I don�t believe the Bible�s view of the world is incorrect simply because it describes the world differently from the way in which modern science describes it; I believe both views have their place. What is important for us to understand here is that the modern scientific view of the world is not the only correct view of the world. Science, as a field of human study, can only tell us certain things about the world; likewise, the Bible can also only tell us certain things about the world. But because these two views are so dramatically different, it is not unusual for people to dismiss one view and hold to the other�believing one of these views to be superior to the other. As we will see in this chapter, these two views do appear to contradict one another, but I think it�s possible for us to understand our world better by incorporating both views and by allowing each view to contribute its own particular kind of knowledge, thus enabling us to form a better overall view of the world we live in.
Before the advent of modern science, people�s views of the world were based upon their sense perceptions; their sensually perceived experience of consciously living-in-the-world giving them what they believed to be true and accurate knowledge of the world they lived in. This sense-based perception of the world naturally developed into a way of thinking about, ordering, and making sense of the world as a whole. Prescientific peoples perceived the world (or the earth) to be firm and unmoving; in the heavens they perceived the motions of the sun, moon, stars, and planets; and from the regular motions of these celestial bodies they were able to order and regulate their lives in time, on earth, and in-the-world.
The Bible, written as it was during the many centuries before the rise of modern science, presents us with exactly this type of prescientific view of the world. The biblical writers present the world to us as-it-appeared to them along with their sensory-based conclusions about what these phenomenal appearances suggested to them about the reality of the world. Also, God revealed (to the biblical writers) truths about the world that were consistent with these sensory-based observations and conclusions. Most modern commentators on the Bible attribute the biblical writer�s view of the world, and the subsequent conclusions derived from their view, to these writers having thought within a prescientific frame of reference.
The revelations of God�s truths about the world which came to (and through) these writers is caught up within this prescientific way of thinking about the world, and this fact raises good and important questions regarding the validity of the biblical revelation in the minds of most modern people. If the Bible presents God�s revealed truths about the world from within a prescientific intellectual framework, the question is: If this prescientific conception of the world is now proven by modern science to be false, then how are we supposed to be able to place our trust in this revelation? This question has perplexed many people since the rise of modern science, especially since the Church�s controversy with Galileo and the Copernican Revolution. In fact the Church and the Bible have never recovered from the blow to their credibility they received from the hands modern science during the sixteenth century, when science (supposedly) proved the biblical view of the physical world to be false.
The biblical view of the world was the prescientific view of both the Hebrews (in the Old Testament) and the early Christians (in the New Testament). This view of the world saw the earth as stable, unmovable, and as supported by columns; water was thought to be below the earth (fresh waters), surrounding the earth (the seas), and, additionally, there was also thought to be water existing above the sky; the sky having windows (or floodgates) that would open and allow the rains to fall. The sky (or the firmament) above, with the heavenly bodies (the sun, moon, and stars) in motion, was seen as a dome over the earth; above this dome of the sky was the abode of God and his holy angels; and beneath the earth there was thought to exist a realm of the dead (Sheol). We will now examine each of these biblical revelations, perceptions, and prescientific conclusions about the world as-it-appeared to the biblical writers in the following order: The Abode of God; The Firmament; The Waters above and below the Firmament; The Stable and Unmovable Earth; and Sheol.
Heaven: The Abode of God
In the Old Testament, the word heaven (Hebrew: samayim) has two meanings: 1) the sky above the earth; and, 2) the abode of God. The Bible tells us the abode (or throne) of God is in heaven, above the earth: �The LORD looks down from heaven, he sees all the sons of men; from where he sits enthroned he looks forth on all the inhabitants of the earth, he who fashions the hearts of them all, and observes all their deeds� (Psalm 33:13-14). The Bible often refers to God as dwelling above the earth (see Gen. 11:4-5; Job. 22:14; Ps. 29:10, 33:13; Is. 40:22; Amos 9:6; Acts 1: 9-11).
When we consider the perspective of these ancient, prescientific peoples, who were using their sense perceptions of the world as the basis for their knowledge about the world, it is reasonable that they would deduce theories about the world from the way the world appeared to them. The sky seems (when compared to the earth) to be incorruptible and eternal due to its seemingly timeless and changeless appearance. The lighter, airier nature of the sky�with its daytime sunlit clear-blue and its nighttime star-studded black�makes it appear seemingly endless and eternal. The only changes perceived in the sky are the movements of clouds and the regular motions of the celestial bodies: the sun, moon, planets, and stars. The regular motions of these celestial bodies are, likewise, seemingly eternal.
