Is the world broken?
Have you ever thought about the problem of evil and suffering? Have you ever asked, “Why is the world so cruel?”
My daughter came to me crying. “Why do Mom and Lyla have to be sick? If God exists and is good, why is there suffering?”
As I thought about how to answer, tears came to my eyes and an image came to my mind, a shattered platter. By looking at the shattered shards you could tell the platter used to be ornate and beautiful. Upon reflection, that seems like an accurate picture of the world. It certainly seems broken, but yet it has clear traces of beauty.
What happened? How did the platter get that way? If the platter is broken, it seems to make sense that it was previously whole. Otherwise, it would not be broken; it would just be. The shattering, the brokenness, is just the way the world is. There, then, was no previous better state, nor should we expect a future better state.
So either the brokenness of the world assumes a previous state of the world that was whole and good, or there is no wholeness, only shattered shards that were never part of a whole and never will be. Everything is either light with little pockets of darkness, or everything is darkness with little pockets of light.1
Are beauty, goodness, and love innate, or are they random meaningless sparks in a universe that is growing cold? A world without God may have a few pockets of light, but chaos should be expected.2 If God exists, however, and Christianity is true, then chaos is not the final state of the world.
We intuitively sense that the world is broken. We feel it in our bones metaphorically, and some of us feel it literally. How could the world be broken if it was not at some point whole? It seems, therefore, we can make a deduction from the broken state of the world to the original good design. Or else our hope and intuitive sense that something is wrong is wrong.
Whole
The Bible says God created the world whole. The original creation was very good (Genesis 1:31). The platter was ornate and beautiful, so to speak. No disease or need for dentures. No sin or suffering. No turmoil or tears. No fighting or fears. No death and no destruction.
Christians believe “the bedrock reality of our universe is peace, harmony, and love, not war, discord, and violence. When we seek peace, we are not whistling in the wind but calling our universe back to its most fundamental fabric.”3 Christians believe in evil, and they believe it’s a problem. The world was not supposed to be a place of suffering. Evil and suffering are not a hoax, but they don’t have a place in God’s good intentions. The world is broken.
Broken
The platter shattered. The world broke. Sin unleashed suffering, disease, destruction, and death. The brokenness of the world and the messed up nature of humans are teachings of Christianity that can be confirmed by turning on the news.
Christianity explains the origin of the problem of evil and suffering and makes it clear that it is a problem. That is, Christianity says suffering is not innate in the way the world was supposed to be. And Christianity traces the problem of suffering to a historical cause.
Christianity not only says there’s something wrong with the world, it says there is something wrong with humans, with you, and with me.4 It’s not easy to admit our faults, but to deny there is anything wrong with humanity is to say that this is as good as it gets.5 That, also, is not a happy conclusion. Better to face reality head-on than to stumble in a land of make-believe.
Naturalism, in contrast, does not seem to give a sufficient answer, other than suffering is just the way of the world. We’re essentially animals, so we’re going to be animalistic, and so suffering will result. We’re in a world of chaos and chance, so the world will be chaotic. There is no real problem of suffering, there’s an expectation of suffering. Or, there should be. And for naturalists, there is no category for evil.6 Evil gives off no kinetic energy. There is no entity to evil. Various people may have opinions, likes, and dislikes, but from a strictly naturalistic perspective, there is no evil.
Another problem is that “modernity cannot understand suffering very deeply because it does not believe in suffering’s ultimate source.”7 Modernity will then never find the true answer to suffering. If I fix a leaky sink in my house because I notice a puddle and mold, that may be helpful, but it will not fix the problem if the problem is a leak in the roof. If we don’t know the origin of a problem, there is no hope of fixing the problem. We will be left with external shallow bandages. As I say elsewhere, naturalism cannot truly identify evil as a problem because evil, for naturalism, does not exist. If evil is not seen as a real problem then it certainly can’t be solved.
As Peter Kreeft has said, “If there is no God, no infinite goodness, where did we get the idea of evil? Where did we get the standard of goodness by which we judge evil as evil?”8 Or here’s how C.S. Lewis said it: “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing the universe to when I called it unjust.”9
The Bible says sin and suffering are not original to the world; sin and suffering have a beginning in history, and they are not a feature of humanity or the world as originally created.10 That is good news. We do not have to be left in our broken state. We sense that not all is right in the world or in our own hearts and lives. The Bible agrees. Yet, that is not all; it says there is a solution.
The Broken Healer
While writing this, my daughter came into the room and said her bones hurt. That is part of her condition. She has CRMO, which stands for chronic recurrent multifocal osteomyelitis. Basically, her body attacks her own bones, inflammation causes liaisons and fractures her bones, which can lead to deformity. It could stop harming her body when she stops growing, or it could continue her whole life. She currently gets infusions at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in hopes of putting it in remission.
