chrisci

Can we trust Scientists?

2011-05-17T14:19:00.001+01:00

Spent an hour or so in the BBC radio Solent studio this morning discussing the question "Can we trust scientists?" with Steve Harris. I felt it went quite well and rather enjoyed it! I've stuck a edited recording on the following link:

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~rmhasek/radio/BigConvo_Science_May11.mp3

Why is there suffering in the world?

2011-05-01T13:36:00.002+01:00

My daily thoughts on BBC radio Solent this week are about something that has been concerning me a lot recently - why is there pain and suffering in the world? Although I don't think I have an answer, I have found some things helpful when thinking about this question.

Click on the link for the recording, text pasted below.

Tuesday 26th April
Wednesday 27th April
Thursday 28th April
Friday 29th April

Day 1

Earlier this month it was announced that Lord Rees, the astronomer royal and recent president of the Royal Society, had been awarded the 1 million pound Templeton prize for making “exceptional contributions to affirming life's spiritual dimension”. This quickly provoked a vitriolic response from well-known atheist scientists such as Richard Dawkins and Harry Kroto, the latter referring to spirituality as “congenital wishful thinking”. However interestingly, as I have been following this story over the last couple of weeks, I’ve actually found more articles critical of Dawkins and Kroto, than articles surprised that a famous scientist finds spirituality important.

I think this is because people are beginning to tire of the rhetoric that says science and spirituality are opposites or incompatible. I am a scientist who happens to think that science is one of the most important activities that humans engage in, however I do not think it provides the only lense through which we see life. Take for instance the recent earth-quake and Tsunami in Japan. Science provides excellent explanations for why these natural disasters happen and indeed why they must happen in order for there to be life on this planet. Science can even get a certain distance in explaining a bit about the human tragedy - perhaps why people live in such places and why we react the way we do when disaster strikes. However seeing a disaster just in terms of plate tectonics, fluid dynamics, sociology or psychology seems cold and callous. Yes of course the rationality provided by science is important, however when faced with unspeakable human tragedy we need the comfort and hope provided by faith, religion and spirituality far more than we need any textbook of physics.

Day 2

As a child I really enjoyed the Andrew Lloyd Webber musical “Joseph and the amazing Technicolour Dreamcoat”. Of course, along with the fun songs, this musical is memorable for telling the biblical story of Joseph - a young boy who is sold into slavery by his brothers before a series of adventures results in him becoming the powerful governor of Egypt. In this position he successfully predicts the coming of a famine and is able to oversee the storage of grain so that Egypt does not suffer the effects of this natural disaster. The story finishes with a happy ending when Joseph is reconciled with his brothers after they come pleading for help because of the effects of the famine.

The story of Joseph is an exciting, feel-good, rags to riches tale. It is particularly alluring because it reminds us that no matter how bad things might seem there is always the possibility – the hope – of future success and happiness. Interestingly, in the case of Joseph, personal qualities or planning only contribute a very small part to his success because the main events seem to be engineered by God who has a much bigger plan in mind. The story of Joseph is thus powerful because it reminds us that even apparently hopeless situations do unexpectedly turn to good through causes that are beyond our control. In a small way I find this quite a comforting thought - knowing that however bad or confusing a situation might be, everything doesn’t depend entirely upon me, there are other forces at work, and there is a much bigger picture that often I simply cannot see.

Day 3

Perhaps one of the most unfortunate characters of all time was a bloke called Job. He was a wealthy landowner in the middle-east with seven sons, three daughters, many servants, oxen, camels and flocks of sheep. However, during the course of just 24 hours his children are killed, his animals destroyed, he catches a terrible disease and his wife first mocks and then deserts him. These misfortunes kick off one of the earliest recorded philosophical exchanges as a number of his friends gather to discuss what he had done wrong to be so unfortunate, and what he should do to fix the situation. But, after a 15,000-word dialogue Job and his friends are still at a loss to explain why suffering occurs in the world. At this point God enters the conversation: “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand.  Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it? On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone?” God reminds Job and his friends that they are only men with a very limited understanding.

I find it funny how many people think that being religious means thinking that you have all the answers. This is not my experience. Instead for me Christianity is not really about answers, but rather about stories that help me come to terms with both the world and myself. The stories in the bible are not there to tell us what to do, but rather to provide guidance for how to approach and think about problems. Today’s example, the story of Job, reminds us that we are limited beings and in fact cannot know everything – something that we certainly need to be reminded in this current age of science and technology.

Day 4

I found the events in Japan on March 11th truly shocking. I watched with absolute horror the television footage of the Tsunami overtaking cars, smashing buildings, swallowing up farmland and destroying lives. This event reminded me that no matter how sophisticated humans become, we are still at the mercy of natural forces that are simply beyond our control. It is interesting to note, however, that although the earthquake in Japan was stronger than the one in Haiti a year ago, there were only a couple deaths in Japan from the actual earthquake whilst 316 thousand people died in poverty stricken Haiti. Similarly the early warning systems in Japan saved many thousands of lives, so that compared to the 230 thousand people who died in the 2005 Boxing Day Tsunami, the Japanese death toll has actually been an order of magnitude lower. These statistics suggest to me that along with uncontrolled natural forces, poverty and injustice also play a very large role in these terrible disasters.

As a Christian I do not believe that the bible gives us an answer to suffering, but it does tell us some stories that help us come to terms with what we find around us. The story of Joseph reminds us that bigger plans are often at work, the story of Job tells us that we cannot always expect to understand why things happen, and the story of Jesus tells us that we have a duty to care for the poor and come alongside those who are suffering. It is for these reasons – these stories – that I think spirituality and religion are extremely important and do contribute to our lives in an essential way. Although the rationality provided by science tells us how the world works, it is the spiritual stories that help us understand the much bigger picture of we call life.

Julian's People - BBC radio Solent March

2011-03-16T12:12:00.000Z

Had another couple minute interview today. I finally managed to spend some time talking about science, philosophy and ethics today!

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~rmhasek/radio/JP6_Mar11.mp3

Bioethics talk

2011-03-10T13:46:00.001Z

Did a talk at a church in Brighton a couple weeks back on Bioethics. They kindly recorded the talk and put it on their website:

http://www.calvary-brighton.org.uk/2011/a-christian-perspective-on-bioethics/

This was the first time I had given this talk so it wasn't quite as polished as I may of liked and had a good deal of umming an erring, however it did seem to go down quite well and was followed with a very good question and answer session.

I find this subject really interesting as it is misunderstood by Christians who make assumptions without properly thinking things through, and by agnostics/atheists who assume that all Christians follow an ethics guided by Rome and hence oppose abortion, contraception etc. Indeed the local atheists turned up and told me that they agreed with pretty much all of what I said apart from my statement that the Christian narrative was the best framework through which to see life (and on which to base a virtue ethic). This pleased me because I respect atheists for their rigorous logic and refusal to accept jumps in reasoning.

Commenting on science in the news

2011-02-07T21:04:00.000Z

I had another one of my regular interviews on local BBC radio this morning and the DJ decided it was far more interesting to ask me about health stories in the news. As I had yet to even see a paper I couldn't comment on any specifically, however we did have a chat about how scientific breakthroughs are reported in the press. I've been sort of wanting to do more radio stuff and dropping hints with the guys at the station, so hopefully this mornings interview may be one step towards being on more regularly.

Click here for this mornings interview.

Daily Thoughts - BBC Solent

2010-12-04T12:22:00.000Z

Brrr - it's been a freezing week with lots of snow so I only made it into the studio once - good thing we do pre-records for the earlier broadcast. This time round I was inspired by an ethics course I am doing with each thought based upon a different theory of ethics (although I've simplified somewhat for the radio).

The recordings:

Tuesday 30th November
Wednesday 1st December
Thursday 2nd December
Friday 3rd December

The text versions:

Day 1 – Consequences

The other day I got on the train at Southampton Airport on my way to London and found myself sitting next to a rather nice pair of woolly gloves that a previous passenger had obviously left on the train. I tried them on and they fitted beautifully, and even had a cosy fleece lining on the inside.

If I had been intending to get off the train at Winchester I would have probably thought “what a stroke of luck”, put them in my pocket and enjoyed having warm hands. However, since I was staying on the train quite a lot longer than the ten minutes it take to get to Winchester, I got to thinking why I automatically found it acceptable to just keep a pair of gloves that obviously were not mine.

Perhaps one of the most common ways we make decisions about what is right and what is wrong, is by thinking through the consequences of our actions. In this case the previous owner was unlikely to come looking for their gloves, I wouldn’t exactly get arrested for taking them off the train, no one else would know where I had got them, they were probably only worth £20, and my current pair of gloves had a hole in them and I hadn’t found the time to buy a new pair yet.

But, although all these considerations were quite valid, did they form a good basis for a decision? Are the consequences of our actions all that matter or are there other principles we should be paying attention to? Is it OK to do something merely because I think I can get away with it, or should my sense of right and wrong rest on something deeper?

