Display Comb 4

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

Does Meaning Exist?

Recent scientific research into black holes suggests that there is a reality beyond “space-time” in which space, matter and time do not exist.[1] If that isn’t weird enough, research into quantum physics suggests that consciousness has a part to play in calling physical existence into being. Here’s the thing: Both of these findings are supportive of the idea that God exists.

It is significant that a lot of convictions from top scientists are now coming together to form a picture that theologians have long recognised, and which causes them to smile. Scientists have been amazed at the level of “fine tuning” of the forces of nature (to a level of multi-trillionths) that have allowed life to develop in the universe. They have also wondered why our minds have been “tuned” to a degree that gives us the ability to unlock the secrets of the universe.

So let me take you on a whistle-stop tour of some scientific and philosophic thinking that will lead us to some exciting conclusions about God.

Kurt Gödel (1906-1978), a logician, mathematician and philosopher, said that science is not exact. It speaks in analogies. Maths is simply a language. Therefore, you can’t define things exactly with maths. Maths can’t prove anything in a closed system. 

But before you surrender to the postmodern despair of there being no truth to believe in, let me hasten to say that maths is still pretty useful, and that it does shine a light on some truth. Let me refer you to the distinguished physicist, Paul Dirac, who said: ‘God is a mathematician of a very high order, and he used very advanced mathematics in constructing the universe.’[2] The theoretical physicist,Eugene Wigner, expressed a similar thought. He spoke about the ‘unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences,’[3]

Some scientists (both Christian and non-Christian) are “critical realists.” Critical realists don’t believe we ever see the “real” world; we only see approximations and models of the real thing that have been filtered and fermented by our fallible human perceptions. Of course, there has to be a lot of truth in this. Science is forever marching onwards, giving us new insights. But again, you wouldn’t want to push this too far. Many basic scientific truths have remained “true” for a very long time. Whilst some truth has had to be revised, other truths have provided a sure foundation for new truths to stand on.

The English particle physicist and theologian, John Polkinghorne, was fond of saying: ‘epistemology models ontology,’[4] In other words, how we know things to be true (epistemology) gives a fair approximation of the essential nature of what actually exists (ontology). If this is so, then his conviction very much supports the idea that God wants us to know a bit about him though his creation (Romans 1:20). Reality is therefore not a complete illusion.

This brings us to Ludwig Wittgenstein. He was a philosopher who worked primarily in logic, and mathematics. Wittgenstein is considered to be one of the greatest philosophers of the modern era. The trouble is, people can’t actually agree on what it was that he said – particularly in the latter half of his career. From what I understand, his central conviction was that philosophical speculation is a complete waste of time! Now, that’s a conviction that would put a lot of university philosophy departments out of business, but is he right?

Again, if we believe that God wants his creation to point to him and give us an idea about meaning, morality and destiny, we can’t say that philosophy (that takes seriously the idea of telos, i.e.ultimate goal) is a waste of time. So, sorry Ludwig.

Finally, let’s look into the fertile mind of the theoretical physicist, John Archibald Wheeler (1911-2008). He was the chap who popularised the term “black hole”. He also coined the term “participatory anthropic principle”. Now, before your brain has conniptions, let me explain. The “strong anthropic principle” is the conviction that the universe has been designed to allow intelligent life to develop. (As I said earlier, the apparent “fine tuning” of the universe that has allowed us to exist, has convinced many scientists that this is the case.) The wrinkle that Wheeler has added is this: Because a divine “mind” wanted humankind to develop, we have become “participants” in the overall plan. This, of course, fits beautifully into Christian thinking. 

So, what can we say to wrap up?

Gödel says that maths can’t prove anything in a closed system. Wittgenstein said that philosophic talk is meaningless. What both men are touching on is the fact that a created being (us) cannot fathom the ultimate reality of the system it exists within, because he/she is smaller than it. In order to comprehend the system (the universe/s and life), we would need to be bigger than the system, (in the same way a tapeworm in the gut of a pilot flying a jet fighter cannot comprehend what the pilot is up to.)

Wittgenstein and Gödel’s suggestion that we can’t know ultimate things would be totally convincing, if it were not for one thing. What if God wanted humankind to understand some profound things about the universe (Psalm 19:1-4). If this were so, then it would make philosophy and mathematics valid enterprises – if conducted with at least a nod towards “telos” (ultimate goal), i.e. God. In other words, philosophy without God is pointless – which probably explains the desperate sense of meaninglessness, lostness and senselessness felt by many modern atheistic philosophers.