How does Jesus relate to her pain? As Jesus’ biographies relate, “Jesus on the night that He was betrayed took the bread and broke it and said, ‘This is my body which is broken for you’” (1 Corinthians 11:23-24). Jesus was broken for her. Jesus’ bones did not break (John 19:36; Exodus 12:46; Psalm 34:20), but His body did. He did writhe in pain. Jesus may not heal all our brokenness now, but He was broken so that the fractured world could be healed.
The Bible says God took on human flesh (John 1:1-3, 14) partly to experience suffering Himself. God, therefore, understands suffering, “not merely in the way that God knows everything, but by experience.”11 Jesus became fully human in every way so that He could be faithful and merciful, and provide rescue and forgiveness to people (Hebrews 2:17). The Bible may not completely answer the mystery of suffering and evil, but it does give an answer: Jesus. Amid the struggles and psychological storms of life, the cross of Christ is a column of strength and stability. It signals out to us in our fog: “I love you!” The cross is the lighthouse to our storm-tossed souls.
Christianity teaches that the Potter made the platter and was heartbroken over it breaking. So, because of His love for the platter, the Potter allowed Himself to be broken to fix the broken platter (John 3:16). The Bible does stop with the Potter being broken. The Bible concludes with resurrection. Jesus dies, yes. But He does not stay dead. The shattered shards are mended and whole. Jesus is the foretaste, and His rising proves that the whole world will be put back together.
Healed and Whole
The mathematician, scientist, and philosopher Blaise Pascal wrote this thought, which, at first, is a little confusing: “Who would think himself unhappy if he had only one mouth, and who would not if he had only one eye? It has probably never occurred to anyone to be distressed at not having three eyes, but those who have none are inconsolable.”
What does Pascal mean by this? He means that we only miss something if it’s missing. We only miss something if it’s gone. We don’t notice an absence of things that were never there. Hunger points to food, thirst points to water, and a sense of brokenness points to a previous wholeness. As Peter Kraft has said, “We suffer and find this outrageous, we die and find this natural fact unnatural.” Why do we feel this way? “Because we dimly remember Eden.”12
Within our very complaint against God, there is a pointer to God and the reality of Christianity. Christianity gives a plausible explanation as to how the brokenness of the world happened in space and time history. But it also gives us a credible solution; the Potter who made the world and died for the world, promises to one day fix the world.
Christianity gives a logically consistent explanation for the brokenness of the world. And it supplies the solution. We certainly long to be healed and whole. Every dystopia, true and fictional, starts with a desire for utopia. But inevitably dissolves into dystopia. Jesus, however, is not only all-powerful and thus able to bring about a different state of things, He is also all-good so He actually can bring about a utopia. He can heal and make the world whole.
The Bible says that the Potter who formed the platter will reform and remake it in the end. The shattered shards will be put back in place, and everything will be mended and whole. The last book of the Bible says this:
‘Look! God’s home is now among people! God will live together with them. They will be his people. God himself will be with them and he will be their God. God will take away all the tears from their eyes. Nobody will ever die again. Nobody will be sad again. Nobody will ever cry. Nobody will have pain again. Everything that made people sad has now gone. That old world has completely gone away.’ God, who was sitting on the throne, said, ‘I am making everything new!’ (Revelation 21:3-5)
For now, we make mosaics out of the shattered shards of life. We paint as best we can with the canvas and colors we have.
Conclusion
We started with a few questions. Here are a few to consider at the end. What if you are not the only one that has walked your path of pain? What if you are not the only one that has faced your terrible trauma? What if there was someone who, because of their experience, knowledge, wisdom, empathy, sympathy, and their own suffering of trauma, could relate to all that you have gone through? What if that person loved you? What if they wanted to help you heal from your pain and protect you? What if they would go to any length to free you from what you have suffered?
What if the problem of evil gives a plausible argument for the reality of Christianity? What if naturalism does not even have a way to believe in the reality of evil? What if we do not like God because of all the bad things in the world, but God Himself actually took the bad things of the world on Himself to fix the broken world?
What if Jesus was shattered so that one day you could be mended and whole? And what if He promises to help pick up the pieces and make a masterful mosaic?
Photo by Evie S.
- Peter Kreeft, Making Sense Out of Suffering. ↩︎
- As Christopher Watkin has said, “in a world without the sort of god the Bible presents, there is no necessary stability to reality because nothing underwrites or guarantees the way things are” (Biblical Critical Theory: How the Bible’s Unfolding Story Makes Sense of Modern Life and Culture, 225). ↩︎
- Watkin, Biblical Critical Theory: How the Bible’s Unfolding Story Makes Sense of Modern Life and Culture, 55. ↩︎
- As N. T. Wright has said, “The ‘problem of evil’ is not simply or purely a ‘cosmic’ thing; it is also a problem about me” (N. T. Wright, Evil and the Justice of God, 97). ↩︎
- Watkin, Biblical Critical Theory, 166. ↩︎
- Consider that “Physics can explain how things behave, but it cannot explain how they ought to behave. If the universe is the result of randomness and chance, there’s no reason to think things ought to be one way as opposed to another. Things just are.” (Michael J. Kruger, Surviving Religion 101: Letters to a Christian Student on Keeping the Faith in College, 116-17). ↩︎
- Peter Kreeft, Making Sense out of Suffering. ↩︎
- Ibid. ↩︎
- C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (London: Fontana, 1959), 42. ↩︎
- See Watkin, Biblical Critical Theory, 168. ↩︎
- D.A. Carson, How Long, O Lord?: Reflections on Suffering & Evil, 179. ↩︎
- Kreeft, Making Sense out of Suffering. ↩︎
Religion and Obligation – But I don’t want to obey?…
People often don’t like religion because they don’t want to obey
A lot of people react to religion and want nothing to do with it. Not because they’ve considered its truth claims but because they feel it is constricting. Interestingly, we got our modern English word “religion” from the Latin word religio meaning “obligation” or “bond.”
