New Author: Alex Rivas
We’re excited to announce that Alex Rivas will be joining as one of the authors. We look forward to hearing his heart and learning from him.
Alex Rivas
Alex is a city kid from Chicago who is seeking out God in new places. He became a believer at the age of 16 and is a recent graduate of Moody. He and his wife enjoy quality time watching movies, playing board games, discussing theology, and hosting Bible studies in their home. Alex has a love for the Lord, His word, and His church. Alex’s desire is to serve the Lord for as long as he has breath.
Why the Name “New inX”?
The name “NewinX” comes from the reality that new life, individual and cosmic, comes in and through Christ alone. The “inX” logo stands for the Christian’s identity in Christ Jesus. Second Corinthians 5:17 says that if anyone is in Christ, they are a new creation.
Why an “X”? What does “X” stand for? An “X”…
- looks like the Greek letter, chi, which is the first letter in Christos, the Greek word for Christ (Χριστός).
- has been used as short hand for Christ for a long time.
- reminds us of the cross where Jesus the Christ paid for the sins of all who would turn to Him in repentance and faith. So, an “X” is a good reminder not only of Jesus the Messiah but also His mission. To die on the cross. Jesus came as a little baby at Christmas but He came for the cross.[1]
- also starts at a definite point but stretches out from there. Jesus the Christ, His coming and cross, happened at a definite time but the significance of what He accomplished stretches out into eternity.
- has a center point and it also has four lines jetting out from that center. Jesus Christ is the center, the crux of everything, and significance and salvation jet out from Him. He brings deliverance near and far, individual and cosmic, but it all shoots out from Him at the center. As Colossians says, “In Him all things were created… All things were created through Him and for Him… and in Him all things hold together” (Col. 1:16-17).
- may be people’s way of trying to get Christ out of Christmas but the reality is, reality is about Him. So, that’s ultimately going to be an impossible task.[2]
- “marks the spot” and is on many maps. Jesus the Christ is the true treasure.
So, “X” points to Jesus the Christ. It points to Jesus the center of it all. It points to the cross on which He died and the cosmos that is held together by His hand.
What’s the Purpose of “New inX”?
We want the whole world to intimately experience the transforming truth of Jesus. The purpose of “NewinX” is to provide truth that transforms. We want to pepper people’s lives with relevant Christocentric biblical teaching.
The world has many voices, they scream and chant their truth. We want to herald the truth—true truth—from the hills and the hollers, from wherever we can by whatever means we can. We want to use the means available to reach and teach as many as we can.
The Gutenberg Press was once that means, and it was used to great ends. Now we have various forms of social media. In the day of “Fake News,” we want to share the good news and show how it impacts every area of life.
Notes
[1] It’s also important to realize that “Christmas” is actually already shorthand for “Christ’s mass.” The English word “Mass” comes from the Latin word missa, which means to be “sent.” So, Christmas reminds us that Christ has been sent and the truth is, “Xmas” does too.
[2] Even the way we date things goes back to Jesus and His coming. A.D. comes from the Latin, Anno Domini, which means, “In the year of ourLord” and refers to the years after the birth of Jesus.
Suffering? What does Buddhism say about it?
Suffering? What does Buddhism say say about it? Why does it happen and what hope is there in the midst of it? How should we respond to the reality of suffering?
Why does suffering happen?
Why does suffering happen? What hope do we have in the midst of suffering? And what do the major views of the world say about these questions?
There are a bunch of different forms of suffering. Suffering because of the actions of others, because of our own choices, from loneliness, from financial distress, from the death of a loved one. Statistics say there have been millions of deaths worldwide from COVID-19 alone. Suffering is sadly part of our world.
But, why? And did it have to be this way? Does it have to be this way?
In the upcoming posts we’re going to briefly look at what Buddhism, Hinduism, New Age Spirituality, Islam, Naturalism, and Christianity say about suffering.[1]
What does Buddhism say about suffering?
Buddha said, “Existence and suffering are one.” And Buddha explains, through the four noble truths,[2] that suffering is a result of desire. Therefore, Buddhism says, the solution, the way to end suffering, is for us to end desire. To get to our resting place then, to get to Nirvana, where we no longer suffer, we must cut the root of all desire.
Issa, an eighteenth-century poet from Japan, went to a Buddhist Zen Master for help. He was grieving. He tragically lost his wife and all five of his children. In Issa’s distress and grief he went to the Zen Master. The Zen Master said: “Remember the world is dew.” That was the solution that was given, “Remember the world is dew.”
Dew is fleeting. “The sun rises and the dew is gone. So too is suffering and death in this world of illusion, so the mistake is to become to engaged. Remember the world is dew. Be more detached, and transcend the engagement of mourning that prolongs the grief.”[3]
The answer given, then, is basically, “Be more detached. Care less.” After Issa received his consolation he composed one of his most famous poems:
I appreciate something E. Stanley Jones said:
“Buddha was right in diagnosing our difficulty as ‘desire.’ It is the desires of men reaching out to this thing and that thing that return to them disillusioned, pained, suffering. We seem to be infinite beings trying to find satisfaction with finite things. The result—suffering! Yes, Buddha was right in finding the root of our difficulty to be in desire, but he was wrong in the remedy. He would try to get rid of all desire, when the fact is that there is no possible way to get rid of one desire except to replace it by a higher desire.”[4]
What’s the Christian View?
