Why I Write This Blog

...they continually say to me, "Where is your God?
                                                                                                     Psalms 42:3

My high school graduation
picture, 1978, a few months
before leaving for the
university.

My University Experience
When I started attending the university in 1979 I was exposed to ideas that challenged my beliefs as a Christian. The secular worldview was strong, especially in some of my biology and physics classes, and I began to assume that most "educated" people probably didn't believe in God. I certainly doubted if any professors did. The atmosphere was stifling and it was a bewildering time for me.

But there were a couple of professors who I learned did believe in God. Dr. Richard Ikenberry and Dr. Glenn Underhill at Kearney State College (now the University of Nebraska-Kearney), where I started college, were Christians. There is a certain irony in the fact that one of them was a biologist and the other a physicist!

Now, many years later and as a professor myself, I suspect that some students at my campus and other college campuses may experience similar circumstances and feelings as I did. However, I don't want them to assume as I did that "educated" people don't believe in God. In fact, many PhDs and professors have strong faith in God, and I am fortunate to personally know a number of them.

Dr. Glenn Underhill, one of my college
physics professors, who was also

a Christian.

Is Your University Experience Challenging Your Faith?
If you are a college student and your faith is being challenged by the secular environment of the university, you are not alone. As a college student and even afterwards, I wrestled with the claims of secularism/atheism/agnosticism/naturalism firsthand. But my faith in God is now stronger than ever.

It is not all bad to have one's faith challenged. As Timothy Keller said, “Believers should acknowledge and wrestle with doubts... It is no longer sufficient to hold beliefs just because you inherited them.” The evidence for the Christian faith is amazing (1), and God is big enough to handle your questions. You can make it your own!

It is another thing to have your beliefs maligned or diminished. C.S. Lewis, who was an atheist before converting to Christianity, knowingly said "Atheists express their rage against God although in their view He doesn't exist." That can be confusing to a college student, especially if the criticism is coming from a professor. However, you don't have to take their word for it! I would encourage students to use this as an opportunity to critically examine for yourself the claims of and evidence for Christianity (1).

Why I Write This Blog
Therefore, I write this blog largely to encourage students (and others) who may be facing doubt and unbelief in the face of the dominant secular environment of our western universities and, increasingly, in our culture. Many of my blog posts address this topic.

I also write for those who may not believe in God - or perhaps haven't even considered it. I sincerely believe if they examined with an open mind the evidence for the existence of God and the truth of Christianity, they may be quite surprised.

Footnote:
(1)  There is much information available about evidence for the existence of God and the truth of Christianity. For example, the authors William Lane Craig (www.ReasonableFaith.org), John Lennox (http://www.johnlennox.org/), Lee Strobel (e.g., The Case for Christ), C.S. Lewis (e.g., Mere Christianity), Timothy Keller ("The Reason for God" and many of his sermons at http://www.gospelinlife.com/), Frank Turek (http://crossexamined.org/), to name a few, all address this in their books and websites.

Is There Any Evidence That God Exists?

"To the majority of those who have reflected deeply and written about the origin and nature of the universe, it has seemed that it points beyond itself to a source which is non-physical and of great intelligence and power. Almost all the great classical philosophers - certainly Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Leibniz, Spinoza, Kant, Hegel, Locke, Berkeley - saw the origin of the universe as lying in a transcendent reality. They had different specific ideas of this reality, and different ways of approaching it; but that the universe is not self-explanatory, and that it requires some explanation beyond itself, was something they accepted as fairly obvious."
                                                                    Keith Ward (1)

Dr. William Lane Craig (2) has developed an excellent 4-minute video that addresses the question of the existence of God through a combination of logic and scientific evidence ("The Cosmological Argument"). Cosmology, which is the science of the origin and development of the universe, has in recent years discovered compelling evidence that the universe is not here by accident (click YouTube video at left or on this link: https://youtu.be/6CulBuMCLg0).

There is more evidence in cosmology that indicates the existence of God, but I will address that in another post!

Footnotes:

(1) God, Chance and Necessity, Oxford, One World Publication, 1996 p.1.

