I will be away over the next week and want to write a quick post.

I have been reading through Nicholas Spencer’s book titled, Magisteria, which is a wonderful book discussing the history of science and religion.  I recently read through Chapter 13 titled “Peace and War.”  In this chapter, a quote from James Clerk Maxwell appeared.

“I think men of science as well as other men need to learn from Christ, and I think Christians whose minds are scientific are bound to study science [so] that their view of the glory of God may be as extensive as [possible].”

Now Maxwell wrote this response when he was invited to join the Victoria Institute which had been set up to reconcile science and faith.  The Victoria Institute has an interesting history, and I would recommend reading the linked article.  So far, his statement sounds good to theists, like me.

However, Maxwell continues as follows: “I think that the results which each man arrives at [in] his attempts to harmonize his science with his Christianity ought not to be regarded as having any significance except to the man himself, and to him only for a time, and should not receive the stamp of society.”

As a result, he did not join the Victoria Institute.

James Clerk Maxwell

These are well written words which I relate to well.  I have several thoughts here:

First, I think Christians absolutely should learn from science.  Time is an essential aspect here. Our species has learned more and more about the natural world over the centuries.  A wooden, literal reading of Holy Scripture makes no sense when comparing when these texts were written to events surrounding today’s modern society.   Language has changed.  Culture has changed.  Geographical areas not known about in the ancient world have been found (North America, South America, and Australia).  Humanity’s place in the universe has become more fully known. Human knowledge has increased exponentially.  It is impossible to read the Bible or any other holy book without being influenced by the world around us.  I can think of no literalist argument here proving that I am wrong.  We are influenced greatly by the time in which we are living and in the knowledge of our species during this time. Heck, even the ability to read is a relatively modern invention.

The Hebrew interpretation of the universe, from BioLogos

Second, I echo Maxwell’s belief that science infused into faith (in this case, Christianity) should probably make the most sense to an individual as opposed to a society.  I am a physician, and I see God as influencing the world around me when I look at the improvement of human life spans over the decades.  Better hygiene, the discovery of antibiotics, better cancer care, better surgical techniques…all have contributed to the improved life span and lifestyle of our species.   Improved life spans lead to improved lifestyles which include improved and expanded learning.

From Our World in Data

As readers of my blog know, I very much believe that the models provided by process theology as well as open & relational theology are helpful here.  I believe God lures for the good, the creative, the novel.  God lures our species (individually and societally) to make the world a better place.  We can accept this lure or ignore this lure.  My experience of patients being cured from diseases presently that were extremely deadly in the past has been a quasi-religious experience for me in that it causes joy and wonder as I consider such healings almost a type of miracle due to the advance of science over time. 

However, I see this science – faith interaction as a physician, and my sight is limited here.  A mathematician might see this interaction differently or not at all.  A physicist might see this interaction differently or not at all.  I surmise that most of us see the interaction of faith and science in a panoply of ways.  These vast differences are good and make up the human experience.

Image from Scientific American

Third, the harmonization of science and faith indeed “should not receive the stamp of society.”  I may be religious, but I am most happy when religion is kept out of government.  I do not want and do not need any government at any level telling me what I should believe from a religious standpoint even if such a government might agree with how I perceive the relationship between faith and science.   The current populist push in my country (the United States) by many people to add a religious agenda into our national educational curriculum is bad for science as it seems to push weird anti-science agendas, such as the anti-vaccine movement and anti-evolution beliefs.  This populist push also is incredibly bad for religion, including Christianity.  Populist forms of religion risk being superficial and miss the greater spiritual aspect of God’s presence which can be seen by observing the world which includes using science. 

I am going to have to agree with all of Maxwell’s quote here.

Image from The Scientist

Our seminary (Northwind Theological Seminary) had its recent book club for its graduates interested in process theology / open & relational theology. We discussed Dr. Andrew Davis’s recent article in Zygon, titled “Extraterrestrial Metaphysics in Process Perspective: Implications of Our Anthropocosmic Nature.” The article is open access, and the link is here.

The article is quite long (26 pages!). However, it is filled with superb writing about how to consider our human theology in the setting of the potential for life on other planets.

Personally, I do not believe that extraterrestrial life ever has or ever will visit our little planet. It is too small and insignificant, and distances in space are beyond extreme.

Hole in Cloud 9 Comics

Consider the following: If the universe is 93 billion light years across* (at least in the observable universe) and if the universe contains up to 200 billion galaxies, one would think that life is statistically possible throughout space.

*one light second = 186,282 miles = 299,792 kilometers

I would like to point out some of the salient parts from Davis’s article.

Quote: “My philosophical launching point will be the robust, albeit neglected, tradition of process metaphysics, which has largely been ignored in recent philosophical and theological discourse concerning other worlds and extraterrestrial life. As I aim to demonstrate, this neglect is unfortunate and unwarranted. Process philosophy and theology are robust traditions of cosmic reflection that have always been implicitly open to all manner of extraterrestrial life and intelligence.”

Yes, this idea is true. Process theology finds God existing in change, in real time, and in the idea that God desires creativity. Our massive universe is full of change. It also changes in real time (with the possible exception of what might occur in special relativity). If one believes that God is love and this God, thus, desires creativity, then it makes sense that in an immense universe with innumerable particles, life has had eruptions throughout the history of our universe even if we will never observe it. Open & relational theology (a branch of process theology which emphasizes God’s love) would state that this Divine love presents as a lure for creativity. It is not a deterministic theological mechanism.

Galaxies, from the American Astronomical Society

Quote: “…human existence and experience is an exemplification rather than an exception to the nature and character of the universe and what it is ultimately doing.”

It took me a while to work through this statement. By “exemplification”, Davis means “a typical example.” The human experience is filled with times of creativity, times of loss, times of love, times of birth, and times of death. In the end, humanity is changing. We are an example of the universe of persistent change and just perhaps a search for novelty in real time. I think exemplification can be extended towards the very small (bacteria, viruses, molecules) and the very large (planets, suns, galaxies) which all provide perspective about the universe’s nature. This aspect of the universe seems beautiful.

