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 . . . → Read More: god and reality 2]]> …a somewhat better way to phrase the question (remember, words matter!) about god and reality, etc. would this:

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?

-you can’t say something is ‘poorly designed’ unless you’re assuming what ‘good design’ looks like

-you can’t say something is ‘chaotic’ unless you know what ‘order’ is

-and you don’t have goodness, design or order without some idea of teleology

If this stretches the mind (not to mention language) – then . . . → Read More: god and reality]]> 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))

Apparently, the board of a Vancouver bus company has the following regulation on bus ads:

“No advertisement will be accepted which promotes or opposes a specific theology or religious ethic, point of view, policy or action.”

Stackhouse makes a great point, however, that . . . → Read More: buses, religion and life]]> Prof. John Stackhouse’s post (here) on the recent “bus campaigns” is quite good and balanced I think.

Apparently, the board of a Vancouver bus company has the following regulation on bus ads:

“No advertisement will be accepted which promotes or opposes a specific theology or religious ethic, point of view, policy or action.”

Stackhouse makes a great point, however, that it’s not only atheists, churches or other groups which are sending a ‘relgious’ message…  Actually, many groups might advertise in such a way as to be religiously and morally instructive.  In this sense, many groups have their own kind of ‘orthodoxy’ (right belief) and ‘orthopraxis’ (right action), whether they are preaching to us that (a positive example) “it’s not the drinking, it’s how we’re drinking”, or whether they are evangelising to us (a not-so-positive example) that we can borrow x amount of money to splurge on that ‘must have’ this or that.

((Dale resists the urge to write 17 paragraphs about the compelling analogy made by many between ancient empires and modern capitalist global structures/processes; and the common assessment that ancient devotion to various ‘gods’ has been replaced in our culture in quite sneaky-yet-remarkably parallel ways  by a fervent and ‘religious’ devotion to identity-based consumption, which is spurred on by the evangelism of advertisements, hailing their various products/services as saviours, etc….))

Quite apart from the issue of what kind of censorship policy bus companys should have or not, this is just another example of how forever joined beliefs and actions are.

The Future of Atheism: Alister McGrath & Daniel Dennett in Dialogue

It’s essentially a written copy of a 2007 conference including the McGrath/Dennett debate and the other papers presented – plus a few additional chapters and an introduction by the author/editor, Robert B. Stewart.

I’m particularly chuffed about the Conference planned for August 1, hosted by my church, Northcote Baptist.  Details:

Saturday August 1 9am-5pm. Churches Conference: “Faithful Science? – Just How Well Do Science and Faith Get Along?”  . . . → Read More: tansaa events in 2009]]> TANSAA (Theology and Natural Sciences Aotearoa Auckland – a group emerging from Laidlaw-Carey Graduate School) is finalising their programme for 2009, and it’s looking great.

I’m particularly chuffed about the Conference planned for August 1, hosted by my church, Northcote Baptist.  Details:

Saturday August 1 9am-5pm. Churches Conference: “Faithful Science? – Just How Well Do Science and Faith Get Along?”  Northcote Baptist Church.  $10 – lunch included.  Contact Dale Campbell at dale@nbc.org.nz
Speakers include Dr. Jeff Tallon, Graeme Finlay, Prof. Neil Broom, Yael Klangwisan, Nicola Hoggard Creegan and others to be confirmed.

The first and second are the same talk both in Wellington and Auckland – a Christian Response to Global Warming (I’m planning on attending the Auckland talk).  For the third event (which I am sad to miss, due to a wedding up north), . . . → Read More: bob white in new zealand]]> Cambridge Geophysicist, Professor Robert (Bob) White is coming to New Zealand to take part in 3 events.

The first and second are the same talk both in Wellington and Auckland – a Christian Response to Global Warming (I’m planning on attending the Auckland talk).  For the third event (which I am sad to miss, due to a wedding up north), Robert will take part (with others) in a Symposium entitled: Science and religion in the 21st century: faith in science, science in faith.

Saturday, 14 March 2009, 8.30am-6pm
Theatre 401-439, ‘Neon Foyer’, Engineering School, Symonds Street, The University of Auckland
Please register for the symposium by Wednesday 11 March, with p.medhora@auckland.ac.nz
Cost $20, non-waged people $10 (refreshments and lunch provided)
Parking under Owen G Glenn building, $5 flat rate

I’ve provided the PDF flyer for download by clicking here.

