I have been thinking about my post from last week and wondered if it might be fun to expand on my thoughts.

Do “aliens” exist? If we have an infinitely sized universe with a limited number of molecular structure possibilities, then the answer is “yes.”

If we have a very, very big universe (current estimate of the diameter of the observable universe is 93 billion light years across) with a limited number of molecular structure possibilities, then the answer is “probably but still could be no.”

If we are talking about space aliens landing on our planet, then “absolutely not.” The stories of sightings / encounters often seem silly or full of potential error. Plus, the number of “alien crashes” on our planet makes it seem that these visitors need to overhaul their Federal Aviation Administration. You mean then travel across our galaxy but then crash in the last few miles? Check their blood alcohol level please.

So, aliens: Maybe in other solar systems and other galaxies. Locally: No.

In the same way, the idea of “God of the gaps” makes no sense locally on our planet. My last post went over why this idea has failed in its interpretation of bacterial flagella or the human eye. I don’t think “God of the gaps” will ever make sense when we have simple human observation combined with curiosity to search further in all realms of science. “God of the gaps” is not science. Perhaps it is a type of theology or poorly-worded philosophy. In the United States, “God of the gaps” seems to mainly align with fundamentalist Christian ideas.

What about situations that are a larger part of our reality such as the formation of our universe / our galaxy / our sun, evolution, natural / moral evil (theodicy), our birth, and our death?

Image from the Webb telescope

From my last post, I proposed in a way to perceive ultimate causes of reality as a type of mathematic subjective thought experiment. I admit it is haphazard and needs refinement which I am working on.

Per my last post:

“A difficult area of evolution to explain, determining what exists behind the cosmic microwave background, the weather, and the singular events or joy or sorrow in life could be explained via the ‘God of the gaps’ as simply ‘God did it.’ Using these examples above, simply saying that one explanation is that God just did it (with no further questioning) implies that ‘God’ as a cause is just as equal to a natural phenomenon of which there are hundreds or thousands of potential causes. Even ‘no God’ could be considered an equally valid cause as ‘God did it.’ I would be consistent and insist on observational or experimental data instead of just saying ‘no God’ or ‘God did it.’ Regardless, the denominator gets quite large; the numerator of God as the sole cause becomes very, very small. ‘Intelligent design’ is not science, and ‘God of the gaps’ is terrible theology.”

I then provided this subjective equation:

However, if I think about the bigger issues, the denominator simply becomes the number “2” when thinking about ultimate metaphysical questions. Let me explain. What is the ultimate cause of all reality? Answer: It is God or it is not God. What is the cause of the universe whether we live in a singular universe or are a pocket universe in a multiverse? It is God or it is not God. What is the ultimate cause of evolution? It is God or it is not God. What is the ultimate reason for theodicy? It is God or it is not God. I have coined this term as the “No-God God” or the “NGG.”

The NGG question will never be answered scientifically as there is always a level of human subjectivity and experience involved in the answer. The NGG question can never be conclusively answered via philosophy or theology as science will always bring forth new data as long as our species exists.

The NGG never allows science, philosophy, or theology to ultimately lean either way in a final answer. The NGG can irritate the fundamentalist religious person or the outspoken atheist. The fact that the NGG could get under their skin seems to prove the point that certain metaphysical ideas are infinite in possibility.

Here is my metaphor: Imagine a sphere with an infinite volume and, hence, an infinite circumference and infinite radius. “Science” or “objectivity” can study the area of the sphere but cannot discover all of the area and will discover none of the radius. “Theology“, “Philosophy“, “the Arts“, or “subjectivity” can study the radius of the sphere but cannot discover the entire radius and will discover none of the area. Perhaps objectivity and subjectivity, working together through time, can help humans explore a bit more of ultimate reality compared to just using one way of thinking.

When we divide by “2” in this setting, we can subjectively think of “God” or “No God” as a more likely cause. Our subjective metaphysical thoughts here are based on objectivity for which science provides a first-rate way to gain objective knowledge. The tangle and change occurring with these ideas could suggest types of “weighted means” as seen in statistics. See here and here for information. We can stick to our guns about a belief in God or No God throughout our lifetime or our ideas about God or No God can change over time. Changing ideas about the ultimate cause of reality is a very important part of the human species.

