Can Science Explain Everything?

This entry is an outline summary of John Lennox’s 2019 book,Can Science Explain Everything?[1]

1.     Science & Christianity are NOTat Odds.

a.    The connection between the biblical worldview and the rise of modern science has been well recognized.

The modern world is the product of a revolution in scientific method … Both experiment in science, and the citing of sources as evidence in history, arise from the worldview of Jerusalem, not Athens, from the Jews and Christians, not the Greeks.[2]

Men became scientists because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed on a Legislator.[3]

The common belief that … the actual relations between religion and science over the last few centuries have been marked by deep and enduring hostility … is not only historically inaccurate but actually a caricature so grotesque that what needs to be explained is how it could possibly have achieved any degree of respectability.[4]

            

2.     Why Some People Think Science & Christianity Do Not Mix

a.    The mistaken idea that science is the only way to truth often leads people to think that “scientific” means the same as “rational.”

b.    Richard Dawkins’ fallacious argument from The God Delusionthat religion is dangerous. Instead, religious involvement correlates strongly with wellbeing, happiness, life satisfaction, hope and optimism, purpose and meaning in life, higher self-esteem, better adaptation to bereavement, greater social support, less loneliness, lower rates of depression, and faster rates of recovery from depression.[5]

c.    Freud’s belief that God is a delusion.  This explanation only works if God does not exist.  The exact same Freudian argument will show atheism as the delusion of God does exist.  One first has to show whether God exists.

d.    Making belief in God equivalent to belief in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy. No one comes to belief in Santa or the Tooth Fairy as an adult.  Instead, throughout history, some of the finest minds have given themselves to thinking about God.

e.    Confusion about the nature of God.  If you define God to be a god of the gaps, then of course you have to choose between God and science.  God is not defined this way in the Bible.

f.     Confusion about the nature of scientific explanation.  The laws of nature describe the universe but they explain nothing.

… the fact that there are rules at all to be checked is a kind of miracle; that it is possible to find a rule, like the inverse-square law of gravitation, is some sort of miracle.  It is not understood at all, but it leads to the possibility of prediction-that means it tells you what you would expect to happen in an experiment you have not yet done.[6]

g.    Stephen Hawking’s claim that God is not necessary because the universe can create itself from nothing (because there is a law like gravity).  This statement is not scientific and is not even rational.

h.    The retort, “Who Created the Creator?” This question doesn’t even apply to the Christian God and doesn’t add anything to the argument as you can always ask, “You believe the universe created you, so who created your creator?”

Here is a blog post addressing the question, “Who Created God?”:  https://natureandscripture.blogspot.com/2018/03/who-created-god.html

3.     The Mistaken Idea That Religion Depends on Faith but Science Doesn’t and The Myth That Science Depends on Reason but Christianity Doesn’t.

a.    Christian “faith” is not blind, but instead is a trust in Jesus based on evidence.

Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.[7]

b.     Even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith the following:  a law-like order in nature that is at least in part comprehensible to us, the mathematical intelligibility of the physical world, that our minds are capable of thinking rationally about the physical world.

c.    Rational thought is found everywhere in the Bible.

Here are some links to other blog posts that discuss the relationship between science & Christianity:  

·     https://natureandscripture.blogspot.com/2019/02/the-more-we-do-science-more-reasonable.html

·     https://natureandscripture.blogspot.com/2018/12/christianity-science-synergistic.html

·     https://natureandscripture.blogspot.com/2018/12/the-creation-and-creator-are-both.html

·     https://natureandscripture.blogspot.com/2018/12/another-example-of-science-confirming.html

·     https://natureandscripture.blogspot.com/2018/12/the-more-we-do-science-more-we-see-god.html

·     https://natureandscripture.blogspot.com/2017/08/a-physicist-discusses-amazing-synergism.html

·     https://natureandscripture.blogspot.com/2017/07/god-and-nature-above-reason-not-against.html

·     https://natureandscripture.blogspot.com/2017/03/argument-for-god-from-mathematics.html

4.     We CAN Take the Bible Seriously and Trust What It Says.

Here are some blog posts that address whether we can trust what the Bible says:

·     https://natureandscripture.blogspot.com/2018/04/the-new-testament-writers-were.html