So, it has been recognized for a long time that religion is binding. The question is, why? Why should anyone obey a religion?
If the religion’s truth claims are accurate then there would be a good reason to obey. Otherwise, I’m not going to be bound by a religion just because that’s what my grandma believed… No. If you’re going to tell me what I can do and not do, you better offer some good reasons why I should listen.
God demands obedience
1 Kings 8:60-61 says, “The LORD is God; there is no other. Let your heart therefore be wholly true to the LORD.” It is admittedly a big claim that “the LORD is God,” and He alone. But if that claim is true it seems to make sense that the LORD could demand obedience.
So, the question it seems we need to answer is not: “Should I obey?” But: “Is it true?” A lot of times it seems we’re tempted to go at it a different way. We’re tempted to think: “I don’t want to obey, therefore I won’t consider if it’s true.”
We can see the ridiculousness of that thinking when we apply it to a different context…
Imagine you’re driving on the highway with me. I’m going 95 when the speed limit is 70. You’re concerned because you know there are often speed traps in the area. Also, you don’t want to die. So, you say, “Perhaps you should slow down. There could be a speed trap.”
I, however, am rather content with the speed I am going. But you see a police car ahead. You very kindly warn me: “Um, that’s a police car… See it?! He’s right there! Slow down!”
But I don’t listen. I want to drive fast so I ignore the possibility of a cop car.
Religion and obligation
Ignoring information that might be pertinent because we want to do what we want to do might be problematic. Just because we don’t want there to be a cop to enforce the rules does not at all mean there is no cop.
I understand people not wanting to be obligated by a religion. We all naturally want to be in charge; we want to do what we want to do. We want to be God. But we can’t be God if God is God.
If God is, then God is in charge. He is God. If the religion is real, it necessarily leads to obligation.
That brings up the very important question: “Is God?”
Naturalistic evolution teaches that our sense of morality evolved
Imagine I gave you a pill that made you feel morally obligated to give me money… Kinda random but hear me out. After the pill wore off, what would you think of your moral conviction to give me money? Would you regret it? Question it? Probably both.
That’s what moral conviction is if we’re simply evolved creatures. Why? How is that so?
Naturalistic evolution teaches that our sense of morality evolved
Naturalistic evolution teaches that our sense of morality evolved. That is, our “moral genes” just happened to make us better suited for survival, and thus those with a moral characteristic passed on their “moral genes.” And so, we have morality. But, so the thought goes, just as the Neanderthals died out, morality could have died out. Or certainly, a different form of morality could have won out.
In fact, Charles Darwin says in The Descent of Man that if things had gone differently for humans they could have evolved to be like bees, where “females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters.” The atheist Michael Ruse in his book, Taking Darwin Seriously: A Naturalistic Approach to Philosophy, says, “Morality is a collective illusion foisted upon us by our genes.”
So, if we’re simply evolved from monkeys, morality is the equivalent of taking a pill that makes us think certain moral convictions are right. But the reality would be different. We, based on this view, only have those convictions—whatever they are: treat people nice, don’t murder and maim, etc.—because we happed to evolve that way (“took the pill”).
Of course, just because the way that you arrived at a conclusion was wrong, does not mean that your conclusion was wrong. In a test where the answer is A, B, C, or D, I could just choose “C” because it’s my favorite letter. I may be correct in my answer, but I certainly don’t have a solid reason for believing in the validity of my answer. In fact, probability would say my answer is likely wrong.
Another problem with wholesale naturalistic evolution is if we believe it explains everything then it in some ways explains nothing. Gasp. Yeah, that’s not a good thing.
If evolution explains morality, then I’m moral because of evolution which at least in some ways undercuts morality. Some people even say that religious people, like people that believe in Jesus, are religious because they evolved that way. Believing in a higher power brought some type of group identity which led tribes of our ancestors to be more likely to protect each other and thus survive and pass on their genes. And so, religion is the result of random mutational chance.
In fact, you could argue all of our thinking processes are the result of evolution. We’re just matter in motion. We’re all just responding to random whims. From belief in morality to belief in evolution, we’re just evolved to think this way… We can’t do anything about it. It’s programmed into us. It’s the pill we were given…
But if all this is a pill we’re given—what we’ve randomly evolved to think—what should we think?… Isn’t all our thinking just built into us through evolutionary processes?…
Alternatively, Christians believe that humans are created with an innate moral sense.