(2) Reasonable Faith with Dr. William Lane Craig (http://www.reasonablefaith.org/)

Resurrection from the Dead

“Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. He is not here...‘He has risen from the dead...”
                                                                                ―Matthew 28:5-7

“The resurrection of Jesus Christ and Christianity stand or fall together”
                                                                                ― Professor Josh McDowell

As a child my family attended church at sunrise nearly every Easter Sunday. Although I didn't like getting up early when it was still dark, over the years the significance of the Easter message began to 'dawn' on me. Namely, that this God-man named Jesus conquered death, returned to life from the grave, and promised us that we too could have this hope. (1) (see 1.3 min youtube scene of the resurrection from "The Passion of the Christ" at left, or click here). But can this really be true? If it is, it changes everything.

Literal Resurrection?
Many modern people have trouble believing in this aspect of Christian teaching. One objection is that the early Christians were a primitive, pre-scientific people who were ignorant of the laws of nature and therefore, more prone to believe in miracles. However, a physician named Luke wrote two books of the Bible that included an account of the resurrection. Luke was trained in the medical science of his day, and wrote that the first objections to the resurrection came not from atheists, but from Sadducee high priests in Judaism. These were highly religious men who believed in God, but they had embraced a worldview that did not allow for the resurrection of the dead. Indeed, theirs was a widespread conviction. Historian Tom Wright explained: "Ancient paganism contains all kinds of theories, but whenever resurrection is mentioned, the answer is a firm negative: we know that it doesn't happen." Therefore, the ancient world knew as well as we do that dead bodies do not get up out of graves. Christianity won its way because of the sheer weight of evidence that one man had actually risen from the dead. (2,3) 

A second objection is that today we know the laws of nature and therefore, we also know that miracles are impossible. However, as Oxford mathematician John Lennox explained: "It is important to grasp that Christians do not deny the laws of nature...The scientific use of the word 'law' is not the same as the legal use, where we often think of a law as constraining someone's actions...Newton's Law of Gravitation tells me that if I drop an apple it will fall towards the centre of the earth. But that law does not prevent someone intervening, and catching the apple as it descends. In other words, the law predicts what will happen, provided there is no change in the conditions under which the experiment is conducted. Thus, from the theistic perspective, the laws of nature predict what is bound to happen if God does not intervene. To argue that the laws of nature make it impossible for us to believe in the existence of God, and in the possibility of his intervention in the universe, is plainly fallacious. It would be like claiming that understanding of the laws governing the behaviour of internal combustion engines makes it impossible to believe that the designer of a motor car, or one of his mechanics, could or would intervene to remove the cylinder head. Of course they could intervene. Moreover, this intervention would not destroy those laws. The very same laws that explained why the engine worked with the cylinder head on would now explain why it did not work with the head removed...When a miracle takes place, it is our knowledge of the laws of nature that alerts us to the fact that it is a miracle." (2)

The Explosion of the Early Church
Clearly the resurrection or any event in history cannot be proven in a scientific laboratory. However, the resurrection of Jesus is a historical fact much more fully attested to than most other events of ancient history that we take for granted. The explosive growth of the early church was centered around the resurrection, and was striking evidence that it (the resurrection) happened. (2,3,4) (listen to NT Wright on youtube at right, or click here).

From the beginning the early church had a resurrection-centered view of reality. For example, one of the first accounts of the empty tomb and eyewitnesses was recorded by Paul only 15 to 20 years (possibly as little as 5 years) after the death of Jesus: 

"I passed on to you what was most important and what had also been passed on to me. Christ died for our sins, just as the Scriptures said. He was buried, and he was raised from the dead on the third day, just as the Scriptures said. He was seen by Peter and then by the Twelve. After that, he was seen by more than 500 of his followers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died."
1 Corinthians 15:3-6. 

It is also noteworthy that nearly all of the apostles and early Christian leaders died for their faith. It is hard to believe that this kind of powerful self-sacrifice would be done to support a hoax. As Pascal put it "I [believe] those witnesses who get their throats cut." Consequently, as stated by Tim Keller: "Most people think that, when it comes to Jesus' resurrection, the burden of proof is on believers to give evidence that it happened. That is not completely the case. It is not enough to simply believe Jesus did not rise from the dead. You must then come up with a historically feasible alternate explanation for the birth of the church." (4) 

Mary at the Empty Tomb, a stained glass
reproduction of a painting by German artist Bernhard
Plockhorst (1825-1907).