·     https://natureandscripture.blogspot.com/2017/05/do-we-have-accurate-copies-of-new.html

·     https://natureandscripture.blogspot.com/2017/05/argument-for-new-testament-reliability.html

5.     Belief in Miracles is Rational.

Here are some blogs that address miracles:

·     https://natureandscripture.blogspot.com/2017/05/an-argument-for-miracles.html

·     https://natureandscripture.blogspot.com/2017/04/are-miracles-possible.html

6.     Belief in the Resurrection of Jesus is Rational.  

Here are two videos that address the resurrection:

·     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKRRLpuGiQg

·     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SbJ4p6WiZE

What explanation is adequate to explain the transformation of the early disciples? From a frightened group of men and women-utterly depressed and disillusioned at what they perceived to be the calamity that had befallen their movement when their leader was crucified-there suddenly exploded a powerful, international movement which rapidly established itself all over the Roman Empire and ultimately all over the world. And the striking thing is that the first disciples were all Jews: from a religion not noted for its enthusiasm in making converts from other nations.[8]

7.    Conclusion:It is clear that science cannot explain everything and that science and Christianity do mix very well.  Therefore, to use science as an excuse to fail to get to know Jesus is to miss out on life’s ultimate purpose and joy.

---

[1]John C. Lennox, Can Science Explain Everything?, The Good Book Company, 2019

[2]Australian Ancient Historian Edwin Judge, quoted in https://www.abc.net.au/religion/genesis-created-science-a-reply-to-tamas-pataki/10101306

[3]C.S. Lewis, Miracles, Simon & Schuster, 1996, page 140

[4]C.A. Russell, “The Conflict Metaphor and Its Social Origins”, Science & Christian Belief, 1 (1989), page 3-26

[5]Andrew Sims, Is Faith Delusion?, Continuum Books, 2009

[6]Richard Feynman, The Meaning of It All, Penguin, 2007, page 23

[7]John 20: 30-31

[8]John C. Lennox, Can Science Explain Everything?, The Good Book Company, 2019, pages 100-101

The More We Do Science The More Reasonable Christianity Becomes: String Theory

Christians should not be afraid of String theory!  If String theory turns out to actually describe reality it will change our perception of the universe, but will do nothing to undermine Christianity. String Theory is simply a theoretical and mathematical idea that the fundamental particles which make up our universe can be described as one-dimensional vibrating objects called strings. The different vibrations on these strings then give rise to the different particles that make up our universe. String theory is very attractive to physicists because it provides a possible “Theory of Everything” – the ultimate goal of physics, unifying and explaining all forces and particles with one grand set of descriptive mathematical equations.

Unification has been the goal of science since the 17^thcentury when Isaac Newton unified the motions of planets with the motion of objects on Earth with his simple laws of motion and his universal gravitational force. Another example of unification is Maxwell showing that electricity and magnetism are different manifestations of the same force; describing them both with the same set of equations. Quantum mechanics has made it possible to unify all of the fundamental forces - except for gravity.  General relativity (which describes how gravity works) does an excellent job explaining large things and has proved almost impossible to reconcile with quantum mechanics, which does an excellent job describing tiny objects. String theory is the attempt to accomplish this final union, describing the universe with a theory of everything by unifying general relativity with quantum theory.

String theory, if true, describes 10⁵⁰⁰possible universes.  This “’landscape of universes” may not actually exist – it is just a range of mathematical possibilities for potential universes. This description gives no explanation as to why our universe has the values that it does, it is simply a mathematical list of possible universes and does nothing to undermine Biblical creation.

String theorists acknowledge a large number of possible solutions to the equations of string theory and that none discovered yet looks like this universe. They also acknowledge that the fundamental constants of nature in this universe appear finely tuned to support life. To reconcile these observations, theorists posit that all possible solutions of the equations actually exist in a landscape outside this universe. However, this solution requires that something outside this universe—another way of saying supernatural—is responsible for its creation.[1]

            As William Lane Craig has pointed out, there are only three competing explanations for the extreme fine-tuning of our life-permitting universe: Chance, Necessity, or Design.[2]With 10⁵⁰⁰possible combinations of all the fundamental constants, it is amazing that there is one with the properties that will permit life!  Either we just got lucky (chance), or there is something that forces all the values of the constants to be in the life-permitting range (necessity), or a designer set all the values at the correct levels to permit life (design).  String theory’s 10⁵⁰⁰ options rules out necessity. For chance to be the explanation, all the 10⁵⁰⁰ universes must actually exist (a many-universe Multiverse) and we just happen to be in the one that can permit life. As Hugh Ross pointed out in the above quote, this does nothing to remove the need for a designer, it instead requires us to decide who or what the designer is.