The Bible actually agrees that we have desire and that it is strong. For example, Ecclesiastes 3:11 tells us that we have eternity in our hearts. Therefore, the Bible as well as Augustine and Aquinas say we have great desire but they also say our desire can be met, but only by God Himself.[5]
So, let’s think through the implications of the Buddhist view of suffering. The Buddhist view leaves people wanting to leave earthly existence altogether and arrive at the passionless state of Nirvana; that is the true solution from the Buddhist approach.
One of the problems with this kind of belief is that it does away with the significance of good and evil. And thus it also does away with rescue. C.S. Lewis said it this way: “Confronted with a cancer or a slum the Pantheist can say, ‘If you could only see it from the divine point of view, you would realise that this also is God.’ The Christian replies, ‘Don’t talk damned nonsense.’”[6]
The Christian view of suffering looks at suffering as much more multidimensional. From a Christian perspective, there are many reasons for suffering:
- sin and wrong desire
- war and human conflicts
- living in a fallen and cursed world in which there are physical calamities such as hurricanes and pandemics
- health issues and physical infirmities
- economic distress
- humans sinning against other humans in various ways
- the abuse of secular and religious authorities and even at the hands of parents within the family structure
- Suffering, for the Christian, can also happen as result of living for Jesus the Lord[7]
For the Christian, the solution is much different too. The solution is not leaving earthly existence, the solution is Jesus coming to earth. And Him always having the right desire and doing the right thing and suffering in the place of humans.
Notes
[1] Of course, in the space we have, we cannot come close to an exhaustive account of each view. Instead, we’ll look at what I believe is a fair representation.
[2] This is what the four noble truths say: (1) Suffering is an innate characteristic of existence with each rebirth and (2) the cause of that suffering is desire. (3) We can therefore end all suffering by ending all desire. And (4) we can end all desire by following the eightfold path.
[3] Os Guinness, Fool’s Talk, 126.
[4] E. Stanley Jones, Christ and Human Suffering (New York: The Abingdon Press, 1937), 49-50.
[5] As Psalm 16:11 says, “In the LORD’s presence there is fullness of joy. At His right hand our pleasures forever more.”
[6] C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity.
[7]See Apologetics at the Cross.
*Photo by JD Mason
Does science disprove miracles?
What is a Miracle?
David Hume, a skeptic philosopher believed a miracle is a violation and even a transgression of a law of nature. That view assumes the impossibility of miracles at the outset. It makes sense that someone who doesn’t want to believe in God, or God’s interference with our affairs, wouldn’t want to believe in the possibility of God’s intervention.[1] So, I understand where he’s coming from.
The Importance of Starting Places
Is Science able to Disprove Miracles?
Should we Believe every Miracle Claim?
Does Science Disprove Miracles?
Notes
Words to the Wealthy (from James 5)
What words does James have to say to the wealthy? In James 5:1-6 we see some of the roughest and most condemning verses in the Bible. Does James 5 have any relevance to us? If so, why? And if it does, what does it teach us?
James 5:1-6:
“Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you. 2 Your riches have rotted and your garments are moth-eaten. 3 Your gold and silver have corroded, and their corrosion will be evidence against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up treasure in the last days. 4 Behold, the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, are crying out against you, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts. 5 You have lived on the earth in luxury and in self-indulgence. You have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter. 6 You have condemned and murdered the righteous person. He does not resist you.”
First, who is it wrote to? It says “you rich” in verse 1.
So, we should ask, ‘Are we rich?’ What do you think, are we rich?
Rich is a relative term. Compared to Elon Musk and Bill Gates I am not rich. If, however, you compare my wealth to what others have had throughout history, or what others have in developing countries, then I will seem quite rich.
Therefore, I don’t think we should automatically discount what this passage is saying. We shouldn’t naively think we’re not rich, so the passage doesn’t apply to us.
Rather, we should humbly consider what it’s saying. We should ask, ‘Why would the rich need to weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon them?’ (v. 1)
I think it’s because…
1) Riches won’t save
It’s always been tempting to trust in wealth. We often feel like our security is connected to how much money we have. We may not come out and say it like that, but that’s what is often going on at the level of our hearts.
James, however, says,
“Your riches have rotted and your garments are moth-eaten.3 Your gold and silver have corroded, and their corrosion will be evidence against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up treasure in the last days.”
What’s happening is James is fast-forwarding for us. He’s showing us the future result of trusting in our treasure, trusting in our money rather than our Maker. What happens to riches? They inevitably rot. Even crypto will metaphorically corrode.
When the foundations shake, you’ll be found out. When what you thought was a foundation fails, it’ll be shown that you trusted in the wrong things. The failure of your treasure to last will be “evidence against you.”
In the Bible, “last days” has to do with the end and the coming judgment. So, when the passage talks about laying “up treasure in the last days” it should strike us a very odd and even supremely foolish.
It’d be like people in an apocalyptic movie—whether A Quiet Place, World War Z, or whatever—going out of their way to put money in the bank. At the end of the world, storing up money’s not really the priority.
