The Australian TV show Compass recently had a good episode, Can a scientist believe?.
It was refreshingly balanced, featuring interviews with scientists who are atheists and scientists who are Christian. It also included some content from the COSAC conference that I was recently involved in.
Showing posts with label conference. Show all posts
Showing posts with label conference. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 23, 2018
Saturday, March 24, 2018
COSAC talk: science in ancient religious texts
Friday, March 23, 2018
Developing a real Christian mind
This is a draft of my third devotional talk for the forthcoming conference on Science and Christianity.
It is based on Philippians 2:1-11.
In discussions about Christianity and Academia it is common to talk about “the Christian mind” and the “Christian world view” and “loving God with all your mind”. The titles of some influential books are The Christian Mind by Harry Blamires, and The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind by Mark Noll,
All first-year students at Calvin College in the USA a required to take a course entitled “Developing a Christian Mind”. At Oxford, there is also an excellent initiative called "Developing a Christian Mind."
What does the Bible say about what it means to have “the mind of Christ”?
I find this passage from Paul's letter to the Philippians rather challenging.
Having the mind of Christ does not seem to be concerned with intellectual issues or a particular world-view but rather a personal attitude, particularly one of humility.
The passage begins.
A commitment to unity.
It meets being “like-minded” with others who follow Jesus.
If my ideas and views are creating division in the church do I have the mind of Christ?
Put aside my selfish ambition.
It is not all about me: my views, my organisation, my career, my ministry, my achievements, my influence, my status,..
Why does division occur within churches and between churches?
Sometimes it appears to be about differences of belief, about doctrine, or practice.
Contentious issues include church government, baptism, the role of the Holy Spirit, gender roles, Biblical interpretation, support of political parties, music, liturgy, budgets, fund raising, …
The list is almost endless. On the one hand, these are important issues. On the other hand, we should humbly and critically ask how much does “selfish ambition and vain conceit” play a role when a new denomination or a new congregation or a new organisation starts?
Sometimes, the role of ambition can be explicit and blatant. Other times it is more subtle or sub-conscious. We should ask this of ourselves and of our leaders. Am I looking to my own interests or to the interests of others?
Am I primarily concerned with showing I am right?
Where does my identity come from? From my views or from Jesus?
Where does my community identity come from?
Do I value others (including their views) above myself?
What drives academic life? What drives science?
Is it a passion for truth? Unfortunately, too many scientists have big egos. The history of science is littered with brilliant people who were not willing to give up on their own ideas and theories, even when there was overwhelming evidence against them.
Max Planck was the founder of quantum theory. He is sometimes credited with saying “Science advances one funeral at a time”. He actually said
I should clarify and qualify what I am saying.
Being humble and having the mind of Christ does not mean discarding strong convictions. It does not mean unity at any cost. It does not mean not being critical of other views. It does not mean not taking a stand for truth.
It does not mean that all views are equally valid.
What it does mean is being more humble about what I believe and how
I relate to others with different views. How open am I to changing my
views? It means abandoning self-promotion. It means trying to understand what is best for others and serving them.
It means following Jesus example of humility and service.
The best scientists are humble.
They are humble before nature. They are eager to learn, both from nature and from others.
They are willing to change their pre-conceptions and give up cherished ideas when confronted with convincing evidence or persuasive arguments.
What does this have to do with Science and Christianity?
This is an issue that divides churches.
There are a diverse range of perspectives. Some of them I strongly disagree with
them. However, that does not give me the right to ridicule those with different views.
We need to be humble. Be quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to anger.
We like to exalt ourselves, our views, our organisations, our achievements, ...
But in the end, we will not be exalted.
Jesus will be. Our views and agendas will fall away.
Jesus is the name above every name.
Every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that
Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
It is all about our downward mobility!
It is based on Philippians 2:1-11.
In discussions about Christianity and Academia it is common to talk about “the Christian mind” and the “Christian world view” and “loving God with all your mind”. The titles of some influential books are The Christian Mind by Harry Blamires, and The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind by Mark Noll,
All first-year students at Calvin College in the USA a required to take a course entitled “Developing a Christian Mind”. At Oxford, there is also an excellent initiative called "Developing a Christian Mind."
What does the Bible say about what it means to have “the mind of Christ”?
I find this passage from Paul's letter to the Philippians rather challenging.
Having the mind of Christ does not seem to be concerned with intellectual issues or a particular world-view but rather a personal attitude, particularly one of humility.
The passage begins.
Therefore if you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any common sharing in the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and of one mind. Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others. In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:Here are some specific applications.
A commitment to unity.
It meets being “like-minded” with others who follow Jesus.
If my ideas and views are creating division in the church do I have the mind of Christ?
Put aside my selfish ambition.
It is not all about me: my views, my organisation, my career, my ministry, my achievements, my influence, my status,..
Why does division occur within churches and between churches?
Sometimes it appears to be about differences of belief, about doctrine, or practice.