Day 2 – Principles

In my day job I work as a scientist involved in medical research. Although I don’t get paid quite as much as I might like, an important part of this job for me, is the feeling that I am doing something worthwhile that will probably help other people in the long term.

A particularly critical part of any medical research project is the first time a new medicine is given to humans. This sort of experiment normally happens between five and ten years into a project, and although we have a great deal of information about the new medicine at this point - it’s only when it is finally tested on a person that we get to find out if it causes more good than harm.

As you can probably imagine such experiments are performed very carefully and with close attention paid not only to the medical science aspect, but also to the ethics. Indeed we have to ask ourselves four key ethical questions before proceeding: firstly, are we trying to do good, secondly are we causing any harm, thirdly are we respecting the autonomy (that’s the free choice) of our willing participants, and fourthly are we acting fairly and respecting equality?

Prior to doing medical research I hadn’t really heard about these four principles, but the more I have had to consider them professionally the more I have found them applicable to other areas of my life as well. Time and again, when facing a decision about how to act I find myself asking these four questions - am I trying to do good, am I trying to avoid harm, am I respecting other people and am I acting fairly?

Day 3 – Virtues

What do you think when you hear the words “virtue and vices”? Perhaps some ancient churchy type thing, maybe a Victorian understanding of right and wrong, put surely not something that is applicable to the South Coast of England in the 21st century – are they?

I do think that it is a bit of a shame that words like virtue and vice have drifted out of our everyday vocabulary as they both concern issues that all of us talk (and often gossip) with our friends about almost all the time. “That was so dishonest” we might say or “she’s such a loving mother”, or “he’s so forgiving” or “she’s a hard worker”. You see virtues are simply positive character traits, such as patience, kindness, humility, charity, diligence, hard working or loving. Similarly vices include pride, greed, lust, anger, gluttony, envy or laziness.

The ancient Greek philosopher, Aristotle, was one of the first to come up with this idea of virtues and vices. He was concerned with the question “how is the best way to live?” Instead of focusing on what a person did, he thought it was important to focus on who a person was. His argument was that even in the most difficult or complicated situations, a virtuous person would always do the “right thing” simply because they practiced the virtues on an everyday basis. In other words virtues cannot be switched on or off depending on the situation – they are a constant part of our character and we need to practice them in order to have them!

Day 4 – an ethic of care

Just about two years ago I became a father. Although I obviously knew lots of people with children who tried to warn me what I was getting myself into, I don’t think any amount of psychological preparation could quite prepare me for what was in store once we got our little bundle of joy home from the hospital! I certainly now know what people mean when they say a child gives you the highest highs, but also the lowest lows.

One of my friends, a biologist without children, tells me on the mornings when I struggle into work bleary eyed with calpol and dribble stains on my shirt, that I have evolved to be manipulated by my son in order to pass genes on into the future. He tells me I do not have a choice in the matter, this is just the way biology works. But, although I love biology, and think that biological explanations can be very powerful, I think it’s slightly wide of the mark to say parenting is just about being manipulated by your offspring: there is something incredibly powerful about caring for a child, meeting their needs and seeing them grow, that changes you as a person.

Our western culture seems to encourage people to be individuals, compete with others and use experience and education for self-development, however there are some things that can only be learned when we stop our own lives and start caring for those around us. OK a baby or toddler might be harder to ignore than an older person, friend or work colleague, however caring for others isn’t only about our own personal sacrifice – it changes who we are and how we think, often in a very positive way.

Science, Faith, Evolution and Christianity

2010-11-30T21:28:00.003Z

A forty minute talk I gave at the Institute for Contemporary Christianity last Saturday for the Christians in Science student conference. A bit of a breathless review of the whole subject area including some thoughts on evolution.

The Talk:

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~rmhasek/misc/Science_Faith_Evolution.mp3

The slides are at the following link although the file is quite big so might need a right click and download as (25Mb):

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~rmhasek/misc/StudentConference2010.pdf

A more upbeat Julian's people!

2010-11-11T11:31:00.000Z

The latest two minute interview on BBC Radio Solent:

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~rmhasek/radio/JP4_Nov10.mp3

Friday 13th daily thoughts from BBC Radio solent

2010-08-13T14:19:00.000+01:00

It's quite fun being in the studio four mornings in a row reading the daily thoughts out live. Julian Clegg is an impressive DJ to watch in action - seeming to be able to talk whilst reading the next item and sounding laid back despite the often chaotic scenes in the studio around him. I get about ten seconds to talk to him during the jingles and then thats it - I'm in and out!

Todays thought can be heard here.

Day 4:

Good morning.

In my final thought this week, inspired by the book “life of Pi”, I want to dwell on a comment made by the heroes dad when they are busy selling all the animals in their zoo, ready to emigrate from India to Canada. Being a good zoo-keeper the father is keen that all the animals go to a good home, and ruefully muses that the greater good and the greater profit are not always compatible aims.

I was really struck by this comment especially in a time of financial austerity when everything we hear in the news is about cutting services, stopping building projects, reducing pensions and people losing jobs. Yes of course we need companies and an economy that is sustainable, however sometimes we should ask whether it is actually pursuing the “greater good” to put balance sheets before the needs of people, especially in organisations such as government whose whole purpose is to serve and look after society. Is it actually pursuing the greater good to have an economy that is bigger and better than everyone elses, or should we sometimes temper our ambitions by remembering that the greater profit and the greater good are not the same thing?

Similarly on a personal level, once we have achieved a standard of living that meets our basic needs, should we now stop and consider how our extra time and resources are spent? Do we just look for “more, better, now” or do we try to enjoy life and perhaps even make a difference? If the greater good and the greater profit are not always compatible, which of the two are we pursuing?

Daily thoughts day 3 (August)

2010-08-13T13:56:00.000+01:00

Listen here or read:

Day 3:

Good morning.

In the book “life of Pi” the main character is stranded on a life-boat for many months. He comes to realise what his needs in life really are, and what aspects of his previous life were in fact luxuries. It is quite amazing to read an account like this and think quite how few things we really need, and indeed how many of our “essential” possessions are in fact luxuries.

Let me give an example - recently a new electronics store opened around the corner from where I live so I went for a visit to check it out. This turned into a bit of a mistake as it was a “sale” weekend and everyone seemed to be fighting to get to the TV section and bag the “bargain” offers. I couldn’t help but be drawn to the offers section and start laying extravagant plans for a home cinema – an apparent “need” in my life that I hadn’t previously recognised. I went home and spent all night dreaming about the cinema system, and worrying how I could afford it, or indeed fit it into my sitting room. However, after spending a night tossing and turning all my great plans were quickly squashed by my wife who reminded me that a home cinema was not a basic need, and indeed not even an option!

So here’s my thought for the day – once we have enough resources to meet the really basic needs, do we realise that any extra money or time can be used to make us happy, or do we automatically begin to look around, decide on greater “needs”, and then get stressed about trying to afford them? Do we use our extra resources to bring happiness, or simply more stress?

Julian Clegg show, BBC radio solent

2010-08-13T13:54:00.000+01:00

Daily thoughts day 2 - listen here or text below:

Day 2

Good morning.

This weeks daily thoughts are motivated by the Man Booker prize winning novel “Life of Pi”.

In one part of this book the teenage main character, Pi, manages to simultaneously become a Christian, a Hindu and a Muslim. He happily attends a church, temple and a mosque for a number of months until people start to notice and object to his multi-faith religion. This leads to a showdown involving his parents, a priest, a pandit and an imam. The adults decide that he has to choose one of the three religions, but Pi doesn’t understand - “if people can have more than one different passport why can’t they have more than one religion?” he asks? Pi’s dilemma is perhaps made worse by this part of the novel being set in India at a time when choice of religion could often mean the difference between life or death.

Of course historically the choice of religion was based on geography and family tradition. However today we live in an increasingly globalised and multi-cultural society where people of widely differing religions mix on an every day basis. So is it a valid thing to just become a member of all religions?

I don’t think it is because there is an important difference between respecting people of other religions, and what a person privately believes. The power of each religion is in its ability to provide a coherent picture of the world, providing a framework for ethics and behaviour. If we start to combine traditions we will unavoidably run into conflicts. Of course we should always respect and work with people of other religions, however if someone wants to explore spirituality it is probably best not to create our own religion, but rather choose a tradition and follow the wisdom of history.

Daily Thoughts - August - BBC radio solent

2010-08-13T13:52:00.000+01:00

More daily thoughts! Recording can be found by clicking here. Text below:

Day 1

Good Morning.

This week’s daily thoughts are based upon the book “life of Pi”. I won’t spoil the story because I don’t think I can - I couldn’t possibly give an adequate description of this bizarre but brilliant recipient of the 2002 Man Booker prize. However, something that I can relate are some of the fascinating side-tracks that spur the reader to stop and think more carefully about themselves and how they see life.