Quote: “Extraterrestrial metaphysics pushes still deeper, however. Beneath the multitude of real conditions that make life possible on any particular planetary habitat, is the pure possibility of life itself which belongs inexorably to the nature of things.”

Davis’s statements seem to describe the creativity of nature as beautiful, especially when considering life’s emergence. If one proposes that the unfolding of life from non-life is the sole or perhaps one of many goals of the universe (as desired by God’s lure for creativity), then life will and must happen throughout our universe. This idea can be extended to life having occurred many times in the universe’s past as well as life occurring many times in its future. Just like a flower blooming from a seed, this potential for creativity is a metaphor for a field of seeds planted in early spring. The potential for life has been set. The goal can be reached with the essential aspect of time.

Quote: “Where Whitehead developed a ‘philosophy of organism’ as a ‘atomic theory of actuality’, Teilhard developed a ‘hyper-Physics’ or ‘hyper-Biology’ that is ‘both organic and atomic’ in nature. Both men rejected clear divides between living and nonliving entities, with Whitehead stressing that there is “no absolute gap between ‘living’ and ‘non-living’” organic systems and Teilhard admitting that at atomic depths ‘all differences seem to become tenuous’ so that ‘we can no more fix an absolute zero in time (as was once supposed) for the advent of life’. For both men, it can be said that prior to the emergence of what we recognize as highly evolved ‘living’ organism, there are still-more-fundamental organisms that exhibit active evolution, dynamic response, and purposive internal relations to their environment.”

Indeed, how can we define life? My cat sitting next to me while I type as well as the coffee cup on my desk both contain protons, neutrons, and electrons. When does this array of tiny particles become life? I don’t believe in an Élan vital. I do, however, think that creativity in nature leads to an emergence of life from non-life without a dualist aspect being needed.

If one thinks about it, the emergence of new life from the decomposition of dead matter can be a type of life emergence. Death is a nidus for life to occur.

Image from the book, Soil Fungi Associated with Graves and Latrines: Toward a Forensic Mycology

An interesting thought to consider is that life appears to have limits in its appearance and perhaps abundance. In my book, A Theology of the Microbiome, I discuss the work of Lee Cronin’s lab. He has come up with “Assembly Theory.” Assembly theory proposes that the complex molecules for life necessarily require large structures (or a larger assigned “assembly number”). This complexity is not a guided formation of large structures but rather a random formation. Good resources exploring this idea are here and here.

Subjectively, perhaps randomness of reality in itself is a base structure for the potential for the novel, for the creative, for life’s emergence. Such an idea sounds provocative, but it may not be correct. However, when considering the concept of “lim Δ” which is a theological construct describing a limit (lim) to change (Δ) in God’s creative potential, one can state that creativity abounds even if randomness is limited. The theory of lim Δ proposes that God loves nature so much that God allows nature to freely put limits on creativity. God never forces.

Quote: “For both Whitehead and Teilhard, therefore, it can be said that Life signifies an ultimate principle that is always embodied in a processual ontology. It is this living ontology that constitutes the antecedent conditions of all higher life achieved throughout cosmogenesis. For both men, moreover, this is not insignificant when considering what evolution is ultimately about. We might put it in the following way: where life in a primitive processual form belongs inexorably to the universe as such, there is no meaning to evolution beyond the higher achievement, complexification, and intensification of life. “

Davis proposes that whether evolution is entirely random, limited by natural events outside of its biological control (volcanoes, asteroids, oxygen levels, availability of water, etc.) or has built-in plasticity to repeat itself (as in convergent evolution), life is the ultimate goal of evolution. Life and even more life and even more variety in the forms of life may be the goal of evolution. Such an evolutionary goal would be incredibly hard to prove scientifically, but the idea can be discussed theologically. The idea that randomness of events occurring in real time and in the immenseness of the universe always leading to life is intriguing. From a theistic perspective, perhaps the potential of the random is what God desires.

Example of convergent evolution (wings) from the journal, Ethology

My final thought is that if the universe is infinitely huge beyond the observable limit, yet the number of potential molecular formations are limited, then life would have to occur without exception.

Somewhere far away, deep in the past or deep in the future or even now, another John Pohl would be writing this exact same blog post. Somewhere far away, deep in the past or deep in the future or even now, another “you” is reading what another John Pohl is writing in this exact same blog post.

I think life is out there beyond Earth. We just may never have the opportunity to interact with it due to the immensity of space and time. Perhaps life’s emergence is a goal of the universe and, thus, a goal of God.

I made this image using Gemini Advanced. It is supposed to show the diversity of some of the animal life that has existed on our planet through time.

I have started a Sunday school series at my church based on my work on the intersection of the microbiome and theology that led to the writing of my book, “A Theology of the Microbiome.” I have been asked to do this series for a while, but I have been hesitant as I believe discussing potentially controversial theological issues in Sunday school is an inherent way to make people upset. Questioning God’s omniscience can make people anxious. Stating that one cannot prove God’s existence, or conversely, stating that one cannot prove the non-existence of God make people irritable. Stating that God loves but does not control definitely can make people angry.

In fact, I have often wondered if non-standard theology discussions should occur in the “academy” first before being filtered out to laity. That being said, I don’t even know what the academy is in such a setting. I have often wondered if new concepts in theology are like new concepts in philosophy. They really don’t make much change, but like numerous water molecules hitting a pollen grain, the multitude of converging new ideas in theology makes the system shift a bit. Metaphorically, I would compare such a possibility of change to Brownian motion.

Example of Brownian motion

There are 2 aspects that I noticed that made people uncomfortable while I talked:

First, some people in Sunday school were uncomfortable that Greek philosophy had any influence on Christianity. There were individuals who do not accept this well known fact. Fortunately (or unfortunately), the influence is very much there. Ideas surrounding Aristotle’s unmoved mover (or the idea of God who started all motion) has been seen in Christianity as well as in other religions.

This unmoved mover could be essentially good. Thomas Aquinas describes God as follows: “Aristotle argues in many ways—still, it is absolutely true that there is first something which is essentially being and essentially good, which we call God, as appears from what is shown above , and Aristotle agrees with this. Hence from the first being, essentially such, and good, everything can be called good and a being, inasmuch as it participates in it by way of a certain assimilation which is far removed and defective; as appears from the above.”