Contentious issues include church government, baptism, the role of the Holy Spirit, gender roles, Biblical interpretation, support of political parties, music, liturgy, budgets, fund raising, …
The list is almost endless. On the one hand, these are important issues. On the other hand, we should humbly and critically ask how much does “selfish ambition and vain conceit” play a role when a new denomination or a new congregation or a new organisation starts?
Sometimes, the role of ambition can be explicit and blatant. Other times it is more subtle or sub-conscious. We should ask this of ourselves and of our leaders. Am I looking to my own interests or to the interests of others?
Am I primarily concerned with showing I am right?
Where does my identity come from? From my views or from Jesus?
Where does my community identity come from?
Do I value others (including their views) above myself?
What drives academic life? What drives science?
Is it a passion for truth? Unfortunately, too many scientists have big egos. The history of science is littered with brilliant people who were not willing to give up on their own ideas and theories, even when there was overwhelming evidence against them.
Max Planck was the founder of quantum theory. He is sometimes credited with saying “Science advances one funeral at a time”. He actually said
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.Academic theologians and pastors are not immune from self-promotion and a reluctance to respect those with different views.
I should clarify and qualify what I am saying.
Being humble and having the mind of Christ does not mean discarding strong convictions. It does not mean unity at any cost. It does not mean not being critical of other views. It does not mean not taking a stand for truth.
It does not mean that all views are equally valid.
What it does mean is being more humble about what I believe and how
I relate to others with different views. How open am I to changing my
views? It means abandoning self-promotion. It means trying to understand what is best for others and serving them.
It means following Jesus example of humility and service.
The best scientists are humble.
They are humble before nature. They are eager to learn, both from nature and from others.
They are willing to change their pre-conceptions and give up cherished ideas when confronted with convincing evidence or persuasive arguments.
What does this have to do with Science and Christianity?
This is an issue that divides churches.
There are a diverse range of perspectives. Some of them I strongly disagree with
them. However, that does not give me the right to ridicule those with different views.
We need to be humble. Be quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to anger.
We like to exalt ourselves, our views, our organisations, our achievements, ...
But in the end, we will not be exalted.
Jesus will be. Our views and agendas will fall away.
Jesus is the name above every name.
Every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that
Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
It is all about our downward mobility!
Monday, March 19, 2018
The first will be last; the last will be first
Next weekend I am looking forward to attending a Conference on Science and Christianity.
I have been asked to give three short talks/reflections during some worship times. For balance I have picked from the Bible three passages: a Psalm, a parable of Jesus, and a New Testament Epistle:
Psalm 19, Matthew 20:1-16, and Philippians 2:1-11.
Humility is a common theme.
The first talk will be similar to this one.
Below is a draft outline of a draft for the second talk.
I will post the third talk later.
What is the Kingdom of God like?
The first will be last and the last will be first.
The parable of the workers in the vineyard
Matthew 20:1-16
We all come to any subject in life with pre-conceptions about what is true, what is just, what is important, and what is the actual nature of things.
We can come to science with such preconceptions.
We can come to theology (talk about God) with such preconceptions.
We all have preconceptions about how science and theology are related or not related.
But are my pre-conceptions justified? Are your pre-conceptions justified?
What will it take for you to change your views?
Jesus challenged the pre-conceptions of everyone, especially the religious people of his time. He challenged preconceptions about a wide range of topics: the character of God, how people should live, the role of the law, how people could be saved, who were God’s people,…
Today Jesus continues to challenge people’s preconceptions.
This parable is just one example of Jesus profoundly challenging peoples preconceptions. It should also challenge us.
Context
It is useful to look at any Bible passage in the context of what comes before and what comes after.
In Matthew 19 the disciples try to stop children coming to Jesus. Jesus responds, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”
Then Jesus encounters a rich young man. He wants to get eternal life. He claims he has kept all of God’s commands. Jesus tells the young man to sell all of his possessions and give to the poor. He won’t do that. Jesus warns that it is hard for the rich to enter the kingdom of heaven.
He says to the disciples that “But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first.”
Jesus, then tells the parable to show what the kingdom of heaven is like.
Again, he concludes with “So the last will be first, and the first will be last.”
After telling the parable Jesus predicts his death and resurrection.
Then a mother requests that her two sons sit in power with Jesus in his kingdom.
Jesus then contrasts kingdom leadership to the that of worldly leaders who lord it over their subjects. Whoever wants to be great must be a servant, even a slave.
Jesus came to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.
Jesus is promoting an upside down kingdom. The least will be greatest. The greatest will be humbled. The first will be last and the last will be first.
This 17th century depiction of the parable is by Jacob Willemszoon de Wet.
What is the content of the parable?
The owner of a vineyard hires some workers. They all get paid the same amount. Yet, some of them worked fewer hours than others. This is not modern day economics or labour practice!
It isn’t fair! The hard workers complain, just like we would.
The landowner responds that he is not unfair. He has kept his promise. He challenges the grumblers, “Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?”
What is the meaning of the parable?
God is like the landowner. We are the workers.