Towards the beginning of the book the central character, “Pi”, describes the fictional zoo that he was brought up in. Although not defending zoo’s per se, he does point out that it is a mistake to equate animals freedom in the wild with happiness, and think that zoos make animals unhappy. In actual fact animals in the wild have a tough time - living lives of compulsion and necessity in an environment low on food but high in fear, disease and sudden death. They often have to be quite reactionary because the smallest changes in their environment could signify the approach of a predator or the onset of a debilitating disease. Animals are therefore happiest in a predictable environment where their needs can be met relatively easily - a situation that can often be achieved quite successfully in a zoo.

However, if zoo animals are unhappy, or try to escape from their enclosure, they are seldom trying to escape to somewhere, but more likely running from something. A good zoo-keeper knows that the solution to an unhappy animal is not to move it somewhere else, but rather look for what is specifically upsetting it, and see if this can be changed. Escape is often a quick reaction, not a long-term solution.

Julian's People - BBC Radio Solent August

2010-07-26T13:42:00.001+01:00

Did another short Julian's People interview today. On listening back it sounds like a bit of a moan, however perhaps reflects the dismal failure I have had so far this year trying to get a fellowship grant or lectureship position. Hopefully I will be able to be more upbeat next time I do one of these!

Click here to listen!

More BBC radio!

2010-06-07T20:05:00.001+01:00

Another 4 minute interview about my research recorded live for BBC radio Solent.

Click here!

Radio Interview

2010-04-01T21:20:00.001+01:00

BBC Radio Solent does a slot called "Julian's People" at ten to seven during the week where they interview someone who is "trying to achieve" something over the course of a year or so. They have decided to follow me as I apply for lectureships and fellowship grants. The first interview is on the link here.

Final day of March daily thoughts

2010-03-28T12:49:00.000+01:00

26th March - listen here. I quite like that I have become "Simon the scientist!"

Day 4: Nature

Over the last couple days I have been discussing the marvels that science has revealed, both of the very big and the very small. Science has shown us exquisitely how there is so much more to the world around us whether it is in the skies at night or in the hugely complex world of our cells. I find it quite sad that many people’s encounter with science is only through boring school lessons, or through eccentric academics in the press. This is because as a working scientist my personal experience is quite different – science helps me to discover new perspectives and reveals an exciting world that goes far beyond what I can often imagine. As both a scientist and a Christian I often see similarities between nature and my faith as these different ways of understanding the world both point beyond my immediate situation and needs.

Although all of us have to face up to the practicalities and responsibilities of everyday living, I often think that most of us do not give enough time to stopping, thinking and trying to see the larger picture. It is so easy to become overwhelmed with the everyday chores that we don’t find time to look down a microscope, look at the stars or even take a walk in the country. Of course doing any of this does not make problems go away, but by gaining a sense of perspective we also gain a new way of looking at things. You don’t have to be a religious believer to gain the benefits of contemplation and meditation – just go to the zoo or into your garden and marvel at the world around you!

Day 3 of March daily thoughts

2010-03-28T12:47:00.000+01:00

Thursday 25th March, listen here or:

Day 3: The small

As a biochemist I am interested in trying to understand how the millions of chemicals in our cells interact in order to create a living body. However, the biggest challenge to studying the molecules of life is dealing with how small and quite how many of them, there actually are. In order to do this I have to use indirect methods on simplified systems and then extrapolate the results to build more complex models. To do this I regular visit the new “synchrotron” particle accelerator just outside Oxford to bombard purified versions of the chemicals I want to study with Xrays. From measuring how the Xrays scatter when they hit the tiny molecules we can get a lot of detail as to the shape of the chemicals, and then hopefully use this information go on and design new medicines. The reason we have to use Xrays is because the chemicals are so small that visible light itself is too big to actually illuminate them!

Even as a biochemist who studies these small molecules I still find it difficult to appreciate that every living creature, and indeed every living cell of every living creature, is a highly complex but exquisitely organised mixture of chemicals that perform remarkable feats on a sub-microscopic level. Because of this some people like to refer to us as “complex machines”, however I do not think this title quite does us justice. Each one of us is more complex, and better designed, than the most complicated of human inventions. From this perspective it is no wonder that many people use spiritual language when trying to grasp how life actually works. Far from being an enemy of spirituality, I find that science gives me a heavenly perspective! The beauty and complexity of the natural world reminds me that there is far more to life than can be seen.

Daily Thoughts on BBC radio

2010-03-28T12:37:00.001+01:00

24th March 2010 on BBC Radio Solent. Listen here or for the script:

Day 2: A matter of scale

The other day a friend emailed a link to a website called “the scale of everything”. This is a really cool animation which, by using a slider, allows you to zoom from the very smallest thing we know about - quantum foam at a fraction of a yoctometer - right up to the largest thing we know about - the size of the whole universe at a couple of hundred yottometers. Interestingly, on the scale between the very big (yottometers) and the very small (yoctometers), humans lie pretty much slap in the middle. In other words (and something that I find quite mind boggling) the universe is about as much bigger than you are, as you are bigger than the smallest known atomic particle.

Although science has built tools that can examine both the very big and the very small, the sizes involved are so vast that we mostly have to rely on indirect, and somewhat complicated, methods to see what’s out there. This may seem to some people to be a bit of a pointless pursuit, however it suddenly becomes rather a lot more relevant when we realise that the objects that lie beyond our normal comprehension can actually affect our everyday lives quite significantly. For instance, a single radioactive particle could lead to a mutation that causes cancer.

One of the best parts of being a scientist is trying to understand this “other” perspective. I find science exciting because it takes me out of my normal everyday experience and introduces me to a world that is still only partially explored. If I get bored or am feeling unmotivated I regularly go back to the “scale of everything” website because it shows me how little of the world I actually experience, and reminds me that there’s an awful lot more out there than just me!

More Daily thoughts - BBC Solent

2010-03-27T20:07:00.001Z

23rd March 2010 on BBC radio Solent. Listen here.

Day 1: The big

For Christmas this year I got some binoculars – not that I wanted binoculars for any particular reason, but rather my Mum put me on the spot and it was the first thing that came to my mind!

After unsuccessfully trying to look at some birds and a cat in my garden, and even more disappointingly discovering that I couldn’t really see into any of my neighbours windows, I decided to turn my binoculars skywards and have a look at the stars.

Now, I’m a biologist by training and have spent so much of the last few years looking down microscopes that I have seldom thought about the bigger things that live above my head. Yes of course I glimpse stars when I am out at night, and see star charts and pictures in magazines, but this was the first time I ever tried to examine the heavens for myself.

My first look at the stars through binoculars will live with me for a long time. In the past I never quite appreciated why people spent nights in cold fields looking at stars, but now I know! It’s really difficult to explain in words the experience of gazing at the vastness of the universe, knowing that the light you are seeing has travelled trillions of miles and has taken billions of years just to reach your eyes.

Of course, very few of us will ever escape this earth and visit these stars, however, if you ever need a sense of perspective, and want an insight into another world, I’d recommend grabbing some binoculars and having a look at the stars. It’s so easy to do, and I promise it won’t disappoint.

Day 4 of 4 BBC radio solent science and faith

2009-11-27T12:16:00.001Z

And the final audio is here, with the text below:

Good morning,

Over the last couple days I have been considering famous scientists and examining how their discoveries influenced their life and faith. I want to finish this series by looking at a contemporary scientist, the American Francis Collins, who led the international project to sequence the human genome and has recently been appointed by President Obama to one of the most powerful scientific posts in the US, head of the multi-billion dollar national institute for health.

Along with being a stellar scientist Francis Collins is an out spoken Christian and author of a book called "The Language of God" where he argues that science is one of the ways that God speaks to man. He is also founder of the "BioLogos" foundation who's mission is to 'promote the search for truth in both the natural and spiritual realms, seeking harmony between these different perspectives.'

About a year ago I met Francis Collins at a conference and was struck by his enthusiasm and his drive to both understand and better use the discoveries of science. When I asked him what his motivation was for being so energetic and enthusiastic he answered that it was specifically his Christian faith, and that he saw science as an opportunity to worship God.

Francis Collins is one of 40% of American scientists who believe in God, and who find that the more they discover about the natural world the more they are forced to ask why the natural world is the way it is. Like Galileo and Newton before him, Collins does not see a conflict between science and faith, rather his motivation for being a scientist is his faith in God. Far from the stereotype of an atheist scientist, Collins is therefore proof that science is both compatible with, and a source of encouragement for, people who put their faith in God.

Day 3 of 4 BBC radio solent science and faith

2009-11-27T12:14:00.001Z

The audio is here, and the text was:

Good morning,

In this “Darwin anniversary” week I am looking at four famous scientists and asking how their discoveries influenced their life and faith. Today I want to consider Darwin himself.

Although originally trained as a clergyman, it is well known that Darwin's theory of evolution, through natural selection, led him to doubt whether God existed. However, far from being an atheist, Darwin's writings reveal the struggles of a brilliant and thoughtful man trying to understand his place in the world. His insights into biology produced in him a deep humility as he realised how insignificant any individual is when viewed in the grand scheme of natural history.