The Resurrection and You
At the age of 50, Leo Tolstoy faced an inward crisis and asked the question lying in the soul of every person, a question that brought him to the verge of suicide. "Is there any meaning in my life that the inevitable death awaiting me does not destroy?" The resurrection of Jesus Christ answers that question with a resounding yes.

Consequently, I believe the significance of the resurrection warrants your serious consideration. Namely because if it really happened, Christianity teaches that our resurrection can be guaranteed as well. As NT Wright said (in the youtube video in this post), if your worldview doesn't allow the possibility of miracles and you simply won't believe it, then this is as far as I can take you. However, if you are open to changing your worldview to believing that maybe there is a God who is involved in sorting out this sad world, then you will find the evidence overwhelming for the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Personally I find enormous comfort in this belief and desire the same for everyone-including you! 

Footnotes: 

Has Science Disproved God?

"Science and religion cannot be reconciled.”
                                                             Peter Atkins

“All my studies in science… have confirmed my faith.”
                                                             Sir Ghillean Prance FRS

Wearing my new glasses!

Recently I picked up a pair of glasses for distance viewing, which for me is the first time ever. I was amazed at how sharp my vision was. The definition and clarity in road signs, trees, and buildings was astounding! It literally took me back almost 35 years to when my vision was much better!

Origins of Complex Life

I began to think about the different explanations for the existence of something as complex and functional as the human eye. A theist (one who believes in a deity) would say the eye was designed and created by God, while an atheist would say the eye emerged automatically out of matter through a mindless, unguided process. As I marveled at the sharpness of my vision, I couldn’t help but wonder whether atheism really requires more faith than theism (1). Why, if something as marvelous as vision simply emerged from the primordial soup, would vision be so sharp? Why, for example, wouldn’t it be sufficient for the eye to evolve just to the point of my present vision without glasses, which is still overall quite functional? (2) This question is similar to, although not as potentially damning as what has become known as Darwin’s Doubt. Darwin wrote:  ‘With me, the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy.’

 Mathematicians have calculated that  it is highly improbable that the eye could have evolved by numerous small mutational changes since the available time was simply not available. Even so-called new atheist Richard Dawkins, author of “The God Delusion” stated: ‘You don’t need to be a mathematician or a physicist to calculate that an eye…would take from here to infinity to self-assemble by sheer higgledy-piggledy luck.’ Dawkins’ explanation, in a nutshell, is that natural selection is a law-like process that finds a faster pathway through the space of possibilities, which will increase the probabilities to acceptable levels over geological time. There isn’t space in this post to delve into the nuts and bolts of his explanation, but Oxford mathematician Dr. John Lennox dissects it brilliantly and concludes that Dawkins’ explanation turns out to be a guided process after all (3).

Science has Disproved God?

The new atheists such as Richard Dawkins and Peter Atkins also claim that science has eliminated the justification for believing in God. As a scientist who believes in God, I resoundingly reject that claim. A poll published in Nature in the mid-1990’s revealed that about 40% of all scientists believe both in a God who answers prayer and in immortality (4). There have also been and are some very prominent scientists who do believe in God – Francis Collins, Director of the Human Genome Project, Professor Bill Phillips, winner of the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1997, and others (5). The scientist Sir John Houghton FRS wrote: ‘Our science is God’s science. He holds the responsibility for the whole scientific story… (6) This reflects the belief of many scientists.

Even the late Stephen Jay Gould, who was not a believer in God, wrote: ‘Either half my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs – and equally compatible with atheism.’ Gould also said that ‘science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God’s possible existence. We neither affirm it nor deny it; we simply can’t comment on it as scientists’ (7). Prominent atheist Thomas Nagel goes even farther, criticizing the new atheists by saying their conception of nature, which is unable to account for mind-related features such as consciousness, meaning, and value, flies in the face of common sense and is almost certainly false (8).