Symposium Programme:

Prof Jeff Tallon FRSNZ
Truth or true? – faith and science rubbing shoulders

Prof Bob White FRS
Natural disasters: acts of God or results of human folly?

Dr Graeme Finlay
The story in our genes

Rev Dr Graham O’Brien
Evolving evolution

Prof Gareth Jones CNZM
Manufacturing humans: the borderlands between human and divine control

Prof John McClure
Psychology and religion: is there a ghost in the machine?

Dr Stephen Garner/Dr Nicola Hoggard-Creegan
The view from theology

Layered Explanation.

In the science/religion ‘debate’ (as if it needed to be a debate – which, as we shall see, is the whole point of . . . → Read More: atheism and explanatory monism]]> I’ve quite enjoyed reading through “Is Nature Enough: Meaning and Truth in the Age of Science“, by John Haught.  One of the many points he articulates well is what he refers to as “layered explanation”.

Layered Explanation.

In the science/religion ‘debate’ (as if it needed to be a debate – which, as we shall see, is the whole point of this post), I think one of the most urgently needed concepts is that of “layered explanation”.  What is meant here is that there can be more than one layer/level/kind of explanation for a given phenomenon.

Here’s a quote from the book:

“Naturalists put too heavy a burden on evolutionary science whenever they turn it into ultimate explanation.  What I shall propose instead, as a way of giving a place to both science and religion is layered explanation.  By this I mean that everything in the universe is open to a plurality of layers of explanation.  The alternative to layered explanation, or to explanatory pluralism, is explanatory monism, an approach dear to the heart of most naturalists.” (p. 16 – italics in original)

Science: enemy or fount of all knowledge?

I think two kinds of people will benefit most from this: fundamentalist religious believers (who either a) make an enemy of science, or b) attempt to create a ‘better’ kind of science) and convinced philosophical naturalists (who generally both a) think religion ‘poisons everything’, and b) think science is the ultimate way to explain everything); they both happen to agree that religion and science are directly and totally incompatible (at least for some definitions of ‘religion’ and of ‘science’). One – religious fundamentalism – demonises science as anti-God, and the other – scientism (another kind of fundamentalism) heralds science as the ultimate key to any and all kinds of knowledge.

Fencing reality – fencing explanations

When a theist (of any kind) suggests to a science-heralding atheist that there are ‘limits’ to what science will ever be able to explain, he/she is sometimes sharply reprimanded for attempting to maliciously ‘ring-fence’ reality, with the obvious motivation of keeping some bits safe for theistic belief.  But the science-heralding atheist does his/her own kind of explanatory ‘ring-fencing’, when she/he restricts ultimate explanation to the tool of science.

Science – a powerful tool, but with limited uses

What I appreciate about John Haught is that he passionately and repeatedly affirms the need to encourage science to go as far as it possibly can in it’s scientific explanation of phenomena.  But there are modes of knowing which are sourced by methods other than methodological naturalism, such as the realm of ethics.

For example, science can offer ever-increasingly detailed accounts of the biological journey in which sperm, egg, placenta and foetus/baby have starring roles.  This kind of account is infinitely valuable (and I’m conscious that this statement is a non-scientific one!), and constitutes a powerful tool of knowledge to be used in many situations… but scientific accounts are unable to provide any guidance whatsoever concerning ethical questions such as: how to (or whether we even should!) reduce unwanted pregnancies and abortion, or when/if a developing foetus can/cannot be ‘terminated’ (on which – just to ground this quickly and easily in reality – it has seriously been proposed by ethicist Peter Singer that ‘termination’ can ethically occur as late as 1 month after birth! – see Singerian principle #9 here).

As valuable as scientific explanations are, they remain (if I may use the strongest language that comes to mind) utterly impotent for the grounding of values from which ethical decisions are made.  However one does ground (or not ground!) the values for their ethical life, they are not using the knowledge arrived at via methodological naturalism, but rather some kind of tradition, philosophy/logic or life-value-system – which can broadly be called their ‘religion’.