God is all good yet separate from our daily reality? Since God is separate yet knows all things, then God has the capacity of “knowing all things made by Him, not only in the universal, but also in the singular” per Aquinas. This is omniscience. This is a description of God who is separate from the world, is good, and knows all things.

Jesus as described in the Gospels is good, but he is in the muck of the world. He also is not strictly omniscient. Think about Jesus in Luke 7 (“When Jesus heard this, he was amazed at him, and turning to the crowd following him, he said, ‘I tell you, I have not found such great faith even in Israel.'”

Thus, is God necessarily omniscient? Genesis 3 also would point to an alternative hypothesis with God saying, “Where are you?” to Adam and saying, “Who told you that you were naked?” to Eve. These are not omniscient statement.

My supplication here is that humans necessarily bring in all sorts of philosophical and theological ideas when thinking about the Divine. We bring in individual, familial, societal, historical, and cultural influences unknowingly. We can say that Western Christianity has no Greek philosophical influence (or better yet — no “pagan” influence — whatever that means), but it is most definitely there. I have previously discussed the idea of statistical modeling and God. As such, perhaps God is the the ultimate in making predictions (the “Uber-statistician“), yet God cannot precisely know the future. God is without equal in predictive capacity but is not omniscient. Such an idea helps in the concept of entities having free will. In a way, it is a helpful way to view theodicy. God cannot necessarily predict what will happen — good, neutral, or evil.

Second, some people in Sunday school did not like my idea that while God is all loving, God also desires nature to have freedom. God softly lures for creativity; nature can freely put limits on this call for creativity. Nature can freely put limits on creativity because God desires nature to have freedom…even if that means that nature puts limits on its capacity for freedom. Gravity is an example. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is an example. Evolution is an example. Death is an example.

The pushback that I received is that my idea seems to suggest that God cannot prevent the horrible things that happen in the world.

That is correct. I hypothesize that God cannot prevent the horrible things that happen in our lives and in the world.

God loves all nature and all reality and lures for creativity, for novelty, and for the love of others. Nature (including every human) can accept this lure at every moment in time especially since God is in time in a prehensive capacity. God is not in some far away place, all knowing, all powerful, and all deciding. It is our choice and nature’s choice to follow the lure for creativity. I can describe human choice. I cannot make a great definition about nature’s choice for creativity, but it is there based on nature’s constraints in chemistry, biology, physics, etc. Regardless, God who lures for love / creativity (but who can be unfortunately ignored), seems to make a bit more sense when considering the concept of evil and sadness in the world.

I think humans want God is be totally in control of their lives. From a theodicy perspective, such an idea seems difficult. God is in control of a child’s death? God is in control of a tsunami that kills thousands of people? Such tragedies do not sound to me like a God of love or creativity.

In other words, people want certainty when it comes to God’s existence when examining meaning in their life. We can have faith of God being with us (I certainly do), but we cannot prove any statements about God. God is not amenable to a science experiment.

I have the same issue.

I am certain in my belief of God’s uncertainness.

Image created by Gemini Advanced

*One can’t deduce No God either.

I enjoy reading Theology and Science which is a quarterly peer-reviewed journal with writings that evaluate the intersection of theology and science.

The most recent issue of TAS had an intriguing article titled “On the Methodology of Science and the Current Crisis of Religious Belief” by Andrew Ter Ern Loke at Hong Kong Baptist University. Dr. Loke has a distinguished career writing about logic and theology. As an example example, he has written much on the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

Dr. Loke’s abstract for this most recent article states the following:

“The current crisis of religious belief is plausibly correlated with widespread scientific education and a related agnostic way of thinking. I show how this crisis can in principle be addressed, by first asking what are the methodological requirements of the scientific constructive agnostic process (SCAP) itself. I demonstrate that these requirements include deductive reasoning and phenomenological experience, and they can in principle be used to formulate a cosmological argument for the existence of God.”

Let me first say that I don’t think that the decline in religiosity worldwide is specifically correlated with scientific education. I believe there are many other causes including the intermixing of cultures (which is a good thing), politics, social media, and the failure of large religious structures to reflect the religious ideals of their founders such as Jesus, Mohammed, and the Buddha.

Additionally, there are numerous professional societies working to improve the interaction of faith and science not just with scientists and religious leader but with the public as well. The American Scientific Affiliation, the Canadian Scientific and Christian Affiliation, BioLogos, the International Society for Science & Religion, the Center for Open & Relational Theology, and the Institute on Religion in an Age of Science are just a few of such organizations.

It is not even clear if religion is on a continuing decline in younger generations (although, I admit, the data are not clear).

Let me proceed as to how I look at the intersection of science and religion from a surface level perspective. In other words, can I learn about God from science?

Well, we can certainly learn about the world scientifically using induction. I think of induction as a way of studying the world by observing it. Astronomy and paleontology have inductive, sound techniques as fields of study.

image from Frontiers

From a religious perspective, I can see something and decide if it reflects God’s nature or God’s personality (or not). I can look at a Hubble deep field image and perhaps have such a feeling.

image from NASA

I can look at complex cristae in mitochondria and perhaps have that same feeling.

image from BMC Biology

Of course, these are just my feelings. Perhaps my feelings constitute a draw towards the Holy Spirit. In the end, they are just feelings.

An atheist or someone from another religion might look at these images and have completely different feelings. In fact, I would hope that they would have different feelings. The spectrum of subjectivity in thought is the beauty of the human species.

Deduction is a bit different. From a logic perspective, one can consider deduction as a way to move from a general theory to a specific conclusion with the caveat that the initial premises are true. Here is a classic example of deductive logic:

Premise 1 (General): All men are mortal.

Premise 2 (Specific): Socrates is a man.

Conclusion (Specific): Therefore, Socrates is mortal. 

A comprehensive review of deductive logic is here.

The following is Loke’s deductive logic argument proving that God exists. See what you think. His argument is rather long.