I am currently working on a project to discuss potential considerations of the NGG. In other words, are there parts of reality intermixed with the human experience in which God existing or God not existing still comes together as a “source” of all existence? Is the NGG able to be determined subjectively and objectively as valid hypotheses? Some ideas could include:

1. Dark energy
2. An infinite multiverse
3. The second law of thermodynamics
4. Cyclic cosmology
5. Evolution at all levels of reality (molecular assembly number, biological evolution, star formation, memes / societies / religion)
6. Nothing (no God — simply nothing): See ideas of Lawrence Krauss.
7. Platonic forms (defined broadly)
8. Pantheism (God is the universe itself). See the autodidactic universe by Smolin.
9. Determinism is its purest form (Everettian quantum mechanics, the Many Worlds Interpretation, a deterministic God, Deism)
10. Free will or freedom of creativity in its purest form (libertarianism, perhaps the Copenhagen interpretation)
11. A little bit of both determinism and free will (compatibilism or limits to divine will imposed by nature — lim Δ). My recent book has quite a bit of information about lim Δ in biological systems, mainly in the setting of the human microbiome.

The list can go on for a while. I think the NGG idea has a rich vein of potential exploration. The final product in book form of the NGG will take a long time for me to write, especially since I am a full-time working academic physician who was lucky enough to get a theology degree. I can see the final product, but I am constrained by the ultimate reality of time, health, and age.

image generated by Gemini Advanced

Recently, I listened to a podcast (“Robinson’s Podcast”) in which the host, Robinson Erhardt interviewed a professor of astronomy at Columbia University named Dr. David Kipping about the possibility of life in the universe. Here is the link: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/252-david-kipping-alien-civilizations-megastructures/id1636469402?i=1000712000588

It’s a good listen. Early on, they discuss natural phenomena that are often described as being due to aliens….when in fact they are natural or likely natural. Weird sky sightings, objects in space, etc. often end up being found to have a non-“alien”, natural cause. Sometimes the cause of unusual observations cannot be determined immediately, but they have the capacity to be tested later. So far, we are finding natural causes or probable natural causes to unusual events in the sky when it is easier to not think about it and just say “Aliens did it!”. Natural causes are probably batting around 0.900 (as not all phenomena can be explained…yet) while alien causes are batting a dreadful 0.000. Send aliens to the minors!

In my opinion, this problem gets worse when folks look at the human-built wonders of our ancient civilizations and believe that aliens from outer space assisted in their construction. I’ve never understood how such people cannot comprehend the plasticity of the human brain when it comes to creativity. Also, there is a risk of sounding a bit racist when stating that it would be impossible for a non-white race to build massive structures. See here and here for good resources.

The Ohio Serpent Mound built by ancient Native Americans — not Greeks, Romans, giants, or aliens.

So, it is terrible heuristics to see an unexplained natural phenomena and immediately think “Aliens.” Or always think “Aliens.”

The same goes when defining God in nature, specifically when using the faulty theology of “God of the Gaps.” Some people use this term to also mean the pseudo-science term of “Intelligent Design.” If you can’t figure out a natural process, then “God did it” and “Case is closed.” How utterly ridiculous.

Can you imagine if we stopped all scientific investigation at points where a major leap in natural understanding, science, or engineering was needed? There would be no need to pursue fields of evolutionary biology, genetics, astronomy, physics, chemistry, medicine immunology, geology, and on and on.

When I was young, I was told there is no way that bacterial flagella could arise from evolution. It was a mystery. God did it. Of course, it is now known that flagella structures probably evolved out of ancient bacteria with core genes that made initial structures in and through the cell cytoplasm. The same argument goes for the eye. The human eye with all of its complexity did not form miracously. It was not “God of the gaps” or “intelligent design.” It has a well-known evolutionary history. Caveat: As you probably are aware, I am not discounting God’s presence in evolutionary processes. I believe in God’s desire for creativity in nature. God is not causing events or change through spontaneous miracles. God is simply desiring creativity or novelty.

Bacterial flagellum (image from NIH)

I’m going to be “mathematical” in my explanation below as how to think about the possibility of the presence of aliens as well as the possibility of the presence of God interacting in real-time observations. My premise is that mathematics can be perceived subjectively at times. The same idea goes to statistics (ex. Bayes’ theorem).

I will define “1” metaphorically as a single potential cause for a natural occurence, and infinity (or less than infinity) as the potential number of ways “1” can be explained. One can think of ideas such as aliens causing Oumuamua or causing the telescope findings of the Trappist-1 star system. I would propose the following “equation.”

Let’s make “1” as “Aliens.”