Darwin's uncertainty is often viewed as a weakness, especially from the perspective of our 21st century knowledge driven society where everyone is a professional or expert in some area. Indeed Darwin's uncertainty is often used as an example of what happens when you try to mix different ways of understanding the world - "if only Darwin had stuck to science he would not have been so confused" some argue.

But this attitude seems to miss an important point. Darwin brilliantly formulated an answer to the question of origins, however in exploring this answer he discovered a whole range of new questions that went beyond just Biology. Questions of morality, purpose and meaning can certainly be illuminated by science, however science can never give the full picture. Darwin's theory was a great stride forward for human knowledge, however he recognised that an understanding of how we came about cannot really answer questions about why we are here. Although theories such as evolution are great for explaining the how questions, we need to look elsewhere for understanding the why questions.

Day 2 of 4 BBC radio solent science and faith

2009-11-27T12:12:00.002Z

The day 2 audio can be heard here. The text is:

Good morning,

In this “Darwin anniversary” week I am looking at four famous scientists and asking how their discoveries influenced their life and faith.

In a Royal Society survey in 2005 Sir Isaac Newton was voted the most influential scientist ever to have lived. In 1687 he published a book referred to as the "Principia" which provided the mathematical foundation for classical mechanics through his description of the laws of gravity and motion. As if this was not enough he went on to show how white light could be split into the many colours of the rainbow, co-developed the branch of mathematics called calculus, oversaw the royal mint, was president of the Royal Society, and also a member of Parliament.

However, along with these great achievements, Newton spent more time studying and writing about religion than any other topic. He recognised, through his mathematical and scientific studies, that the world was a rational place governed by the predictable laws of nature. But this made him want to ask why? Why is it possible that humans are able to understand the world? Why does mathematics even work?

His conclusion was that a great creator lies behind the universe, however far from being the fickle god of superstition this was a craftsman God who designed along rational and universal principles. "Gravity", he wrote, "explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done."

As a great scientist Newton recognised the importance of science, but also recognised that we need more than just science to understand the world around us. By contemplating the complexities of science and the grandeur of nature, Newton was drawn to a deeper belief in the creator of this magnificent world.

More daily thoughts on BBC radio solent

2009-11-27T12:07:00.002Z

As this week is the 150th anniversary of the publication of Darwin's Origins, BBC radio solent asked me to give four thoughts relating science and faith. I chose to look at four famous scientists and ask how their science impacted their faith.

The day1 audio can be listened to here and the text is below:

Good morning,

In this “Darwin anniversary” week I plan to look at four famous scientists and ask how their discoveries influenced their life and faith.

First off is Galileo Galilei, the 17th century physicist and astronomer famous for being one of the first to point a telescope at the stars, and also for discovering the principles of gravity by supposedly dropping objects off the top of the leaning tower of Pisa. However, perhaps even more memorable than his scientific discoveries, was Galileo's trial before the Roman inquisition, the guilty verdict and his subsequent sentencing to a lifetime of house arrest. This was because he taught that the earth orbited the Sun, contradicting the churches teaching that the earth was the stationary centre of the universe.

Some say that the way Galileo was treated is typical of what happens when “evidence based” science meets “faith based” religion. Indeed some contemporary authors argue that religion is an old fashioned way of looking at the world, and scientists like Galileo are the heroes responsible for bringing about a new, less superstitious scientific age. However this was not how Galileo himself understood the matter.

In a long letter explaining how he understood the relationship between science and faith, Galileo argued that it was a serious mistake to view the bible as if it were a scientific textbook because it was written not to teach physics or biology, but rather to convey truths about people and their relationship with God. He wrote "The bible shows the way to go to heaven, not the way the heaven's go."

400 years later we would do well remembering these words of Galileo. Although science shows us how the world around us works, it is, and cannot, ever be an excuse for not living a life of faith.

Creationist debate/panel discussion

2009-09-26T15:37:00.002+01:00

Had an enjoyable discussion with David Rosevear (6-day creationist) and Michael Reiss (eminent education professor and Anglican priest) in front of an audience of about 80 at the SEARCH museum in Portsmouth as part of their Darwin celebrations the other night. As each speaker only had five minutes I decided to just make the point that science and religion/faith are two different ways of looking at the same thing so anyone who uses science to argue against a faith position is missing the point. I figured this was a good critique of both scientific atheism and young earth (6-day) creationism. I also decided to leave any more detailed discussion to the audience questions.

The audience were less partisan than I feared although did contain a couple vocal (and slightly unstable) extremists from both the atheist and the young earth camps. As usual the extremist views were relatively easy to answer. I generally disagreed with David Rosevear on all points and agreed with Michael Reiss although felt that Michael was being a bit more generous than I was comfortable with.

I made a point of arguing robustly for a view of science that stayed accurate to the research (ie I argued that creationism had no place in science classes in school) but at the same time respected the world-views of people (ie saying that the discussion of atheism vs Christianity/other faiths is important in RE/philosophy). I also repeatedly pointed out the incompatibility of 6-day creationism with the two forms of ID which I think surprised a number of people who tried to challenge from a creationist position. There were the usual questions on probability, mind-brain, mutations, status of scripture etc.

Although it is always hard to judge the results of such events, I went away feeling extremely positive because it seemed that many (if not most) of the audience understood the point that both atheism and young earth creationism are extremist views and thus sensible dialogue needs to sit somewhere in between. I was also surprised by quite how weak David Rosevear's arguments were and felt that most of the audience recognised this.

Thought for the day - BBC radio solent #4

2009-06-05T10:14:00.002+01:00

This thought was broadcast at 5:25 this morning but also at 6:50 yesterday as they cancelled my second slot on Friday due to the D-day memorials. I decided to move this thought forward to Thursday for the 6:50 slot as I think it was the most important one of the week.

Day 4: Using our tools – science and faith

This year sees a number of celebrations marking Darwin’s 200th birthday and the 150th anniversary of the publication of his greatest work On the Origin of Species through natural selection. From a Christian perspective, many of the Darwin media reports and programs contain a worryingly anti-faith message as they contrast supposed rational science with the irrational faith of believers. But, we must remember that in Darwin’s time the majority of scientist’s were Christians, and it was these scientists who recognized and accepted Darwin’s important ideas. Similarly today the majority of Christian’s who are professional scientists see no conflict between the theory of evolution and their faith. So why do so many people think that science and faith are in conflict?

Unfortunately, as in many areas, it is the extremists who tend to make the headlines. Both atheists and religious fundamentalists are so excitable and vocal that it is easy to get the impression that science and faith are an either, or thing. This damages the reputation of both science and faith. Many people intuitively realize that life encompasses important elements of both, so are unsure of what to make of the supposed experts who say that the scientific and the spiritual cannot be held at one time. Quite often the response is to simply not think about the issue.

But not thinking about this issue impoverishes our view of the world as it throws away the two most important tools we have for understanding our lives. Yes of course it is easier not to think about the problem, and just immerse ourselves in our own busyness, but sooner or later we will find ourselves needing to deal with deeper issues or problems. To do this we need to learn how to use the tool of science and the tool of faith. We need to learn how to be comfortable being spiritual people in a scientific world.

Thought for the day - BBC radio solent #3

2009-06-04T12:15:00.001+01:00

Here is the 5:25am version - I quite liked Tiggy Walkers slip of the tongue at the end!

Day 3: Science and Faith

The American philosopher, Thomas Nagel, wrote a famous paper entitled “what is it like to be a bat?” Bats are intriguing creatures because many species use echo-location in the same way as we use sight. Instead of detecting light bouncing off objects, these bats emit high-pitch clicks and then listen for the echos in order to form an idea of their surroundings. Interestingly they use the same part of their brain for echo-location as we do for sight. They literally “see” with sound.

Nagels question was whether we could understand what it would be like to see with sound. His answer was no. Even if the brain activity involved with echo location and visual sight is identical, we have only experienced, and thus can only “know” what it is like to see using light. It may be possible to define or “objectify” all the elements of sensing our surroundings, however at the end of the day a description of how the system works is not going to replace the experience of either seeing, or indeed echo location. There is thus an important distinction between the description of an event, and the experience of that same event.

Science is certainly an important tool that many of us owe our lives to, however we must be careful not to mistake the success of science in one area as an indication that science provides answers in all areas. Science is the description of life, but spirituality, often expressed in religious terms, is the experience of life. In many ways spirituality is our relationship with the world around us. How interesting then that Christianity is based not upon scientific knowledge, but upon a relationship with God. Such a relationship can never be contradicted by science, because as Nagel has shown with his bat analogy, science can never explain “what it’s like” to truly know God.

Thought for the day - BBC radio solent #2

2009-06-03T12:12:00.000+01:00

A bit less banter today. Click here to listen.