God is generous. He is full of grace, i.e. he treats people better than they deserve. Some of us may live more virtuous lives than others. But this is irrelevant in God’s economy.
God offers us a free gift of forgiveness and eternal life, through Jesus death and resurrection. We don’t earn this gift.
God has the right to be generous as he pleases. It is not for us to question God. God is God. We don't have the right to tell God what is right and fair.
We may bridle at God’s generosity. We can be self-righteous like the rich young man and think we keep God’s commands and so deserve salvation.
But the last will be first. The first will be last. The tax collectors and prostitutes who repent will enter Jesus' kingdom before the rich and powerful, particularly the self-righteous religious leaders.
The kingdom belongs to those with the humility of little children.
This parable should rattle our pre-conceptions of how God operates, of what is fair, and what is true.
It should lead to humility and repentance and gratefulness for the mercy of God.
The kingdom of God is an upside down kingdom.
Paradox and dialectic are integral to theology.
How is this related to science?
Christians believe that God made the universe. He wrote the laws of nature.
What are some of the most striking things we have learnt in science in the past hundred years?
Sir Arthur Eddington was the most influential astronomer in the early twentieth century. J.B.S.Haldane was an influential geneticist and evolutionary biologist. Both are credited with saying that,
Bill Bryson says the four most remarkable things he knows are
1. You exist.
2. Life does not happen anywhere else in the universe.
3. We live in a planet that we don't really know.
4. All life comes from a single moment of creation.
Science challenges our pre-conceptions of what is true, what makes sense, and how the world should be. Given the universe is made by the God of the upside-down kingdom, perhaps we
should not be surprised it goes against some of our prejudices and intuitions.
How does this apply to our discussions of the relationship between science and theology?
Perhaps we may need to be humbler and be open to new ways of thinking.
Do my pre-conceptions need to be challenged?
I have been asked to give three short talks/reflections during some worship times. For balance I have picked from the Bible three passages: a Psalm, a parable of Jesus, and a New Testament Epistle:
Psalm 19, Matthew 20:1-16, and Philippians 2:1-11.
Humility is a common theme.
The first talk will be similar to this one.
Below is a draft outline of a draft for the second talk.
I will post the third talk later.
What is the Kingdom of God like?
The first will be last and the last will be first.
The parable of the workers in the vineyard
Matthew 20:1-16
We all come to any subject in life with pre-conceptions about what is true, what is just, what is important, and what is the actual nature of things.
We can come to science with such preconceptions.
We can come to theology (talk about God) with such preconceptions.
We all have preconceptions about how science and theology are related or not related.
But are my pre-conceptions justified? Are your pre-conceptions justified?
What will it take for you to change your views?
Jesus challenged the pre-conceptions of everyone, especially the religious people of his time. He challenged preconceptions about a wide range of topics: the character of God, how people should live, the role of the law, how people could be saved, who were God’s people,…
Today Jesus continues to challenge people’s preconceptions.
This parable is just one example of Jesus profoundly challenging peoples preconceptions. It should also challenge us.
Context
It is useful to look at any Bible passage in the context of what comes before and what comes after.
In Matthew 19 the disciples try to stop children coming to Jesus. Jesus responds, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”
Then Jesus encounters a rich young man. He wants to get eternal life. He claims he has kept all of God’s commands. Jesus tells the young man to sell all of his possessions and give to the poor. He won’t do that. Jesus warns that it is hard for the rich to enter the kingdom of heaven.
He says to the disciples that “But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first.”
Jesus, then tells the parable to show what the kingdom of heaven is like.
Again, he concludes with “So the last will be first, and the first will be last.”
After telling the parable Jesus predicts his death and resurrection.
Then a mother requests that her two sons sit in power with Jesus in his kingdom.
Jesus then contrasts kingdom leadership to the that of worldly leaders who lord it over their subjects. Whoever wants to be great must be a servant, even a slave.
Jesus came to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.
Jesus is promoting an upside down kingdom. The least will be greatest. The greatest will be humbled. The first will be last and the last will be first.
This 17th century depiction of the parable is by Jacob Willemszoon de Wet.
What is the content of the parable?
The owner of a vineyard hires some workers. They all get paid the same amount. Yet, some of them worked fewer hours than others. This is not modern day economics or labour practice!
It isn’t fair! The hard workers complain, just like we would.
The landowner responds that he is not unfair. He has kept his promise. He challenges the grumblers, “Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?”
What is the meaning of the parable?
God is like the landowner. We are the workers.
God is generous. He is full of grace, i.e. he treats people better than they deserve. Some of us may live more virtuous lives than others. But this is irrelevant in God’s economy.
God offers us a free gift of forgiveness and eternal life, through Jesus death and resurrection. We don’t earn this gift.
God has the right to be generous as he pleases. It is not for us to question God. God is God. We don't have the right to tell God what is right and fair.
We may bridle at God’s generosity. We can be self-righteous like the rich young man and think we keep God’s commands and so deserve salvation.