Let me explain what I have done here. Sure, a visual event (light in the sky) could be aliens, but there could be many, many other ways in which it could be explained — meteorological, cosmological, visual issue, etc. There could be 10, 100, 1000, or 1 million causes that could explain what happended. The single possiblity of “aliens” used metaphorically as the numerator makes aliens as a probable cause quite low as the number of possible causes (denominator) is quite high.

We can do the same thing with a natural event and God. A difficult area of evolution to explain, determining what exists behind the cosmic microwave background, the weather, and the singular events or joy or sorrow in life could be explained via the “God of the gaps” as simply “God did it.” Using these examples above, simply saying that one explanation is that God just did it (with no futher questioning) implies that “God” as a cause is just as equal to a natural phenomenon of which that are hundreds or thousands of potential causes. Even “no God” could be considered an equally valid cause as “God did it.” I would be consistent and insist on observational or experimental data instead of just saying “no God” or “God did it.” Regardless, the denominator gets quite large; the numerator of God as the sole cause becomes very, very small. “Intelligent design” is not science, and “God of the gaps” is terrible theology.

I want to end this post with one thought. If I propose God’s presence in one / multiple / all events but not God’s action, then the ratio gets tilted somewhat. I am not talking about God directly affecting natural actions. I am talking about God simply being present and specifically being present with every entity. As a Christian, I would describe this presence as love. This love is a creative love that gives us biological evolution, star formation, science, literature, art, birth, and death. This love desires the each entity, from quark to quasar, be eternally creative through time. Each entity has the ability to be creative whether during electron spin or galactic spin.

Entropy progresses in time and will likely always increase, but even in the presence of entropy, creativity is still possible.

So:

1. Aliens directly acting on our planet and with our species? Sorry. No. I am fine thinking that life might exist elsewhere if our universe if infinite, but this life is not visiting or planet.
2. God of the gaps / Intelligent design? A terrible idea that needs to move on.
3. God simply being present and wanting creativity? It is possible even in the setting of naturalism.

I took this picture at Utah Pride last weekend while marching with my wife in support of our friends and family who are LGBTQ+. Using the fraction ideas above, I think this shirt makes quite a bit of sense.

image created by Google Gemini

I read a disappointing article in Theology and Science titled “Systematic Evaluation of Recent Research on the Shroud of Turin” (written by Tristan Casabianca). Mr. Casabianca is considered a “Shroud of Turin” expert (whatever that means) with no current academic affiliation. He reports that he was once an atheist but became a Christian once he studied the Shroud of Turin.

I’m sorry, but so many of us have psychologically burned by the stories of people who were reportedly atheists when younger but then converted due to some “definite” evidence of God. Later, we find out that their whole story was mostly made up. Casabianca’s life events could be true; however, his story tends to match those of Lee Strobel in Evangelical circles or Austin Fife in LDS circles. In other words, I worry that his conversion is a “just so” story that may be used as a form of self promotion. I know this theory sounds very pessimistic. However, if you grew up in the Bible Belt like I did, your early life likely was exposed multiple times to people who claimed to have “converted to Christianity” due to some amazing or miraculous event while simultaneously using their story to promote themselves and to make money.

Honestly, I love the journal, Theology and Science. It has many great articles in its issues. I have written an article for the journal which has been accepted for publication. I have no idea how Casabianca’s article was accepted for publication.

For example, the Casabianca asserts that radiocarbon 14 (14C) dating of the shroud was a significant problem and not accurate. He states the following: “This diminished confidence in the reliability of the 1989 conclusion aligns well with the contamination problems occurring in the dating of ancient linen textiles using the Accelerator Mass Spectrometry method in the 1980s.” Ummm, no. The reference that Casabianca uses does not make that conclusion. The study he references, on the other hand, makes it very clear that different labs in different locations using blinded specimens of ancient textiles were very reliable (“a coherent series of results”) although some outliers were noted. Yes, this statement makes complete sense. Any testing regimen will have outliers or errors — even if the errors are incredibly rare. This low error rate can be seen in the signal-to-noise ratio. Rarely, the “noise” or the “outlier” is accurate. Such an event is very, very, very rare.

An example of signal to noise ratio, from Cambridge University Press

14C is extremely accurate for dating objects less than 50,000 years old. Younger specimens can have even more improved accuracy within decades of time. References are here and here. So, if the Shroud of Turin was found to have been made around 1200 ACE, then that finding is likely correct. I know there has been an issue about where the fibers from shroud were utilized in the 14C study (new repair fiber versus older original fiber), but this test can be run again.