Prescientific peoples knew that�for generations�the sky, with its celestial bodies in their regular motions, had existed just as it had always existed for all people in all times. From this timeless and unchanging nature of the heavens, ancient peoples must have easily conceived the idea of the heavens as being the abode of the divine (e.g., God, or the gods). The biblical writers, being prescientific people, could have easily imagined a realm above the sky where the LORD was enthroned; but God had also revealed the truth of the existence of this realm to the biblical writers. For the biblical writers, this was not simply a deduction from prescientific appearances: the way the world appeared to them was supported by divine revelation.
It would not be unreasonable for prescientific peoples to have deduced the existence of a heavenly realm of the divine from their perceptions of the world as it appeared to them through their senses. What does seem unreasonable to us today (living, as we do, in the era of modern science) is that God, who knows everything about the world, would convey information about the world that was known (to him) to be false (i.e., scientifically untrue). But is it false? One of the truths God has conveyed to us about the heavens (through the biblical writers) is that the Creator-God is distinct from�both above and beyond�the created world. When we look beyond ourselves, when we look beyond our world, we are looking up and away from the world; when we look to the sky and beyond we are looking toward heaven, and toward God.
The Bible tells us the ancient Hebrews believed the LORD was present everywhere in the world and not only in heaven. They believed that because God was the Creator of the world he was especially present above and beyond the created world. Solomon declared that even the highest heaven could not contain the presence of God: �But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain thee; how much less this house which I have built!� (1 Kings 8:27). And the Psalmist proclaimed there was no place, either in heaven or on earth, in which God�s presence was not there:
�Whither shall I go from thy Spirit? Or whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend to heaven, thou art there! If I make my bed in Sheol, thou art there! If I take the wings of the morning and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there thy hand shall lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me� (Psalm 139:7-10).
The Firmament
The Bible refers to the sky as the firmament, which is a translation of a Hebrew word (raqiya) meaning: the expanse of the sky. We find the firmament mentioned in the very beginning of the Bible, in the story of the creation of the world:
�And God said, �Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.� And God made the firmament and separated the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament. And it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day� (Genesis 1:6-8).
The firmament is the heaven or the sky, and within the firmament God creates the heavenly lights (the sun, moon, and stars) that move and winged creatures that fly (see Genesis 1:14, 20). This understanding of the sky as a great expanse (or as a great dome) above the earth is based upon the way the sky appeared to prescientific peoples. And the sky appeared to them the same as it appears to us today: the sky appears to us as existing above the earth surrounding it as far as the eye can see. The sky is the very limit of our horizon in every direction (i.e., 360 degrees) except down. The sky is unreachable and the heavenly bodies (the sun, moon, planets, and stars) appear to be very distant; an indication to us that the sky�s limit is very far away. The sky was seen by prescientific peoples (as it still appears to us) as a sort of tent or shelter (a dome) beneath which all of our activities of life in the world take place. The Bible explains this understanding of the sky quite explicitly: �It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in� (Isaiah 40:22). Seen as such, the sky is in fact the ceiling (Latin: caelum, meaning: sky, or heaven) of our world; the only existential world-home we can perceive.
The Waters Above and Below the Firmament
The Bible presents us with a rather unusual view of the world: we are told there are waters existing above the firmament of the sky:
�And God said, �Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.� And God made the firmament and separated the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament. And it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day� (Genesis 1:6-8).
Even long after the creation event, the Bible presents the existence of waters above the firmament: �Praise him, you highest heavens, and you waters above the heavens!� (Psalm 148:4). From the perspective of prescientific peoples, who relied so heavily upon their senses to tell them about the world, it makes sense that they would think of rain as being water from above. But the Hebrews also had, in addition to their senses, knowledge of the world revealed to them by God which verified their sensory-based observations of the world.
We find God, in the creation story of Genesis, creating the world with waters both above and below the sky (Genesis 1:6-8). Additionally, we find there was a mist coming up from the earth to water the ground because the LORD had not yet caused it to rain (see Genesis 2:4-6). Rain first appears in conjunction with God�s sending the waters of a great flood upon the earth in order to destroy every living thing (Genesis 6-7). When God sends this flood of waters upon the earth, the water comes from both below and above the earth:
�In the six hundredth year of Noah�s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened. And rain fell upon the earth forty days and forty nights� (Genesis 7:11-12).
