Can I Ask That? – Part Four – Did God Create Our World?
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2011%3A15-19&version=NLT
Head/Mind – Helpful Information
Revelation chapter eleven celebrates that this is God’s world. He created this world and it is good. But it is profoundly broken, and Revelation also celebrates how God sent Jesus to redeem this world. Today, we are going to focus on the fact that this world was created by God, who loves it very much and who has a plan for this world.
Let me start by saying that when we talk about God creating the world, we are not talking about the mechanical process. Theoretical physicist and theologian John Polkinghorne once said, “If you walk into my kitchen and see a kettle of water boiling, you might ask, ‘Why is the water boiling?’ I might answer, ‘Because the stove has heated the water up to 100 degrees Celsius,’ or I might answer, ‘Because I wanted to make tea.’ Both answers are true, but each is making a different kind of claim.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Polkinghorne
Likewise, when I say that God created me, I am not ignoring the fact that in the act of procreation, a sperm from father met up with an egg from my mother and formed a zygote. I am saying that God’s creative love the reality that made this act possible in the first place.
A number of years ago, I read Richard Dawkins book, Climbing Mount Improbable https://a.co/d/iCkRDGe. The goal of the book was to challenge advocates of intelligent design movement by showing how highly complex things, such as eyes, wings, and ears could have developed without any help from an intelligent designer. I saw down and read it. The conclusion I reached would have made the author cuss, spit, and walk away in disgust. I said to myself, if that is how God did it, then I am even more impressed. Why? Because the mechanical explanation is only a part of the mystery. The real question is, why do we live in a universe where it is possible for an eye, an ear, or a wing to exist in the first place.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design_
This morning, I am not really interested in the kind of questions that debate the age of the earth, natural selection, and other mechanical processes. I will leave each of you to think through those things because they are not the heart of the matter.
Heart – The Character of the Creator
In our sermon on God, we used the definition of Infinite Being, Infinite Consciousness, and, Infinite Bliss. Each of these will be immensely helpful in answering our question, did God create us and our world? Why should I believe that he did?
Infinite Being – Order and Intelligence
Whether we zoom in our out, we find find that the universe is orderly and complex at every level. When we zoom out, looking at the way the galaxies are spread out, we see fractals everywhere. Fractals are patters of order and symmetry. The universe doesn’t seem random or haphazard. https://www.space.com/universe-pattern-fractals-cosmic-web
The same facts confront us when we zoom in. Let’s compare the human genome, found in our DNA, to the Encyclopedia Brittanica. The encyclopedia 40 million words, covering 228,274 topics, with another 474,675 sub entries. https://www.britannica.com
The nuclear genome contains approximately 3 billion nucleotides of DNA, divided into 24 linear molecules, the shortest of which sequence is 50 million nucleotides and the longest 260 million nucleotides. That means the shortest sequence is at least as complex as the entire encyclopedia. https://www.genome.gov/human-genome-project
Yes, but why does that indicate intelligence? Isn’t it even a fallacy is to look at this pattern as a sign of intelligence and design? Real scientists don’t do that, do they? Well, yes. That is exactly how the SETI program that scours the universe looking for signs of life works. One of the things the SETI program does is analyze radio signals to see if they show signs of having been altered intentionally by an intelligent species. And the level of complexity that would count in favor of coming from an intelligent source falls well below the complexity we see in DNA. This is not the only criteria they use, but it is one. https://www.seti.org. Our search for aliens is predicated upon the idea that complexity is a sign of intelligence.
Infinite Consciousness – Self-Awareness
One of the facts that should leave us speechless is that the most complicated thing in universe that we know about is the human brain. This 2 1/2 pounds of meat is more complex than anything else we are aware of. And, it is conscious. Consciousness should cause us to really ponder. How can inanimate material become conscious of itself.
Theologian and philosopher David Bentley Hart makes the following observation:
“There have been so real advances in neuroscience over the past several decades. It is quite wonderful that we seem to be finding so many correlations between certain portions of the brain and certain elementary cognitive functions. But that has little bearing on most of the more difficult questions consciousness raises, how matter can produce subjective awareness, how abstract processes of reasoning or deliberation could possible correspond with sequences of purely physical events in the brain and so on. That there is a deep and integral connection between brain and mind no one doubts. But again, since the brain can be investigated only mechanically, while consciousness emits no mechanical description, the nature of that connection is impossible to conceive, let alone identify. To put the matter a little absurdly if one did not know that such a thing as subjective consciousness existed, one would never discover that it did through any empirical investigation of the structure and activity of the brain, however comprehensive or exact. One could map out every working of the brain in all its amazing intricacies and catalogue every detail for all to see and still never guess that a privately consciousness itself inhabited the brain. Electrochemical events are not thoughts, even when they may be inseparable associated with thoughts. And no empirical inventory of such events will ever disclose for us either the content or the experiential quality of an idea, a desire, a volition, or any other mental event.”
Inanimate matter has become self-aware. The question to ask is not how, but why. And the theological answer is that behind the universe that which is most real is also personal. God is not an abstract thing, but a personal reality.
