Display Comb 4

/ featured media, post meta, title, read more link and full content

This Is Nick

Dr Nick Hawkes was a theologian, writer, communicator, research scientist, educationalist, apologist, pastor, author and radio broadcaster. Across his life he earned two degrees in science and three more in theology.

I had the joy of knowing Nick for over 14 years and found it an immense privilege, as so many other’s can testify to in their own way, to chat with him about faith (especially as a fledgling pastor!), life and belief in God. It was always a deeply joyful and awe inspiring few hours to spend time with him (Most often with a coffee and sticky bun).

It has also been an honor to make his resources accessible to many thousands more through his online presence, still available, on his personal website – nickhawkes.net – as well as his ‘Stones’ novels at author-nick.com.

Below you’ll find the entire collection of all 114 articles Nick wrote over an 8 year period between 2014 and 2022 available in one document.

Nick began by posting a variety of radio talks, but eventually began commenting on culture, science, faith, the political landscape as well as his own reflections on why he not only believes in the God of the Bible, but his own personal trust in Jesus throughout his life and into death.

A quick note on the quotes: If you ever had the privileged of meeting Nick, you’d know that he could spout off a dozens quotes from across a wide range of disciplines in a matter of minutes. His articles reflected this, with many of his quotes, while accurately quoted, have no reference to the source.

I would wager that Nick would love nothing more than for you to keep exploring the God whom he cherished and loved dearly. Perhaps this little book will play a part in that.

– Luke Dahlenburg

This is Nick – PDF Download

An Answer to an Atheist’s Attack on Miracles

The thinking of the Scottish philosopher, David Hume, gave impetus to atheism and the Enlightenment in the 18thcentury. Today, his thinking is still appealed to by those who attack belief in God. One of the issues Hume attacked was the existence of miracles, which of course, has relevance for the Christian understanding of the resurrection of Jesus. Hume expressed his convictions about miracles in Section X which he added to his book An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding.[1] He had omitted this section earlier for fear of upsetting religious people. Section X “On Miracles” has also been published as a separate book.[2]

Hume defines a miracle as, ‘a transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity, or by the interposition of some invisible agent.’[3] The term ‘transgression’ is an emotionally loaded word, and it is likely that its use was not accidental. It was probably chosen because he wanted to sow the idea that miracles constituted an indefensible breaking of the rules. In other words, this may be a case of vocabulary betraying preconceptions.

A definition that conventional Christians would be happier with (and which would be less unfriendly) is this: A miracle occurs when God superimposes his greater authority on the existing authority he has given expression to through the natural laws of nature.

Hume says, quite reasonably, that if there is any probability that the person giving witness to a miracle is deceived or is not speaking truthfully, then he or she should not be believed.[4]Whilst this is indisputably so, this is a conviction that neither proves or disproves the existence of miracles. Hume seems to suggest that it does, for he says that because there is no natural explanation for miracles, they don’t exist. However, this is not a logical conclusion. The very definition of a miracle is that it is something unnatural, but this quality does not disprove their existence.

Some care needs to taken over what is meant by the term “natural”. If God exists, he is under no obligation to be constrained in what he does so that he only does those things that appear natural to us. The reality is: if you allow the existence of God, everything changes, and miracles are no longer impossible.

We need to ask, then, whether it is reasonable to believe in the existence of God.

I think it is. Evidence for the existence of a “supreme mind” is seen in our universe being fine tuned to the level of many trillionths of a degree so as to allow life. One of those convinced by this, was the English philosopher, Anthony Flew. Flew gave the intellectual lead to atheism in the mid-late twentieth century. The relevance of this is that as an atheist, Flew wrote an introduction to Hume’s booklet Of Miracles.[5]However, later in life, Flew saw evidence of a “divine mind” in the fine tuning of the universe, and this convinced him of God’s existence.[6]

Acknowledging that God exists is massively significant in the debate about miracles. It does so because it introduces an agent that exists beyond the constraints and understandings of human beings – an agent that could be responsible for miracles. This means that whilst miracles involve an overriding of the normal laws of nature, this may not be abnormal to God. To him, it could be, and probably is, perfectly normal. Indeed, it would be strange if God did not superimpose his sovereign will in an event important to the plans he has for creation.

An uncomfortable reality faces all atheists, and because it is uncomfortable, atheists try to downplay it and dismiss it by any means possible. I refer to the miracle of the universe’s actual existence. Not only does a universe exist, but there now seems to be a steadily growing consensus amongst scientists that our planet is the only one with intelligent life on it. It has to be said that this conviction is hugely supportive of belief in God.