_______________

1. There exists a series of causes-and-effects and changes (“changes” are understood to be equivalent to events, such as the event of the Big Bang).
2. The series either has an infinite regress that avoids a First Cause and a first change, or the series has a finite regress and its members are either joined together like a closed loop that avoids a First Cause and a first change, or its members are not so joined together and the series has a First Cause and a first change.
3. It is not the case that the series has an infinite regress.
4. It is not the case that its members are joined together like a closed loop.
5. Therefore, the series has a First Cause and a first change. (From 1 to 4).
6. Since the First Cause is the first, it is uncaused.
7. Since whatever begins to exist has a cause (Causal Principle), the First Cause is beginningless.
8. Since every change is an event which has a beginning as something/part of a thing gains or loses a property, and since the first change (=first event) does not begin uncaused (given the Causal Principle), the first change (=first event) is caused by a beginningless First Cause which is initially changeless. (From 5 and 7; here, “initial” refers to the first in the series of states ordered causally, not first in the series of changes/events nor first in a temporal series).
9. In order to cause the first event (regardless of whether it is the Big Bang or whatever else) from an initially changeless state, the First Cause must have:
   • 9.1. The capacity to be the originator of the event in a way that is un-determined by prior event, since the First Cause is the first.
   • 9.2. The capacity to prevent itself from changing, for otherwise the First Cause would not have been initially changeless and existing beginninglessly without the event/change.
   • 9.1 and 9.2 imply that the First Cause has libertarian freedom.
10. A First Cause of the universe that is uncaused, beginningless, initially changeless and has libertarian freedom is a Creator of the Universe.
11. Therefore, a Creator of the universe exists.

___________

I find this logic perplexing. Granted, Loke spent time working on this idea, but I worry about 3 aspects.

First, Loke states that it is “not the case that the series has an infinite regress” when discussing the creation of everything, presumably starting with the Big Bang. I don’t think we have any evidence that the Big Bang was the beginning of everything. We do have excellent proof that it is the beginning of our own universe. However, Loke’s proposal does not consider such ideas as the multiverse, Everettian mechanics (the many-worlds hypothesis), or cylic cosmology. These theoretical yet scientific theories (and perhaps philosophical theories) suggest an eternal aspect to the universe(s) / universe making. You don’t necessarily need God or even anything at all for our universe to have had a Big Bang (see L. Krauss’s book A Universe from Nothing). On the other hand, you can consider either God or no God making something out of nothing (Creatio ex nihilo). You can consider God or no God when considering any of the ideas of potential eternalism involving our universe (Creatio continua). Process theology and Open & Relational Theology exist quite well in a framework of eternalism.

image from Nature

Second, Loke states that the “the First Cause has libertarian freedom.” I assume he means such wording in a free will versus determinism aspect If this First Cause is God. How do we know that God has absolute libertarian freedom? How do we know that God even desires absolute libertarian freedom? I have posted many times about process theology, open & relational theology, and my own theological concept of the lim Δ which indicates that God freely loves, yet God also may allow nature to place limits on what casually happens. Thus, God could indeed have libertarian freedom inherent to God, but nature seems to not have a similar type freedom based on what we see from the inductive and deductive sciences. The Second Law of Thermodynamics, Newtonian Laws (not quantum mechanics…so far), and the tendency for H. sapiens to be terrible with each other does not suggest libertarian freedom emanating from the Divine extends to nature.

Third (and later on in the article), Loke states the following:

“The reason why we should believe that dead people usually stay dead should be obvious: even though often people get things wrong, make mistakes, exaggerate, and even lie, nevertheless it is improbable under certain conditions that multiple groups of people falsely testified that those dead people stayed dead. In other words, even though often people get things wrong, etc., there are nevertheless conditions under which it is improbable that they testified falsely.”

I am a Christian, and I do believe in the resurrection of Christ.

However, I see two issues with Loke’s argument here. Many people often see things that probably are not occurring. Consider the Fatima miracle. Perhaps it happened. I don’t know. I would think that a dancing sun would have caused graviational tidal changes that would have ripped our planet apart. Additionally, there has been good evidence showing that the social circumstances at the time may have influenced what people saw in regard to this specific miracle. Another example is to consider how witness statements in legal proceedings can be problematic.

Also, how would we know that numerous witnesses were telling the truth versus an exaggerated claim based on minimal historical evidence? Large groups of people can make things up when they are in great need.

I’m not sure what to say here. I guess my conclusions would be that 1) I don’t think science is destroying religious beliefs; 2) one can’t prove or disprove God using induction; 3) one can’t prove or disprove God using deduction when what we know about the universe is still likely primitive; and 4) it is impossible to determine what people were actually thinking when they saw Christ resurrected based on very limited sources (i.e. 1 Corinthians).

The presence of God. The absence of God. We can’t prove it either way. We can’t do experiments either way. It takes a faith statment either way which is another wonderful perpective of humanity.

By the way, here is a great video in which physicists discuss causality. It is helpful.

This week, I came across a Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) series about recipients of the Lasker-Koshland Special Achievement Award in Medical Science. My understanding is that this award in medicine often (not always) is a precursor to getting a Nobel Prize.

One of the recipients was Lucy Shapiro PhD. In the issue of JAMA, she wrote an essay about her research. I get JAMA delivered to me weekly, so I read the article in its entirety. Most but not all of this specific article can be found online without a subscription here.

Dr. Shapiro has done amazing work. A great review of her work (written by her) can be found via open access at a link in the Annual Review of Genetics. One of her most important works was published in Science in 2000. Her research showed that in a bacterial species (Caulobacter crescentus) often used as a model for binary fission (or cell replication), activation of genes occurred in a temporal manner similar to a “hardwired circuit.” In other words, these bacteria always had a large number of genes that always worked in the same way to get bacteria to divide. In the case of C. crescentus, the work of replication used 15% of its genome that always worked the same way with every replication event. Interestingly, a protein called CtrA (or “Cell-cycle transcription regulator A”) was uniquely involved in initiating the genetic cycle.

Image of C. crescentus (from Nature Reviews)

Thus, these same genes (about 500 in total) were used every time in cell replication. The same protein (CtrA) was used every time to activate these same genes.