War of the Worldviews

In his book God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? (9), Dr. John Lennox points out that, in light of some of the points made above, the real conflict isn’t between science and God at all. If that were true, the vast majority of scientists would be atheists, which simply isn’t so. No, the real conflict is between two opposing worldviews:  theism and naturalism. Naturalism is opposed to supernaturalism, and naturalism insists there can be no incursion into nature from outside of nature (such as God, angels, etc.). Therefore, naturalists have no other option than to insist that matter and energy must have the potential to organize themselves in such a way that eventually something as complex as the eye, or the human mind with its inherent hunger for meaning and purpose, will emerge.

Dr. Lennox concludes his book by noting that all of us must choose essentially between one of two presuppositions that will form the basis of our worldview. He wrote:  ‘Either human intelligence ultimately owes its origin to mindless matter; or there is a Creator.’

As I drove into my driveway after picking up my glasses, I got out of the car and looked up into the starry sky. The ‘restored’ clarity of my vision truly enhanced the beauty of the moon and stars in the night sky. As I stood there I thought of the Psalmists words: ‘The heavens declare the glory of God’ (10). And I thanked God that he gave me the ability to see with my eyes and comprehend with my mind even just a small glimpse of his glory!

Footnotes:

A Star to Steer By - Revised!

The beautiful Portland Head Lighthouse on the Maine coast.

It was the flash from this lighthouse I could see from the

balcony of my hotel in Ogunquit, far to the south.

No finite point has meaning without an infinite reference point.

                    Jean-Paul Sartre

 
I am the light of the world.

                    Jesus Christ  (Matthew 5:14)

I stood outside on the deck of my hotel listening to the surf quietly lap the beach. It was a beautiful Maine evening, with stars blazing overhead and a gentle breeze blowing warm for early October. Out in the darkness my eyes traced a dim line of lights running along the shore of the peninsula that jutted far out to sea. Where the lights ended, I assumed, was lands end and where the open sea began. I was curious then, when I saw a light flash much farther out to sea. It didn't take long to realize that the flash was from a lighthouse, which marked the true end of land. It was plain to me then how a lighthouse could make the difference between life and death to a ship sailing off the coast.

My friends and I had to laugh when
we saw this sign in Beijing, China,
north of the Forbidden City. It reminded
us all about the perilous journey of life.

A Point of Reference
As I thought about a ship sailing along the coast in rough waters without a reference point to warn it where it could run aground, it occurred to me how similar this is to navigating through life. Who could argue that life is not perilous? And how many lives have been shattered on the rocks of despair, meaninglessness, alcohol and drug addiction, bitterness, anxiety, etc.

How helpful it would be to have a point of reference to warn us of the dangers in life.

Even John-Paul Sartre (quoted above), a famous atheist existentialist, recognized that we finite human beings need an infinite reference point in order to have meaning. However, because Sartre didn't believe there was an infinite reference point (God), he concluded that life is meaningless. "Man is absurd", he said, "but he must grimly act as if he were not". Sartre had worked through the implications of life without God, and his conclusion perfectly illustrates the hopelessness of the atheistic and secularist worldview.

The flash of the lighthouse interrupted my thoughts. Each time I saw it, I was amazed at how far out the shore really ran.

Worldview
All of us have worldviews that, consciously or unconsciously, guide us through life and affect our daily decisions...decisions that could move us closer to or farther away from dangers that could destroy our lives. Francis Schaeffer noted that our worldviews are based on "presuppositions" (1). For example, the presupposition that is championed at the secular university (and widely in our culture) today is the "uniformity of natural causes in a closed system". Because, it is believed, the system is closed, then there can be nothing outside the system (i.e., God) and therefore, intervention from the outside (miracles or revelation from God) is impossible. With this presupposition, as Oxford mathematician John Lennox so eloquently stated, "we can’t even answer the simple questions of a child: Why am I here? What’s the meaning of life? And so on" (2). This is why Sartre, who believed in the closed system model, concluded that man is absurd.

If, on the other hand, you believe in the "uniformity of natural causes in an open system", into which God can act, then revelation and miracles are entirely possible. We can receive answers to the simple questions of a child because there is a God who can speak into our system (such as through the Bible). He is our lighthouse.Then the statement by Jesus Christ that he is the light of the world (quoted above) makes sense.

View from my hotel balcony on the coast of Ogunquit, Maine.
At night I could see the Portland Head Lighthouse flashing in
the distance at the far right.