The author then states that wide-angle x-ray scattering (WAXS) was performed later on the shroud which matches a date of 100 ACE. Fine. However, I did some reading and found out that WAXS is used to identify atomic structure only (see here). It really isn’t a validated way to determine the age of textiles. Sorry. Even the authors of one of the papers using WAXS to dispute the 14C age of the Shroud of Turin are clear:

“WAXS results of the “TS linen implies that it would be less than 2000 years old only if, for some centuries, before the last seven centuries in Europe, it was kept in a geographical region of the world characterized by a higher average secular temperature than about 23 °C. The other possibility—T_r <22 °C—would be compatible with Christian tradition, leading to a TS age of more than 20 centuries.” Keep in mind that as these new results were posted, on-line sites that are not very reputable stated that the WAXS results MUST be true. Shocking, I know…

In other words, using Occam’s Razor, the WAXS results mean that either 1) the shroud was carefully stored as a religious relic while still being made around 1200 ACE or 2) God miraculously caused and preserved the shroud effect with Christ’s image. I’m a religious person, but I think the God explanation by Casabianca is very problematic.

A couple of other problematic issues in the article are as follows…

The author states that the pollen grain, Helichrysum, found intermixed with shroud fibers indicates a Jewish location as (I suppose) the pollen was specifically found only in the area of ancient Judea. This conclusion is simply not true. Due to weather events such as wind as well as human trade routes, this pollen has been found throughout a large amount of the Earth’s landmass.

Map showing Helichrysum dispersal just in Africa, the Mediterranean region, and the Middle East. It has been found in other parts of the world as well.

Finally, Casabianca uses Bayesian statistics with the WAXS “new” data to pretty much “prove” the Shroud of Turin covered Jesus’s body. He states “Under the assumption that the antique and medieval hypotheses hold equal likelihood, the probability that the Shroud of Turin is the burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth emerges as remarkably high, reaching 99%.” His statement demonstrates a real problem with Bayesian statistics. If I keep finding “data” (very poorly defined) that the Loch Ness monster is real, then I would become more likely to believe it is real. For example, if I read more stories about the Loch Ness monster that I believe are true, I am more likely to believe over time that the Loch Ness monster is true. Bayesian statistics is super cool, but there can be a subjective element to it. See here and here as references. One has to be careful with Bayesian statistics.

Bayes Theorem

Finally, at least for me, the Shroud of Turin looks like a drawing or some other type of art. It really does not look an anatomically correct human. Perhaps a bigger mystery is how the shroud was actually made. It could have been a fraud. It could have been a pious fraud. I don’t know.

There is a bigger issue here. W.W. Bartley has been clear about one of the problems of liberal Protestantism: “Confronted with a historical Jesus whose person and message were, at least in any straightforward sense, both illiberal and irrational, the Protestant liberals had to face squarely a new and formidable question: Was Jesus himself one of those nonessential historical shells one could in principle discard during the search for the essence of the Christian message?“

I am a liberal Protestant. I get his point. I think liberal Catholics deal with the same issue as do liberal members of all major religions. By “liberal”, I think Bartley means Protestants trying to incorporate accurate science into their religious beliefs. The emphasis in on “accurate.”

I carry his quote further as follows: Can you accept the Christian basics of theology (i.e., love God; love neighbor) while still accepting there has been a lot of nonsense in Christian history?

Well, yes.

Casabianca seems to be determined to prove the actual existence of God. The problem is that his science and his statistics seem to be filled with the potential for error. I am a theist and specifically a Christian. I accept Christianity’s goodness while realizing it has tons of baggage — typically human-caused. As I have stated in many of my prior posts, one cannot prove or disprove God. There is no objective theorem or test to make any real progress about God’s reality/ non-reality using the skills of science or of history. Casabianca has failed very much here.

I believe in God subjectively. It is no different than an atheist not believing in God subjectively.

We can’t use objective measures such as carbon dating, wide-angle x-ray scattering, or an unclear use of statistical measurements to prove or to not prove God.

Odds and Ends:

I very much recommend the post “Science and the Sorry State of Christian Apologetics” on Medium (by Samuel McKee).

image produced by Gemini Advanced

Currently, I have been reading through Bartley’s book, The Retreat to Commitment. Although it is a book concerning the philosophy of science, it does go into considerable detail about theology, specifically Protestant thinking. This book’s first publication was in 1962, and science has certainly changed since then. Perhaps 21st century theologians, philosophers, and scientists would find the book dated. I am not sure. If you ever buy this book (which I highly recommend), get a version with the appendices. The appendices have great stuff in them. In particular, Appendix 1 (“A Metacontext for Rationality”) goes into great detail comparing Western and Eastern metaphysics.