Instead, James shows us that…
2) Riches are meant to be a stewardship
We are not meant to trust in money or hoard up money all for ourselves. Instead, we should care about justice and carry out justice. Look at James 5:4-6:
“Behold, the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, are crying out against you, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts. You have lived on the earth in luxury and in self-indulgence. You have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter. You have condemned and murdered the righteous person. He does not resist you.”
Every good and perfect gift comes from God (James 1:17 cf. 1 Tim. 4:4). But, it is not just given to enjoy. Though, enjoying the gifts that God has given is right and honors Him. But, we are also given things to manage and invest. What we have is not just for us, but also the benefit of others.
Just as laborers deserve and should get their owned wages, we should justly steward our money. Our unjust selfishness does not go unnoticed by God. We don’t want to be found guilty of living “on the earth in luxury and in self-indulgence” (v. 5). We must remember that “the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils” (1 Tim. 6:10).
Jesus and James, of course, don’t say money is evil. Money itself is not evil. Even having money is not evil. It can actually be very good and useful. But, “the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils.”
How can we have the right relationship with wealth?
3) Riches should be submitted to our Savior
James essentially gives us an x-ray of our hearts, and the resulting picture is often ugly. It reveals a misaligned heart. One that often trusts in money and not the Maker.
What is the cure for our heart sickness? What is our cure for our naive trust of money?
I believe it’s seeing life for what it is, short and followed by eternity. We are in the Last Days. There is a coming judgment. The way we steward our money matters.
Further, we need to see Jesus. We need to love our Lord who freely gave up His wealth. Second Corinthians 8:9 says “For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sake He became poor, so that you by His poverty might become rich.”
When we know the amazing “grace of our Lord Jesus Christ” it loosens our grip on wealth. We, more and more, trust the Lord and willingly steward our wealth for Jesus’ Kingdom, not our kingdom.
Questions for Reflection
- What can money provide? In what ways do you trust in money?
- Is money evil? What are some blessings of having money and some challenges of having money?
- Why is the love of money so problematic (“a root of all kinds of evils”)?
- What does it mean for you to manage or steward money?
- What does Jesus have to do with how we think about and use money?
Photo by Jp Valery
Can an outside hand reach into the fishbowl of our universe?
Can an outside hand reach into the fishbowl of our universe?
Newton, a scientist that also happened to be a fish, was a keen observer of the ecology of the fishbowl. He was surprised to observe regular patterns in his fish universe. But he did.
For example, Newton observes that food daily falls upon the surface of the water at the same time each day. It is a law of nature. It’s just the way the world is.
Newton observes other natural phenomena like the temperature of the water. He further notes that each death of a goldfish results in a distant flushing noise and then in reincarnation of that goldfish. Newton, awestruck by his discoveries, publishes his findings in his magnum opus entitled Fishtonian Laws.
Many read his groundbreaking work and are convinced that the laws of the fishbowl are unassailable. After all, the patterns observed have always been that way and so always will be that way. No outside source can act within the fishbowl. The reality is food appears every day and as a goldfish dies, a new one appears. That is the unbroken chain of events we observe. That is the way it’s always been. How could it be different? Who or what could act on these laws of nature?
We are in a closed system; the aether of the universe—in which we live, move, and have our being—is constrained by an invisible force. There is an unknown unobservable wall that keeps us from knowing what is outside nature, what is outside the physical universe. There is no way for us to know the metafishbowl.
In the post-Fishtonian world, there were still whispers of the metafishbowl—of the supernatural hand of God—but most of those stories were dismissed as baseless dreams. After all, even if there were a God that set up the fishbowl, he no longer acts in the fishbowl. Such a being is wholly other and transcendent and would not care about lowly fish.
Everything just goes on swimmingly by itself. We shouldn’t expect an outside hand, right?… There is no reason to think an outside being or force could act within our world.
Or, does something smell fishy about this story?
Do you have to have a certain view about creation to be a Christian?
Do you have to have a certain view about creation to be a Christian?
Christians believe that when understood correctly there will ultimately be harmony between God’s word the Bible and His world because He is the author of both.[1] Christians don’t believe that there is a contradiction between Christianity and the way creation was carried out. Although, various Christians believe various things regarding evolution and the age of the earth.
Also, it is important that we remember that evolution does not entail the beginning of the universe. Evolution does not offer a reason for the existence of space, time, or matter. In biology, evolution is an explanation of how and why various species have the characteristics they have. Evolution seeks to explain the evolution of different forms of life, not necessarily the origin of life. Christians believe, as the Bible clearly states, that God made the world out of nothing. They, however, disagree on a lot of the particulars.
Christians have Various Views
Various Christians, for example, have various explanations as to the age of the earth. Christians don’t believe that science contradicts the creation accounts. Even while Christians hold various views as to their understanding of the creation accounts. I will say though that this is a topic that many are very dogmatic about. Avowed atheists as well as many evangelicals. Many disagree on the dating of the earth but they’re doubled-down on their dogmatism.
I, however, think a healthy dose of humility is helpful. As well as a willingness to listen to and even learn from and be sharpened by those that come from a different direction.