So, it seems morality is either a fiction with no basis in reality or God created us and explains reality—explains why we have an innate sense that we should treat people nice and not murder and maim.
There are big implications for either view. What is your view? And why?
What explains the contradiction of humanity?
What explains the contradiction of humanity?
Christmas is real good news of great joy for all people
I think, no matter who you are, there has been misinformation on both sides of about everything the past year or two. Sometimes we see something on social media, Facebook, or whatever, and it grabs our attention and seems pretty possible. Then there’s other stuff like this…
There is no coast of Austria. Austria is a land-locked country. And there is no Whale Team 6, at least that I know of. This story, of course, is just made up to be funny.
But, there has been a lot of bad news and a lot of false news this year. But, thankfully, I have something much different for you.
I have some incredibly good news and it is not fake!
First, I want to show you that this is not false news. That’s really important. Then we’ll get into the really good news. Of course, if the news were fake then it couldn’t be good.
Real News (Luke 1:1-4; 2:1-3)
Luke, the one who wrote one of the accounts of Jesus’ life, had a fourfold approach to his task. First, we see he did an investigation. He interviewed eyewitnesses. Second, he went back to the beginning. He didn’t pick up halfway through. Third, we see that Luke was thorough. He did his homework and “investigated everything.” Fourth, we see it wasn’t done in a roughshod way. Luke “carefully investigated everything.” So, the main impact of what Luke writes is that “Christianity is true and is capable of confirmation by appeal to what happened.”[i]
In fact, one author has said, “Wherever it has been possible to check Luke’s statements, his impeccability as a historian has come to light.”[ii]
Also, the Gospel of Luke doesn’t start out like a fairytale story: “Once upon a time…” It starts out by showing us that it is a biography. Luke did his research in putting together the account about Jesus. It’s not fake news. It’s real news.
The story of Jesus—of His birth and life—is not in the same category as fiction but history. Luke reports true historical events. Or, that’s certainly what it claims to report.
So, the issue on which everything hangs is not whether or not you like what the Bible teaches but whether or not the Bible is true.[iii]
The story of Christmas does not have value because it is a cute story about a down-and-out couple having a child in an unexpected setting. No. The story of Christmas has value because it is a true story about the good news of rescue through Jesus.
It’s very interesting to me that Caesar Augustus (Luke 2:1) was the first, and many say, the greatest Roman emperor. Actually, Augustus means, “Revered one” and some worshiped Caesar Augustus as divine. But, in his day, someone much greater was on the scene, someone truly divine. And it is actually because of this other person, this person that was a crucified Jewish carpenter, that I even know the name of Caesar Augustus.
Good News
Friends, this is good news! God has provided a Savior and we desperately need a Savior. We all fail, we all sin. As James says, “we all stumble in many ways.” Sometimes when we’re not even trying to. We don’t love others or God as we should.
The coming of Jesus the Messiah shows us that God keeps His promises. His promises to Abraham (Gen. 12:1-3), David (2 Sam. 7:16), Israel (Deut. 30:1, 5), and all people (Gen. 3:15). We see this truth highlighted a bunch throughout Luke chapters 1 and 2.
And that’s really good news. God kept His past promises. He said He would send a rescuer and He sent Jesus to rescue in ways that are mindboggling. And soon we’ll have perfect joy before Him. That promise too will come true.
Brothers and sisters, through the Messiah, we have light instead of darkness. Soon pervasive peace.
Joy to the world! the Lord is come;
Let earth receive her King;
Let every heart prepare him room,
And heaven and nature sing,…
Joy to the world! the Saviour reigns;
Let men their songs employ…
No more let sins and sorrows grow,
Nor thorns infest the ground;
He comes to make His blessings flow
Far as the curse is found,…
Brothers and sisters, we have good news even in this stinky year because Jesus came to bring good news of great joy…
for All Peoples
Who is this good news for? It is “for all the people” (Luke 2:10). “Regardless of nationality, age, wealth, fame, social position, sex, education, etc.”[iv]
Also, Jesus’ birth was announced to shepherds. As a class of people shepherds had a bad reputation. They were often known for stealing. They were also considered unreliable and were not even allowed to give testimony in the court of law (Talmud, Sanhedrin, 25b).[v]
Jesus is the deliver, master, and anointed king. Yet, He is born among very common folk. He is not born with pomp in a palace. He’s born around stinky smells in a mere stable.
What an amazing irony that the most amazing event of history took place in a lowly manger. Yet, how fitting because God elevates the lowly, and He humbles the proud. We see this also through the angelic announcement. The King’s birth was not announced to other kings, though Herod hunted for news. No! The news, the amazing news, was given to shepherds. The announcement to the humble was a harbinger of things to come.
The Lord cares for all and identifies with ordinary people.