By any measurement, the universe is miraculous. If it came from nothing, as a result of nothing, it is miraculous. If it has always existed and propagated itself without reason or cause, it is miraculous. And if it came into being because of a divine mind, it is miraculous.Whatever the cause, it is miraculous. The significance of this, of course, is that if you admit to one miracle… then you have to allow for the possibility of others.

Sadly, there have been many frauds and delusions surrounding claims of things miraculous. Such claims have bedevilled Christianity throughout history and have sometimes brought the Christian faith into disrepute. Whilst this is so, conventional Christians have no problems with the concept of miracles – the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, being a peerless example.

This brings us to a point that is often overlooked when discussing miracles. It concerns how well a miracle, such as Jesus’ resurrection, fits into a broader narrative. 

The miracles that occur in the Bible do not appear haphazardly. They don’t blaze for a short time in the night sky like a soon-to-be-spent firework. They always appear as part of a larger story. This means that Christian miracles make sense when they are in synch with a grander narrative, a narrative that can be forensically examined historically, morally, scientifically and experientially.[7]

Hume ends his Section X “Of Miracles” by giving one last reason why he believes divine miracles don’t exist. He says that all religions have miracle stories, and it wouldn’t be right to accept the miracle stories of one religion and not another. This leads him to say that as all religions contradict each other, no religion, and therefore no miracle story, can be true.

Hume’s comment would be a perfectly valid if it were not for one rather obvious exception, and that is: unless just one religion and its miracles were true.

What, then, can be said in summary?

If God exists, he has to be the God of both the natural and the miraculous. God is not so feeble or inept that he must only work within the constraints of human perception. The strict boundaries we put on our reality are not constraints to an omnipotent God – an omnipotent God who has already shown his miraculous hand in building our universe. So I invite you to seek him out.

[1]       See: David Hume, 1748 et seq., An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Tom L. Beauchamp (ed.), New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.

[2]       David Hume, Of Miracles (La Salle, Illinois: Open Court Classic, 1985).

[3]       David Hume, Enquiries concerning Human Understanding and concerning the Principles of Morals (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975), p.90.

[4]       Hume, 1748/2000, p.89.

[5]       David Hume, Of Miracles (La Salle, Illinois: Open Court Classic, 1985).

[6]       Anthony Flew with Roy Abraham Varghese, There Is A God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind(New York: Harper Collins, 2007), 141 and 150.

[7]       Of course, this can also lead to the abuse of miracle claims (inventing a miracle to substantiate a grander narrative). Whilst this is acknowledged, the point I wish to make is that a miracle gains credibility when it is in synch with the wider narrative of God’s action in history, a history that can be forensically examined.

Reply to a journalist’s atheistic attack on Christianity

Nikki Gemmell’s article, “Losing their Religion” (Australian Magazine, 5-6th November, 2022) exemplifies the zeitgeistof our time and gives a good insight into the thinking of atheists today. As such, it deserves attention. 

To be fair, Gemmell doesn’t say that she is an atheist, but she begins by quoting the late celebrity atheist, Christopher Hitchens, who asked if it was good that modern religion should “terrify children with the image of hell” and “to consider women an inferior creation.” This opening puts Gemmell’s prejudices and ideology on full display. And what follows is the rhetoric that is now consistently taught in the humanities departments of Western universities, and has become almost the only voice that the media will allow.

The lack of balance in Hitchens’ comment is breathtaking. Rightly considered, Christianity is about the “gospel”, a word which in its original Greek, means “good news.” Christianity centres on the actions of a loving God who died on a cross to pay the price for all the bad things we have done which would otherwise disbar us from his presence. 

Later in her article, Gemmell quotes a disaffected female cleric who wrote to expose patriarchy in the Pentecostal church. I suspect that some of her comments are warranted. But to suggest that Christianity is inherently anti-women is quite wrong. Jesus involved women in the key moments of his ministry. And in the second century, Christianity was attacked by the Greek philosopher, Celsus, because he thought it was only fit for women and slaves.[1] It’s also worth remembering that it was Christian organisations, not atheists, who agitated for women to get the vote. Having said this, it is fair to acknowledge that things often go amiss when Christianity becomes institutionalised. When this happens, it is all too easy for the beauty of Jesus’ grace and truth to become distorted by people’s lust for power. However, authentic Christianity is beautiful, and it is this that atheists wilfully misrepresent. 

Gemmell’s mention of the protests against Islamic clerics in Iran allows her to sow the idea that her readers should view the Western expression of Christianity with the same abhorrence. The fact that the protestors were largely young adults, particularly women, means that Gemmell can recruit sentiment from both feminism and the young. The point she wants to make is that youth are marching out of the church, with its old-fashioned ideas of morality, and are now marching in defiance of the church. “They’re coming for you,” she says, using language that might be employed to describe the storming of the barricades in a Parisian revolution.