Image from Molecular Cell

As someone who enjoys writing about process theology and open & relational theology, I can see some subjective narratives about existence here. I might be seeing some the life cycle of C. crescentus as a teleological metaphor of God’s participation in the world.

C. crescentus cell cycle (from Virginia Tech University)

What do I mean? I think there are two aspects to consider.

First, there is the element of time. Process philosophy and its theological cousins consisting of process theology and open & relational theology state that time is an essential part of existence. Per this on-line article written by John Cobb, “God’s efficacy in the world, requires that God be actual, like the actual occasions.  But because God relates to all actual occasions through time, God cannot be momentary as they are.  Instead, God is the one actual entity who is everlasting.” Elsewhere in the article, he writes, “Process thought points to the flow of experience through time.  This can be identified as the psyche or soul, or even as the person.”

In order to accept any ideas surrounding process philosophy / process theology / open & relational theology, one has to accept the absolute importance of time. Time indicates change. Every entity is in time and has the ability to change. God is present in time and aware of this change.

Second, this change may have limits. In my book, A Theology of the Microbiome (SacraSage Press), I state that time and change are ubiquitous throughout nature. However, this change could have limits.

A thought experiment: Let us suppose theologically that God desires novelty or creativity or change throughout time at all levels of nature. Let us also suppose that God’s desire is based on a type of divine love consiting of God wanting change to occur freely at all levels of nature without God’s interference. God desires novelty, but God also desires nature to freely make changes. Nature may change at certain levels of existence at a point in time. Nature may not change at certain levels of existence at a point in time. The continual Divine desire for continuation of change occurs in real time.

In my book, I invent a term that I call “lim Δ” of a limit (lim) to change (Δ). I state the following:

“Importantly, God desiring freedom and creativity for all entities in nature is also associated with nature freely putting limits on potential creativity (lim Δ). All such creativity in nature and the universe can include God’s co-creative aspect while still being naturalistic in character.”

God desires nature to have the capacity to change which includes the freedom to not change.

An electron has mass, charge, and spin that essentially never changes. One could argue that lim Δ is quite strong in the setting of the electron.

In my discussion of Dr. Shapiro’s work above, the genes involved in the replication of Caulobacter crescentus essentially do not change. Also, CtrA always is the driving force of turning on the replicative genes. Of course, these genes will and have changed through time via evolutionary forces, but the change seems to be very slow. Again, one could argue that lim Δ is quite strong in the setting of binary fission in C. crescentus but not as strong as what occurs with the electron’s inherent properties.

When considering God’s desire for change / novelty / creativity, there are a few theolgical questions to ask.

Does lim Δ become less of an effect as entities get larger? I am not so sure. For example, a sun’s “life” cycle is very dependent on the type of sun which is based on the known laws of physics. Galactic rotation seems a pretty universal aspect of galaxies as well based on physical laws.

Does lim Δ exert less of an effect in the setting of biologic molecules or organisms compared to non-organic molecules?

Does lim Δ exert less of an effect in the setting of larger organisms or organisms with more advanced neurological systems? Does a human being has less lim Δ restriction compared to a bacterium or a mouse? Does the Pando tree clone in Utah (the largest living organism on Earth) have less or more lim Δ compared to a human being?

The Pando (image from the U.S. Forest Service)

If life exists elsewhere, does that life have less, more, or an equal amount of lim Δ compared to life on our planet? Does so-called “advanced life” have the same lim Δ as H. sapiens? A potentially good resource to consider such ideas has been published by Dr. Andrew Davis in the journal, Zygon.

Does lim Δ have some association with logic?

I have no current answers, but the work of Dr. Shapiro brings up some fascinating philsophical and theological ideas to consider. Honestly, I think such ideas extrapolated to free will, physical limitations of the universe, and God’s presence in creativity (or lack thereof…) should lead to much more thought and discussion.

Image made by Gemini Advanced

I’ve returned from a 9-day vacation in Europe and am back to blogging.

I have been slowing reading Magisteria: The Entangled History of Science and Religion by Nicholas Spencer. I say “slowly” because it is often hard for me to find time to read for pleasure. This book is surely a pleasure.

Currently, I am in the middle of Chapter 11 (“The Balance”) which begins to explore how the introduction of Darwinian evolution in the 19th century affected Christianity in both negative and positive ways. As readers of my blog may know, I think the whole idea of a war between religion and science is basically nonsense.

We can choose to make war here. We also can choose to use religion and science to support each other — no differently than how human subjectivity and human objectivity support each other.

In Spencer’s chapter, he points out to “Scientific threats became indistinguishable from political or religious ones” in places such as England in the 19th century. It is so odd that we have such problems persisting today. Biblical literalism, the desire (wrongly) to teach creationism in public schools, the anti-vaccine movement — all occur because many people want to put God in a well-defined box. The box of human wants and needs is finite; God is infinite. Dividing the infinity of God with the finitude of humans is objectively (as in mathematics) infinity. It is subjectively showing us that God cannot be contained. The uncontained God works in theological models as diverse as Aristotelianism or in process theology.

image produced by Gemini Advanced

Certainly, such ideas of Divinity should be explored and criticized both philosophically and theologically, but the well of exploration is infinite. Honestly, I think it is fun to explore the infinite whether one is considering the existence of God or no God.

The beginnings of ideas surrounding evolution brought up significant issues regarding the human experience. Is morality an evolutionary by-product? Why is there such much death and biological waste in the world (in contrast to what William Paley believed was nature’s grand design).

But wait… What if 1) God is in / around / throughout nature and what if 2) God desires creation to freely choose good / love / creativity / beauty?

Here is where the objective and subjective meet. Evolution (which includes genetics) is objectively obvious. We should try to determine what evolution subjectively encompasses whether we believe in God or not.

I am a religious person, and I see death fairly regularly as part of my career. I could certainly say that I don’t believe in God, and honestly, it is a valid argument when one sees suffering on our planet.