Respond to the News
Look at Luke 2:13-14: “Suddenly a great company of the heavenly host appeared with the angel, praising God and saying, ‘Glory to God in the highest heaven, and on earth peace to those on whom His favor rests.'”
The angels themselves are in awe of God! The angels can’t help but praise God! The fact that God became flesh and was born to a poor family in a mere manger was indescribably awesome to the angels. They had never seen the wonder of God’s love shown to such an extent. And they responded as we all should. They praised God! And they desired that others give Him His rightful praise too.
“Glory to the newborn King!
Peace on earth and mercy mild
God and sinners reconciled”
Joyful, all ye nations rise
Join the triumph of the skies
With angelic hosts proclaim:
‘Christ is born in Bethlehem’
Hark! the herald angels sing:
‘Glory to the newborn King!'”
How will you respond?
Let’s look at how the shepherds responded in Luke 2:15-20:
“When the angels had left them and gone into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, ‘Let’s go to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has told us about.’ So they hurried off and found Mary and Joseph, and the baby, who was lying in the manger. When they had seen Him, they spread the word concerning what had been told them about this child, and all who heard it were amazed at what the shepherds said to them. But Mary treasured up all these things and pondered them in her heart. The shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things they had heard and seen, which were just as they had been told.”
The shepherds were in the middle of something, they were keeping watch over the sheep. Yet, we see they hurried off. We don’t even know what they did about the sheep. The shepherds’ main concern was to act. To respond. To see the Savior.
Yet, we should understand why. Is there more amazing news?!
That’s news to be told, at least, if we actually believe it.
Do you really believe it?
Do you really believe this is real news of great joy for all people?
Brothers and sisters, this news is real. Jesus did come. Jesus, who deserves to be magnified forever, was born in a manger. And the good news is He came as our Rescuer, our Savior. So, treasure up this truth in your heart and praise the Lord for the real good news we celebrate at Christmas.
On a day, a real day in history, in a city, in a real place, the Savior, came to take our sin away. The Messiah came to fulfill our hopes and keep His promise. The Lord came to defeat death and make us safe forevermore.
That’s why we have great joy. That’s why Christmas is such great news.
That’s why Christmas is real good news of great joy for all people.
So…
Notes
[i] N. B. Stonehouse, The Witness of Luke to Christ, 44.
[ii] William Hendriksen, The Gospel of Luke, 141.
[iii] See Keller who makes this point in The Reason for God p. 210.
[iv] William Hendriksen, The Gospel of Luke, 152.
[v] Leon Morris, Luke, 101.
*Photo by Tim Mossholder
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
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?
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
What are humans?
What are humans?
Are we mere mammals, slightly more evolved than monkeys? Are we ourselves divine, known or unknowingly gods ourselves? Or are we made to know and reflect the Creator God? Are humans nothing more than evolved hydrogen? The chance outcome of random processes with no significance?
Do humans have spirits that go beyond or are we merely matter in motion? Simply an ocean of cause and effect?[1] Do humans have a choice and a voice or are we just in a cosmic Ping-Pong game?
What explains the nature of humans? What are we and why are we what we are? Why are humans capable of almost unbelievable feats of both good and wickedness? What explains our dignity and degradation?
The philosopher Blaise Pascal lamented, “What sort of freak is man! How novel, how monstrous, how chaotic, how paradoxical, how prodigious! Judge of all things, feeble earthworm, repository of truth, sink of doubt and error, the glory and refuse of the universe!”[2]
Nick Bilton said, in an article about the eccentric and amazing Elon Musk, “when we eventually end up on another planet, humanity is most likely to do there what we’ve done here: destroy whatever wonder we have built. Nowhere is that more on display than with Musk himself. Humans are capable of great things. Every once in a while, a human comes along and propels us forward by leaps and bounds. A human like Musk. But, at the same time, those humans are imperfect, even if we don’t want them to be.”[3]
So, once again, what explains humanity’s propensity and desire for perfection but yet our inevitable and abysmal imperfection? What view of the world or philosophy makes sense of this? What hypothesis explains the conflicting nature of humans?
There seem to be three main options. We’ll look at each. You can decide which view you think makes the most sense.
Are we divine?
One view of the world is that “we are saved not by trusting a transcendent God who reaches down to us in grace but by realizing that God is within us, that we are God. Salvation is not a matter of recognizing our sin; it’s a matter of raising our consciousness until we recognize our inner divinity.”[4]
There are a number of people and sources that say that we ourselves are divine. Shirley MacLaine, for instance, asserts: “You are everything. Everything you want to know is inside you. You are the universe.”[5]
This type of view often posits that there are no ultimate distinctions. When it comes down to it there is no true differentiation. All is one. Everything is divine. You too are divine.
This brings up a few questions.
If we—each and everyone—are divine, why do we all not know of our own divinity? What accounts for our cosmic amnesia?[6] “If, when I was asleep I was a man dreaming I was a butterfly, how do I know when I am awake, I am not a butterfly dreaming that I am a man?” How can one distinguish between fact and fantasy?