Now, one current scientific hypothesis about consciousness is that the phenomenon of consciousness is only an illusion. But this explanation begs the question, who experiencing the illusion?
Or take this fact, bumblebees seem to play. Why is that important? Because play is a highly complex behavior associate with highly developed brains. Bumblebees are not big enough to have that complex of a brain. They should not be able to play. But they do. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003347222002366
Or take this example, ants and other more simple organisms have developed complex behaviors that go well beyond what any single ant could do. It is a type of consciousness that seems not even to need a brain. What does that mean? Consciousness has a way of surfacing again and gain, in various forms.
https://thenewstack.io/identifying-emergent-behaviors-complex-systems-nature-computers/
Infinite Bliss – Beauty and Goodness
In spite everything wrong with creation, including diseases, parasites, and natural disasters, goodness rises again and again. We see it in even the simple act of mother bird protecting her young or a paramedic laying down their life for a stranger.
Recently, Richard Dawkins has challenged the idea of goodness in his book The Selfish Gene https://a.co/d/5a8Nudb. He says that the real reason for altruism and love the survival and propagation of selfish genes who control us from within. He says that they are the programmer and director of us. The problem with this, as David Bentley Hart says, There is neither agency nor motive at the genetic level of organisms: “genes” do not “recognize” kindred beings, they do not “seek” to survive, they do not see or “program” any organism, they do not guide evolution, they are not the “rationale” for anything at all.” Genes do not desire or plan anything. They have no master plan and do not control us like robots… “To put things in the correct order, it is only because a mother has a desire to protect her young (let us be quaint here and call this desire “love”) that the mindless genetic material contained in her cells—whose functions are as much determined as determining—is blessed with a derivative survival. It is only because the larger conditions of the world we share make it possible for a creature capable of love to evolve and flourish that life’s notation of its organismic history (the “codes” inscribed in genes) can continue to be passed down stably from one generation to the next. Our DNA might well be characterized as an enduring record of our moral achievements, rather than as some secret truer text or hidden deterministic program subversive of those achievements.” (Below is the extended quote from David Bentley Hart
Finally, our belief in the reality of the goodness and beauty of the world helps us to come to terms with the fact that our universe in general and our world specifically, is suited for life. This is called the Goldilocks Effect or the Anthropic Principle.
Karl W. Giberson and Francis S. Collins, in their book The Language of Science and Faith: Straight Answers to Genuine Questions have this to say There are four fundamental forces in the universe: 1. The strong nuclear force; 2. The weak nuclear force; 3. The electron magnetic force; and 4. The gravitational force. These four forces are so finally calibrated that life is possible in our universe. But had any of them been off by even the tiniest amount, life could not have happened. Consider the strength of gravity. Shortly after the Big Bang occurred, the matter in the universe was randomly distributed…as the universe expanded, gravity pulled ever so gently on the atoms, gathered them into clumps that eventually became stars and galaxies. But gravity had to have just the right strength – if it was a bit stronger, it would have pulled the all the atoms together into one big ball…and if gravity were a bit weaker, the rapidly expanding universe would have distributed the atoms so widely that they would never have been gather into stars and galaxies…But what do we mean by “exactly?” Well, if turns out that if we change gravity by even a fraction of a percent – enough so that you would be, say, one billionth of a gram heavier or lighter…the universe becomes so different that there are no stars, galaxies, or planets. And no planets implies no life.
We believe the universe is fit for life because of something fundamentally good about the creator. However, the materialist explains the fact by saying that life like what we have on earth is exactly what you should expect to happen in a universe like ours. In other words, if you build it, they will come. But who built it? The materialist makes the explanation circular by saying, it’s only because of intelligent life that the question can even be asked. In other words, we are the explanation.
Imagine if you were on a car trip and made spontaneous decision to pull over and stay the night in a motel. Imagine that you walk in the room and find your favorite movie on the tv, all your favorite songs programmed into the sound system, and your favorite meal waiting for you. You open the closet and find clothes perfectly suited and tailored for you.
You find presents on the table that are exactly the kind of things you would have picked out for yourself, and reservations have been made for exactly the kinds of outings you would want to do.
No imagine asking for an explanation and being told by the manager, there is nothing strange about this. We knew that if we set this room up this way, someone exactly like you would should up. What kind of explanation would that be?
Hands – The Practical Application
Recognizing that our world was created by a good and loving God, develops in us reverence for life and a fascination with all that is around you.
Take the scientific endeavor for example. What is needed in order for the pursuit of science to excel in a culture? First, a recognition that creation is orderly and can be explored and understood. Second, people with curious minds to explore the creation around them. Third, a commitment to truth and excellence.
In my mind, it is no surprise that science is first developed and gains traction in the lands dominated by Jews and Christians. I am not saying that other cultures could not have led in the science, but Jews and Christians were primed for the task. Our scriptures teach us that our world has been given order and symmetry by a Good and Knowable God.
It is same thing with art. All cultures create. But, Christians and Jews join God in the process of creating. We believe in the goodness and beauty of creation and seek to augment that.
Finally, both art and science require a deep appreciation and awe of the wonders around us. The scriptures nurture in us an endless fascination with all the goodness and beauty that surrounds us.