Day 2: Nothing buttery

“They know what you are thinking” read a title in the Sunday Times the other week, reporting on how neuroscientists are able to use various types of scanning equipment to apparently “read our thoughts”. Such stories are still more science fiction than practical technology, brain scanning is not quite as advanced as some in the popular media make out, however new techniques are giving us exciting insights into how our brains work and what is happening on a physical level as we think. Such advances hold a great potential in understanding and treating some of the terrible neuro-degenerative disorders that inflict so many as they age.

But we need to be careful to understand what such technology is actually telling us. There was great excitement a couple of years ago about the discovery of the “God spot”; an area in the brain that showed more electrical activity when people had spiritual experiences. There were even some attempts to try and see if people with religious beliefs had bigger or more developed “God-spots” than atheists or agnostics.

Although such research is certainly interesting, being able to provide a physical or scientific explanation for an experience should not be seen as explaining experiences away. Some philosophers refer to such arguments as “nothing buttery” arguments: Our thoughts are “nothing but” electrical impulses in the brain. The spiritual is “nothing but” brain activity. Love is “nothing but” excitable neurones.

However, knowing about the mechanics of our brain is very different from being a thinking, feeling person. Nothing buttery may work well in text books, but it helps us very little in the real world. Thoughts and experiences may be accompanied by certain brain activity, but what we actually experience is far more than “nothing but” excited brain cells.

Thought for the day - BBC radio solent #1

2009-06-02T13:58:00.004+01:00

Dave Adcock, the BBC radio solent "thought for the day" producer asked me to give four thoughts between June 2nd and June 5th 2009 live on local radio. You can listen to number 1 here and the text is below:

Day 1: both… and

Good morning,

Earlier this year my three week old son was rushed into Southampton general hospital with a serious undiagnosed heart condition. Thanks to the skill and dedication of the staff in the paediatric intensive care and cardiac units his life was saved and he has made a full recovery with no anticipated future problems.

All parents find such an experience highly traumatic, and my wife and I were no exception. However, as a medical scientist, someone who is used to using sophisticated technology to explore the workings of the human body, a part of me found the whole experience extremely interesting. I was able to watch the stats on the monitors as various drugs took affect and his body responded in a complex, yet predictable way, to the expert medical treatment.

But this was no experiment; this was my son. Although the scientific part of me could view the situation fairly dispassionately, the human side of me was crying out for him to just get better. Although I could understand much of what was going on, and see the reason for the various treatments and their effects, having all the knowledge in the world was not going to change how I experienced the situation.

Understanding science and technology is certainly important to our lives, and central to human wellbeing, but viewing life through this dispassionate lens is not all there is. Truth is as much about human experience as it is knowing the facts. Scientific knowledge will enrich our lives but only up to a certain point. It is a tool, not an end in itself - life is far more than just atoms and molecules.

How to invest in my Child Trust Fund

2009-04-01T19:52:00.006+01:00

1. Shares should give a better return over 18 years.

2. Large providers are less likely to go bust.

3. My wife doesn't trust my investing abilities so a stakeholder CTF is the way to go.

4. If my wife doesn't trust me, I don't trust individual fund managers, so a index tracker is the best shares option.

5. We want to save the planet so tracking an ethical index seems like the best idea, although these don't seem to perform as well as some of the other indexes.

6. Family Investments just moved their ethical CTF from an actively managed fund to one that tracks the FTSE4good index (good idea considering the huge loss this fund has made over the last couple years!). Although other providers (e.g, CIS/Children's Mutual) provide a similar option, the size of Family Investments reassures me.

7. All the stakeholder funds seem to charge the maximum 1.5% and also seem to allow transfers out so this doesn't seem to be a worry.

8. If any well informed investor stumbles across my blog and can advise me why my reasoning is bad please tell me so that I can transfer to a better option!!

Moral Maze 24th Sep 08

2008-09-26T10:35:00.003+01:00

Gosh it's all go on the science and faith front at the moment!

On Wednesday night the moral maze featured the topic "why are we so scared of religion?" possibly as a response to the Michael Reiss incident at the Royal Society.

By far the best witness was Steve Chalke who gave Michael Portillo and Kenan Malik a real beating. Protillo tried to trap Chalke by asking him if his real motivation (behind his ministry) was to convert people to Christianity, but was totally unprepared for his answer. Chalke argued that his motivation is to follow Jesus which means loving God and loving people. What people then do with that is their own business BUT Chalke made the point that you never change people's minds by twisting their arms (echo's of John Locke). Thus Chalke delivered the essence of the Christian gospel in a highly effective way - evangelism is a result of the Christian lifestyle, not an aim in itself. The way for Christians to transform the world is through love, not proselytization.

Next Malik tried to trap Chalke by asking why religion has a special status in being able to run state schools. Chalke accused him of talking nonsense by pointing out that the government academy scheme is open to anyone who wants to put up a couple million of their own money. Malik tried to argue that there was no such thing as secular schools, a point which Chalke laughed off as being totally fictitious seeing that the program started with a statement that there are 7000 faith schools; in which case all the others must, by definition, be secular.

All in all Chalke gave a brilliant defense of the Christian position against two opponents who were not really up to the challenge.

John MacKay - talk 24th Sep '08

2008-09-25T22:21:00.004+01:00

Here's a run down of MacKay's talk that I attended the other night. I originally posted this on the CiS website but note it was later copied and discussed on the BCSE discussion forum.

The title was "Creation, the final proof" although he claimed this was given to him and he hadn't spoken on this topic for a while.

He started off asking how we could know something was "created" however defined creation as only "ex nihilo". He then got a bit of mileage talking about the futility and waste of money of the large hadron collider (he denies the big bang) followed by his first (of many) claims that evolution is entirely incompatible with Christianity which relies on God creating out of nothing (and he used the example of Jesus turning water into wine). He asked how the universe of such complexity could possibly be created out of an explosion, and even commented on how ridiculous it was that hydrogen could be made into other elements! (Gee wiz look how complicated this all is, it couldn't possibly of just happened!)

He next moved into a section on the history of science quoting Lyell (amongst others) for wanting to remove "Moses from Science". He spent a bit of time criticising uniformitarianism and claimed there to be an atheist conspiracy amongst scientists.

Next he produced a boomerang and talked about the information content that was needed to turn a piece of wood into a boomerang. This served as an introduction to about half an hour on DNA and information theory, claiming that you could identify design when the information present in an object is greater than the information in its parts (and he produced the formula IP>ip = creation). He was actually relatively good at explaining simply how DNA works (even if he did keep on using a picture of a left-handed helix) however time and again he commented on how complicated the system was and how it couldn't possibly have evolved (incredulity argument again).

He finished off with the points that no one had seen evolution, that the bible was the word of God in its literal form, that if you deny the creation story you deny Jesus as God, and that academics and theologians were conspiring against the truth - which he had been called to preach....

In the question time he claimed that Geologists are (and I quote) "really quite stupid" because they use circular reasoning to date rocks with fossils, and then he came up with the amazing claim that the monkey-tree fossils in Lulworth (Dorset) were trees planted by humans who brought them from the southern hemisphere! He then commented that geology professors believe in evolution because they think the genetics professor has proved it whist the genetics professor believes because he thinks the geology professor has proved it.

On carbon dating he thinks decay has varied over time and that extrapolating a long time based on current decay rates is begging the question. He also thinks the global flood messed up decay times.

Somewhere in there he also claimed that Adam had "perfect knowledge" and knew about aerodynamics and how to make metal-alloys however never bothered to try. Other claims were that thorns only appeared after the fall, Lions once ate grass and dinosaurs cohabited the garden with Adam.

Prehaps most concerning of all was his response to the question from someone from CiS (who wants to remain nameless) about whether you could hold to evolution and still be a Christian. He essentially said that anyone agreeing with evolution would have such a distorted picture of God that they would not be able to be in relationship with him, and that on the day of judgement God would ask them why they had said/taught that God was a liar.

The fun and games that happened afterwards I mentioned in my previous post, below.

I did however go up to him and ask him about Kent Hovind's prison sentence, the lawsuit between AiG and CMI, and his accusations against Ken Ham, commenting that you can know a teaching by its fruit and that the fruit of the six day creation lobby isn't exactly pure. He replied that people thought Jesus was a scoundrel and a liar and that whenever you speak the truth people try to smear you.

In conclusion MacKay is very slick but has little substance. His skill is to make the most ridiculous claim sound believable. Sadly this seems to be quite an effective tactic amongst people not accustomed to question, however no thinking person is likely to find him persuasive in the slightest. 6-day creationism is not a well thought-through position.

"Evil"ution

2008-09-25T12:05:00.003+01:00

Last night I went to a talk by the (in?)famous australian geologist (actually schoolteacher) John MacKay. I was preparing to be outraged however was actually rather amused by the whole thing. MacKay was a very slick presenter but didn't make any good arguments, basing most of his talk around the incredulity argument. The best bit was a conversation I had with a chap afterwards:

I had asked a question as to whether it was possible to be a Christian and believe in evolution (which MacKay essentially said no to). After the talk finished some guy came up to me and asked me why I thought evolution was called evolution. Before I could answer he said more slowly "evil"lution - there's evil even in the name". At this point I thought he was joking and said "no it's spelt e v O l u t i o n" to which he said I was deceived by satan. I asked him if it was my spelling or my beliefs that were deceived and he launched into a hand waving diatribe about intellectuals and then returned to his idea that there was "evil" even in the name (he wasn't joking!!). I then asked him how he knew that it was only I who was deceived and not him, to which he answered that he knew the truth!!