Is the tragedy of the human race that we have forgotten that we are divine? Is that what’s wrong with the world?
Also, if distinctions, whatever those distinctions are, are illusions, then how do we know what is real? Further, how can we actually say that there is right and wrong? We can’t. There is then “no basis for human dignity and meaning… No basis for morality. If God is in everything, God is in both good and evil; therefore, there is no final difference between them.”[7] Helping and healing and maiming and murdering would all be the same.
Can we take seriously a view of the world that denies the existence of good and evil? That does not distinguish between death and life, between pain and pleasure? Can we do away with scientific discoveries so easily? Can we sore 35,000 feet in the air while googling arguments in favor of vegetarianism on our iPhone and also say logic has no real bearing on life?
How do we know we are divine? We cannot reason our way to this conclusion because it is beyond reason. Therefore, it would seem clearly unreasonable to hold this view, would it not? There can literally be no reasons or arguments in favor of this position.
I get the appeal of the view of enchantment that we are all gods. I get the appeal of spirituality without the ties of restrained morality or doctrinal commitment. But, are there actually legitimate reasons to believe the view that we are all gods? That question is often not asked.
We also have the question of why humans pivot towards perfection in one area and then revert to a pale and poor reflection of what we could be in other areas. Perhaps it’s because we just randomly mutated into our present form?
Are we evolved?
What can “explain the phenomenon of mind, consciousness, reason and value?”[8] Where did consciousness come from? Do we inherently matter or are we just matter?
There have been countless books arguing for and against the claim that humans are merely evolved matter. Various topics could be considered. It is not the place here to go into the merits of those arguments; although, I encourage you to check out some books on those topics.[9]
Here, instead, I want to ask what follows if we are evolved? What implications does it have for us if there is no enchantment? No beyond? No meaning?
If we’re evolved and we just follow our inner urges because that is what made us fit to survive does it mean there’s any meaning in what we do?
Yuval Noah Harari is a naturalist and popular author. In his book Sapiens he says there is no meaning if we as humans are evolved. “As far as we can tell, from a purely scientific viewpoint, human life has absolutely no meaning. Humans are the outcome of blind evolutionary processes that operate without goal or purpose… Hence any meaning that people ascribe to their lives is just a delusion.”[10]
Is there a basis for morality? Is there a basis for logic? The late William Provine, once historian of science professor at Cornell University, apparently didn’t think so. He said, “no inherent moral or ethical laws exist, nor are there absolute guiding principles for human society. The universe cares nothing for us and we have no ultimate meaning in life.”[11]
If we are merely evolved then that perspective seems correct.
“If there is no God, then any ground for regarding the herd morality evolved by Homo sapiens as objectively true seems to have been removed. Human beings are just accidental by-products of nature that have evolved relatively recently on an infinitesimal speck of dust lost somewhere in a hostile and mindless universe and which are doomed to perish individually and collectively in a relatively short time.”[12]
If we are no more than evolved animals, is all life no more than a match struck in the dark and blown out again?[13]
If we’re not magnificently divine is it right to say we’re merely dirt? What explains the complexity of the human character? Courageous and caring conquers and quivering and cranky cowards? Why the walking talking contradiction called humans? What explains our glory and gloom?
If we’re merely evolved how can we account for the fine-tuning of the universe? For example, why is the earth we inhabit inhabitable? Like Goldilocks’ potage why is it not too hot or too cold but just right to allow for life (also consider gravitation, the nuclear force that binds proton and neutrons, and the electromagnetic force)?[14]
And what about the existence of matter? Where did it come from? Doesn’t it make sense to say that everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence? And hasn’t it been shown that the universe had a beginning? What is its cause for existence? How did it happen?
Are we created in the image of the Creator?
What explains what seems to be the dual nature of humanity? Humanity is simultaneously great and wretched. What explains this paradox? We all innately sense it, but why is it here?
Christianity teaches that humans have dignity because they are made in the image of God but that they also can be devilish because they are rebellious (humans don’t always live and love according to God’s good design). “Our being made in the image of a personal and good God enables us to affirm objective goodness and reject evil.”[15]
As much as we are great, we bear God’s image. As much as we are wretched, we bear Satan’s. Human greatness split the atom; human wretchedness uses the same to kill millions of people. A great, though wretched, leader, Adolf Hitler, will lead a nation to slaughter millions. A great leader, Winston Churchill, will lead a nation in their defense. Ashok Gadgil,[16] with his intelligence, will fight for cures; others will inject poison.
Humanity is fallen, however. So we cannot neatly divide the line between good and evil. We cannot say all the bad people on the left and all the good people on the right. We’re all mixed together.[17] We are made in God’s image and thus can do fantastic things and fantastic good but we have been marred by the Fall and often reflect Satan so we can also do acts of unbelievable wickedness.