Science is giving us good reasons to believe that meaning exists. And that’s good news.

[1]     Brian Cox, The Universe with Brian Cox(film), Series 1, Episode 4, “Heart of Darkness: Black Holes,” 2021 (see: 41 – 50 minutes). https://view.abc.net.au/video/ZW3171A004500

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

[3]     Eugene Wigner, 1959, “The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences,” Richard Courant lecture in mathematical sciences delivered at New York University, 11th May 1959.

[4]     John Polkinghorne, Quarks, Chaos and Christianity,(London: SPCK, 1994),67-68.

Western democracy and our future

Western democracy is in trouble. America, the world’s democratic flag-bearer, is increasingly confusing democracy with “freedom-without-responsibility,” and our Western civilisation is under siege. Dark forces are causing it to rot on the inside, and malevolent forces are attacking it from the outside. So, let’s take a look at what is happening, and how we should respond as Christians. 

You will have noticed that there is a lot of anxiety, anger and recriminations about at the moment. People are shouting into their own “sound shells” on social media, where anonymity can protect them from any moderation in their rants. They are like dogs peeing on lampposts – leaving their vitriol whilst not actually being present. 

Just think how beautiful life would be if we obeyed Jesus’ command to love our enemies!

Those who study leadership will be familiar with the life-cycle bell curve of an organisation. On the upward slope, there is optimism and certainty over core beliefs. On the downward slope, there is anxiety, recriminations and a loss of confidence in core beliefs. Significantly, the same symptoms occur with the rise and fall of civilisations. The English historian, Arnold Toynbee, has analysed this in his twelve volume A Study of History, which is an analysis of the rise and fall of the world’s civilisations. He concludes that civilisations don’t end because they are attacked from the outside, rather, they commit suicide by rotting from the inside.

So, are we rotting?

I think we are. The old certainties of morality and God have been trashed, and there is an increasing lack of civility – as can be seen on our social media platforms. This loss of civility is widespread. We now need rules to stop political staff having non-consensual sex in our parliament buildings! And we have to have signs on busses asking young people to give up their seats for the old and infirm.

The lack of civility, and the loss of God from public consciousness, have gone hand in hand. Even the ardent atheist, Richard Dawkins, is concerned about what will become of Western society without God. Of course, no one should believe in God just because they want a civil society; they should believe in God because it is true, i.e. it is a faith that is rational and experientially sound. But therein lies another problem: even the notion of truth has been trashed by our Western “would-be” social engineers. Nietzsche, Sartre, Foucault et al. have helped to fuel a culture of resentment, rebellion and hedonism… and this has been taken up enthusiastically by our university’s social science departments – who have produced many of today’s media opinion leaders.

Between you and me, I am sorry to see the passing of civil debate and the rigorous pursuit of truth. There was a time (before “cancel culture”) when a lot more people thought it a good thing to be civil to those they disagreed with. They also used to understand the “rules” of civil debate – one of which was the obligation to debate your opponent’s best and most well attested argument. Today, people rarely move on from abuse… and if they do, they build an unjust, highly distorted “straw image” of their opponent, which they find easier to burn. 

So, what happens to a society without God? The history of God’s people in the Bible gives us a sobering clue. When they lost faith in God and lost their moral compass, it resulted in abuse of the poor by the rich, unbridled sexual licence, and brutal practices such as the sacrifice of children to false gods. The consequence of this was that God “gave them over” to the desires of their hearts (Psalm 81:12; Romans 1:21-32). In other words, God allowed them to crawl out from under his protection. For the ancient Jews, this usually meant being invaded by a foreign nation such as Assyria or Babylon.

The West has had the shadow of hardline Islam fall over it, and it now has China breathing down its neck. China has a different view of sexual morality than the “progressive” post-Christian West. China also has a desire to see wealth distributed more fairly in their nation, as some of the multi-billionaires have recently discovered. What if God allowed the Chinese to teach us the lessons we would not learn from him? What if he allowed us to learn it from a totalitarian regime that would exert total control and show no mercy… and have no time for our progressive Western views?

I do hope that it won’t be necessary.

There is hope, but the path to hope passes through the door of repentance (2 Chronicles 7:14). That’s the place to start.

Post-modern thinking and the significance of you

“Critical theory” will have been knocking on your door fairly hard in the last decade, even though you may not have recognised it. So, what is it, and how does it affect you?

Critical theory involves critiquing society and culture in order to reveal and challenge power structures that are abusive of minority groups. But here’s the question: Where does critical theory end? Does it end when nobody has any power? 