I went along to the talk trying to think the best of six day creationists however left with the distinct impression that they really are not very bright.

The Royal Society makes an arse of itself...

2008-09-17T13:11:00.005+01:00

So Prof Michael Reiss gives the following talk suggesting that science teachers must engage with students who hold non-scientific beliefs and teach them why evolutionary theory is the best scientific explanation for origins:

www1.the-ba.net/bafos/press/showtalk2.asp?TalkID=301

However after a brouhaha by a certain professor in Oxford, Sir Richard Roberts and Sir Harry Kroto (all FRS's) he is forced to resign:

http://royalsociety.org/news.asp?id=8008

Two interesting articles on the topic from the Guardian include Adam Rutherfords:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/17/religion.evolution

And a related article by the ever thoughtful Denis Alexander:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/12/religion.evolution?gusrc=rss&feed=science

To coin a phrase, by ignoring the issue of an increasing number of Creationists the Royal Society is putting it's head in the sand. By doing so all anyone sees is a big arse.

Radio interview

2008-09-09T15:36:00.002+01:00

I was interviewed about science & faith by a chap from the BBC the other day. Apart from getting Darwin's anniversary wrong (it's 200 years since his birth not death!) and calling property dualism emergent dualism, I was quite pleased! Click here to listen.

Pain and Suffering

2008-08-27T21:13:00.003+01:00

The problem of theodicy - reconciling pain and suffering with belief in the Christian God - always seems to come up when discussing evolution & God with atheists (and some YECs as well for that matter). The problem people have is that evolution requires death, suffering through parasites, carnivores, micro-organisms etc., limited resources leading to starvation and also death through old age or organ failure. How could a loving God effectively set up his creation for such things?

There are no easy answers for the problem of suffering, however I think it is much easier to address the problem when agreeing with an evolutionary picture than any other. This is because evolution requires such things in order to operate. Without suffering we couldn't have life as we know it. A consequence of the good things in life is the bad - ying and the yang. This is in comparison to a more traditional Christian picture that finds itself having to justify every occasion of suffering using excuses from God punishing individuals through to the actions of demons. Furthermore traditional pictures have to try and explain problems such as death before "the fall" and the question as to whether only humans can suffer. For me the need for suffering because of evolution is a much simpler picture.

But this still may not answer the original objection - but why did God create suffering? Well firstly because he had to - one cannot imagine a biological world without suffering, but secondly, and almost as a side-effect, because it is through suffering that we actually find God. If everything in life happened without trouble we would get complacent and think we could cope on our own (ever wondered why belief in God is stronger in poorer nations?). Suffering forces us to respond. Without God that response is often pessimistic or negative, but with God we look to the eternal. A Christian attitude accepts the bad, is realistic about the situation, but looks for the good - a hope for the future. The Christian has a reason to always be positive because the Christian knows that life is more than just what we experience on earth. This is not to say that God callously creates suffering to try and prove himself, but rather that suffering is part of the biological innateness of humanity. God doesn't make suffering happen but he does help us to overcome it, and through seeking the positive we find personal healing and salvation.

Miracles considering evolution

2008-08-21T21:32:00.002+01:00

In episode three of "The Genius of Charles Darwin" Richard Dawkins put to Rowan Williams a question along the lines of: if you say God works through natural processes such as evolution what place is there for him to actually interact with humanity?

There are a number of ways of looking at this deep theological mystery. The way I find most useful is to think of God as being interactive rather than interventionist. Thus as God interacts with his creation in all events, perceiving him is about how we perceive God in the events themselves. For example where an atheist might see luck a Christian will view the same event as divine. A Christian will view a new child as a gift from God, an atheist as inevitable physics/biology. Initially this explanation sounds a bit thin, however personally the more I have tried to actually live it out - seeing God in the everyday - the more profound I have found it.

However there is still occasions (as Dawkins rightly pointed out to Rowan Williams) where God does intervene e.g. virgin birth, resurrection of Christ etc. I understand these occasions to be based on two things: firstly scientific truth - if science didn't say that virgin births, resurrections after three days etc. didn't happen then we wouldn't know they were miracles - thus in a way we need science to show us what is/isn't a miracle. Secondly I think there is also a deep theological reason for apparent interventions (or at least suspensions of normal life). The miracles of Jesus etc. occurred at a specific time, for a very specific reason. Through Jesus earth and heaven met in a way unlike any other time. If there is ever to be an occasion when nature behaves strangely, this was it.

The Genius of Charles Darwin Episode 3...

2008-08-20T22:51:00.001+01:00

I think the most notable part of this episode is how reasonable and nuanced Rowan William sounds. Richard may not like the idea of having cake AND eating it, however there is an alternative to both religious and atheist fundamentalism.

The genius of Charles Darwin - Episode 2

2008-08-16T14:12:00.004+01:00

Episode 2 hasn't been posted online by channel four, nor could I find it in an easily linkable form as for part one (below), however you can watch it on youtube so long as you don't mind it being split into five parts and hosted by a user called "CrucieFiction":

He starts off rather poorly with his usual anti-religious tourettes problem including an interview with a completely clueless African bishop, however thankfully he soon moves on to what he is good at, explaining evolutionary biology for the lay person. As usual I cannot fault him when he has his zoologists/educators hat on. I just wish he didn't accompany it with so much other ignorant rhetoric!

Evangelical Triumphalism

2008-08-13T11:54:00.004+01:00

I am right on the border of being an Evangelical. For many years I was an Evangelical however there are certain things within the tradition that I really do not like. Currently the thing that is annoying me most is the triumphalist ring to supposedly "academic" or at least scholarly Evangelical literature.

To me, a good academic treatment of a subject tries it's best to stand back a bit from it's subject. In other words when I read a paper or book I expect the author to at least try not to sound too prejudiced. This rule, however, is not adhered to within much Evangelical literature. Time and again I read supposedly scholarly accounts that implicitly assume there is a "right" interpretation and thus assess the history or philosophy in comparison to this assumed "correct" account. The result is a book that sounds extremely arrogant and somewhat blinkered, and more importantly misses the value of looking to see how philosophy or history might actually question certain aspects of the Evangelical creed. Two examples that I have read recently are Earle Cairn's "Christianity through the ages" which is particularly bad and John Stotts "The Cross of Christ".

My suspicion is that this observation is consistent with a more insidious, authoritarian side of the Evangelical movement. There seems to be (a sometimes openly stated) assumption that if someone is in a position of authority - either as a leader or author - then God has placed them there and thus they have God-given authority. Although there is room for a level of criticism, negative comments are quickly labeled as "judgmental" or "un-gracious", thus exerting psychological pressure on the questioner to stop their criticism. The result is a status-quo represented as a series of beliefs to which no questions can be asked, and any evidence against the wisdom of the belief being ignored or swept under the carpet. Such a situation cannot be good in the pursuit of God.

The Genius of Charles Darwin - Richard Dawkins episode 1

2008-08-07T10:27:00.005+01:00

Watched the above episode of Richard Dawkins new documentary last night - I was not impressed.

Although I agree entirely with Dawkins that Darwin was a genius, and that evolution is one of the most ground breaking and powerful explanatory theories within science, I simply cannot abide his anti-religion rhetoric. Is he not aware of any of the scholarship regarding the interplay between science and faith? Has he not paid any attention to his numerous discussions with people like Alistair McGrath?

Yet again Dawkins produces a polemical program that does nothing to further the debate. I imagine all the internet atheists will be jumping up and down waving their flags whilst the YECS re-double their anti-science efforts. Meanwhile those of us who are actually interested in the subject can do nothing but shake our heads and gear ourselves up for the inevitable pub conversation about how evolution has "disproved" religion... sigh.

3rd Way

2008-08-02T18:20:00.004+01:00

I have recently been quite interested by the discussion emanating from Denis Alexander's excellent article entitled "Viva la evolution" on the third way website.

After a group of YECS decided to reply on mass CiS mobilised and responded on mass. It seems that a lot of different groups are gearing themselves up for next years 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth.

Along with the usual polemics surrounding this subject I was quite interested to note quite how loosely the term"Darwinism" was being used by everyone. Some (mostly YECS) equated it with materialism or naturalism, whilst those from a more scientific background equated it with evolution in general. Everyone seemed to overlook the technical usage of the word which equates to Darwin's specific beliefs which, along with evolution through decent, modification and natural selection, also contained ideas such as panspermia. Of course the phrase neo-Darwinism was then coined to refer to Mendelian genetics merged with natural selection, however even that is somewhat out of date, especially as recent results from the fields of epigenetics and RNAi seem to indicate some really quite interesting alternatives to simple gene based evolution.