A North Star
Francis Schaeffer went on to say that the Bible gives us an adequate reference point, a North Star for our lives in the infinite-personal God. God is infinite (and thus, provides us a needed infinite reference point), and at the same time personal. How was he personal? The apostle John wrote that God came into the world as a human, a person, whose name was Jesus Christ (3). Jesus reached out and touched the lepers (4), which everyone else was afraid to do because they didn't want to catch leprosy! He restored the lame (5) and even brought the dead back to life (6). Its hard to imagine getting more personal than that. In fact, read the New Testament and you will learn of many broken lives that, when touched by him, were healed and restored. Truly his mission had profound implications for those whose lives had been shattered on the jagged rocks of life.

Amazingly, the good news for us is that Jesus is still at work, healing and restoring life to all who accept him!  (7)

The lighthouse flashed again. Its no accident that Jesus described himself as the light of the world, or that John called him "the true light that gives light to everyone" (8).

It was getting late and I was growing tired. But I went back into my hotel room with a supernatural assurance that God was with me. As John wrote about Jesus: "The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it." (9)

Footnotes:

Chance Encounter with a Tidepool Sculpin?

Just for a moment I was back at school, and felt that old familiar pain. And as I turned to make my way back home, The snow turned into rain --
Dan Fogelberg, Same Old Lang Syne.

Tidepool Sculpin. Photo by Stuart Wilson (used with permission).

In late June I spent several hours in solitude along the Oregon Coast, in the late afternoon & early evening. It was a wondrous time, filled with the beauty of God's creation. As I walked I sensed his presence, like he was intentionally delighting in showing me the intricacies of his handiwork. I saw many birds such as gulls, cormorants, and ducks, including three species I had never seen before. I also saw sea anemones, clams, mussels, and starfish, all while hearing the surf crash against the line of rocks just offshore (50 yards or so out from the beach, pictured below), sometimes with a very powerful clap.

There were many tide pools at this beach, and I stopped by one to study it. While I was peering into the water I noticed a barely discernible, ghostlike movement on the bottom - almost like the floor of the tide pool itself was moving. Upon closer inspection I noticed the movement was small fish, which I later identified as tidepool sculpins (pictured above). I stayed there studying their patterns for a long time because I wanted to be able to identify them later. All at once, I realized one of them seemed to be studying me! It was looking at me, and slowly, incrementally was moving closer to me, somewhat under the cover of some sparse leaves of sea weed. There seemed to be a kind of playfulness in its behavior, and that it was as curious of me as I was of it. This went on for quite some time. It was an absolutely beautiful experience and I knew God was romancing me, speaking to me through it.

Seal Rock State Park, Oregon, where I spent an
incredible June afternoon and evening!

Learning about an artist through their work
John Eldredge, in a chapter entitled "Is Jesus Really Playful?" (Beautiful Outlaw), noted that we can learn a lot about an artist by observing their work...that the personality of the artist leaks through their work. God included. In speaking of how the playfulness of their family dog made them laugh, Eldredge stated:

"[Our dog's playfulness] makes us laugh every time. And no one taught him to do this. He came that way. God created him so. It might seem an odd place to begin a search for Jesus, but this is very close to where John begins his Gospel: Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made (John 1:3)...[Jesus] reveals himself through nature, as the Scriptures testify. This will open up wonders for you about the personality of Jesus - look at his works of art."

Chance Encounter?? Not a Chance!!
I can't stress enough how my interpretation of such seemingly "chance" encounters as with the tidepool sculpin has changed from my college biology days; I have written in other posts about how the naturalist, secular view, so prevalent at American universities, dimmed the meaning and wonder I had previously felt about our world. Even after that wonder was dimmed I would have been fascinated, but underlying it all would have been a nagging sense (emanating from secularism) that such an encounter was only a random accident and consequently, without real meaning.

Now I know there isn't a chance that my encounter with the tidepool sculpin was by chance! It was orchestrated by God, and all I had to do was take time and solitude to listen to Him and look for things that He wanted to show me!