A moment’s sensible thought should convince you that that is an illusory goal. Anybody who influences another has, by definition, power. This power comes in a variety of forms. There is the power of a bank manager, the power of an institutional religious body, the power of a person with knowledge, the power of a person who designs their image to look alluring, and it is the power of an academic body to craft the culture of a university.

We should therefore not be talking about the abolition of power, but rather the just use of power. This means forensically examining all power structures for injustices. Jesus was passionate about justice and care for the vulnerable and so this exercise should evoke a loud “amen” from all Christians,  

The problem comes when critical theory’s battle cry against the repression of minorities and gender groups itself becomes unfair. I can’t help but wonder whether we might be seeing this when it comes to gender inequality in the educational testing of males and females in our schools. Feminist activism has resulted in academic standards in schools being increasingly loaded in favour of word-rich disciplines that favour girls. This has translated into the growing gender imbalance between males and females at our universities. It is worth asking whether critical theory should, or could, be applied to right this injustice.

Cancelling culture

Critical theory has been weaponised by “cancel culture.” Cancel culture is a modern form of ostracism in which someone is thrust out of social or professional circles, either online or in person, for ideological reasons. Significantly, cancel culture has been extended to include cancelling any positive reference to a nation’s heritage. This is called “critical race theory”. For advocates of critical race theory, only the cries of oppressed minority groups should be heard. Sadly, this plays out as dismissing, or cancelling, a nation’s Judeo-Christian foundation for justice, compassion and civility, so that all that is left is a cultural vacuum. This is an outcome dearly sought by Neo-Marxists. They want to sweep society clean of any vestige of Judean-Christian influence so they can impose their own ideology. 

The big problem with Marxism is, however, that whilst it can thrive in privileged federally funded Western universities (that, paradoxically, have come into being because of a Judean-Christian culture), Marxism has only ever resulted in totalitarian charnel houses of horror when practiced in the real world.

Marxism and post-modern culture cancelling share the common goal of seeking to invert existing power structures. And therein lies its great weakness. Inverting existing power structures doesn’t solve injustice; it simply puts power in the hands of another group of power-hungry people. For real change to occur, there has to be a transformation of character… and nothing does that as well as authentic Christianity.

We should therefore not allow critical theory to play into the hands of Marxist ideologues. However, we should remain eternally vigilant to see that justice is sought and maintained.

The reality is, without Christianity, society lacks a moral compass, meaning and hope. A deficiency in these things is deeply wounding to the human spirit. History teaches us that with the demise of a Christian culture, humanity migrates to one of two extremes. It either turns left to Marxism and its dehumanising, brutalising control; or it turns right to Friedrich Nietzsche’s “might is right” philosophy which apes the morality of the animal kingdom – as demonstrated by Nazism. 

It is difficult to overstate the civilising affect that Christianity has had on society – notwithstanding the sometimes very unchristian behaviour of its institutions. The historical author, Tom Holland, has documented in his book, “Dominion”, how Christianity introduced the concepts of justice for all, compassion for the needy, and the virtue of humility. This was in stark contrast to the culture of the pre-Christian Roman Empire that considered “dominance” over non-Romans and slaves to be a patriotic duty. Similarly, the distinguished Australian historian, Edward Judge, says that the Greeks and Romans at that time scorned the idea of humility. They saw it as a degrading of self.[1]

Christianity brought a massive cultural change. 

The cancelling of Christianity should therefore be of great concern. Our children, and our grandchildren, will not do well without meaning, morality and hope.

Scientific naturalism

The tottering pillar of critical theory needs to lean on another tottering pillar in order to give it the appearance of standing upright, and that other pillar is “scientific naturalism.”

Scientific naturalism is a world without God. It is the belief that all phenomena, including human cognitive, moral and social phenomena, can be explained by natural physical causes governing the universe. 

What does this mean in reality?

It means that you are simply the sum of tiny sub-atomic particles that have come together without reason and purpose. You are, when it comes to significance, nothing – and you are “nothing” in the most profound sense that nothing can mean. All you can do in response to the absurdity of existence is to invent a significance for yourself. But in reality, that significance has no foundation. It is simply an ephemeral self-delusion, a mental analgesic designed to help you cope with meaninglessness.

Fortunately, there is a logical absurdity to this thinking, for in essence it says: everything comes from nothing, i.e. everything that exists has its cause in something that does not yet exist. This, of course, is ridiculous and an affront to any philosophy that claims to be grounded in rationality. 