The reality is, however, all is not well with this young adult revolution. Things are not as rosy as she suggests. Many young adults have indeed cut themselves off from the moral boundaries God has given for their protection, but statistics tell us that they are also committing suicide in record numbers and are suffering more mental disorders than previous generations. The reasons for this are many and varied, but it is difficult not to conclude that in losing God, they have lost both meaning and hope.

An inconvenient fact that Gemmel ignores is that those young adults who do attend church prefer to attend evangelical churches that hold to conventional biblical ethics. The National Church Life Surveys tell us that young adults are leaving liberal churches that advocate non-biblical libertine values.[2]

In the true tradition of “wokeism”, Gemmel makes good use of emotive words to excoriate, misrepresent and demonise those she contends with. Christians who hold to conventional biblical teaching are lumped in with those she describes as ‘religious extremists.’ She uses phrases such as ‘Christian fundamentalism’ and speaks of the ‘dogma of religious ultra-conservatives.’ I simply don’t recognise the loving, faithful, accepting church I attend in her writing. Such misrepresentation is, I submit, unjust and deceiving. The reality is, the ‘religious extremists’ she speaks of simply hold to the teaching that conventional Christians have always believed. It has been these convictions that have brought civility to the West, a point that the agnostic sociologist, Tom Holland, makes in his magisterial work, “Dominion”. It is a civility that we are fast losing.

Gemmel also attacks Christians for being sure of their faith. She quotes the Australian singer, Nick Cave, who said that ‘being sure’ tends to give people a sense of moral superiority. However, the New Testament teaches plainly that we should have faith (2 Timothy 1:12; Hebrews 11:1). Whilst Christianity will necessarily have elements of mystery (because it involves a God who is bigger than us) it also makes clear the essential truths that Christians can, and should, be rightly sure of.

Nikki Gemmell speaks nicely of Jesus. It quickly becomes apparent why. She uses this “nice tolerant Jesus” to attack intolerant and out-of-touch Christian institutions. The problem, of course, is that Jesus was not tolerant of everything. He was a fierce supporter of the moral boundaries introduced in the Old Testament (except for the concessional laws he augmented in order to bring them fully into line with God’s values). Here’s what it boils down to: Jesus loved everyone. However, he didn’t tolerate the behaviour of everyone. Big difference. 

It’s also worth remembering that whilst it is fashionable in the woke world to say that disagreeing with someone means you hate them, this is manifestly unfair. It should certainly not be applied to the church. The church may not agree with someone’s life choices, but it will (or should) love and accept everyone.

Gemmel seeks to rub the faces of Christians in the reality of the falling church attendance numbers, so I’ll end by saying this. Christianity has never been a popularity contest. Jesus actually warned that authentic Christians would always be in the minority (Matthew 7:13-14). Further than that, he said that they would always be persecuted (John 15:20).

Perhaps that’s what I’m catching a whiff of.

[1] Origin, Contra Celsus, Book 3, Chapter 59.

[2] See also and article entitled: ‘Hip’ churches fading fastest,(The Advertiser,January 13, 2000, Page 33).The National Church Life Surveys occur every 5 years.

What Do Sunflowers Teach Us About God?

If a rational God exists, then it is reasonable to expect to see signs of divine rationality in everything he has created. The good news is that we do. We see evidence of God’s rationality in the patterns we observe in nature. One of the places we see them is in the humble sunflower.

But first: some background information.

Scientists and mathematicians have known for a long time that key numbers and patterns occur in creation, being seen in things as diverse as galaxies, sea shells and flowers. Artists too have appreciated this. The most pleasing shape of a rectangle has sides with the ratio of 21 to 34. We see this ratio in the design of the Parthenon and in the features of the Mona Lisa. A rectangle with this ratio is known as the “golden rectangle”.

If you were to take two adjacent sides (a short and long side) of a golden rectangle, join them together and make a circle with them, the angle from the centre of the circle to that part of the circumference made from the short length is 137.5 degrees. This is known as “the golden angle,” and it occurs everywhere.

Another series of numbers that keeps popping up is the Fibonacci series. This is a simple progression of numbers, with the next number being the sum of the previous two numbers, i.e. 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34 and so on.

Let’s now return to our humble sunflower.

A sunflower keeps adding seeds to the outside edge of the seed head as it matures. Here’s the interesting thing: A new seed will always develop at 137.5 degrees – the golden angle (as measured from the centre of the seed head), from the previous seed.

And

The pattern of seeds in the flower head is made up of 21 left-hand spirals of seeds, and 34 right-hand patterns of seeds (which happens to be the most efficient way of packing seeds into a confined space). Both of these numbers are sequential numbers in the Fibonacci series.