Thus, sin is not good because it wreaks havoc on our greatness, our image of God, and distorts it to evil ends. How sad that we who are capable of exploring the limitless expanse of the sea, the mind, space, and biology so often content ourselves with razing and rioting. How sad that though we as humans are capable of such good, there is such grave injustice. I’ve read, for example, that a woman born in parts of South Africa is more likely to be raped than to learn to read.[18] This surely should not be!
The world is a weird place. And, if the Christian view is the correct view, it must account for the weirdness of the world. It must best describe “the contours of the world as it actually exists.”[19]
Again, the world is a weird place. Did you know it’s not just the Christian scriptures that say the first humans were made out of mud?[20] Also, the Bible isn’t the only account that explains the origin of diverse languages connected to a huge tower.[21] Why is that?
Why is the world so strange? And what accounts for that strangeness? And why are humans so conflicted?
One hypothesis alone makes sense of who we are: “creation in the divine image followed by the fall, explains our predicament and, through a redeemer and mediator with God, offers to restore our rightful state.”[22] Sin, resulting in the fall, explains humanities wretchedness and yet greatness.
The Bible does not teach that we are gods but that we are to be like God. We image God.[23] For the Christian, “Everything is not the result of the impersonal plus time plus chance, but that there is an infinite-personal God who is the Creator of the universe.”[24] The Bible gives us a reason for believing in a lot inner in us. And a lot out there in the otter world. So, if you sense you have a lot of untapped ability, if you sense that the world is enchanted and spiritual, you’re correct.
It’s hard to consider these questions without also asking whether or not God exists. So, it’s important that you consider that all-important question: does God exist?
Notes
If God created the universe, what created God?
We, as sentient and at least somewhat intelligent humans, exist. That’s not debated by most people. How, however, did we get here? Where or who did we come from? And if God created us, who or what created God?
Panspermia
Some have speculated that we got here through panspermia or even directed panspermia.[1] Panspermia is the hypothesis that microorganisms were seeded to our planet through meteoroids, comets, asteroids, or even from alien life forms. That just moves the question back. Where then did life come from (to say nothing of matter)?
Interestingly, some have speculated what it would take for us to seed life to another planet by blasting off a rocket with microorganisms onboard. Some believe we could carry out a “Genesis” mission to an uninhabited planet within 50 to 100 years.
Of course, the mission would require a lot of really smart people working in coordination with a lot of really smart people. And it would cost a lot of money and use things like ion thrusters and really advanced robots. So, starting with life and intelligence, it may be possible to seed life to other planets (assuming they are fine-tuned to support life). But again, this just pushes the question back and proves the need for intelligent design.
Multiverse or many worlds hypothesis
Another hypothesis to explain the origin of life on earth (specifically intelligent life on earth) is the multiverse theory.[2] Yes, this should remind you of all the crazy stuff that happens in Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse. This theory is interesting and problematic for a number of reasons. It’s more science fiction than fact.
- It is, by far, not the simplest explanation. This is problematic (see: Occam’s razor).
- It’s nonsensical. One could then postulate that there is a near-infinite number of you, or of Loki. Loki was a cool show but the questions multiply as the “Lokis” multiply.
- There’s nothing that we have observed that would lead us to logically conclude that there is or is likely a multiverse (it seems, rather, that those arguing for this position are just frantically trying to get away from the reality of the existence of God[3]).
If God created the universe, what created God?
Here are the options:
- The universe somehow sprang from absolute nothingness completely on its own.
- The universe inanimate has existed eternally and that something somehow exploded and eventually led to the life forms we have now.
- The universe was created by a powerful and eternal Entity.
Each of those options is honestly hard to fathom. Which makes the most sense?
The universe somehow sprang from absolute nothingness completely on its own.
This is not something we really observe. In our experience and observation, something does not come from nothing. If even a simple pool ball is rolling on a pool table we assume it was set in motion by something. We don’t assume it moved although no force whatsoever acted upon it (What about quantum particles?[4]).
There’s a story about a scientist making a bet with God. The scientist bets God that he can create life. The scientist grabs some dirt and sets off to work. When a voice from heaven said, “Get your own dirt!”
“It is a vain hope to try to give a physical account of the absolute beginning of the universe. Not only must the creation event transcend physical law, it must also,… transcend logic and mathematics and therefore all the scientific tools at our disposal. It must be, quite literally, supernatural.”[5]
The universe has eternally existed.
If the expansion of the universe were an old VHS video that you could reverse, you’d see the contraction of the universe into an infinitesimally small singularity—back into the nothingness from which the universe sprang.[6] Thus, the Big Bang actually matches with what Scripture says. That is, the universe—all the matter that is—came into being at a finite time, ex nihilo, out of nothing.
The universe has not existed eternally.
The universe was created by a powerful and eternal Entity.
It makes sense to say, doesn’t it, that anything that begins to exist must have a cause of its existence?[7] I think that makes a lot of sense. I mean a pool ball on a pool table isn’t going to move unless someone or something causes it to move.
