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

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