…and that is one of the first ‘things’ I believe about God.
Announcing “Faithful Science“…
A one-day Science & Faith conference – coming August 1.
Speakers and topics: Continue reading “faithful science”
The word ‘teleology’ (from Greek τελος ‘telos’ – meaning ‘goal’, ‘end’, ‘purpose’ or ‘that toward which things tend’) is not a street-level term. However, the concept of a purpose, goal, function or ‘end’ to things most certainly is. It’s a common as anything. Teleology is blindingly relevant.
The most basic question one could ask is one which is asked and wondered at both by small children and genius level intellectuals.
It has various forms, and is worded differently, but is essentially the same question:
Where did we come from?
Alternate forms include: Why are we (or anything!) here? How did things come into being? Why is there something rather than nothing?
It’s the question of the ultimate origin (or original beginning) of everything.
A few things about the question:
First, it is valid to ask this question and to seek at least some kind of answer. The level of certainty which one has concerning their answer has nothing to do with whether or not it is a valid question.
Second, we are never done asking the question. Comparison between the various kinds of answers will never be finished.
Third, it is the most basic question. It is the question where all other questions lead to.
Now, this most basic question has three kinds of answers (each with presumably infinite variations):
- Everything* is an illusion.
- Everything is eternal.
- Everything was created.
Now, I’ll comment on each option in more detail.
- Everything is an illusion. This is not a popular view. Who would want that to be true? More than this, it immediately raises the question of “If things are illusory, then who/what is having the illusion?” Descartes famously said “I think therefore I am.” So things are real. Option one is neither desirable nor logical.
- Everything is eternal (uncreated/uncaused). This view encompasses all views in which the idea of an ultimate ‘beginning’ is rejected. Cosmology (whether big bang theory or multiverse theory) seems to point ‘back’ spacially, temporally and causally to an ultimate beginning. Also, even the views that are cyclic in nature would seem to be in need of a prior explanation.
- Everything is created (had a beginning / was caused). This view can be split into two: a) Everything is caused/created by a cause/creator other than itself; or b) Everything is caused/created/originated by itself. More succinctly: a) Created by creator or b) Self-originating. If it is arbitrary or ad hoc (which I reject) to postulate a Creator, than it is certainly and utterly arbitrary and ad hoc to postulate that ‘Everything’ just had to exist of necessity (by nature). This leads me and countless others to conclude that the most rational and reasonable position to take (however tentatively or confidently) is the view that Everything was created/caused by a creator/cause other than itself. This view encompasses all kinds of beliefs in any/all kinds of creators/causes. Affirming a 1st cause does not instantly commit someone to any particular kind of set of beliefs – only the simple affirmation of a 1st cause. Pantheism, Panentheism, Deism, Theism, Spinozian/Einsteinian cosmic ‘god’, Mother Nature, etc. are all encompassed here.
This question, again, is the most basic question and is the starting point of theology. Theology starts with the assumption (and a rational/reasonable one) that the only valid answer for the existence of things is a Creator who is other than the things created.
Theology must be taken one step/level at a time. It is utter nonsense to reject the general idea of a Creator because of some specific question at a later logical step/level.
That brings things to a natural breaking point, so I’ll finish there.
Can anyone think of a 4th possible ‘kind’ of answer to the question – or another example of one of the three answers given that I did not mention? Other responses?
*The word ‘Everything’ is being used here in the most basic sense, to refer to all existing ‘things’. Much argument can be had about this usage. But not here.
Why does existence exist?
Answering the question by reference to any particular ‘thing’ that exists (a ‘force’, ‘singularity’, ‘multi-verse’, ‘string’, etc.) is to completely not pay attention to the question. The answer cannot be in terms of any merely-existing thing, but must be in reference to some ‘more-than-existing’ kind of ‘more-than-thing’. Phrases like ‘ground for existence’ or ‘foundation of the universe’ are appropriate attempts here.