But the last will be first. The first will be last. The tax collectors and prostitutes who repent will enter Jesus' kingdom before the rich and powerful, particularly the self-righteous religious leaders.
The kingdom belongs to those with the humility of little children.
This parable should rattle our pre-conceptions of how God operates, of what is fair, and what is true.
It should lead to humility and repentance and gratefulness for the mercy of God.
The kingdom of God is an upside down kingdom.
Paradox and dialectic are integral to theology.
How is this related to science?
Christians believe that God made the universe. He wrote the laws of nature.
What are some of the most striking things we have learnt in science in the past hundred years?
Sir Arthur Eddington was the most influential astronomer in the early twentieth century. J.B.S.Haldane was an influential geneticist and evolutionary biologist. Both are credited with saying that,
“the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose”.Yet it is striking to me that this statement was made so long ago. The universe is indeed even stranger than what Haldane and Eddington knew 60 years ago. This was before we had to grapple with the most bizarre properties of quantum physics or the finding that 96% of the universe may be composed of dark matter and dark energy, completely unlike the matter and energy of which we are made and encounter in our daily lives.
Bill Bryson says the four most remarkable things he knows are
1. You exist.
2. Life does not happen anywhere else in the universe.
3. We live in a planet that we don't really know.
4. All life comes from a single moment of creation.
Science challenges our pre-conceptions of what is true, what makes sense, and how the world should be. Given the universe is made by the God of the upside-down kingdom, perhaps we
should not be surprised it goes against some of our prejudices and intuitions.
How does this apply to our discussions of the relationship between science and theology?
Perhaps we may need to be humbler and be open to new ways of thinking.
Do my pre-conceptions need to be challenged?
Monday, December 4, 2017
Talk on mental health for Christian academics
Today I am giving a talk, "Mental health and well being for academics", at a Simeon Network conference in Canberra, for Christian faculty and Ph.D students.
Here are the slides.
I refer to a relevant talk by Santa Ono, President of UBC.
A helpful book from a Christian perspective is Understanding Depression and Finding Hope.
A simple book for men is Five Steps to Mens Mental Health.
Here are the slides.
I refer to a relevant talk by Santa Ono, President of UBC.
A helpful book from a Christian perspective is Understanding Depression and Finding Hope.
A simple book for men is Five Steps to Mens Mental Health.
Monday, July 21, 2014
Concrete interactions of theology with academic disciplines
I went to a very nice conference this past weekend, at Emmanuel College at the University of Queensland. It was jointly sponsored by the Centre for Science, Religion, and Society at Emmanuel and the Simeon Network, affiliated with the Australian Fellowship of Evangelical Students. Here are the titles of some of the presentations:
- Religious freedom as an associational legal right
- Is all truth God’s truth? Common grace, general revelation and the academic disciplines
- Lord keep my memory green: Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol
- The kingdom of God to the kingdom of nothingness: Manning Clark and the course of Australian history
- Lord Shaftesbury and evangelical social engagement
- Tertiary chemical education: an ideal platform for connecting resources with students and teachers in or from developing countries
The attendees and speakers were academics from Brisbane, Sydney, and Melbourne. They ranged from Ph.D students to Professors. Fields represented included law, chemistry, anthropology, literature, history, physics, molecular biology,....
I was impressed by the quality of the presentations, both in content and clarity. Speakers did well addressing a multi-disciplinary audience. Plenty of time was allowed for discussion after each talk which was often quite lively.
I was impressed by the quality of the presentations, both in content and clarity. Speakers did well addressing a multi-disciplinary audience. Plenty of time was allowed for discussion after each talk which was often quite lively.
Here are a some things I found particularly interesting in two of the talks.
Nick Aroney, a Professor of Law at University of Queensland, began his talk about the legal basis of religious freedom in Australia by sketching out a diagram that showed the multi-disciplinarity of law as an academic discipline. He showed its connections with history, ethics, logic, hermeneutics, politics, theology... He then reviewed the preamble to the Australian constitution and Section 116 which discusses religious freedom. Most people think it in terms of individual religious freedoms but actually it is relevant to "associations" and "corporations". This is relevant to cases involving anti-discrimination, particularly as it pertains to the freedom for churches and religious organisations to use religious criteria for membership and staffing.
Natalie Swann is a Ph.D student in anthropology at University of Melbourne. She asked, "What would a Christian ethnography look like?"
This was motivated by the fact that in the past decade significant interest has grown in academic anthropology about the interaction of anthropology with theology.
In 2006, Joel Robbins, [recently appointed to a chair a Cambridge] wrote a paper in the Anthropological Quarterly, Anthropology and Theology: An Awkward Relationship? that highlights some of the issues.
Earlier this year the journal Current Anthropology included an article
Sunday, July 21, 2013
A heart for the poor
I found the TEAR conference on A Heart for the Poor in May very challenging.
Here is a copy of the talk given by Charles Ringma. He nicely and simply gave the clear mandate from the Bible and from history for Christians to be actively involved in helping and caring for the poor in a constructive manner.