Chapter 2 (“The Search for Identity in Protestantism”) has some interesting statements. Per Bartley, “Although the basic defense of contemporary Protestant thought does ultimately rest on an appeal to irrationalism, many of the most significant features of its historical development are fairly logical products of certain long-standing theological assumptions…” He continues, “…throughout most of its history Protestantism had been closely allied with the rationalist tradition.”

Does contemporary Protestant thought “appeal to irrationalism”? I am not sure how to respond here. First, in the setting of influential movements such as Christian fundamentalism (a late 19th / early 20th century phenomenon) and Young Earth Creationism, the appeal seems to be to literalism. It is weird to consider, but the Enlightenment did have an odd side effect of bringing back some types of Biblical literalism. For example, as some theologians from that time would learn more about the history of the Bible, they often would align what they learned with a apologetic, wooden interpretation. Examples are here and here.

In other words, although early Protestant thought may have been rational to some degree, they appear to often have been held back in approaching a pure rationality to reality. For example, many early Protestant theologians accepted that the Earth was not the center of the universe, yet there may have been pushback by others, such as Luther. It should be kept in mind that further research suggests Luther was not as anti-science here as originally thought.

Copernican heliocentrism

Large swaths of Protestant thought, especially in the current United States, do seem to be rationalist in an unusual sort of way. One can be irrationally rational if one has an quick, uneducated, easy answer for a difficult problem. The extinction of species? Answer: Noah’s ark and the worldwide flood happened no matter what the science otherwise says. The old appearance of the Earth and the much older appearance of the cosmos? Answer: No worries. It is a 6-day creation no matter what the science says. Did the sun stop for Joshua (Joshua 10)? Answer: No worries because although modern physics states that such a occurrence is impossible and would destroy the planet, the Bible says it happened, so it happened. These examples are irrationally rational. They are quick, thought-stopping answers to complex aspects of the natural world.

Thus, when topics become complex, this immediacy of rationality without education becomes toxic. Ideas that are extremely complex (evolution, Big Bang cosmology, pandemics, etc.) becomes immediately simple. Evolution? Didn’t happen. The age of the cosmic microwave background? Still a 6-day creation. Vaccines? Satanic. Global warming? Doesn’t matter because Jesus is coming back. Existence of God? “Yes, of course” or “No, of course.” Renormalization (i.e., getting rid of infinities in theoretical physics to get potential results) works great in science but never in theology. It is okay to accept the potential infinity of God and our limited understanding of deity.

Modern theology, when done well, grasps at both the rational as well as the irrational in the setting of the human experience. We are limited species in scope and time. Grasping at both the rational and irrational should occur throughout the human religious experience. If there is a multiverse, then perhaps God has always been co-existent nature, even before our own universe was created. Evolution does occur, so perhaps God is aware of change. Perhaps God is aware of death and evil (natural and moral), but perhaps God cannot immediately (or perhaps can never) fix this aspect of our existence and in nature. In my religious tradition, I subjectively may believe Jesus was resurrected, but I can’t explain it (irrational). Future scientific research may prove some aspect of physical reality that would align with resurrection potentially happening (unlikely), but it could happen if one believes that science explains the objective (rational).

Perhaps this explanation of good, modern theology runs into strains of mysticism. I don’t know.

Rational and the irrational. Theology and science. Theism and atheism. The objective and the subjective. Potentially disparate ideas such as these seem to be far apart but may touch in certain areas and in certain times of human thought.

Bartley talks “continually refurbished Christianity” in the setting of science. I think this idea is helpful. It is never wrong to throw out the old furniture if the house is still in good shape.

Image generated by Gemini Advanced

Carlo Rovelli, the well-known theoretical physicist, just posted this article in Nature titled “Why Bad Philosophy is Stopping Progress in Physics.” Rovelli is known for many things, but his big interest is in the theory of loop quantum gravity. Loop quantum gravity is a theory (currently unproven but potentially testable) that space and time come in discrete, interlocking, tiny loops that exist throughout the universe. It is an attempt to quantize gravity to some degree.

A simple way to visualize loop quantum gravity (see this link).