Again, it’s important that we realize that there are Christians with opinions on both sides of the age of the earth and evolution spectrum. The Bible’s position on the creation of the earth and the humans that inhabit it is not a contradiction. Confusion for some, confidence for many, and consternation for others, yes, but that does not at all prove a contradiction.
Here’s a flawed analogy: A buffet of food doesn’t prove there is no right choice, it just makes finding the right food maybe a little bit harder. I think we can appreciate that there are options and be patient with the person that picks salad.
Here is ‘the buffet’ of choices regarding how humans and the world got to now. I believe there is one choice that is clearly at odds with Christianity, and others that I don’t find as compelling but the presence of choices shouldn’t stop a person from considering Christianity.
Random “Chance”
This is a naturalistic explanation that has no place for God. The philosopher Alvin Plantinga would say this view is incompatible with Christian belief.[2] I agree. I also believe it is false (see “If God created the universe, what created God?“).
Intelligent Design
This view advocates that there is a creator/designer of some sort. “The fundamental claim of intelligent design is straightforward and easily intelligible: namely, there are natural systems that cannot be adequately explained in terms of undirected natural forces and that exhibit features which in any other circumstance we would attribute to intelligence.”[3] This view can support a deist or Christian view of the world. It certainly doesn’t prove Christianity, but it doesn’t necessarily contradict it either.
Evolutionary Creation
This view holds that God used evolution to make the world, or at least life forms, the way they are.
Old-earth Creation
Advocates of this view believe that God created the world over a period of ages or epochs. They believe the account given in Genesis is a faithful poetic explanation of the earth’s origins. The Hebrew word for ‘day’ (yom) used in the Genesis creation account can mean various things (e.g. a period of 24 hours, a vague amount of time, a year, long age).
Young-earth Creation
This view holds that the earth was created in six literal days six to twelve thousand years ago.
God certainly could have created all things in six literal days, or He could have used a process to bring humans to the state that they are now. “God may have created organic life directly or he may have evolved it from inorganic life by natural processes; nothing we know for sure in either theology or science, God or nature, makes us absolutely certain of either answer.”[4]
There is more than one plausible interpretation of the creation account. So, people interpret the Genesis account in different ways and believe different things regarding how old the earth is. I personally believe we should hold our beliefs regarding the creation of the world with charity.
Christianity does not regulate what one’s belief must be regarding the specific age of the earth. Or how exactly humans got to now. This is a topic Christians can and do disagree on.
Yes, Christians answer differently. But that does not disprove Christianity. Christians believe that there are faithful ways to understand what science says with what Scripture says, even if they sometimes disagree on what those faithful ways are. One Christian author even said, “Whether [God] completed the job in six literal twenty-four hour days or over a longer period does not really matter (Christian opinions differ over how we should interpret Genesis 1). What is important is the fact that God is the creator of all things.”[5]
Notes
[1] See John Lennox’s helpful book, Seven Days that Divide the World.
[2] Alvin Plantinga, Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism (Oxford University Press, YEAR), 12.
[3] William A. Dembski, The Design Revolution.
[4] Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli, Handbook of Christian Apologetics, 107.
[5] Vaughan Roberts, God’s Big Picture: Tracing the Storyline of the Bible, 27.
Doesn’t science show that the scriptures are stupid and inaccurate?
Doesn’t science show that the scriptures are stupid and inaccurate?
Scripture is in line with science in various important ways.
Science has found Scripture to be correct in various regards way before its time. The Bible is not a scientific textbook. Yet it is accurate scientifically. That is, it concurs with all sorts of scientific discoveries. The Bible also, as we have seen, lays the groundwork for scientific research to be carried out.
The Bible is also accurate or predictive in connection with science. For example, the Bible clearly says that the universe came into being at a finite time. “Not until the twentieth century did any other book—whether science, theology, or philosophy—even hint at”[1] this reality. We now know that the universe is accelerating at ever faster speeds. If we were to reverse the accelerating expansion of the universe we would see that there was a point at which it did not exist. That is, the universe came into being—ex nihilo—out of nothing, as the Bible says. The “big bang” demonstrates empirically what the Bible has said for hundreds of years.[2]
So, although many people ridicule the Genesis creation account, the Bible’s accuracy in fact predates many scientific discoveries. It’s almost like the Bible had access to special information. There is currently debate regarding the days of creation. I do not currently have a dogmatic answer to that question, however, as we have seen, there are various plausible explanations.
Astrophysicist Hugh Ross has said,
“The Bible accurately and uniquely described the major features of the origin, structure, and history of the universe thousands of years before any scientist discovered them… The predictive success of biblical cosmology affirms the reliability of Scripture’s message about why the universe exhibits the characters it does.”[3]
Also, the Bible talks about the expanding universe. It doesn’t quite say “the universe is expanding” but that’s the picture we get. The Bible says that God “stretched out the heavens.”[4] The Bible talks about what we know as the “laws of nature,” it refers to the “fixed order of heaven and earth.”[5] We now know, as the informed modern people that we are, that the world is made up of a bunch of tiny things that we cannot see (atoms). The Bible does not contradict that truth but states nonchalantly that “the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible” (Hebrews 11:3).