I also attended a workshop on "Vocation, Profession, and Mission," given by Dave Andrews. Some of the material is in his article Vocational Professionals. The opposite of an amateur is not a professional but a mercenary!
Here is a copy of the talk given by Charles Ringma. He nicely and simply gave the clear mandate from the Bible and from history for Christians to be actively involved in helping and caring for the poor in a constructive manner.
I also attended a workshop on "Vocation, Profession, and Mission," given by Dave Andrews. Some of the material is in his article Vocational Professionals. The opposite of an amateur is not a professional but a mercenary!
Saturday, April 27, 2013
How should Christians respond to the poor?
I am looking forward to a TEAR one day conference in Brisbane Heart for the Poor to be held saturday May 18.
One of the speakers is Charles Ringma.
One of the speakers is Charles Ringma.
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Beginning the year with a Mission statement
Since Friday I was at the annual summer school of CMS (Church Missionary Society, Queensland and Northern NSW branch). The theme was The Glory of God with biblical expositions from Isaiah by Kanishka Rafell. It was a great way to start the year!
Next year the main speaker will be Simon Manchester.
Next year the main speaker will be Simon Manchester.
Sunday, July 3, 2011
Testing faith: an alternative reading of Job
What is real faith? Do I believe just because of the benefits to me [peace, comfort, hope, better relationships, sense of purpose, potential prosperity from following Biblical wisdom]? Or will I still believe even if I suffer materially and relationally?
Indeed, critics of religion such as Feuerbach, Freud, and Marx considered Christianity was not true and explained away the persistence of belief by claiming that there were hidden reasons people believed.
These were some of the questions addressed by Walter Moberly in a nice talk he gave at the conference on the Academy and the Church this week.
[Aside: all his talks were given while sitting and without Powerpoint. I found it intriguing and challenging that this uncommon delivery did not diminish the effectiveness or clarity of his talks.]
Moberly suggested the "Modern hermeneutics of suspicion are anticipated in the Biblical text; and so should be taken seriously."
Some would portray the narrative of Job 1-2:10 as describing a cosmic battle between God and Satan for the soul of Job. However, Moberly pointed out that the word "Satan" which appears in our English translations of this passage are misleading. The Hebrew (ha-satan) is a term with a definite article, not a name. "the satan" is a term akin to a prosecuting lawyer.
[It seems the devil is in the details!]
The text presents a stark contrast between self seeking and serving God regardless of the consequences (good or bad). Faith should not be motivated by self interest.
Job holds to God "for better, for worse; for richer, for poorer; in sickness and in health".
The "life of faith is a life of purification of motive and desire as well as of conduct."
The Patient Job, by Gerard Segners. Notice his wife on the right, urging him to abandon his integrity and curse God.
Indeed, critics of religion such as Feuerbach, Freud, and Marx considered Christianity was not true and explained away the persistence of belief by claiming that there were hidden reasons people believed.
These were some of the questions addressed by Walter Moberly in a nice talk he gave at the conference on the Academy and the Church this week.
[Aside: all his talks were given while sitting and without Powerpoint. I found it intriguing and challenging that this uncommon delivery did not diminish the effectiveness or clarity of his talks.]
Moberly suggested the "Modern hermeneutics of suspicion are anticipated in the Biblical text; and so should be taken seriously."
Some would portray the narrative of Job 1-2:10 as describing a cosmic battle between God and Satan for the soul of Job. However, Moberly pointed out that the word "Satan" which appears in our English translations of this passage are misleading. The Hebrew (ha-satan) is a term with a definite article, not a name. "the satan" is a term akin to a prosecuting lawyer.
[It seems the devil is in the details!]
The text presents a stark contrast between self seeking and serving God regardless of the consequences (good or bad). Faith should not be motivated by self interest.
Job holds to God "for better, for worse; for richer, for poorer; in sickness and in health".
The "life of faith is a life of purification of motive and desire as well as of conduct."
Friday, July 1, 2011
Time management for academic clowns
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
The end of it all
Here are the current slides for a talk, "Comparison of Biblical and scientific eschatology" that I am giving tomorrow at a conference on the Church and the Academy.
Here is a choice quote from 1979 by a famous theoretical physicist, Freeman Dyson.
Reviews of Modern Physics 51, 447–460 (1979)
[I should mention that I don't like Dyson's article, but that is another story...].
Here is a choice quote from 1979 by a famous theoretical physicist, Freeman Dyson.
“I hope with these lectures to hasten the arrival of the day when eschatology, the study of the end of the universe, will be a respectable scientific discipline and not merely a branch of theology.”Freeman Dyson, “Time without end: Physics and biology in an open universe”
Reviews of Modern Physics 51, 447–460 (1979)
[I should mention that I don't like Dyson's article, but that is another story...].
Rethinking authority, reality, and ethics.