Rovelli states the following:

“My hunch is that it is at least partly because physicists are bad philosophers. Scientists’ opinions, whether they realize it or not (and whether they like it or not), are imbued with philosophy. And many of my colleagues — especially those who argue that philosophy is irrelevant — have an idea of what science should do that originates in badly digested versions of the work of two twentieth-century philosophers: Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn.”

My post would go on forever if I talked about the ideas of Popper and Kuhn, but we should appreciate the priority of Popper’s theory of falsification (very important in medicine) and Kuhn’s theory of paradigm shifts. You can review the links that I have provided regarding their philosophical ideas.

Rovelli points out that many physicists do not understand the ever-present vitality of these two ideas in the philosophy of science. If physicists (and, of course, scientists) do not understand these ideas, then they are stuck making theories that do not work and are not testable. I will be honest here as academic medicine is very stuck when it comes to a bad philosophy of science. We do so many things that we think work but are not testable. In the science of medicine, we are often combining the objectivity of medical science with the subjectivity of the patient’s experience. We see these issues when medical providers promote anti-vaccine conspiracy theories, do surgeries that are unnecessary but generate revenue, and prescribe inappropriate antibiotics. Also, we often miss paradigm shifts. Physicians ignoring the importance of hand washing as discovered by the great Ignaz Semmelweis is a profound example.

Ignaz Semmelweis

Sabine Hossenfelder had made an interesting observation when it comes to the human perception of reality. In her YouTube talk, she makes it clear that humans use science, philosophy, and theology as a triad for which to see the world. I think she is quite correct. One may look at all aspects of this triad as being equal in importance. One may emphasize 1 or 2 of the triad aspects at the expense of the 3rd aspect. All such emphases or observations affect our view of reality individually and as a species.

Religion: Rovelli’s objective description of the issues pertaining to the advancement of science certainly can parallel the subjective issues with religion, especially in regards to Christianity (for which I profess to).

Let’s change his quote as follows: My hunch is that it is at least partly because religious people are bad philosophers. Religious peoples’ opinions, whether they realize it or not (and whether they like it or not), are imbued with philosophy. And many of my fellow Christians — especially those who argue that philosophy is irrelevant — have an idea of what religion should do that originates in badly digested versions of the work of…

Religious people of every type (not just Christians) have a view of the world that is their reality. This view will have some type of philosophy defined as a way to visualize the world around them. As we are a quarter of the way through the 21st century, we see “badly digested” religion every day and especially in the United States. Ideas surrounding scripture inerrancy is an example. Young Earth Creationism is an example. Being religious and also anti-science is an example. Being religious and also anti-education is an example. Promoting quack science in the name of religion is an example. Not understanding the importance of science as both an objective reality and as a helpful subjective partner in religion is an example. These ideas are nothing more than bad religion based on bad philosophy.

We can do better.

I will end this post with my change in Rovelli’s quote: “have an idea of what religion should do that originates in badly digested versions of the work of…”

What is this great “OF“? I would argue that the “of” is good education. Bad religion is a badly digested version of the potential for a good education — science, theology, and other important subjects.

This “of” is considering the ideas of science when considering God. This “of” is considering new theological ideas that offer a loving version of God but not a demanding, difficult, punitive version of God.

I have spent much time in my prior posts describing this latter version of God that continually loves in real time and throughout eternity. My dissertation advisor and mentor, Dr. Thomas J. Oord, has written much in this area in his essays and books.

Good theology in the setting of understanding good philosophy and good science has the potential to make our world better. Perhaps our species will understand this important triad in the future. I pray that it will become so.

image generated by Gemini Advanced

Our seminary book club met last week to review an article titled “The Bible as a Two-Testament Collection of Writings in Science-Faith Dialogue.” Here is the link, but unfortunately, it is behind a paywall. Perhaps you can access it through a university or public library.

The article was written by William Horst at Fuller Theological Seminary, and I really think his work here is quite good.

The basic premise of the article is that early “science” changed significantly between the New Testament and Old Testament time periods. Ancient science was somewhat similar to today in that it included observation (induction) and some engineering / hypothesis testing (deduction). However, inductive / deductive capacity likely continued to improve throughout the time of the Bible being written. This improvement makes sense when one considers how science had changed and advanced over time — with an emphasis on the importance of the need for time. One can think about ancient astronomers following the constellations and planets over time (induction) or the Roman empire building their aqueducts (deduction) as examples.