This is especially the case when we consider the extreme fine-tuning necessary to allow for life, especially intelligent life. “On whatever volume scale researchers make their observations—the universe, galaxy cluster, galaxy, planetary system, planet, planetary surface, cell, atom, fundamental particle, or string—the evidence for extreme fine-tuning for life’s sake, and in particular for humanity’s benefit, persists.”[8]
God is the Uncaused Cause, the Unmoved Mover. God is. He is the Creator.
But then, who or what created God?
Anything that begins to exist must have a cause of its existence. The thing with God is, He did not begin to exist. He has always existed. Therefore, He needs no cause or creator. He is the Creator.
“The Cause responsible for bringing the universe into existence is not constrained by cosmic time. In creating our time dimension, that agent demonstrated an existence above, or independent of, cosmic time… In the context of cosmic time, the causal Agent would have no beginning and no ending and would not be created.”[9]
This is, in fact, what the Bible says about the LORD God. It says, “the LORD is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth” (Is. 40:28) and it says, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1 cf. Ps. 136:5; Is. 45:18; Col. 1:16).
The universe has not always existed. Instead, “the universe was brought into existence by a causal agent with the capacity to operate before, beyond, unlimited buy, transcendent to all cosmic matter, energy, space, and time.”[10]
God revealed Himself to Moses as: “I Am who I Am” (Ex. 3:14). God is the One who Is. He is the Existing One. He is the One who is beyond and before time and matter. And as such, He is able to create time and matter.
If God’s existence doesn’t need an explanation then why should the universe’s existence need an explanation?
“This popular objection is based on a misconception of the nature of explanation. It is widely recognized that in order for an explanation to be the best, one need not have an explanation of the explanation (indeed, such a requirement would generate an infinite regress, so that everything becomes inexplicable). If astronauts should find traces of intelligent life on some other planet, for example, we need not be able to explain such extraterrestrials in order to recognize that they are the best explanation of the artifacts. In the same way, the design hypothesis’s being the best explanation of the fine-tuning does not depend on our being able to explain the Designer.”[11]
How should we respond to the One who created the universe?
That’s a big question. But, I’ll take it further, how should we respond if the Christian understanding of God is correct? What if the Programmer coded Himself into the program like the Bible talks about?
If what Scripture says of the Creator entering His creation is true, as I believe it is, then I think it clearly follows that we should be amazed and submit to the One who has shown Himself to be the Lord.
We must all, however, make that choice on our own. I can’t make it for you. But I, for one, am awed and astounded that the Creator would enter His creation to rescue His creation.
Not only that but the Creator was crucified (see Col. 1:15-20). As Jesus was making purification and propitiation for sin by bearing our sin on the cross, He was simultaneously upholding the universe by the word of His power (Heb. 1:2).
How should we respond to the One who created the universe and yet loves us?! I believe we should respond in reverent worship:
Notes
[1] E.g. Francis Crick, Life Itself: Its Nature and Origin (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1981).
[3] “The many worlds hypothesis is essentially an effort on the part of partisans of the chance hypothesis to multiply their probabilistic resources in order to reduce the improbability of the occurrence of fine-tuning” (J.P. Moreland & William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview [Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2003], 487). Ironically, “the many worlds hypothesis is no less metaphysical than the hypothesis of a comic designer” (Moreland & Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, 487).
[4] “There is no basis for the claim that quantum physics proves that things can begin to exist without a cause, much less that [the] universe could have sprung into being uncaused from literally nothing” (Moreland & Craig, Philosophical Foundations, 469). Even if one follows the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics, “particles do not come into being out of nothing. They arise as spontaneous fluctuations of the energy contained in the subatomic vacuum, which constitutes an indeterministic cause of their origination” (Ibid.). This very brief explanation is helpful: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/quantum-field-theory-what-virtual-particles-laymans-terms-javadi/ and also see: http://atlas.physics.arizona.edu/~shupe/Indep_Studies_2015/Homeworks/VirtualParticles_Strassler.pdf
[5] David A. J. Seargent, Copernicus, God, and Goldilocks: Our Place and Purpose in the Universe, 114.
[6] A better illustration would actually be a balloon losing its air. When considering the expansion of the universe it’s amazing to consider that eventually the universe will grow dark because the speed of the expansion of the universe will eventually be too great for us to observe our cosmic surroundings.
[7] “Everything restricted to the cosmic timeline must be traceable back to a cause and a beginning” (Hugh Ross, Why The Universe Is The Way It Is, 132).
[8] Ross, Why The Universe Is The Way It Is, 124. See e.g. Hugh Ross, “Fundamental Forces Show Greater Fine-Tuning” https://reasons.org/explore/publications/connections/fundamental-forces-show-greater-fine-tuning, Fazale Rana, “Fine-Tuning For Life On Earth (Updated June 2004)” https://reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/fine-tuning-for-life-on-earth-updated-june-2004, and Seargent, Copernicus, God, and Goldilocks, 121-127.
[9] Ross, Why The Universe Is The Way It Is, 132.
[10] Ibid., 131.
[11] Moreland & Craig, Philosophical Foundations, 487.
*Photo by Tyler van der Hoeven
in X 