At first glance, the multiverse theory seems to effectively buttress the human “selection effect” explanation for the fine-tuned appearance of our universe. Yet as research into multiverse scenarios advances, it appears that they may simply move the design “up one level.” In other words, instead of just one universe requiring fine-tuning to support life, it appears that any multiverse-generating mechanism also requires a high degree of fine-tuning to reproduce the observable universe in which we live.[3]

As for this large quantity of universes, a recent paper contends that many of them cannot exist![4]All current astrophysical evidence supports an accelerating, expanding universe which requires dark energy as kind of an anti-gravitational substance to facilitate the increasing acceleration. Current observations imply that the amount of dark energy in empty space remains constant; some string theorists now contend that this type of universe is incompatible with String theory.  

Since 1998, telescope observations have indicated that the cosmos is expanding ever-so-slightly faster all the time, implying that the vacuum of empty space must be infused with a dose of gravitationally repulsive “dark energy.” In addition, it looks like the amount of dark energy infused in empty space stays constant over time (as best anyone can tell). But the new conjecture asserts that the vacuum energy of the universe must be decreasing. Cumrun Vafa, a prominent string theorist at Harvard University, has been mapping the forbidden “swampland” of impossible universes for 13 years. Vafa and colleagues contend that universes with stable, constant, positive amounts of vacuum energy, known as “de Sitter universes,” aren’t possible. String theorists have struggled mightily since dark energy’s 1998 discovery to construct convincing stringy models of stable de Sitter universes. But if Vafa is right, such efforts are bound to sink in logical inconsistency; de Sitter universes lie not in the landscape, but in the “swampland.”[5]

The number of possible universes allowed by string theory may be limited by dark energy. This would move the explanation of the fine-tuning of our universe closer to the physical necessity choice by limiting what universes can actually exist. Limiting the choices of possible universes does not, however, mean that our universe had to be the way it is. There is nothing in the scientific description of the initial conditions of the universe that would remotely suggest this.

The extraordinarily low entropy condition of the early universe would be a good example of an arbitrary quantity which seems to have just been put in at the creation as an initial condition. There is no reason to think that showing every constant and quantity to be physically necessary is anything more than a pipedream.[6]

            All scientists agree that our universe is perfectly designed and fine-tuned for life.  The scientific discussion centers now on why this is the case. If recent work showing that dark energy limits what universes can exist, making necessity a more reasonable explanation, we will still have the impossible task of showing why the initial conditions of the universe had to be the way they were with no other choices possible. If we discover that 10⁵⁰⁰universes actually exist and we just got lucky to be in this one, then we will still need to explain where the 10⁵⁰⁰universes came from.  “Designed by something outside our universe” still remains as an increasingly reasonable explanation for our existence. 

All String theories require that there are more than the four known dimensions of space-time. M-Theory, for example, requires 11 dimensions. These extra dimensions of String theory actually can help to explain the attributes of God and how He can operate in realms beyond ours!  As Hugh Ross explained in his book The Creator and the Cosmos[7], an 11-dimensional being could easily perform acts that would be described as miracles to us four dimensional humans

            Christians have absolutely no reason to be afraid of science. Instead, the more we learn about nature, the more reasonable the God of the Bible becomes! While it is a popular among Christians to point out that there isn’t any observational data supporting String theory or the Multiverse, I don’t think this retort does anything to convince someone versed in the sciences of the truth of Christianity. Instead, a more convincing response would be to show how current science actually supports the truths taught in the Bible.