Roman aqueduct

I would like to highlight some aspects of this article as follows:

Christians, like me, tend to forget that Judaism looks at the Adam and Eve story very differently. I think this contrast is a good thing since Christian fundamentalism’s interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis has led to problematic motifs that bleed into my country’s politics and educational system. In a similar manner, Second Temple Judaism (when Jesus was walking the Earth) also had different interpretations regarding Adam and Eve. In other words, strict, literalist readings of the creation story in Genesis are filled with problematic issues.

Second Peter’s flood description (in Chapter 2) may not be accurate scientifically, but it is an example of everyday educational training of early Christians during the time period of its writing (see below).

Horst states “…the state of human knowledge in the Mediterranean world was quite different in the first century CE, in comparison to a handful of centuries earlier.” This statement is very true and very important. For example, the educated elite of the Roman world considered the Earth a globe. Prior earlier Middle East societies considered the Earth flat with a dome above and a separate underworld below.

image from BioLogos

Although early Christians lived under the rule of the Roman empire, they were not exposed to the latest knowledge of the empire due to the immense poverty and poor information exchange in the ancient world. For example, Erastosthenes (276 – 194 BCE) had already performed an early calculation of the Earth’s circumference with surprising accuracy. It is unknown how much of his discovery reached the Roman population as a whole, but I would hypothesize that only the elite would have known of this scientific work.

Knowledge about world geography was significantly greater during the time of the New Testament compared to the time of the Old Testament. Roman knowledge of the world’s continents included much of Asia and Africa, and there were writers who hypothesized that continents existed on other parts of Earth’s globe.

Education was very different between the time periods containing the Old Testament and New Testament writers. Compared to today, science education during the writing of the Bible was pre-modern and was typically available only to the rich populace. Information about education in ancient Israel is limited, but likely higher learning included reading / writing, scripture reading, and wisdom teaching. Even a primitive level of science was not present. On the other hand, New Testament (i.e., Roman) education was significantly more advanced in the sciences in a manner similar to a liberal arts education today. Such education was available only for the wealthy although Roman cities often provided free, public lectures for the general audience.

Here is where we get into the Second Peter problem. Per Horst, “The
first-century CE Roman author Pliny the Elder draws a distinction between learned
people, who acknowledge the spherical nature of the earth, and the ‘common herd’ who scoff that any humans standing on the bottom half of the globe would surely fall off.”

The writer of Second Peter was not part of some common herd. He or she was likely not as educated as the Roman elite. Only 5-10% of Romans could read, and very few received a good, formal education. Thus, this epistle writer more than likely was not informed about the world being a globe. This lack of information certainly complicated the global flood story in Second Peter. The writer of Second Peter may have been limited in their understanding by using Old Testament world geography, or the writer was simply describing a myth. By the way, there are many good things about myths.

How does this relate to today? Well, the Earth is indeed a sphere (actually it is an oblate ellipsoid due to centrifugal forces). The known world (the known universe) is about 93 billion light years across and is 13.8 billion years old. We know about evolutionary biology. We know about genetics. We have the Standard Model describing subatomic physics.

The Standard Model from the U.S. Department of Energy

One has to concede that disruptions caused by the Roman Empire had to influence New Testament writers. Roman government rules, the international roads, the intermixing of cultures, etc. all had an influence on these writers. The Hellenistic influence on the Gospel of John is just one example.

Today, scientific and cultural disruptions are much, much greater. I would argue that these modern disruptions should be considered opportunities. They are opportunities for taking into account what God means in an ancient and incredibly expansive known universe (we don’t know what exists beyond the known universe). There are opportunities for taking into account the Christ story in the setting of Big Bang cosmology or in the setting of genetic causes of behavior that might at one time have been considered “sin” or “possession.” In fact, sin’s definition as well as the importance of terms like “grace” and “faith” need to be re-considered or re-imagined in the setting of the second law of thermodynamics and the immensity of time.

Our current view of science does not solely impact Christianity. All of the world’s major religions fall into similar needs for change.

Science changes. Sciences advances. Religion will change. It already has. Perhaps religion and its effect on humanity will advance as well.

image created by Gemini Advanced

I consider myself Christian, but in light of my country (USA) currently having its politics eroding into religion, I think a better term for me might be “Jesus follower.” I am not sure here. I am a member of the Presbyterian-USA demonimation. I joined this specific denomination because I support their policy of LGBTQ+ inclusion, and I want all minorities (racial, ethnic, cultural, gender, and religious) to be welcomed into greater society. PC-USA currently seems to align with this position. I also joined this denomination so that I would be eligible to sit on local church committees. I want to make sure that we keep Jesus as the focus while being kind to others in our community.