This looseness of terminology unfortunately leads to confusion, and thus plays into the YECS hands. All of a sudden the normal (and exciting) development of evolutionary science is seen as undermining "Darwinism" (which of course it does) and thus somehow backing up the creationist arguments. I think it is time to put to bed the idea that Darwinism equates to evolution. Evolutionary theory is strong and developing. Darwin made a seminal contribution with his idea of natural selection, but science has now moved on rapidly. It is time people began to view Darwinism in the same way they view Newtonianism.

Occasional blogger...

2008-07-28T14:15:00.003+01:00

I've decided I am not particularly good with the old blogging thing. I remembered my blog after rather a while today and decided I had to post something just so that it didn't look as if I have died!

Actually I am not sure if I like blogs because they do not seem to have too much interaction with other people. About the only useful thing is being able to post slightly longer essays so that if (on the occasion!) I happen to be discussing something with someone on a forum I can point them to a more thought through version of my thoughts. Thus said I have just started a new blog that I aim to use for recording work projects - checkout http://dockingtoolbox.blogspot.com/

Dawkins and Collins on the Colbert Report

2007-09-17T15:41:00.000+01:00

Both Francis Collins, head of the genome project and author of "The Language of God - a scientist presents evidence for belief" and Richard Dawkins (who has been quite critical of Collins) have featured on the satirical American program "The Colbert Report". Stephen Colbert adopts the persona of an extremely conservative, Christian interviewer with rather amusing results. I'll let others judge which of the two has the better sense of humour!

You can see Collins' interview on the Comedy Central website once you've got past the adverts, and the Dawkins interview from RichardDawkins.net:

Collins on the Colbert Report

Dawkins on the Colbert Report

Dawkins and cake

2007-09-17T15:34:00.001+01:00

Here is an excellent parody of Richard Dawkins position from a recent "Private Eye" that I thought was fun!!

Arguments for the existence of God

2007-08-16T15:39:00.000+01:00

I have had the opportunity to listen to Bill Craig recently who uses four arguments for the existence of God:

1) The moral argument
2) The argument from design
3) The historicity/authenticity of Jesus and the bible
4) Personal experience of transformation

Argument 1 I do not like because I have yet to hear/see any good evidence for why morality cannot be subject to natural selection.

Argument 2 I like, but is perhaps a bit of a "God of the gaps" argument for me. I do my best to read popular physics books and the articles on quantum mechanics etc in the news and views section of Nature, however to be honest my grasp of the subject is not good enough to form an opinion. I would like to think that phenomena such as quantum entanglement could provide an answer to the problem of life after death etc., however must admit that this is more wistful thinking than anything else. I am happy to trust people like John Polkinghorne on this one.

Argument 3 I am also not convinced by. Just because these so many thousands of manuscripts exist does not mean that the original story itself is more authentic, only that after a certain point (normally quoted as a couple hundred years after Jesus lived) lots of copies were made. To be fair I think we are so far removed from the events in the gospels that we cannot really prove things either way and thus have no choice but to view the bible as a text revealing the traditions, stories and mythology that lies behind our current Christian culture.

Argument 4 I find persuasive. Indeed I spent a couple weeks convinced that I had become an atheist whilst studying for my PhD until I realised the sheer power of the person of Jesus and the implications that following his tradition might have on my life. I am given a lot of stick in my lab for being a Christian, however like to point out that "even" if the central beliefs of Christianity were to be proven as false in the end, the ideal of Jesus, and a life lived by his teachings, would be a life I would want to choose. Thus for me choosing to experience the presence of God in a grand cathedral, by the bed of a sick loved one, or when feeling lost and alone is a persuasive argument indeed. This is how I experience the transcending, transformative power of the gospel of Christ, and is the reason why I am a Christian.

Why I don't think Dawkins is too bad...

2007-08-01T22:02:00.000+01:00

In an article published in the Times in May entitled "How dare you call me a fundamentalist" Richard Dawkins answers some of the criticism that has come his way since publishing his rather dubious book "The God Delusion". The article can be found here however I was rather struck by the following excerpt:

If subtle, nuanced religion predominated, the world would be a better place and I would have written a different book. The melancholy truth is that decent, understated religion is numerically negligible. Most believers echo Robertson, Falwell or Haggard, Osama bin Laden or Ayatollah Khomeini. These are not straw men. The world needs to face them, and my book does so.

...and I see his point. For once Dawkins has not actually lumped all believers into the same category and acknowledged that there is a vast difference between the belief of Rowan Williams and Pat Robertson.

Although atheists tend to sound a bit too bitter for the good of their own argument, I think Dawkins has generally been quite useful for religious belief. Much like Dawkins I am horrified by much of what goes on in the name of religion, and want to distance myself as far from some Christians as Dawkins does. In fact in many cases I find myself agreeing far more with Dawkins than I do with some others who call themselves Christians. These people do need to be confronted, and as robustly as possible, or else they risk pulling all religious belief into disrepute. In this respect I find Dawkins saying many of the things that I would really like to say, but that my well-behaved Christian politic just won't let me. I'm not saying that Dawkins isn't a twit - he strikes me as rather bitter and self-obsessed - however sometimes he does make some useful points!

Evolution and Creation

2007-07-25T20:20:00.000+01:00

I think when discussing this topic we need to distinguish exactly what is meant by the labels "creationist" and "evolutionist" as I really do not think that these words refer to mutually exclusive concepts.

1) Evolution(ist) is probably the easier of the two to understand, which in this context I take to mean something along the lines of "a theory that explains the origin of complex biological organisms from simpler organisms, through Darwins theory of natural selection acting in a non-teleological fashion upon genes". Perhaps what is important to notice is that this does NOT say anything about God, nor does it explain how the first "life" came about.

2) Creation(ist) has all sorts of loaded meanings, however in its simplest from merely means someone who believes that God created the universe/life/us. Using this definition being a creationist is not incompatible with accepting the mechanism of evolution for creation.

HOWEVER there are also three other defnitions of "Creationist" which are not compatible with evolutionary theory, namely 6-day or Young Earth Creationism (YEC), Old Earth Creationism (OEC) and Intelligent Design Creationism (IDC). What is interesting is that such movements are actually fairly modern reactions TO science rather than some form of religious orthodoxy. Granted prior to Darwin there was no alternative to direct supernatural causation as the mechanism for creation, however despite this need for the supernatural within Christian/European thinking much of the reason for the scientific revolution in Europe was actually due to Christianity teaching that a separating between God and nature (the book of life) was OK. Indeed the response to Darwin amongst theologians was not too different from the response he received from scientists - mixed reaction at first followed by almost complete acceptance within about 50 to 100 years. As such, far from representing some form of orthodoxy, YEC, OEC and IDC actually represent fairly modern UN-orthodox responses by Christians.

This historical background is helpful to see where the disagreement comes from as it has direct relevance to the two areas of contention regarding origins - namely the interpretation of evidence and the understanding of philosophical consequences. My experience is that the latter (the philosophical consequences) actually distort the former (the scientific evidence) so much that it is not actually worth arguing about the scientific evidence. Note I AM NOT saying the scientific evidence is not important, but rather that we need to examine our philosophical baggage before we can stand a chance of fairly understanding the science.

Atonement

2007-07-25T19:56:00.000+01:00

In the past I have been fairly outspoken against the widely held protestant evangelical doctrine of "penal substitutionary atonement". The following is a conversation I had with a young Evangelical student where I explain why I think the understanding of this doctrine is critical for Christian belief.

Kathryn – April 24th

Hi Simon,

I'm sorry for the very random message from a random person.

I'm interested to hear your views regarding the alternative to penal substitution and how this is Biblically justified. I can only see one Gospel, one Saviour, one cross and only one way of being at peace with God. It concerns me that either myself or others have missed the biggest point the universe could ever miss.

I hope you can answer my question,

Kathryn

Simon - April 24th

Hi Kathryn,

Check out the atonement page on wikipedia for a bit more of a historical perspective and perhaps some of the links (although many of the articles still need a fair amount more effort).

Essentially it boils down to what exactly is meant by the words "saved by the blood of Jesus". It has been argued by some fairly eminent scholars (my favourite is Rene Girard) that the story of the bible is a story AWAY from sacrifice. It starts with Abraham NOT sacrificing Isaac, followed by the Jews substituting animals for people, the realization by the prophets that sacrifice alone does not bring righteousness, and culminates in Jesus being the "final sacrifice". Thus there is a progressive revelation echoing the words of Hosea 6:6 (For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.) In this view the important aspect is not the sacrifice per se, but rather the revelation by mankind that sacrifice is not necessary for a relationship with God. Indeed the death of Jesus showed once and for all that it is not sacrifice that will redeem man, but rather a pure heart obedient to the will of God. This is a progressive gospel interpretation that emphasizes love rather than empire building and favouritism.