The Bible explains the “happenstance” that trillions upon trillions of electrons have the identical electrical charge as one another. It explains the many “Goldilocks,” just right, factors that are necessary for life, such as, the earth’s position in relation to the sun.
Therefore, the Bible, far from being out of line with science, fell in line with scientific discoveries before they were discovered. Further, the biblical worldview provides a framework for the pursuit of scientific knowledge. So, when we consider the Bible’s relationship to science it ends up lending credibility to the trustworthiness of the Bible.
Christianity and Scientists
We should also understand that there have been many good scientists who are Christians, and they didn’t see a contradiction between their science and Christianity. If anything, many of them believe the two are complementary.
Christianity far from being filled with hacks has had a history of cultural contributions. Sophisticated calculations, diatribes on causation, and beautiful cathedrals are part of the Christian legacy. Christianity is based on the word made flesh and the words of the Bible, so, not surprisingly, it is a life philosophy with a rich history of books. Christianity even talks about two main books known as general and special revelation. That is, Christians believe that God reveals Himself and His will through both His word and His world. Christians have a long history of believing both matter and both are good. Christians have a long history of supporting literacy, scholarship, and science.
Here are some scientists that have had a massive impact that seemed to have believed in at least part of the Christian view of the world. Or “Christians of various stripes,” as Eric L. Johnson put it.[6]
- Blaise Pascal was a mathematician, physicist, inventor, and philosopher. He is behind Pascal’s principle, the syringe, and the hydraulic press.
- Robert Boyle is “the father of chemistry.”
- Isaac Newton is one of the greatest and most influential physicists and scientists of all time.
- Andre Ampere is where “amp” and our language of electrical measurement comes from.
- Michael Faraday discovered electromagnetic induction.
- Gregor Johann Mendel was an Augustinian monk whose work led to the concept of genes.
- Louis Pasteur was a chemist and microbiologist famous for pasteurization, principles of vaccination, and research that led to greater understanding as to the causes of and prevention of diseases.
- Lord Kelvin is where we get the Kelvin scale of absolute zero and why we say the sun is 6000° Kelvin.
- George Washington Carver was born into slavery and yet became one of America’s greatest scientists.
- Francis S. Collins recently led the Human Genome Project.
Thus, we can see Christians have a rich history of thought and scientific discovery. Of course, that does not at all mean that Christianity is true. But, I do believe it means that it deserves thoughtful and honest consideration.
And no. Science does not show that the scriptures are stupid and inaccurate.
Notes
[1] Hugh Ross, Why the Universe Is the way It Is, 133.
[2] The phrase “big bang” makes it sound as if the beginning was just a disordered explosion. That is wrong. Instead, “there must be an incredibly precise amount of order at the Big Bang. We know that the universe is moving from a state of order to a state of increasing disorder (this is the Second Law of Thermodynamics), and it is the case that you needed a lot of order at the beginning for the universe to be able to produce… the ordered structures we see” (Rodney D. Holder, “Is the Universe Designed?” Faraday Paper number 10).
If I’m shooting pool and I want one ball in the pocket, there is some complexity. I must hit the ball at roughly the precise spot for it to be knocked into the pocket. With every additional ball the complexity and thus precision is more crucial. If I was breaking up all the balls and wanting all the stripes to go in and none of the solids it would take a phenomenal amount of both calculation and precision. And it would be the initial hit that set a chain of cause-and-effect reactions into place.
[3] Ross, Why the Universe Is the way It Is, 15.
[4] Job 9:8; Ps. 104:2; Is. 40:22; 42:5; 44:24; 45:12; 48:13; 51:13; Jer. 10:12; 51:15; Zech. 12:1.
[5] Jer. 33:25 see also Ps. 74:16-17; 104:19.
[6] Eric L. Johnson, Foundations for Soul Care, 63.
Photo by Kitera Dent
Doesn’t science contradict what Christianity teaches?
The Bible talks about a lot of crazy things like walking on water. We can walk on ice but we can’t walk on water. Doesn’t that automatically prove Christianity is false and even foolish?
Also, the Bible cannot be tested in a laboratory so we cannot have scientific proof that it’s true. By this criterion, however, we can’t prove most things. We can’t even scientifically prove the assumptions of science.
If you buy a bookshelf from Ikea and the tools you need to build it are not included, then you’ll be limited to the tools you have. If you don’t have enough tools to build it then what happens? The bookshelf is either left completely unbuilt or in some haphazard condition.
It’s a similar situation with science. Certain philosophies of life provide different ‘tools’ for the assembly of the scientific method. Without those tools science will not be able to stand. So, what “tools” do you need to assemble the scientific method?
Reasons to believe in the predictability and regularity of nature
A controlled and orderly creation rather than a capricious one is necessary for science to get a foothold. There must also be reasons for people to believe that the world is ordered. As John Frame has said, “For science to be successful, the world must display a high degree of regularity and predictability.”[1] But, for the scientific method to work, we need more than just regularity, we need to also believe in that regularity. “Unless we assume predictability and regularity in nature, it is impossible for experimental science to conduct its work.”[2]
Nature is orderly, not out of control. And because nature is ordered it allows for the study of that order. The idea that the universe is ordered did not arise from ordinary experience. From casual observation, creation often seems capricious.[3]Yet, trust in a cosmic Creator and Lawgiver provided such things as the laws of motion.