---

[1]Hugh Ross, TNRTB Archive, February 22, 2006, String Theory and Multiverses Affirm Biblical Creation https://www.reasons.org/explore/blogs/todays-new-reason-to-believe/read/tnrtb/2006/02/22/string-theory-and-multiverses-affirm-biblical-creation

[2]William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith Podcast, January 28, 2019 https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/reasonable-faith-podcast/the-latest-on-string-theory/

[3]Jeffrey A. Zweerink, Ph.D., Who’s Afraid of the Multiverse?, Reasons to Believe 2008, page 53

[4]Georges Obied, Hirosi Ooguri, Lev Spodyneiko, Cumrun Vafa, De Sitter Space and the Swampland, Cornell University, July 17, 2018  https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.08362

[5]Natalie Wolchover, Dark Energy May Be Incompatible with String Theory, Quanta Magazine, August 9, 2018 https://www.quantamagazine.org/dark-energy-may-be-incompatible-with-string-theory-20180809/

[6]William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, 3^rdedition, Crossway Books, 2008, page 164

[7]Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos, 3^rdedition, NavPress, 2001

Paul Begins His Evangelism With Science!

            In chapter 14 of Acts, Paul is speaking to the people in Lystra who had tried to make him and Barnabas into the gods Hermes and Zeus. Paul, of course, tells them that he and Barnabas are just men, but then he adds, “…you should turn from these vain things to a living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that is in them.”  Paul then goes on to say that nature can testify to this God. 

Here in Acts 14, however, we find the first recorded evangelistic message to an audience with no background in Judaism at all. So, it’s no surprise that Paul doesn’t start to talk about the way Jesus fulfilled Old Testament prophecy (unlike Acts 10:43)! Paul tells them that the natural world is God’s testimony of his goodness and his interest in them. That is, he appeals to natural revelation, not to special revelation.[1]

            The greatest evangelist in history actually begins with science when telling non-Christians (who have no background in the church) about Jesus.  Science can be a perfect starting point for evangelism today as well. Many people have at least a cursory knowledge of science, while the number of people that have no knowledge of the Bible or Christianity is increasing.  Our society also tends to take “scientific” knowledge as truth while it tends to be skeptical of “spiritual” knowledge. 

            When Paul is in Athens, as recorded in chapter 17 of Acts, early in his speech at the Areopagus Paul talks about, “The God who made the world and everything in it...”[2]  Paul’s beginning point here is again with nature; pointing to the created world to show that the Christian God, while having created everything, is actually too great to be worshiped as part of the created world. When we do science, we are looking at the creation, which then can point us to the creator. Paul explains in Romans 1 why he chooses to begin with science when talking to those with no background in Judaism or Christianity.

For 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.[3]

            Looking at nature is enough to know that God exists and pointing to nature can be a beginning point to showing people that there is a God. Science is our current way of studying nature, so beginning your evangelism with science is a great way – and a Biblical way - to be able to tell people about Jesus!

---

[1]C. John Collins, Science & Faith, Friends or Foes?, Crossway Books, 2003, page 190

[2]Acts 17:24

[3]Romans 1:20

Why We Need Christmas: The Good Samaritan Parable

* Most of this comes from Pastor Dax Swanson’s December 23^rd sermon at Grace Community Church in Bellingham, WA

Almost everyone has heard the parable of the Good Samaritan, retold in the eleventh chapter of Luke.[1] This parable is usually used to encourage us to be kind to people – even our enemies. I think that may be a small part of the reason Jesus told the story, but the real reason for the parable is to show us that we need Him!  The parable of the Good Samaritan shows us why we need Christmas.

            The scene opens with a teacher of the law (someone who knew the Hebrew scriptures well) asking Jesus what he needs to do to go to heaven.  In typical fashion, Jesus answers his question with a question, which the lawyer answers correctly, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.”[2]  The lawyer then asks for clarification about who exactly is his neighbor, which precipitates the telling of the parable by Jesus.

            The story is about how a man is robbed, beaten, and left laying alongside the road.  A priest and a Levite both walk by and do nothing, but a Samaritan comes along and takes care of the man.  It is obviously a good thing to show compassion and mercy to people who need our help, but I think there is a greater reason that Jesus told this parable!

            To really understand the main point of the story, you first need to know what the Jewish people thought of the Samaritan people. 