As I turned to make my way back home that evening, my heart wasn't filled with pain that this brief glimpse of beauty was over and that I had to return to the grind of daily living. Rather, my heart was filled with joy and praise to the God who lives in me and is always with me! This is a glimpse of relationship with God, which we so often hear about but sometimes find so elusive, even to those of us who want it.

...seek, and you will find... (Matt 7:7)

The earth is the LORD's, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it; (Psalms 24:1)

Scientists Who Believe in God

In this short interview (<4 min) Dr Francis Collins (Director, National Human Genome Research Institute) explains why he believes in a personal God and how his faith is compatible with science. For a brief article about Dr. Francis Collin's road to faith, see Why this scientist believes in God.

Given the apparent "rift" between science and faith in God in our modern world, it is perhaps surprising to learn that many famous scientists of the past had a deep faith in God! Many of today's scientists do too although you may not often hear about them. And like believing scientists before them (see a partial list below), they don't see a conflict between Christianity and science. Dr. Collins in the youtube video above is one example.

This topic is one I hope to visit time and again, but today I simply want to list a few scientists whom you may have heard of who were devout Christians:

1. Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543): Polish astronomer who put forward the first mathematically based system of planets going around the sun.
2. Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627): Philosopher known for establishing the scientific method of inquiry based on experimentation and inductive reasoning.
3. Johannes Kepler (1571-1630): Brilliant mathematician and astronomer. He did early work on light, and established the laws of planetary motion about the sun.
4. Galileo Galilei (1564-1642): Galileo's troubles with the established church are famous, but his problem was with the institutionalized church, not Christianity. His controversial work on the solar system was published in 1633.
5. Rene Descartes (1596-1650): French mathematician, scientist and philosopher who has been called the father of modern philosophy.
6. Blaise Pascal (1623-1662): French mathematician, physicist, inventor, writer, and philosopher.
7. Isaac Newton (1642-1727): In optics, mechanics, and mathematics, Newton was a figure of undisputed genius and innovation.
8. Robert Boyle (1791-1867): One of the founders and key early members of the Royal Society, Boyle gave his name to "Boyle's Law" for gases, and also wrote an important work on chemistry.
9. Michael Faraday (1791-1867): The son of a blacksmith who became one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century. His work on electricity and magnetism not only revolutionized physics, but led to much of our lifestyles today, which depends on them (including computers and telephone lines and, so, web sites).
10. Gregor Mendel (1822-1884): The first to lay the mathematical foundations of genetics, in what came to be called "Mendelianism".
11. William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907): Kelvin was foremost among the small group of British scientists who helped to lay the foundations of modern physics.

Science and Christianity

To become a Christian, do you need to throw away your mind & ignore the findings of science? Au contraire!

 
One of my five (yes, five!) majors as an undergraduate was biology. As a biology student who was also a Christian, I struggled with how to reconcile the theory of evolution with my faith. I knew Christians who felt strongly that evolution was contrary to Christianity, but in biology, evolution was the foundation upon which classes were taught. I wanted to stay true to my faith but was unsure how to reconcile this apparent contradiction. The symbols in the picture in this post testify to the hostility between some who hold these “opposing viewpoints”, and represent a sort of warfare mentality of the relationship of science to faith.

For me, probably the thing that bothered me most was the link, at least in my mind, between evolutionary science and naturalism, a concept adopted by many atheists. Naturalism denies the existence of God and teaches that only natural laws and forces (as opposed to supernatural ones) operate in the world and that nothing exists beyond the natural world; life is solely the product of random forces guided by no one (i.e., accidental). I read articles explaining the “evolutionary basis for morality” and “religion as a natural phenomenon”. In a nutshell, they argued that morality and belief in God exists simply because they helped our ancestors adapt to their environments and survive, and not because they are true. In effect, the things our brain tells us about God, morality, and even love and beauty are not real, but merely a set of chemical reactions which only have the purpose of passing on our genetic code (i.e., natural selection).

These assumptions seem reasonable at face value, which only intensified my quandary as an undergraduate biology student who was also a Christian.