Jonathan Burnside gave the opening address last night at the conference on the Academy and the Church. Here are a few of my rough notes on the talk, "The ethical authority of the Biblical social vision". Overall, I was challenged to rethink my ideas about the nature of authority and its relation to reality and ethics.
Due to the rise of Islam and secularism some Western Christians have developed a defensive "in the trenches" position with regard to their role in society. Instead, Christians should desire the common good, not just the self-interest and protection of their own rights.
1. What do we mean by the Biblical social vision?
It should be shaped by whole Bible. (2 Timothy 3:16). The Old Testament and New Testament have different ethical authority. Be aware of continuities and discontinuities. Neglecting this can lead to the God hates shrimp problem.
This is a vision that takes the Bible - and how it is written - seriously. In the West we think in abstract terms and so tend to translate the Bible into abstract systems of thought.
Consider the form of Bible - ancient literature - which embodies the Living Word.
2. Why does the Biblical social vision have ethical authority over us?
Authority is a dimension of reality. (cf. Oliver O'Donovan, Resurrection and Moral Order). Authority in the Bible means a freedom to act within boundaries.
Existence of God is a reality which calls for an ethical response.
Humility, worship, and obedience. (cf. Deut 6:4,5 The LORD is one)
The reality of the nature of God.
The reality of human identity and human flourishing.
The reality of Jesus resurrection. (Compare this to the weighty ethical authority of the Exodus).
The Resurrection reflects God's commitment to restore the creation.
The reality of the mission of the people of God.
3. How does Biblical social vision exercise ethical authority?
We need to be willing to change our culturally conditioned view about what authority is. The Biblical vision has authority because it is spreading reality. Authority does not mean exercising control. God's authority is exercised in a relational way. (cf. God's act of creation). God the Father sends the Son and the Holy Spirit in power gives life.
Enables creation to be the best possible.
God's authority is exercised through human beings. [Our job is to be].
Look at parables to get a picture of what it is like when God is in charge.
The Word became flesh (not an abstract concept).
Christians are called to live the story of God to the world. Jesus exercised authority from a place of humility. In Isaiah 42 there is no yelling or shouting in the streets.
Moreso us, since we are not Jesus! We have a tendency to abuse authority.
Dealing with postmodernism. We are to be there for postmodernists when they discover the limits of their postmodern view [because they eventually suffer from ignoring the way the world is, e.g. parents and children suffer when all values and opinions are considered equally valid].
Due to the rise of Islam and secularism some Western Christians have developed a defensive "in the trenches" position with regard to their role in society. Instead, Christians should desire the common good, not just the self-interest and protection of their own rights.
1. What do we mean by the Biblical social vision?
It should be shaped by whole Bible. (2 Timothy 3:16). The Old Testament and New Testament have different ethical authority. Be aware of continuities and discontinuities. Neglecting this can lead to the God hates shrimp problem.
This is a vision that takes the Bible - and how it is written - seriously. In the West we think in abstract terms and so tend to translate the Bible into abstract systems of thought.
Consider the form of Bible - ancient literature - which embodies the Living Word.
2. Why does the Biblical social vision have ethical authority over us?
Authority is a dimension of reality. (cf. Oliver O'Donovan, Resurrection and Moral Order). Authority in the Bible means a freedom to act within boundaries.
Existence of God is a reality which calls for an ethical response.
Humility, worship, and obedience. (cf. Deut 6:4,5 The LORD is one)
The reality of the nature of God.
The reality of human identity and human flourishing.
The reality of Jesus resurrection. (Compare this to the weighty ethical authority of the Exodus).
The Resurrection reflects God's commitment to restore the creation.
The reality of the mission of the people of God.
3. How does Biblical social vision exercise ethical authority?
We need to be willing to change our culturally conditioned view about what authority is. The Biblical vision has authority because it is spreading reality. Authority does not mean exercising control. God's authority is exercised in a relational way. (cf. God's act of creation). God the Father sends the Son and the Holy Spirit in power gives life.
Enables creation to be the best possible.
God's authority is exercised through human beings. [Our job is to be].
Look at parables to get a picture of what it is like when God is in charge.
The Word became flesh (not an abstract concept).
Christians are called to live the story of God to the world. Jesus exercised authority from a place of humility. In Isaiah 42 there is no yelling or shouting in the streets.
Moreso us, since we are not Jesus! We have a tendency to abuse authority.
Dealing with postmodernism. We are to be there for postmodernists when they discover the limits of their postmodern view [because they eventually suffer from ignoring the way the world is, e.g. parents and children suffer when all values and opinions are considered equally valid].
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Seek justice
Next week I am looking forward to being at a conference on the Church and the Academy. One of the plenary speakers Jonathan Burnside has a cool website which discusses a range of issues concerning God, Justice, and Society.
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Scientific and Biblical eschatology at AA-CC
I am looking forward to the Conference on the Church and the Academy at the end of June. There is still time to register and to submit papers. I just submitted an abstract for a talk, A comparison of scientific and Biblical eschatology
How, when, and why will the world end? Both science and the Bible present pictures and possible scenarios for the end.Science tells us that the universe had a beginning, time has a direction (the arrow of time), and life, stars, and even the whole universe may come to an end.
