If God (No God, No God) is “true” (God exists) then No God(No God) will be “false” (God does not exist).

But if God (No God, No God) is “false” (God does not exist), then No God (No God) will be “true” (God exists).

Again, I am taking a subjective consideration of the halting problem when considering God. I did run my “program” through my AI (Google Gemini), and the results were interesting.

Google Gemini states that my results suggested that my proposal was a theological paradox similar to Godel’s theorems although I was considering metaphysical entities (“God” as well as “No God”) and not mathematics. Google Gemini also stated that my proposal demonstrated a “self-refuting system.” In other words, a person can have a metaphysical belief (God or No God) that is so strong that they will always identify with that belief even if given evidence to potentially demonstrate the opposite of their belief system. Honestly, tenets of both Young Earth Creationism and New Atheism seem to fit in here.

I look at the Halting Problem in the setting of God this way… When we are given objective evidence about the world, we can make a decision as to if the evidence demonstrates that there is possibly God or conversely that the evidence demonstrates that there is possibly No God. The objective informs the subjective.

This idea reminds me of part of Corinthians 13:12 (“For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror…). We hold our metaphysical beliefs based on how we see the world and our place in it.

And that is fine.

If God exists, then perhaps Karl Barth is correct in pointing out that God is utterly separated from the world. “The two are totally unlike and exclusive. At no point does God touch the external world with its corrupted nature and evil matter. No part of the world is, therefore, a manifestation or revelation of the infinite, majestic Deity.” By the way, this quote comes from a very famous author who is not Karl Barth.

The ultimate mystery here can be considered the ultimate beauty of everything.

image from Gemini Advanced