Belief in the rationality of God not only led to the inductive method but also led to the conclusion that the universe is governed rationally by discoverable laws. “This assumption is vitally important to scientific research, because in a pagan polytheistic world, which saw its gods often engaged and jealous, irrational behavior in a world that was nonrational, any systematic investigation of such a world would seem futile.”[4]
The Christian account of the world gives reason for believing in mathematical precision. Other accounts expect unreconcilable mathematical problems. If the gods, for example, are at war or not in control of nature then one cannot expect exactness, only various levels of ignorance. That level of confidence does not lend itself to space travel and brain surgery, let alone the scientific method.
Nature is good, not a god to worship
The physical world is also real, not an illusion. Creation has inherit goodness but not godness. One’s view on the nature of reality not surprisingly affects how one can think about science. If one believes that reality is that we are all unknowingly god then it’s going to impact the way they think about the physical world around them.
The view that holds that we can and should escape from the sufferings of the world by ridding ourselves of all desire does not lend itself to scientific discoveries. And so, one would look in “vain for as much as a rudimentary concept of science, of scientific enterprise, or of scientific spirit, in the rather depressive pages of the Vishnu Purana. Its main purpose is rather to teach man how to escape from the clutches of the sensual, tangible world.”[5]
Time is linear, not cyclical
The basic choices in the origin and development of the universe “are only two: cyclic or linear, or rather, chaos or order.”[6] If the cosmos were cyclical—time repeating itself over and over again—then it would seem we can’t make gains. Optimism would be abolished. Many civilizations have, however, believed in cyclic cycles.
Take the Chinese for example. They have a very long and, in many ways, incredible history yet their cyclic notions of the world kept them behind scientifically for many years. In China, “the interpretation of cosmic and human history in terms of cycles was far more than intellectual entertainment for a few scholars. Rather, it acquired at a very early age and enjoyed until very recently a semi-official status.”[7] And so, in that culture, casual connections were not observed. Even “measurable, quantitative aspects of events occurring closely in time could have no particular significance”[8] for the Chinese. Thus, not surprisingly “despondency about man’s ability to decipher the exact patterns of nature made itself felt time and again.”[9]
Without the optimism of a linear understanding of the universe and of time, science is servilely paralyzed.
“The spirit of experimental method simply could not assert itself in a cultural ambience in which the urge to escape from reality constituted a pervasive pattern. With the slighting of reality there came a weakening of the search for truth about the external world. Science, however, cannot arise, let alone gain sustained momentum, without an articulate longing for truth which in turn presupposes a confident approach to reality”[10]
Whereas, many Christians during the scientific revolution believed that they could do science to the glory of God. They wanted to, as Johann Kepler said, “think God’s thoughts after Him.”[11] Thus, they had a lot of motivation for practicing the scientific method. Christianity provides the intellectual attitude, ethics, and assumptions that make modern science possible. As Peter Harrison said, “religious considerations provided the motivation to pursue science, provided its core philosophical presuppositions, informed its methods and content, and lent it social legitimacy.”[12]
So, to the question: “Doesn’t science contradict what Christianity teaches?” I’d say the answer to that appears to be no. In fact, Christianity seems to have been part of what led to the blessings of modern science.
Notes
[1] Alvin Plantinga, Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism (Oxford University Press, YEAR), 271.
[2] John M. Frame, Apologetics: A Justification of Christian Belief (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2015), 72-73.
[3] See Charles Colson, How Now Shall We Live, 423
[4] Alvin J. Schmidt, How Christianity Changed the World (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004), 222.
[5] Stanley L. Jaki, Science and creation: From Eternal Cycles to an Oscillating Universe (Gondolin Press. Kindle Edition).
[6] Jaki, Science and creation.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Johannes Kepler, Peter Harrison says, “had wanted to become a theologian but eventually came to the realisation that ‘God is also praised through my work in astronomy.’ For Kepler, the whole world was the ‘the temple of God’ and hence to study nature was ‘to honour God, to venerate him, to wonder at him’” (Peter Harrison, “Religion and the Rise of Science” Faraday Papers 21).
[12] Peter Harrison, “Religion and the Rise of Science” Faraday Papers 21.
[13] Harrison, “Religion and the Rise of Science” Faraday Papers 21.
[14] Mark Noll, “Science, Religion, and A.D. White,” 7.
What explains the possibility of science?
Where did the idea or faith in an ordered world—a controlled rather than a chaotic cosmos—come from? Is this view just the view humans have always had? Is it the default view of humans? What explains the possibility of science?
One author has said that “the emergence of science is a more extraordinary event than many children of the atomic age would imagine.”[1] Or, as Peter Harrison has said, “there was nothing inevitable about the emergence of modern science.”[2] We often take science and all the possibilities that science allows for granted. For most people in the history of humanity, that has not been an option. Because science as we know it was not in existence.
Many saw the world as chaotic and capricious, not controlled. The view that the world has discoverable laws has not been the norm. Why would one see the world as chaotic and uncontrolled? On the other hand, why would someone see the world as controlled? And, what difference do these views make?