David Bentley Hart Extended Quote
Richard Dawkins most memorably describes what genes do: “Now they swarm in huge colonies,” he writes, “safe inside gigantic lumbering robots, sealed off from the outside world, communicating with it by tortuous indirect routes, manipulating it by remote control. They are in you and me; they created us, body and mind; and their preservation is the ultimate rationale for our existence.” Then compare this to Denis Noble’s elegant inversion of its central conceits: “Now they are trapped in huge colonies, locked inside highly intelligent beings, moulded by the outside world, communicating with it by complex processes, through which, blindly, as if by magic, function emerges. They are in you and me; we are the system that allows their code to be read; and their preservation is totally dependent on the joy we experience in reproducing ourselves. We are the ultimate rationale for their existence.” Now, what precisely is the difference between these two approaches to genetic theory? Dawkins has graciously granted that Noble’s revision of his text is every bit as plausible as the original, and that it really is all a matter of perspective in the end (which is a significant concession, since it means that the original text is making claims that are not empirical but only, at best, picturesque). In fact, though, the two passages are not comparably plausible at all. Colorful though it is, Noble’s language is largely literally true. That of Dawkins, by contrast, is metaphorical all the way down: lumbering robots, manipulation, remote control, “they created us”—all of this is winsome enough, and even a little quaint (in a 1950s science fiction sort of way), but more or less nonsensical as well. Rhetorically speaking, it is a splendid example of the “pathetic fallacy,” the naive habit of attributing human motives and intentions to nonhuman objects. It certainly describes nothing real, or even analogously real. Especially fanciful are those ridiculous robots, since they are precisely the sorts of things that we human beings—capable as we are of conscious intentions—most definitely are not. The image does, however, make obvious how very mechanistic a metaphor the “selfish gene” really is. At least, it is difficult not to notice that Noble’s language has a vaguely (very vaguely) Aristotelian quality about it, what with its invocation of a kind of higher causality, descending from complex systems toward more primitive elements, while Dawkins is describing an essentially Cartesian model of organisms: large automata governed by some more primal agency deep within (in this case, not a soul or ghost or homunculus but a host of self-interested imps discreetly nestled in organic cells).3 If it seems that I am being willfully humorless here, and refusing to take a metaphor for what it is, I can only once again insist that a metaphor must be genuinely germane to the reality it is meant to illustrate if it is to have any point. Talk of genetic selfishness, however, is simply a fundamental misrepresentation of reality. There is no value in speaking as if the ultimate seat of purposive agency in nature were situated in a material realm where intentionality does not exist, and as if all other
causal levels—even those where real intentionality is to be found—are merely its deterministic residue. We are, after all, talking only about macromolecules that provide codes for proteins, the actions of whose products are, as Michel Morange says, “expressed only indirectly through an organizational and structural organic hierarchy—protein machines, organelles, cells, tissues, organs, organisms, and populations.”4 To his credit, Dawkins is not in fact a believer in total genetic determinism; he even speaks of human beings as having the unique capacity to resist the selfishness of their genes; but that very admission shows how ill-chosen the original metaphor was. A more accurate description of the matter might be to say that the “codes” contained in genetic materials are transcriptions of the histories of organisms that, in a quite passive way, have been preserved from generation to generation by virtue of the distinctive traits of the organic wholes into which they have been assumed and to which they make their vital but pluripotential contribution. Since natural selection is a theory regarding the opportune survival of fortuitous mutations, it would probably be far better to speak of the “fortunate,” “privileged,” or perhaps “graced” gene. After all, a man can be selfish, a rabbit might be selfish in some remotely analogous sense, but a gene can no more be selfish than can a teacup. Genes should always be qualified by objective, not subjective, adjectives. Again, though, where is the harm in a mere figure of speech? But images often shape our concepts far more thoroughly than dialectical arguments can. It may not be entirely the fault of Dawkins that the language of genetic selfishness has spread so far as it has, but the damage has been considerable nonetheless. It has become an irritating commonplace to hear it asserted that, for instance, the real reason for a mother cherishing and protecting her young is that her genes have engineered her for their own survival. This is simply an absurd way of thinking about the matter. There is neither agency nor motive at the genetic level of organisms: “genes” do not “recognize” kindred beings, they do not “seek” to survive, they do not see or “program” any organism, they do not guide evolution, they are not the “rationale” for anything at all. The powerful but in many ways indeterminate causality found at the molecular level of physiological potentialities cannot begin adequately to account for behavioral effects at higher levels of organic, mental, and social complexity; but what happens at those higher levels can certainly determine what becomes of those macromolecular materials. To put things in the correct order, it is only because a mother has a desire to protect her young (let us be quaint here and call this desire “love”) that the mindless genetic material contained in her cells—whose functions are as much determined as determining—is blessed with a derivative survival. It is only because the larger conditions of the world we share make it possible for a creature capable of love to evolve and flourish that life’s notation of its organismic history (the “codes” inscribed in genes) can continue to be passed down stably from one generation to the next. Our DNA might well be characterized as an enduring record of our moral achievements, rather than as some secret truer text or hidden deterministic program subversive of those achievements.