And

21 and 34 is the ratio of the sides of a Golden Rectangle.

Do you want some more?

If you take a golden rectangle and draw across it so that one end makes a square, the piece remaining will be another (smaller) golden rectangle. And if you draw across this remaining rectangle to make another square, you will also be left with another golden rectangle… and so on.

If you join the same corner of these golden rectangles with a curved line, you will have a spiral. Unsurprisingly, this spiral is known as “the golden spiral”, and its shape is seen in things as diverse as spiral galaxies and spiral seashells such as the nautilus.

It is little wonder that the English physicist, Paul Dirac, said ‘God is a mathematician of a very high order, and he used very advanced mathematics in constructing the universe.’[1]

Be amazed.

[1]       P. Dirac, (May 1963). “The Evolution of the Physicist’s Picture of Nature, Scientific American. Retrieved 4 April 2013.

Does “Time” Teach Us Anything About God?

One of the great conundrums puzzling cosmologists today is the concept of time. We experience time as something linear; it goes in one direction, passing from prior events to future events. The intriguing thing is this: There is no reason why the laws of physics should not apply equally well in a universe where time goes backwards. In reality however, we only experience time going forwards. What is extraordinary is that this forward movement of time is not experienced at a sub-atomic level. According to an article written by Martha Henriques, (“Why Does Time Go Forwards and Not Backwards?” BBC Future, 4th October, 2022), it is only when you step back from the microscopic world to the larger macroscopicworld that directionality in time emerges – something that the Austrian physicist-philosopher, Ludwig Boltzmann, brought to our attention.[1]

So, what is it that forces the directionality on time?

One thing that might do so is “entropy.” Entropy can be thought of as a measure of disorder, a subject that features in the laws of thermodynamics. In it simplest form, these laws say that heat cannot travel from a cold object to a warm object. It always has to be the other way round. This reality therefore gives us directionality, and this may give us the reason why we experience time that only heads into the future.[2]

Puzzled?

Let me put it another way.

The second law of thermodynamics states that all high-energy states (that can be expressed by things being highly ordered) will inevitably decay into lower and less ordered energy states with time. There can be no going backwards. This means that if something becomes fantastically ordered later in time – as in the evolution of human beings – it is only because the system has imported a lot of energy from another source, for the sad reality is, overall, the universe is heading towards a cooler, less organised energy state. It is heading towards something that scientists call “heat death.”[3] At the time of the Big Bang, however, (at the very start of things), the universe had a massively low entropy level. However, ever since the Big Bang, the entropy level has increased, i.e. the level of energy and order is fading away. 

Marina Cortês, an astrophysicist at the University of Lisbon, says: “The likelihood of our current Universe having initial conditions of this kind [for the Big Bang], and not any other kind, is around one in 10 to the 10 to 124 (1:10^10^124)… which is quite possibly the biggest number in modern physics, outside of philosophy or mathematics.”[4]

This prompts a number of questions: Where did the fantastic level of energy (with the potential for fuelling amazing levels of order) originally come from? What fuelled the Big Bang and gave the universe its direction in time? Where did this restless energy for linear development come from?

The “heat death” of the universe will occur when the universe reaches its maximum entropy level, i.e. when it has reached a state of maximum disorder, having no energy or structure. This means that there will be no macro-structures for time to act on. Therefore, intriguingly, time itself will cease.

What can be said by way of conclusion? Perhaps this:

It can be said that time began when matter, larger than atoms, was created. Intriguingly, this realisation did not come about as a result of recent scientific discoveries. The early church theologian, Augustine of Hippo (354 – 430AD), spoke of creation being a single timeless act through which time itself came into being.[5]

It is so nice when scientists catch up with what theologians have been saying for centuries.

Let me conclude by saying that the phenomenon of forward-facing time is totally consistent with the action of a divine mind, a divine mind who wanted events in history to be significant, although that mind itself stands outside of time.

[1]       Reported by Martha Henriques, “Why Does Time Go Forwards and Not Backwards?” BBC Future, 4th October, 2022. See: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20221003-why-does-time-go-forwards-not-backwards. (Martha Henriques is Editor of BBC Future Planet.)

[2]       Ibid.

[3]       There is a theory that the universe might “bounce” back into existence, but at the time of writing, it is a theory that is viewed as being less likely.

[4]       Quoted in Martha Henriques, “Why Does Time Go Forwards and Not Backwards?” BBC Future, 4th October, 2022. See: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20221003-why-does-time-go-forwards-not-backwards. (Martha Henriques is Editor of BBC Future Planet.)

[5]       Augustine, Confessions XI.14, trans R.S. Pine-Coffin, (London: Penguin, 1961), 263.

1 2 3 … 23