These views are two different tracks that take you vastly different places. Seeing the world as inherently chaotic and capricious does not lead one to think there are laws that world govern the world. The most you could hope for would be survival, not science. If there are no rules to a game, you don’t think you’re going to win the game or even make much progress. Your goal, more likely, is to stay in the game as long as possible.
If, however, you believe in a controlled orderly world, it makes all the difference in the world. If there are rules to “the game of life” then one might find that there are advantages to knowing those rules.
Perspectives about whether the cosmos is chaotic or controlled have had huge implications on how people have thought about an enterprise like science. If we believe something is lawless, we don’t look for laws to study.
Or consider this, in many ways a stone mosaic and stone driveway are not that different. Both are spread-out stone. I, however, look at one with intention to find the pattern and picture. I don’t do that for the other because I know no pattern or picture is there.
That’s the way, apparently, humans have always been. The world has witnessed a few great cultures, cultures one would think capable of producing science. Yet, many times science has experienced a stillbirth.[3] Why?
It would seem, if we believe in a Creator it makes sense to believe in creation, something that was created, created with a purpose. If there’s a Law Giver, it makes sense that there would be a law, and order and rules to creation. If, however, things just came somehow from chaotic chance, it makes sense that things would be chaotic.
“There is considerable historical evidence, particularly in the writings of René Descartes, Robert Boyle and Isaac Newton, suggesting that the very notion of ‘natural laws’ is rooted in the understanding of a rational creator God who sustains an intelligible universe.”[4]
So, what impact does the view of the cosmos being controlled or chaotic have? That is, what impact did the view of God and the world have in connection with science? In my understanding, and of many authors I’ve read, it had/has a big impact.[5]
“Great cultures, where the scientific enterprise came to a standstill, invariably failed to formulate the notion of physical law, or the law of nature. Theirs was a theology with no belief in a personal, rational, absolutely transcendent Lawgiver, or Creator. Their cosmology reflected a pantheistic and animistic view of nature caught in the treadmill of perennial, inexorable returns. The scientific quest found fertile soil only when this faith in a personal, rational Creator had truly permeated a whole culture, beginning with the centuries of the High Middle Ages. It was that faith which provided, in sufficient measure, confidence in the rationality of the universe, trust in progress, and appreciation of the quantitative method, all indispensable ingredients of the scientific quest.”[6]
Christians believe the cosmos is not chaotic because it’s controlled by a Creator. The universe is ordered because it follows orders. The law of gravity follows the rules of the Law Giver. God governs the world and so we can make scientific discoveries. Experiments are repeatable because the laws that govern the universe exist, they repeat. They were in operation yesterday, one year ago, today, and we’re counting on them being in operation tomorrow. But, why are they in operation? And, why should we count on them being in operation tomorrow?
If we came into being by chance, and the laws of the universe somehow are in operation by chance, isn’t there a pretty big chance they won’t be in operation tomorrow?… And, what is ‘chance’? Isn’t ‘chance’ just a reference to something that is statically improbable happening? But, that’s not an actual explanation of what happened or why, right?
Notes
____
[1] Stanley L. Jaki, Science and creation: From Eternal Cycles to an Oscillating Universe (Gondolin Press. Kindle Edition).
[2] Peter Harrison, “Religion and the Rise of Science” Faraday Papers 21.
[3] Jaki, Science and creation: From Eternal Cycles to an Oscillating Universe.
[4] Denis R. Alexander, “Miracles and Science” Faraday Paper 20. “French philosopher René Descartes (1596-1650) pioneered the idea of physical laws of nature, arguing that God had set the world in motion at the moment of creation and that he continued to move things in accordance with laws that he had freely chosen” (Peter Harrison, “Religion and the Rise of Science” Faraday Papers 21).
[5] E.g. John Hedley Brooke, Science and religion: Some historical perspectives, Herbert Butterfield, The origins of modern science 1300-1800, Stanley L. Jaki, Science and creation: From Eternal Cycles to an Oscillating Universe, Pearcy and Thaxton, The Soul of Science: Christian faith and natural philosophy, and Rodney Stark, For the glory of God: How monotheism led to reformations, science, witch-hunt, and the end of slavery.
[6] Jaki, Science and creation.
*Photo by Trnava University
The joy of Jesus builds and sustains
Joy is probably the fruit of the Spirit that is the most difficult for me. I have wrinkles in between my eyebrows from furrowing my eyebrows so much. I’m often thoughtful but very often fail to be thankful. I’m often more naturally jaundiced than jubilant.
But, I just taught on Philippians and it is the letter of joy. It refers to joy some 15 times. Philippians is the letter of joy that was written from jail.
As I was studying Philippians and Acts 16 that recounts the founding of the church of Philippi here is the main point that stuck out to me:
The joy of Jesus builds and sustains through diversity and adversity.
And that’s what I want took at.
The joy
Joy is a command so it must not be just a disposition. Joy is not just a personality thing. It’s a Christian thing.
Paul talks about the fruit of the Spirit—fruit that grows and results from the Spirit. Guess what’s listed first?… Actually, it’s love. But, second is joy. I think Paul is making a point in the way he lists the fruit.