As I mentioned in my last blog, scientific naturalism has been dealt a severe blow by recent discoveries in science. Quantum physics has, with its famous “double slit” experiment, revealed that “consciousness” appears to be a fundamental constituent of matter. And recent investigations into our universe’s black holes have resulted in the English cosmologist, Brian Cox, saying: ‘Space and time are not fundamentally a property of nature. They emerge from a deeper reality in which neither exist.’[2]

Science is now pointing us to a reality that is beyond physical matter. I hope you investigate that reality, and discover the God who intended you to exist… and who has an idea about your future.

[1]     Edward Judge, see: https://www.publicchristianity.org/on-the-scandal-of-humility/(posted: 3rd August 2021).

[2]     Brian Cox, The Universe with Brian Cox(film), Series 1, Episode 4, “Heart of Darkness: Black Holes,” 2021 (see: 41 – 50 minutes). https://view.abc.net.au/video/ZW3171A004500

Do you have to kiss “truth” goodbye to be a Christian?

Both Christian theology and atheism have to contend with the humbling concept of “truth.”

Let’s begin with Christianity.

History and culture have shaped people’s understanding of Christian truth through the ages. In general terms, conservative Christianity, as seen in evangelical, Pentecostal and Roman Catholic traditions, sees biblical truth as more literal. As such, they have no difficulty believing in miracles, Jesus’ bodily resurrection, or traditional biblical sexual ethics.

Liberal Christians, however, have been particularly prominent in the last 150 years in Western Protestant denominations. The United Church of Canada, followed by the Uniting Church in Australia, have been seen to be particularly “progressive” – particularly in regard to sexual ethics. Sizeable cadres in both denominations have been devotees of the theology of the late John Spong, who was once the bishop of Newark in New Jersey. It was the liberals in the Uniting Church in Australia who agitated for, and funded, the visit of John Spong to Australia in 2007. 

These progressives see the consistent principles of the Bible as being revisable. They view biblical truth claims through the filter of rational empiricism, and modern social mores. For example, liberals follow the moral lead of wider society when determining sexual ethics.

Spong, thought he was being both rational and progressive when he said in his 5th“article” of faith: ‘The miracle stories of the New Testament can no longer be interpreted in a post-Newtonian world as supernatural events.’[1]

I have a number of difficulties with this comment. The first is that it is patronising, as it suggests that Christians have not caught up with the Enlightenment or Newtonian physics. It implies that conventional Christians are irrational. Spong has, of course, conjured up a false dichotomy, and in doing so, has continued a long tradition of atheists who build a “straw man” of their enemy (conventional Christians) that he finds easier to burn, rubbish and ridicule.[2]In reality, most Christians have no problem with rational science, and for almost the entire history of Western civilization, Christians have led the way when it came to scientific research. Sir Isaac Newton himself had a firm belief in God. So, it is not a choice between miracles or Newtonian physics. The issue, which Spong has not appreciated, is whether there is anything morethan physical reality (as Christians believe), or not (as Spong believes).

This brings us to my second difficulty with Spong’s anti Christian assertion. By saying what he did, he seems to suggest that all reality has to be defined by Newtonian physics. Unfortunately for Spong, science has moved on a long way from the macro-mechanical world of Isaac Newton. Newtonian physics is now not seen to be a discipline that explains all of scientific reality. Therefore, his claim that Christians are out of date with science must now be directed at himself. His rational empiricism can no longer be believed. Scientists now know that reality is composed of more than tiny particles of matter. This means that our identity must now be defined by more than tiny physical particles moving about in space/time. In other words, we are more than the sum of tiny bits of matter that have come together fortuitously and without reason.

Two areas of research have led to this new thinking. The first is research into quantum physics. The second is research into black holes.

Early research into the extraordinary non-intuitive world of quantum physics has uncovered the primacy of “consciousness” in determining whether a sub-atomic particle exists as a tiny bit of matter, or whether it exists as a “cloud of probability”. No less than two Nobel Prize winners for physics, Eugene Wigner and John von Neumann, have said that “contents of consciousness” now seem to be the ultimate reality.[3]

Similarly, the English cosmologist, Brian Cox, has said (as a result of studies into black holes): ‘Space and time are not fundamentally a property of nature. They emerge from a deeper reality in which neither exists.’[4]

The discovery that there is a deeper reality behind physical things is consistent with the idea of their being a “mind” behind the cosmos. We see it in the ridiculous level of “fine tuning” of forces (to the degree of many trillionths) that has allowed life to develop in the universe. 