However, my perception of the objective (the actuality of evolution) combined with my subjectivity (my belief that God is present) leads to many ideas that I have discussed in prior blog posts. Three major concepts here could include:

First concept: God loves us. God loves all of us (quark to quail to quasar) so much that each entity in nature has the ability to create in real time. The quark keeps its charge and mass to maintain creativity. The quasar (really the massive black hole in a galaxy’s center) promotes the evolution of a galaxy to maintain creativity. Humans have this capacity as well. We can be creative in how we treat other humans as well as how we treat the rest of nature. Unfortunately, we also can be destructive. Destruction by our species is definitely not love in both a divine or human sense. Destruction is not creativity.

Quasar illustration (from NASA)

Second concept: God freely gives the entirety of nature the ability to “choose” for creativity or not. Thus, evolution and biological death can make subjective sense if one considers that nature has a “choice” (whatever that means metaphysically) to do otherwise.

Third concept: If God is infinite and we are not, then the sting of death is a consequence of living in a finite, time-dependent state. We cannot do otherwise as we are not infinite entities. We cannot contain God. I am a religious optimist, however. I think God containing infinite love and infinite creativity still provides potential for further creativity for every entity even after death. I don’t know what that creativity would entail. The infinitude of God fully containing love provides me with hope after death.

Image from the Alhambra from my recent trip to Europe (Granada, Spain)

I am going to be out of town for a couple of weeks, so it has been somewhat difficult to put a post together.

However, I did provide the sermon today for Wasatch Presbyterian Church. I am a member there. My sermon was titled “Faith and Love. Faith and Science.”

I have included the sermon below. Here is the link to the church service if an audio version is better for you. https://www.wpcslc.org/worship-from-wasatch?month=10-2025. Just choose “October 2025” worship services, and my sermon has been recorded for October 5, 2025.

I’ll get back to posting on a fairly regular basis when I am back in town.

____________________________________

Lectionary: Gospel of Luke 17:5-10 (The Gospel Reading for Today’s Sermon)

⁵The apostles said to the Lord, “Increase our faith!” ⁶The Lord replied, “If you had faith the size of a mustard seed, you could say to this mulberry tree, ‘Be uprooted and planted in the sea,’ and it would obey you.

⁷“Who among you would say to your slave who has just come in from plowing or tending sheep in the field, ‘Come here at once and take your place at the table’? ⁸Would you not rather say to him, ‘Prepare supper for me, put on your apron and serve me while I eat and drink; later you may eat and drink’? ⁹Do you thank the slave for doing what was commanded? ¹⁰So you also, when you have done all that you were ordered to do, say, ‘We are worthless slaves; we have done only what we ought to have done!'”

Me:  This is the Word of God for the people of God

Everyone:  Thanks be to God.

___________________________________________________________

Sermon: Faith and Science.  Faith and Love

This is a difficult Gospel message to preach.  Verses 5 and 6 in our bulletin seem to make sense both materially and spiritually.  Verses 7 through 10 in our bulletin are confusing in many ways.  Just so you know, Pastor Irene kindly offered to have me give a sermon on some part of the Gospels outside of the lectionary.  I refused (hence we are reading the Gospel reading in the bulletin) which was probably not my smartest move.  So, all complaints should go to her!

Let’s begin.  Many have looked at Verses 7 through 10 to suggest that God owes us nothing.  These verses have been interpreted (by some) to suggest that 1) we should not be prideful (I agree), 2) we should serve others without hesitation and without expectation of benefit (I also agree), and 3) God owes us nothing (hmmm…this is difficult).  By saying, “God owes us nothing”, such wording can be interpreted that God is the great King for which we are mere peasants who are sowing the field and providing our harvest to the king with no expectation of any thanks.  We give our material needs to this king while also awaiting for some type of benefit if things go awry.  Unfortunately, this benefit is never secured.  For example, if a local kingdom invades your farm, you HOPE that the king will be there to protect you from your enemies, your illnesses, your tragedies, and even your potential death.  I don’t accept that interpretation of God, and I don’t think Jesus necessarily meant this common interpretation either.

Tintagel Castle, England

Brothers and sisters in Christ at Wasatch Presbyterian Church, let’s consider how to think about today’s Gospel in the setting of modernity, especially in the setting of modern science.  Many of you know that I am an academic pediatric gastroenterologist working at the University of Utah.  My primary location of practice is at Primary Children’s Hospital.  By “academic”, I mean that my job involves 1) patient care at a high-tech children’s hospital, 2) teaching of medical students and residents, and 3) research. 

Research – what does that mean?  By “research”, I mean “medical research” and by “medical research”, I mean using “science.”  And what is science?  Science, in my opinion, requires just looking at the world to learn and to improve the human experience.  One can do this by watching nature (paleontology, astronomy) or setting up experiments (biology, chemistry) or both (meteorology, medicine). Alfred North Whitehead (one of my favorite philosophers) in his book, “Process and Reality” has described science as follows:  “Science has shown a curious mixture of rationalism and irrationalism. Its prevalent tone of thought has been ardently rationalistic within its own borders, and dogmatically irrational beyond those borders.”

Science can be rational.  Think of the thousands of science journals produced monthly that produce research containing a huge amount of information.  Biology, chemistry, physics, geology, mathematics, medicine (I could go on and on) all coming out with information about our species and about the world we exist in.  This is rational – the best rationality humans can acquire.

Image from AAMC

But what is irrational and “beyond the borders” (per Whitehead)?  This is where verses 5 and 6 come in.  Look at those verses again in our bulletin.  As a Christian, do we really believe a literal reading of this passage as saying, “Look!  I have so much faith that I can make a mulberry tree leap out of the earth and go running into the sea!”  But we don’t see that happening, do we?  We don’t see trees running into the ocean.  We don’t see mountains being thrown into the sea (as Jesus states in Matthew 21). 

We do see clearly what King David reportedly states in Psalm 8:

When I consider your heavens,

    the work of your fingers,

the moon and the stars,

    which you have set in place,

what is mankind that you are mindful of them,

    human beings that you care for them?

What is David “considering”?  I think David is amazed that he is present in a world that is large, mysterious, and glorious.  I think he also is pointing to the potential of today’s science.  We are “considering” the world around us (which is science) and are understanding that God wants us to do good science (which is God is “mindful” of us and “cares” for us).

I realize many of you are not working in science-related fields, but I strongly believe that you can participate in the glory of God’s creation even here today.