The penal substitution theory is sort of heading in the right direction by coming up with a reason why sacrifice is no longer required, however in my (and many orthodox scholars) opinion PS goes a little bit too far by emphasizing Gods wrath rather than his love. Although I do not think it should be thrown out completely, UCCF has been a little bit naive in not recognizing the sheer amount of parallel scholarship within the area of atonement theories.

Perhaps the best summing up of why Jesus died is provided by the following hymn:

When I survey the wondrous cross
On which the Prince of glory died,
My richest gain I count but loss,
And pour contempt on all my pride.

Forbid it, Lord, that I should boast,
Save in the death of Christ my God!
All the vain things that charm me most,
I sacrifice them to His blood.

See from His head, His hands, His feet,
Sorrow and love flow mingled down!
Did e’er such love and sorrow meet,
Or thorns compose so rich a crown?

Were the whole realm of nature mine,
That were a present far too small;
Love so amazing, so divine,
Demands my soul, my life, my all.

Kathryn - April 24th

Thanks for getting back to me,

I had a look at the wikipedia page and it was very helpful.
I wonder if the prophets were aware that sacrifice didn't bring about righteousness because the sacrificing of animals was not good enough. It was temporary forgiveness and therefore incomplete. If sacrifice is not necessary for a relationship with God then why sacrifice at all? Why does it feature in the Bible and why would Jesus claim to die for our salvation if this were not so? Also, in an absence of sufficient sacrifice, then the gospel is not the gospel. Jesus only did a half job and Christians are still in rebellion against Him. It implies that we can somehow make our own way to God, much like a Muslim or Buddhist.

What do you take from the words 'when I survey the wondrous cross on which the Prince of glory died'? For me, these words from Hebrews sum it up: the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse the consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!

In regard to God's wrath, what do you think of it? I think God is entirely just to be angry towards sin, the cross is the greatest act of love because of the seriousness of the situation. If God were not angry, then the cross looses its 1) purpose and 2)indication of how great God's love is.

Also, are there any passages regarding the cross which claim that the blood of Christ doesn't redeem man? Surely the pure heart follows the forgiveness, because I for one and no other human being can claim that for themselves.

Kathryn

Simon April 25^th

"If sacrifice is not necessary for a relationship with God then why sacrifice at all?"

I think in order to understand this we have to look at the anthropology of religion and try to understand how power manifests itself in and through religion. We are getting onto quite complex ground here which has taken up many books, however for a short introduction I would highly recommend Girard's article found at:

http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=3856

This is more NT based (it is titled "Are the gospels mythical?") so I would recommend the book "Violence Unveiled" by the American scholar Gil Bailie for a better exposition.

In brief, religion historically is most often used as a tool to exert power, either over other people or (less efficiently) over nature. Thus when one group of people feel out of control, they evoke the help of their God to get back into control. Evoking supernatural help can take a variety of forms, but most commonly involves some form of ritual. Not surprisingly if supernatural help is needed really badly, the worshiper is prepared to go to great lengths in their ritual, culminating with human sacrifice. This theme is seen over and over in pretty much every culture in the world.

Christianity, however, is different. The story of Abraham sacrificing Isaac to God is powerful not because Abraham was prepared to sacrifice Isaac (sacrificing children to gods was quite common at the time) instead the revelation for Abraham was that an animal was "just as good". Following on from this Moses proposes a law based entirely on merit (the first ten commandments) however since the Israelites were not in the position to adopt a system completely absent from ritual, Moses then codifies a law using ritual sacrifice in order to back up the moral law of the ten commandments. Fast forward to the prophets and we find the effectiveness of the sacrificial law breaking down, and hence the revelation of the greatest prophet (son of God) Jesus - read Hebrews 10.

The important thing to remember is the travesty of spilling Jesus' blood. Jesus was completely innocent, and yet he was killed by humans involved in power struggles. But the shock of his death, the real power of the cross, was in exposing mankind sinfulness. When we look at Jesus, when we see his blood spilt, we cannot help but see how we brought about his innocent death in order to satisfy our own sins. The power of the cross is twofold - the exposure of our sinful nature AND the love of a God who was willing to sacrifice himself for our sins.

Kathryn - April 25th

So just to clarify, do you believe that you are a sinner and forgiven only through Jesus? If not, then how?

Simon - April 25th

Yes I do believe I am a sinner and in need of forgiveness. Jesus shows me my sins and then forgives me. He also shows me that I am forgiven by grace, not by trying to curry favour with God through works (or sacrifices!).

If anything you are probably right in accusing me of holding too high an estimation of God's love, grace and purpose. The only thing I deny is that God is wrathful towards the creation he designed. Sacrifice is in the bible for the purpose of subverting man's power-lust, not providing some form of cosmic magic.

Incidentally Bishop tom Wright has just published an essay commenting on the recent going ons from a theological perspective:

http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/news/2007/20070423wright.cfm?doc=205

Kathryn - April 25th

I totally agree that forgiveness is all through God's grace. But I am still confused as to why you need forgiveness if God isn't wrathful. No wrath = no need for forgiveness and God wouldn't be a loving God if he didn't stand against the evil that is sin. Our little brains aren't big enough to understand what an offence sin is to him, therefore we cant really understand his full anger towards it, but by having some appreciation of it we can then begin to grasp what an absolute act of love and forgiveness his sacrifice was.

I would argue that someone who acknowledges God's wrath therefore acknowledges him as a God of greater love and grace than someone who didn't.

Simon - April 26^th

I think it is important here to draw a distinction between evil and sin:

1) Evil is something that happens outside of God's perfect purpose. Thus by definition God is opposed to (hates?) all things that are evil. However it is important to realise that evil is a CONSEQUENCE of some human activity, and thus no person is evil.

2) Sin is the human activity that produces evil. A sin is thus a bad choice that gives a result contrary to God's will. God made us with the capacity to sin simply because sin is a necessary part of free-will. The important thing to realise is that sin is a potential, not a metaphysical position.

Hopefully you will see the consequences of these definitions. If a man sins, they produce evil. God hates the evil and is sad that the person sinned. However this has nothing to do with wrath against the man who sinned. God made us with the capacity to sin, and thus it would be crazy if he blamed us for having something he gave us. The revelation of Jesus is one of forgiveness for our sins coupled with strength to help us sin no more. This is indeed the good news of the gospel - God knows us, loves us, and wants to help us "sin no more".

What I believe

2007-07-25T15:33:00.000+01:00

The other day someone asked me why I considered myself a Christian and what "my" God was like:

I always liked the quote "God made man in his own image and then man returned the favour!"

My God is:

Omnipotent
Omniscient
Has a personality/character
Was incarnate in Jesus
Communicates with us through the Holy Spirit (although what counts as communication is up to the individual)

Thus I can say I am a Christian because:

I believe in one God the Father Almighty,
Maker of heaven and earth,
And of all things visible and invisible:

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God,
Begotten of his Father before all worlds,
God of God, Light of Light,
Very God of very God,
Begotten, not made,
Being of one substance with the Father,
By whom all things were made;
Who for us men, and for our salvation came down from heaven,
And was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary,
And was made man,
And was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate.
He suffered and was buried,
And the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures,
And ascended into heaven,
And sitteth on the right hand of the Father.
And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead:
Whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost,
The Lord and giver of life,
Who proceedeth from the Father and the Son,
Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified,
Who spake by the Prophets.
And I believe one Catholick and Apostolick Church.
I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins.
And I look for the Resurrection of the dead,
And the life of the world to come.
Amen.

I have to admit at one stage I had a problem with the whole virgin birth and resurrection thing, but then decided I liked the aesthetic nature of this element of the Christian faith so decided to adopt it (additionally as my problem with miracles is the negative implications (ie why did one person get healed and not another) Jesus seemed the one miracle without negative implications because he came "for all men"). Secondly, regarding heaven, sin and judgment, I think this can be interpreted quite widely and thus is not solely dependent upon traditional "clouds vs firey pit" understandings. Thirdly, to my mind "baptism for the remission of sins" means an acknowledgment sealed by ritual regarding personal responsibility".

Mind you I do think the main reason why I am a Christian is not because I think I can square it intellectually, but rather because I find personal value in the belief system on an everyday basis.

The beginning

2007-07-20T18:10:00.000+01:00

Science and faith are always in conflict. On one side there are the fundamental religious believers who are keen to warp and distort both science and scripture so that they fit their narrow interpretations of the world. On the other side there are the fundamental atheists whose cynicism and confrontational style suggests a chip on their shoulder and an intellectual stubborness. When the two meet there are flames that destroy all and sundry.

Between the two we have more moderate believers, people like myself who have been trained in science (I hold a PhD in Biochemistry) but are also believers in God (I am a member of the Anglican church). I consider myself a person of faith, despite the objections of some fundamental Christians I have come across. I also consider myself someone who examines evidence fairly, despite the objections of some fundamental atheists I have come across.

This is a blog where I can air my frustrations and thoughts.