Imagine the hatred between Serbs and Muslims in modern Bosnia, the enmity between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland or the feuding between street gangs in Los Angeles or New York, and you have some idea of the feeling and its causes between Jews and Samaritans in the time of Jesus. Both politics and religion were involved.[3]

The split between the Jews and the Samaritans goes back to before the separation of the northern and southern Jewish kingdoms.  1 Kings 16:24 records that King Omri of the Northern Kingdom bought the hill of Samaria from Shermer and built the city of Samaria.  1 Kings 16:25 records that Omri did evil in the sight of the Lord and caused Israel to sin and worship idols.

When Samaria was taken by the Assyrians in 722 BC, many Samaritans were taken captive.  Those left behind intermarried with non-Jews, which, along with the previous actions of King Omri, caused the Samaritans to be condemned by the Jews. When the Jews returned from their exile in Babylon and wanted to rebuild the temple, the Samaritans offered to help, but their offer to help was rejected.

With the rejection came political hostility and opposition. The Samaritans tried to undermine the Jews with their Persian rulers and slowed the rebuilding of Jerusalem and its temple. Nehemiah tells us (Nehemiah 13:28-29) that a grandson of the high priest, Eliashib, had married a daughter of Sanballat, the governor of the province of Samaria.

For defiling the priesthood by marrying a non-Jewish woman, Nehemiah drove Eliashib from Jerusalem–though Sanballat was a worshiper of Yahweh. According to the historian Josephus, Sanballat then had a temple built on Mount Garizim in which his son-in-law Eliashib could function. Apparently, this is when the full break between Jews and Samaritans took place.

According to John McKenzie in his Dictionary of the Bible, the Samaritans later allied themselves with the Seleucids in the Maccabean wars and in 108 B.C. the Jews destroyed the Samaritan temple and ravaged the territory. Around the time of Jesus’ birth, a band of Samaritans profaned the Temple in Jerusalem by scattering the bones of dead people in the sanctuary. In our own era which has witnessed the vandalism of synagogues and the burning of black churches, we should be able to understand the anger and hate such acts would incite.[4]

            Given this history, you can imagine the impact of Jesus’ choice of a Samaritan as the one who had compassion.  The priest and the Levite (the two people who walked by first and ignored the beaten man) both knew the Law and knew the command to help people in need – but the command in the Law didn’t result in compassion or love. Jesus is not actually answering the question asked by lawyer (Who is my neighbor?); instead He changes the question to “What is the quality of love” and is answering that instead.

            The Samaritan exhibits limitless love by pouring his oil and wine on the wounds – using the expensive liquids liberally on an enemy!  He puts the beaten man on his own animal and takes him to an inn where he gives the innkeeper an unlimitedbudget to take care of the man. All of this would seem like an impossibility to the Jews listening to the story – which I think is the point. Imagine an L.A. gang member doing this for someone in a rival gang.

            Jesus is saying that to get to heaven, you must exhibit limitlesslove – which is impossible for us to do!  So, this story is teaching the gospel message that we cannot DO anything to get to heaven. The Old Testament Law doesn’t compel anyone to show limitless love, and we are incapable of doing it ourselves, so we need the grace given by God in the person of Jesus – which is why we need Christmas!

            The placement by Luke of the Martha and Mary story immediately after this parable strengthens this point.  In this story, Jesus is visiting the home of two sisters, Mary and Martha. Martha was distracted – implying that she was not able to listen to Jesus - by trying to DO things for everyone while Mary chose the “good portion” by sitting at the feet of Jesus and listening to His teaching.[5]I think this is reinforcing the point from the Good Samaritan that we can’t DO anything to get to heaven; instead we need Jesus.

            Christmas is the celebration of Jesus coming into the world so that He could do something that we are incapable of doing; Jesus came to take on all of our sins and restore our relationship to God so that we too can “inherit eternal life” and spend eternity in His presence. Merry Christmas!

---

[1]Luke 11: 25-37

[2]Luke 11: 27

[3]The Rift Between Jews and Samaritans, Pat McCloskey, Franciscan Media, https://www.franciscanmedia.org/the-rift-between-jews-and-samaritans/

[4]ibid

[5]Luke 11: 38-42