David looked at the world and was amazed.  He was observing all that was wonderful and still is wonderful.  He is looking at the world in a manner similar to science.  As an example, if you ever hear the word “induction” in science, for example, it means studying or learning or being amazed by the world just by looking around.

You can look at the world and be amazed at what God has given us.  Since you should be amazed by what God has given us, it is good to 1) share your amazement and 2) share the tools of amazement.

Image from Logos Biblia

As a physician caring for very ill children at Primary Children’s Hospital, I see real world consequences here.

For example, you see God’s glory in childhood vaccinations.  Children are living longer than ever mainly due to vaccinations and clean water.  You can vaccinate your child or educate people who do not understand vaccinations.  As a result, you can see God’s glory and love while living on a wonderfully unique planet that is constantly rediscovered by science.  You can help keep our little planet beautiful for now and for always by recycling, preserving water within reason (especially in Utah), and understanding the dangers of global warming or global pandemics.  You can help educate people who do not understand the uniqueness of life on our planet.

In other words, as Christians, we should combat misinformation.  This combat should be done gently and with love.  We should be like the Good Samaritan here.  We should bind the wounds of misinformation with love to prevent confusion in the setting of misinformation about science.

For example, measles kills 1-3 of every 1000 children who are infected and not vaccinated.  Measles causes life-altering permanent neurologic disease in 1 in 1,000 children who are infected and not vaccinated (I have seen this). 25% of children who are malnourished and are infected with measles will die. 

Just think of the miracle God has given us with science.  God gave us brains.  Brains gave us science.  Science gave us the miracle of vaccinations for children.  Vaccinations are truly a gift from God.  And science, done well, is a gift from God or par in my opinion with the parting of the Red Sea or Jesus’s sharing of the loaves and fishes.  And we know God loves children for as Christ said in Matthew, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”

Now to the rest of the reading.  Look at Verses 7-10 in our bulletin.  They seem difficult, don’t they?  I don’t necessarily like how Jesus is talking here which means that I was theologically perplexed at first reading.  I spent some time looking at commentaries regarding these verses.  Let’s talk about 4 interpretations.

First idea: Perhaps this reading is an example of the hypostatic union.  That is a weird term, but basically “hypostatic union” means that Jesus is 100% God and 100% man which is a math equation that would very much irritate my 7th grade math teacher, Mr. Aiken, who was quite precise.  I’m sorry Mr. Aiken. I am sure I am still driving you crazy 45 years later.

Here, just perhaps, Jesus is showing his human side just like when he became irritated and cursed the fig tree.  If you look at the verses just before in Chapter 17 from our reading today, Jesus is being bugged by his disciples about how to increase their faith.  He is perhaps simply irritated and would like them to think more deeply about God’s love.

Second idea: Perhaps these verses are an allusion to faith.  Verse 10 states that the slaves say, “we are unworthy servants; we have only done our duty.”  In other words, we can do only what we can do.  This is perhaps a metaphor of God’s grace?  The slaves have done everything they know how to do.  They do not, cannot, have no clue how to…do more.  But God doesn’t need to thank them.  For “God to thank us” suggests that God wants the slaves (really, we humans) to do more and more and more and more forever and ever.  We hear this theology in many places in our state.  Honestly, we often hear such poor theology in our country.   You and I cannot do enough to match the workings of God who made our universe and perhaps even made a multiverse.  God loves us anyway.  God forgives us regardless.  God love us always. This is grace. 

Third idea: In the parable, the slave still gets food and drink.  It is hard to imagine this story being told by Jesus in the setting of the United States at the present time.  When Jesus walked the Earth, imperial Rome was ever present in Judaea.  There were no courts as in the United States today.  There were no well-trained objective judges.  There typically was no justice.

In the Palgrave Handbook of Global Slavery Throughout History by Damian Pargas and Juliane Schiel, Roman slavery was described as follows:

 “This problem was omnipresent, for even if some of the enslaved persons…were at times able to escape their fetters and sometimes to benefit from the training or status imparted to them while enslaved, there was never a slave in the Roman Empire who did not experience slavery as a relationship of violent domination, natal alienation, and general dishonor.”

Hard stuff to hear.  I think Jesus is chiding his disciples as to how they would act if they were slave owners themselves!  Humans are always corrupted by power.  The French philosopher, Michel Foucault comments in his book, The Order of Things, “The analysis of wealth is to political economy what general grammar is to philosophy and what natural history is to biology.”

In other words, wealth is the most important aspect of economics.  Wealth is power.  Power is what drives our human world.  Jesus is telling his disciples something to the effect of “If you had power, you would abuse it.  You are of this world.”  And honestly, Jesus shows them how God’s power is used best by simply healing 10 men with leprosy (some of the lowest in society) in the following verses of this chapter. 

Villa Romana del Casale mosaic, Sicily (University of Kent)

This is Christ’s power.  Not buying big houses or fast cars to impress others.  Not running for president with millions in donor money.  Not messing around in conspiracy theories.  Not killing others who disagree with you.  Christ’s healing is available for all of us even when we feel the constant desire to obtain power.  This is Christ’s grace.  This is Christ’s love.

I would like to add a fourth idea here.  I got my Doctorate of Theology and Ministry degree to expand my learning after Susan and I became empty nesters.  I got this degree in order to not bug my wife all day.  I also got this degree to help in a bigger mission already occurring with many others to get rid of the term “war between religion and science.”  This term is not true.

My specific training was in the theological field of process theology and its more Christian oriented theology called “open and relational theology” which has 4 foundational ideas.

1. God is in real time.
2. All reality, all nature, all the universe is in God.
3. Everything experiences from quark to quail to galactic quasar (and yes, humans).  We all experience and, thus, God experiences what we experience.
4. God is love.

Image from the book, “Panentheism and Panpsychism“

In the setting of these verses from Luke, I would like to theorize that Jesus is challenging his followers by using the slavery term to expand on the word “ought.”  Again, Jesus is using slavery as an idea in the setting of first-century Judaea.  It is hard to relate to this type of society today.