But let me be clear, I consider myself a Jesus follower well before considering myself a member of PC-USA.

Why am I bringing this aspect up? Well, I believe in God. There is tragedy, chaos, and the unstoppable trajectory of entropy throughout nature. I am aware that many people look at the world and do not believe in God when they see evil, sadness, and entropy. That is an extremely valid belief system that I often can agree with.

I will be honest. For some reason, I see a beautiful world. Personally, I think it is due to my exposure and work in the field of science. I work in medicine which is kind of science / science adjacent. I get frustrated with humans, but I am a lover of nature. I was the little kid that used a cheap microscope to look at bacteria in dirty water. I am a huge fan of mountains and love their geology created by tectonics and glacier formation. I find pictures of galaxies amazing.

When I look at nature, I feel I am in the presence of God perhaps expressed so well by Paul or by Augustine. Although I feel God is in the world, I have no proof and never will have proof. My atheist friends (who I love dearly) believe that there is no God. Again, there is no proof to their belief system. Both of our sides hit a roadblock.

Atheists are helpful here and often are not listened to by religious audiences. God is not provable. Sorry. That is just how it will be. Conversely, a lack of God is not provable.

“Doubting Thomas” by He Qi

The unknowing. It can be a dark night of the soul. This unknowing should, in my opinion, lead to all of us not really caring about proving God’s existence or non-existence. It should make us think about why we still care for each other, for other species, and for our planet. When contended with over time, this unknowing can lead to a deeper understanding of oneself and one’s relationship with other humans and the world at large. A believer in God often believes that caring for the “other” is a prime responsiblity of humans reacting to the divine. A non-believer in God also expects that caring for the “other” is of utmost importance as we all have a limited period of time on the planet. Both ideas of caring for the poor, the sick, the very young, and the very old are beautiful. They seem to be related.

For example, you see a car wreck occur and pull over to see if anyone needs assistance. Our state liquor stores in Utahwill round up to the nearest dollar to help the homeless if you ask them to make this donation. The rounding up process seems (from what I have observed) to occur with all types people — religious and non-religion alike. Humans from all religious, societal, or cultural backgrounds do charity work. Many humans volunteer at homeless shelters, animal shelters, food banks, and at schools with high-risk children.

Why is this?

I think there is something else going on here. When a human does something that is worthwhile to the greater community but not to themselves / their family directly, why is such an act performed? Is this altruism controlled human evolutionary pressure? Is this a byproduct of group selection? Is this a culturally learned trait? Does being kind or altruistic make one more likely to reproduce?

However, could kindness to the “other” be a direct consequence or a by-product of something much bigger than our species? At least on our singular planet, other animals are altruistic. Evolution, gene selection, epigenetic factors of the environment or culture… Could all of these factors point to the fact that the world is yearning to be beautiful. The second law of thermodynamics never stops advancing. We all die, and all potential energy will be used up in the far distant future. However, is goodness or kindness or whatever metaphysical concept that one can come up with trying to break into creation? Is this a “still small voice” that is tragically but beautifully present in every drop of time?

The Grand Canyon, Arizona

This goodness or kindness doesn’t necessarily require a God. Thus, are such behaviors part of the universe, perhaps related to panexperientialism? Is this potential for goodness seen on Earth also potentially present throughout the universe as some type of subjective field?

Is this goodness a byproduct of quintessence (a cosmology idea) with its associated potential energy? Is this goodness a result of the universe (with our without God) learning and providing opportunities for creation or novelty? Is this God providing love at all levels of reality / at all moments of time?

Thomas J. Oord states this well in his book, Defining Love : A Philosophical, Scientific, and Theological Engagement (Brazos Press). He describes God’s love as “full-orbed.” Agape, eros, philia and all of the other ways that love has been describe throughout human history also is in God. God is completely relational to the world — from quarks to quasars and with humans in between.

The Andromeda galaxy and our Moon in the night sky (EarthSky)

So, regardless of our metaphysical beliefs, we seem to be obligated to care. We are not forced to care for others, but I think that God / the universe / combination / who knows (?) wants caring to be one of the points of the universe — divinely inspired or not.

When we don’t know about the cause of reality, we should begin to think that this unknowing should lead to our care for the other.

Image produced by Gemini Advanced