The fact that these are metaphors shouldn’t surprise us. (After all, even the most ‘technical’ and ‘precise’ terminology is metaphor at bottom anyway…) It’s quite obvious that the universe doesn’t have a ‘foundation’ like a house; and it would seem obvious that ‘existence’ isn’t on top of some ‘ground’ in the same way that we might be at times. But it remains that answering a question about why existence exists demands reaching for a category larger (or more ‘foundational’) than existence itself. If asked ‘what is supporting that house’, could we really be satisfied with an answer that was in terms of house-ness?
What Genesis 1-3 is not: a play-by-play, atom-by-atom historical and scientific account of creation. The author/community which produced the text clearly had other things in mind than producing such a thing.*
This is widely accepted by people who should know: scholars in fields relevant to Genesis 1-3 (biblical scholars, ancient near east religion scholars, hebrew linguists, experts on ancient semetic poetry, etc. – see relevant examples in the Denver Seminary Old Testament bibliograpy – updated annually). Yael Klangwisan spoke on Genesis recently at a TANSA event at Laidlaw college, and a very informative PDF of her slideshow can be found here.
Unfortunately there are two kinds of people I know of that both tend to insist that Genesis 1-3 is intended as a ‘factual’ report of the exact, literal events of creation. These two types of people are (who would have thunk it!?) young-earth Creationists (YEC’s)… and many (not all) atheists.
YEC’s are convinced that science supports their literal interpretation (see pretty much anything on this site)…
…and some atheists are convinced that this literal-and-only-literal-gosh-darnit interpretation has been replaced by science (see the opening statement of Richard Dawkins from his 2007 debate with John Lennox – and I’ll put a transcription of it as the first comment below).**
Meanwhile, there are those who are willing to listen to what Genesis is really trying to get across, and who refuse to use science to prove their religious or anti-religious views.
*Many/most/all? of the characters in the Bible, for example, would have been aware of the poetic and metaphorical nature of Genesis 1-3, though would naturally have had little/no reason to question whether or not it took 6 days for God to create the world, etc. A prime example of just how much the literal-ness of this text does not matter in Jewish thought is the story of when Ray Vander Laan asked the world-class Jewish scholar, Jacob Neusner how long the days of creation were; to which the reply after a long pause was “I’ve never thought about that.”
** No… wait… Dawkins doesn’t only say that the literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3 is replaced by science, he says that religious explanations in general are replaced by science… Wow.
Mark your calendars and register!
TANSA (Theology and the Natural Sciences Aotearoa) presents:
The Theological Meaning of Evolution
Conference to celebrate and interact with Darwin.
Thursday June 25th at 7pm to Saturday June 27th at 6pm
Key Note Speaker: Dr. Christopher Southgate, author of The Groaning of Creation University of Exeter
Local Speakers: Assoc. Prof. Ruth Barton (Auckland), Assoc. Prof. John Stenhouse (Otago), Assoc. Prof. Peter Lineham (Massey), Dr. John Owens (Good Shepherd), Dr. Grant Gillett (Otago), Prof. Neil Broom (Auckland), Dr. Stephen Downs (Flinders), Rev.Hugh Bowron (Holy Trinity) and theologians from Laidlaw Carey.
Contact Nicola @ nicolahc (at) laidlaw (dot) ac (dot) nz for details
Please click here for poster, and registration form.
(copied from here)
Whether or not one agrees with Gould’s famous dictum that Religion and Science are Non-Overlapping Magisteria, it occurs to me that unless a given Religion says absolutely nothing at all about the things which Science also investigates, then at least they will be related.
A far better question, of course, is how they might be related.
The problem with questions like is God “real?” or does God “exist“? is that the most basic understanding of God (let’s assume monotheistic belief for the moment) is that the sum total of existing reality (the Bible says ‘all things’) was created (caused, desired, effected, brought about) by Him.
If this stretches the mind (not to mention language) – then one is actually beginning to grapple with monotheism.
((Related recent post at ‘Just Thomism’: Proof’s for God’s existence))
I don’t have time to look into it at the moment, but I’d love to see a treatment of what led Protestant Reformer Martin Luther to say,
“If I knew Jesus would return tomorrow, I would plant a tree today.”