But, we should see here that the fruits of the Spirit are supernatural. That means they are not natural. It’s like some grapes I had the other day. They looked like they were from the Promised Land. They were unnaturally large and good tasting. To be honest, they weren’t strictly natural. They had some outside assistance. They were modified.
Or, think of massive muscly guys. They’re not natural. They’re using steroids. We, brothers and sisters, essentially need spiritual steroids. We can’t be what God wants us to be on our own.
I was talking to my daughter about her God-given gifts recently. Her middle name is joy, and she is especially joyful. And I said that’s like her “superpower.” But, as I’ve thought of it, I was both right and wrong in what I said. Right because the fruits of the Spirit—like joy—really are like superpowers; we don’t have them naturally by ourselves, they’re not common, and it is a type of power. Wrong because it’s really not “her’s,” it’s the Spirit working in and through her, that’s why it’s supernatural. That’s why the gifts of the Spirit and the fruit of the Spirit have the “of the Spirit” part.
My last name is O’Brien. It’s spelled “O’…” for a reason. The “O’” stands for “of Brian” or “decedent of Brian.” I think when we talk about biblical joy we should call it “joyo’”—joy of the Spirit. That’s where the joy came from. That’s joy’s origin story.
As Christians maybe we should say, “I loveo’ you.” I’m, of course, mainly joking. But, I do believe we’d be wise to remember joy’s origin story. Joyo’ is a superpower that can be used in the most unexpected circumstances.
It’s important for us to note that Jesus and Paul both command joy. We are not only called to duty, we are also called—commanded to—delight.
That should bring up a question for us. What is joy?…
of Jesus
I was talking to one of my daughters about this topic and she asked a good question. She said, “What is joy?” That’s a really important question because definitions are important. Without definitions, we can misunderstand one another and talk past one another.
“Joy” is never defined for us in the Bible. The word itself means delight. But, here’s what I think is a good definition from my reading of Philippians and of the New Testament: happiness in Jesus. Or, happiness not in mainly physical realities or circumstances but in spiritual realities and circumstances.
When joy is understood this way, which I think it should be after considering the way Paul uses it in Philippians, I can see why joy is often hard for me…
If joy is primarily happiness in Jesus and spiritual realities as I believe it is, what does it mean if I’m not joyful?…
It means I’m not caring about Jesus or spiritual realities. I’m focusing on earthly realities. I’m looking horizontally for happiness when it can only always been found when I look vertically to God.
That doesn’t mean that it’s wrong to be happy about the horizontal, only that our happiness cannot be found in this earth if it’s to last. Jesus said we can take heart because He has overcome the world, He doesn’t say we can take heart in the world…
Brothers and sisters, we need to work at being happy in Jesus, that’s how we can be joyful. That’s how Paul could sing in a damp stinky prison. Not because of his circumstances. He could sing because before he was a prisoner, he was a slave of Christ. That’s where his allegiance lay.
As we said, “joy” is referred to some 15 times in Philippians, but “Christ” is mentioned 18 in chapter 1. When we have joy in Jesus, we can have joy even in jail.
builds
The joy of Jesus builds the church and brings the most unlikely converts in. It brought Paul himself in. And in Acts 16 we see it brought other unlikely converts in too.
and sustains
The joy of Jesus, however, not only builds the church it also sustains the church. It sustains the church even through the challenges of different converts from different cultures coming together.
through diversity
The joy of Jesus builds and sustains through diversity because Jesus delivers and delights all sorts of people! Jailers and Jews, slaves and the snobby, the rich and rulers, the demon-possessed and the depressed. No one is past God’s reaching Grace.
God can build His Church with all sorts of people no matter the societal problems and He can provide life-transforming joy in the midst of it. Part of the American churches problem may not mainly be the problems of society, but that we act like it’s such a problem. We’re so baffled by it.
Unless the world delights in Jesus, they’re going to be hoodwinked by the devil. Yet, Jesus builds His church with problem people. He helps them, He makes them whole, He gives them transforming joy; happiness that is rooted not in circumstances, but in Him.
and adversity
Jesus says something surprising in Luke 6. He says, “Blessed are you when people hate you and when they exclude you and revile you” (6:22). Then He says something else really surprising, “Rejoice in that day, and leap for joy.” Why?! Why is Jesus telling us to leap for joy about something so terrible?
Jesus says, because “your reward is great in heaven.”
So, something super negative happens and we can still rejoice.
Jesus tells His disciples that they have power over the enemy and that the spirits are subject to them in Luke 10, but that is not what they are to rejoice in. They are to rejoice that their “names are written in heaven” (v. 20).
So, something super positive happens and we’re not to rejoice mainly in that.
That’s not all Jesus says about joy, though. He says the Kingdom of God is like a person joyfully selling all they have to buy a field. Why would a person joyfully give up everything? Only when they get something better thereby.
When we have joy in Jesus, we have untouchable joy. Even in the midst of great adversity.
Paul’s joy did not at all depend on circumstances. Paul had joy even in jail.
Brothers and sisters, the joy of Jesus builds and sustains through diversity and adversity.
*Photo by Jan Gottweiss
in X 