I will review scientific discussions about how currently known physical laws do put constraints on the future. This has led some scientists to make statements about the future.
I will compare and contrast this scientific view of the future to Biblical eschatology which works with a different set of pre-suppositions. Furthermore, the predictions of science are of limited relevance to our personal lives, particularly because of the large timescales involved. In contrast, Biblical eschatology has significant personal implications.
How, when, and why will the world end? Both science and the Bible present pictures and possible scenarios for the end.Science tells us that the universe had a beginning, time has a direction (the arrow of time), and life, stars, and even the whole universe may come to an end.
I will review scientific discussions about how currently known physical laws do put constraints on the future. This has led some scientists to make statements about the future.
I will compare and contrast this scientific view of the future to Biblical eschatology which works with a different set of pre-suppositions. Furthermore, the predictions of science are of limited relevance to our personal lives, particularly because of the large timescales involved. In contrast, Biblical eschatology has significant personal implications.
I am planning this to be a development of a talk I have given previously in France, India, and Serbia.
This picture of the life cycle of stars is from nobelprize.org
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Conference on the Academy and the Church
I am looking forward to the Third Annual Australasian Christian Conference for the Academy and the Church to be held at the end of June at the University of Queensland. The last two conferences have been great and hopefully this one will be even better!
The two plenary speakers will be Professor Walter Moberly (Durham) and Dr. Jonathan Burnside (Bristol).
I downloaded and read the first chapter of Moberly's The Theology of the Book of Genesis. It will be great to hear from him. Previously I posted about Burnside's new book God, Justice, and Society.
You can submit your abstracts online now.
The two plenary speakers will be Professor Walter Moberly (Durham) and Dr. Jonathan Burnside (Bristol).
I downloaded and read the first chapter of Moberly's The Theology of the Book of Genesis. It will be great to hear from him. Previously I posted about Burnside's new book God, Justice, and Society.
You can submit your abstracts online now.
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Insignificant numbers
Phillip Adams is a noted Australian author, film maker, and atheist. He is author of Adams versus God:
I do not find this a particularly persuasive argument. Just because an object is one of many does not mean that the object is not of significance.
Our DNA consists of thousands of genes. They all are comprised a base pairs involving G, A, T, and C. One cannot argue that a particular gene is of no particular significance. A mutation in just one gene can lead to a deadly disease.
“I believe and have always believed that life is totally meaningless and that we have no destiny, no purpose, no author. We just are. For a while, anyway. Then we aren’t.”He often invokes scientific knowledge to justify his atheism. For example, he states
“I believe, I know, that we live on a minor planet in an off-Broadway solar system on the edge of the Milky Way and that, in the final analysis, we’re as significant as the eighth billion grain of sand beyond the final palm trees in the most distant oasis in the Sahara. . . . Consequently, I believe it’s absurdly vain to see ourselves as echoing God’s image and just as silly to anthropomorphise, to Disneyfy, the concept of God into anything vaguely human. Like the hippopotamus and the hedgehog, humans are simply an evanescent expression of the life force, as destined for oblivion as dodos and dinosaurs.”
I do not find this a particularly persuasive argument. Just because an object is one of many does not mean that the object is not of significance.
Our DNA consists of thousands of genes. They all are comprised a base pairs involving G, A, T, and C. One cannot argue that a particular gene is of no particular significance. A mutation in just one gene can lead to a deadly disease.
One could say that Barack Obama is just one of six billion people on the planet. But that does not accurately reflect his significance, importance, or influence. Mahatma Gandhi was just one of a billion Indian's who have lived. Yet he had great significance and importance.
This post was stimulated by hearing Ray Galea contrast this Adams quote to the positive view of man's significance in the universe in Psalm 8. Ray was speaking at the Queensland CMS Summer School. The talk is also chapter 2 in his book, God is Enough, which has an exposition of ten different Psalms.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
A fuzzy boundary between science and theology
I delayed writing this post because the underlying ideas are somewhat vague and poorly articulated. But, I think there is a profound and important idea and observation that should be made. Hence, I particularly welcome comments.
Some related ideas are in an earlier post, The end of science is the beginning of theology. At the Polkinghorne 80th Birthday Conference, Quantum Theory and the Nature of Reality, last week I observed something fascinating. The density of Oxbridge Professors was high (no pun intended!) with a wide range of philosophical and theological commitments, present. Yet, it was fascinating to observe how quickly discussions of concrete experiments in quantum physics could quickly move to discussions of profound philosophical questions about epistemology (how do we know what we know? what can we know?), ontology (what is real?), consciousness, free will and determinism, and the uniqueness of humanity and our universe, and the mystery of existence.