My journey on this road was long, but for the sake of brevity I will summarize my view by citing from “The Reason for God” by Tim Keller, who addressed this topic as well as any I have ever heard. Here is a synopsis of his argument:

If we can't trust our brains to tell us the truth about God, as naturalism suggests, then why should we trust our brains in any area, including to tell us the truth about any scientific theory (including evolution)? For that matter, how certain can we be in our ability to apply reason to anything at all? Indeed, reason itself can have no power if it is only a product of natural selection. Charles Darwin himself saw this major vulnerability, writing “the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy” (1). If our brains are products of random, unguided evolution, then it is as likely we live in a sort of dream world as that we actually know something about ourselves and our world (2). It is disingenuous for naturalists to apply the scalpel of their skepticism to what our minds tell us about God, but not to what our minds tell us about naturalism itself. Conversely, if we believe God exists, then our view of the universe gives us a basis for believing that cognitive faculties work, since God could make us able to form true beliefs and knowledge. Also, if God exists, our intuitions about the meaningfulness of beauty and love are to be expected. If you don't believe in God then these things are profoundly inexplicable. When evolution is turned into an All-encompassing Theory explaining absolutely everything we believe, feel, and do as the product of random forces through natural selection, then we are not in the arena of science, but of philosophy, and it has insurmountable difficulties as a worldview.

You may be wondering what my position is on this topic after all my wrestling. I believe that scientific thought can be compatible with religious belief, which is important since I am a scientist! Many Christians do not believe the theory of evolution; after all, it is only theory. But many Christians do accept evolutionary theory, although in the sense that God created life with purpose and evolutionary processes do exist. Since Christians have differing viewpoints on evolutionary theory, skeptical inquirers do not need to accept one of these positions in order to embrace the Christian faith. Rather they should concentrate on and weigh the central claims of Christianity such as the person of Christ and the resurrection.

There is much more to say about this but I have already gone long. As always, I am interested in your thoughts on this, whether you agree or disagree. Please feel free to share your thoughtful comments!

(1) Charles Darwin, Letter to W. Graham, 1881, The life and letters of Charles Darwin: including an autobiographical chapter;  (2) Alvin Plantinga, "Is Naturalism Irrational?" in Warrant and Proper Function (Oxford University Press, 2000), p. 218.

Do I Really Matter?

Biology class took away the wonder I had about our world by implying it all came about by accident. If that is true, there is no purpose for our lives.

Early in my university experience I began to struggle with a sense that nothing really mattered. In biology and other classes I learned that by coincidence, conditions on Earth just happened to be right for life to begin, that lightning happened to hit the "primordial soup", and consequently, life happened to begin (or something like that). Apparently, even though the chances of life beginning here were infinitesimally small, it was likely to happen somewhere because of the vastness of the universe. Oh, by the way, the vastness of the universe also provided evidence that the Earth, and consequently humanity (which included me), was very small in the big scheme of things. In other words, there was a sense that in the end, neither I nor anybody else really mattered. How could we? We rose by accident out of the primordial soup, live for awhile and then we die. End of story.

This all was taught as fact in biology class. What I wasn't taught was that this is really just a secular "worldview", which really has serious issues of its own (more that in later posts, such as Science and Christianity, Leap of Faith, Decline of the Secular University). In a sense, I was betrayed by putting my trust in the secular university to teach me about our fascinating world.

When I was young I marveled at the beauty and complexity of this incredible universe and the life it contained. I was excited and wanted to learn more about it...to explore it! I believed in God but somehow that didn't overcome the underlying sense of futility that seemed present in science classes. I knew vaguely that some of the great scientists like Newton, Galileo, and Pascal were men of faith, but even that was explained away by reasoning that they lived in older times and therefore, were naive because they hadn't been exposed to more recent scientific discoveries (like Darwin's explanation about the origins of species). Archeologists also reported that the ancients invented gods in attempts to find meaning and purpose in their lives, which implied that ANY belief in God was a figment of our imaginations. In essence, it seemed science taught that for one to believe in God was akin to believing in a fairy tale.

It is not my purpose here to diss on the university. After all, I enjoy working there now! I am only telling my story about how I struggled at the university to find meaning and purpose because of what was being taught or implied in the science classes I took. Suffice it to say that I am glad that I didn't give in to despair. There was more to my story, but that is for another day. What about yours? Does any of this seem familiar or am I an anomaly (okay, I may be an anomaly in some ways but surely others have felt SOME of the things I have???)