But what if “ought” means aligning with God’s love?  If we align with God’s love, we automatically create love or creativity or beauty in the setting of real time, in all reality, and in all reality in God. Can you imagine how wonderful our societies, our civilization, our planet, and all of nature would be if we tried so very hard to align with God’s love?  It is our choice – given freely.

Fellow Christians at Wasatch Presbyterian Church, I ask you to look at your daily Chrisitian walk.  Are you peddling in pseudoscience or extreme politics or hostility of the other (and I mean every “other”) which removes you from not aligning with God’s love and creativity as exemplified by Christ Jesus?  By the way, my using the word “you” also implies “me, John Pohl.”  Our goal to have Christ in our life is the love of truth, love of others, and love of God.  Our goal to have Christ in our life is to bring forth ever more love and creativity as we walk on this planet.

We should yearn daily to place our faith in producing love and creativity as both individual Christians and as a church in Christ Jesus.  Amen.

Image created by Gemini Advanced

Lately, I have been reading through the book, Magisteria, by Nicholas Spencer. It is quite long (467 pages with the index), but it is easy to read and loaded with excellent information. The book is about the history of the interaction between science and religion through human history. It literally covers almost every aspect of this entanglement — the good, the bad, the neutral. I highly recommend reading it.

I could say so many things about this book, but I am going to concentrate on a major theme in the first half of the book…”physico-theology.”

What does this term mean? Per Spencer, it means an extension or modification of “natural theology.” Natural theology, per the author means “…to understand and define the divine through observing, and reasoning about, nature.” Spencer points out that one does not have to be Christian to have participated in natural theology.

One can look at Plato’s Timaeus to see such an example:

“In the first place, then, as is evident to all, fire and earth and water and air are bodies. And every sort of body possesses solidity, and every solid must necessarily be contained in planes; and every plane rectilinear figure is composed of triangles; and all triangles are originally of two kinds, both of which are made up of one right and two acute angles; one of them has at either end of the base the half of a divided right angle, having equal sides, while in the other the right angle is divided into unequal parts, having unequal sides. These, then, proceeding by a combination of probability with demonstration, we assume to be the original elements of fire and the other bodies; but the principles which are prior to these God only knows, and he of men who is the friend of God. And next we have to determine what are the four most beautiful bodies which are unlike one another, and of which some are capable of resolution into one another; for having discovered thus much, we shall know the true origin of earth and fire and of the proportionate and intermediate elements.”

Plato’s extended quotation above shows elements of observation and reasoning. It is an example of “induction.” Is it science? Not really. It might be considered “proto-science” as science likely evolved from such thinking.

statue of Plato

Spencer then states that natural theology evolved into “physico-theology.” Physico-theology basically can be defined as 1) learning about the world in order to 2) glorify or worship God even more. He states that Galileo’s use of telescopes to see the stars and planets would be an example. Marcello Malpighi who worked on blood circulation and discovered capillaries would be another example. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek who used the microscope to discover microscopic life would be another example.

Antonie van Leeuwenhoek’s drawings of mouth bacteria (1684)

Spencer states, “And they did give glory to God, scientists and divines alike, volubly and frequently, in innumerable sermons and books published over the next century…“

His above statement is a wonderful outcome of physico-theology.

Wow. Such ideas sound so differently from how many aspects of religion (and not just Christianity) look at current science through a religious lens.

In my faith stream, it seems that some of the loudest voices who claim to be Christian are also anti-science. Such people often believe in problematic ideas such as young Earth creationism, anti-vaccine conspiracy theories, or refusal of medical care on fundamentalist religious grounds. There has always been an element of human society that has been scared of science or technological advancements, but I think social media is making scared feelings become conspiratorial beliefs that are getting embedded in modern society.

I feel quite sad when I see people pushing for specific religious texts to be taught in U.S. public schools or removing the teaching of evolution in public schools or expanding vaccine exemptions for unscientific (and in my mind, immoral) reasons. I say this as a Christian.

As an example, we have had recent measles outbreaks in Utah, where I live. I think that people forget that measles kills 1-3 of every 1000 children who are infected and not vaccinated.  Measles causes life-altering permanent neurologic disease in 1 in 1,000 children who are infected and not vaccinated. The neurologic consequences can be horrific. 25% of children who are malnourished and are infected with measles will die. 

Brain imaging of subacute sclerosing panencephalitis which is an awful consequence of measles infection.

It seems to me that refusal to accept the reality of the success of vaccinations through two centuries as well as other successes is science is anti-Christian if one believes the teachings of Jesus. As Jesus teaches in the Gospel of Mark: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”

What to do?

I have no real solutions, but I will provide some potential pathways.

First, scientists, engineers, physicians, etc. need to do a better job of reaching out to the public about how science, done well, is associated with human benefit. By “done well”, I mean that science needs to be done ethically. Humans often fail at this endeavor (for example, the invention of nuclear weapons), but we always have the opportunity to fix the mistakes we make (the development of nuclear energy) or to push scientific fields such as physics into more helpful directions (the discovery of the standard model). We should continually try to keep science ethical as we try very much to do in medicine (see the Helsinki Declaration). If science experts don’t speak out, then non-science experts who could be conspiracy minded will take the experts’ place in the public forum. We are seeing this issue quite a bit in the United States currently.

the Standard Model

Second, religious leaders and theologians need to do a better job about reaching out to the public about how science done ethically (and yes morally) will typically benefit the public. I want to emphasize the word “ethically” because our churches, temples, mosques, and synagogues should always emphasize ethics in the setting of our understanding of the Divine. The God that I worship is a God of love who desires for us to make good decisions to help other humans as well as the rest of our planet. There should be no anti-science conspiracy settings in our religious lives. One of the best articles that I have ever read about this issue is here.

Third and as I have discussed before in my blog, we need to appreciate the objectivity and subjectivity of the human experience. Both human objectivity and subjectivity influence each other. The influence can be terrible, but the influence (done well) can be magnificent. Bad science (fraud, plagiarism, faking results) is not good ethics. Bad ethics (making scientific “results” fit one’s personal conspiracy theory, ignoring valid scientific results) is not good science.

Good science with good ethics should be the goal. God, who loves us very much, wants us to achieve this goal. It is our choice to do better.

Image made by Gemini Advanced