One speaker began his talk and another ended his with John 1:1
"In the beginning was the Word"
My modest point is perhaps that God intentionally created a universe with a "veiled" reality that it should force humanity towards such questions. It would interesting to explore how such a view engages with the role and limitations of natural theology, and particularly with passages such as Acts 17:22-31 and Romans 1:16-25 which contains texts such as:
Some related ideas are in an earlier post, The end of science is the beginning of theology. At the Polkinghorne 80th Birthday Conference, Quantum Theory and the Nature of Reality, last week I observed something fascinating. The density of Oxbridge Professors was high (no pun intended!) with a wide range of philosophical and theological commitments, present. Yet, it was fascinating to observe how quickly discussions of concrete experiments in quantum physics could quickly move to discussions of profound philosophical questions about epistemology (how do we know what we know? what can we know?), ontology (what is real?), consciousness, free will and determinism, and the uniqueness of humanity and our universe, and the mystery of existence.
One speaker began his talk and another ended his with John 1:1
"In the beginning was the Word"
What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. 24The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, 25....he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. 26And he made from one man every nation of mankind .... 27 that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him.
19For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.20For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Like father like son
Yesterday at the Brisbane Men's Training Event I heard 3 great talks by Ray Galea about Fathers and Fatherhood.
The defining standard of Fatherhood is our heavenly Father. We should not ask, "How is God like a father?" but rather, "How is a father like God?"
A recurring theme in the talks was that of grace, acceptance, and forgiveness between fathers and sons. The ultimate model is our heavenly Father.
One should never under estimate the influence of our earthly fathers on us, both for good and bad. This was highlighted to me in Barack Obama's Dreams of My Father.
The Return of the Prodigal Son, Rembrandt (c.1668)
The defining standard of Fatherhood is our heavenly Father. We should not ask, "How is God like a father?" but rather, "How is a father like God?"
A recurring theme in the talks was that of grace, acceptance, and forgiveness between fathers and sons. The ultimate model is our heavenly Father.
One should never under estimate the influence of our earthly fathers on us, both for good and bad. This was highlighted to me in Barack Obama's Dreams of My Father.
The Return of the Prodigal Son, Rembrandt (c.1668)
Monday, August 30, 2010
Polkinghorne on emergence in science and theology
At the end of the month I am speaking at a conference Quantum Theory and the Nature of Reality in honour of the 80th birthday of Sir John Polkinghorne, who has done so much to promote a meaningful and scholarly dialogue between science and theology.
As well as giving the talk I have been asked to prepare a white paper (due this friday), Is emergence the nature of physical reality? Consequently, I am wrestling with a chapter The Nature of Physical Reality, from Polkinhorne's 1991 book, Reason and Reality: The Relationship between Science and Theology, which was reprinted in the journal Zygon. Here are a few extracts I am trying to digest.
As well as giving the talk I have been asked to prepare a white paper (due this friday), Is emergence the nature of physical reality? Consequently, I am wrestling with a chapter The Nature of Physical Reality, from Polkinhorne's 1991 book, Reason and Reality: The Relationship between Science and Theology, which was reprinted in the journal Zygon. Here are a few extracts I am trying to digest.
Abstract. This account of the dynamical theory of chaos leads to a metaphysical picture of a world with an open future, in which the laws of physics are emergent-downward approximations to a more subtle and supple reality and in which there is downward causation through information input as well as upward causation through energy input. Such a metaphysical picture can accommodate both human and divine agency.
Subatomic particles are not only not “more real” than a bacterial cell, they also have no greater privileged share in determining the nature of reality.
.... If apparently open behavior is associated with underlying apparently deterministic equations, which is to be taken to have the greater ontological seriousness—the behavior or the equations? Which is the approximation and which is the reality?
....epistemology and ontology are intimately connected. One can see how natural this view is for a scientist by considering the early history of quantum theory. Heisenberg’s famous discussion of thought experiments, such as the gamma-ray microscope, dealt with what can be measured. It was an epistemological analysis. Yet for the majority of physicists it led to ontological conclusions. They interpret the uncertainty principle as not being merely a principle of ignorance (as Bohm, for example, would interpret it) but as a principle of genuine indeterminacy. In an analogous way, it seems to me to be a coherent possibility to interpret the undoubted unpredictability of so much of physical process as indicating that process to be ontologically open.....
d’Espagnat [who discussed the philosophical implications of quantum theory] does not go all the way with Kant. He insists that independent reality is veiled rather than inaccessible; it is elusive rather than absolutely unknowable.
I am driven to greater metaphysical boldness .... I believe that his cautious invocation of veiledness is, at the least, not inconsistent with the kind of openness about the nature of reality that I am trying to explore.
.... such a world of intertwined order and novelty is just that which might be expected as the creation of a God both faithful and loving, who will endow God’s world with the twin gifts of reliability and freedom....
The correct lower-level description can only provide an envelope of possibility within which top-down causation will find its scope for realization.
..... God’s interaction with God’s own world can be expected to respect its freedom (including our own). God’s acts will be veiled within the unpredictability of complex process. They may be discernible by faith, but they will not be demonstrable by experiment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