Christians would be forgiven for smiling at this point, thinking it nice that scientists are beginning to discover things Christians have known for centuries!

So, what does all this mean for us practically?

First: it means that Christian belief in God is scientifically reasonable.

Secondly: it means that the liberal thinking of “progressive” theologians (such as John Spong) is actually regressive. Not only is such thinking scientifically out of date, it also has the unenviable reputation of emptying churches. This is perhaps not surprising given that Spong has no answers to the questions of sin or suffering. He offers no hope, either in this world or the next.

What, then, is the truth that Christians can believe about Jesus and his teaching? May I suggest it is a truth that is in line with the consistent principles espoused by the apostles John, Peter and Paul. This biblical position has been the “safe place” where Christians have gathered throughout history, and it is the place to which the Holy Spirit has never failed to return the church whenever a God-breathed revival has occurred. The consistent principles of Scripture have stood as a bulwark against the excesses of centralised power and institutionalism, and against the excesses of popularist licence.

So, I invite you to stay within that “safe place.”

[1]     John Spong, “A Call for a New Reformation”, (Westar Institute, Volume 11-4, July-August 1998), see Article 5.

[2]     Betrand Russell and the “new atheists” Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens have all been guilty of this.

[3]     Eugene Wigner “Remarks on the Mind-Body Question,” pp. 171-174 in Symmetries and Reflections, Bloomington: IN, Indiana University Press, 1967), 171.
John von Neumann, in Keith Ward, Is Religion Irrational?(Oxford: Lion Hudson, 2011), 21.

[4]     Brian Cox, The Universe with Brian Cox(film), Series 1, Episode 4, “Heart of Darkness: Black Holes,” 2021 (see: 41 – 50 minutes). https://view.abc.net.au/video/ZW3171A004500

What is our future?

I was listening to David Suchet (who famously played Agatha Christie’s crime solving sleuth, Poirot) read the Bible – and he does it very well. As he did, I reflected on the fact that I was listening to literature that was between 2,000 – 3,000 years old. Imagine that! It is extraordinarily old. For that reason alone, why don’t people read it and honour it. Instead, our cultural opinion leaders ignore it, are crassly ignorant of it, and treat it with disdain by putting its words into fictional film characters carefully crafted to be despised.

It is almost as if a feeding frenzy of evil is being directed against the book that has civilised humanity by introducing the themes of equal justice for all, compassion for the poor, and education for all. As Tom Holland’s book, Dominion has reminded us, humankind wasn’t doing too well until the civilising influence of the Christian’s book was allowed to shape the thinking of society. This is why I view the sustained attack on Christianity by today’s opinion leaders with deep concern. The nature of the attack is also deeply worrying as it features ignorance, unfairness, and blind prejudice rather than balanced reasoning. As I said, there seems to be a ‘feeding frenzy’ of derision and scorn against that which has been responsible for the greatest good in human history.

Please note: I am not talking about fallible, supposedly Christian institutions that have behaved badly in history. They deserve criticism, because they have not been faithful to the tenets of Jesus Christ.

Here’s the thing: If you remove the godly wisdom of consistent biblical principles from society, humankind must inevitably collapse back into the rule of nature which is ‘red in tooth and claw,’ where only the apex predator wins. This is a brutal world where might is right. It is a world where the elite predate the vulnerable. It exhibits a morality that makes perfect sense if the highest ideal is the flourishing of yourself and your offspring above all else. It is the world of Friedrich Nietzsche’s ‘superman’ – whose philosophy of ‘will to power’ underpinned the elitist, domineering philosophy of Nazism. 

This apex predator thinking looks distinctly shoddy when contrasted with a man who washed the feet of his disciples… and who died on a cross the pay the price for the evil you and I have committed that would otherwise disbar us from God’s presence. 

So what happens when the love and grace of God is ridiculed and scorned, and culled from society? What is left? 

Well, I think we are getting a bit of an idea of what is left. We are seeing greater anger, the weaponising of resentment and entitlement thinking for political advantage, and the lack of fair debate. In other words, we are seeing the death of civility. Along with it, we are seeing the light of hope, meaning and purpose fade from the eyes of our children. They don’t know who they are, or why they are. This current generation has handed them a legacy of meaninglessness and loss of moral absolutes that is brutal.

So, may I encourage you to take a stand against the “endarkenment” of our civilisation, and to read and understand the timeless gospel story… a story that our children need to hear?

1 2 3 4 5 6 … 23