When the flood was abated, �the fountains of the deep and the windows of the heavens were closed, the rain from the heavens was restrained� (Genesis 8:2). From these last two passages we can understand the opening and closing of �the windows of the heavens� to mean the beginning and ending of the great fall of rain. The fountains of the great deep are the waters of, in, and below the earth (e.g., oceans, seas, rivers, streams, and springs).
The prescientific peoples of biblical times (who relied so heavily upon their sense perceptions) were also aware that clouds brought forth the rains, as the biblical writers themselves demonstrate: �If the clouds are full of rain, they empty themselves on the earth; and if a tree falls to the south or to the north, in the place where the tree falls, there it will lie.� (Eccles. 11:3; see also 1 Kings 18:44-45; Ps. 147:8; Prov. 16:15; Is. 5:6; Zech. 10:1). The phrase �the waters which were above the firmament� is a figure of speech used for the rain, which, from a sensory based perception of the world, comes from above, or out of the sky.
The Stable and Immovable Earth
The earth is presented to us in the Bible as being unmovable and steadfast, �tremble before him, all the earth; yea, the world stands firm, never to be moved (1 Chron. 16:30; see also Ps. 93:1). The earth was perceived by the Hebrews as the firm ground upon which they lived-out their lives in-the-world. The earth is that which is beneath us at all times and that without which we would have no stability at all. Everything and everyone in the world rests upon the earth; the earth being much like a platform upon which we exist.
With the exception of the heavens, the earth encompasses all that we see and it is bounded only by the horizon of the earth�s meeting with the sky. The biblical revelation tells us: �In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth� (Gen. 1:1), and what the biblical writers are telling us here is that God, in creating the world, has created two distinctly different (yet equally important) phenomena�the heavens and the earth�which, together, form one horizon to our existence in this world. The earth and sky together provide the overarching framework, or background, for all of life and it is within this world of earth and sky together that all phenomena are contextualized. For this reason we might call the phenomenon of earth-and-sky-together: a metaphenomenon.
The biblical writers also tell us why the earth is steadfast and immovable: God has set the earth upon pillars: �He [God] raises up the poor from the dust; he lifts the needy from the ash heap, to make them sit with princes and inherit a seat of honor. For the pillars of the earth are the Lord�s, and on them he has set the world� (1 Sam. 2:8; see also Job 9:6, 38:6; Ps. 75:4; 1 Sam. 2:8; 1 Chron. 16:30).
This biblical understanding of the earth�s foundations having been set upon pillars (to insure its stability) certainly is a prescientific view of the world, and yet the Bible also offers us a very common sense (and sensory-based) explanation for this understanding: �Hear, you mountains, the controversy of the Lord, and you enduring foundations of the earth� (Mic. 6:2a). The Bible presents the mountains of the earth in conjunction with the deep foundations of the earth: �In his hand are the depths of the earth; the heights of the mountains are his also� (Ps. 95:4). From the perspective of prescientific people, the mountains are the visible uprisings of the deep foundations of the earth, the pillars upon which the earth (or the ground) ultimately rests.
The LORD put this question to Job: �Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements�surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone?� (Job 38:4-6). For prescientific peoples the earth was firmly situated beneath their feet, and just as they would construct a building upon a firm foundation the Lord constructed the earth upon a firm foundation. The mountains are the visible evidence of the existence (beneath the earth) of the pillars supporting the ground and providing the earth with its firm foundation. The mountains, much like icebergs, appear to us only as the upper visible portions of the much larger pillars; most of which remains concealed beneath the ground.
Sheol
In the Old Testament, the Bible presents us with the Hebrew concept of Sheol (Hebrew: Sh�ol) as the abode of the dead, which is synonymous with both death and the grave: �Like sheep they are appointed for Sheol; Death shall be their shepherd; straight to the grave they descend, and their form shall waste away; Sheol shall be their home� (Ps. 49:14). The ancient Hebrews believed the abode of the dead (Sheol) existed beneath the earth: �As the cloud fades and vanishes, so he who goes down to Sheol does not come up; he returns no more to his house, nor does his place know him any more� (Job 7:9-10; see also Num. 16:28-34).
The earth, with its myriad forms of life, appeared to ancient peoples as corruptible and ever-changing�especially in comparison to the heavens. When plants, animals, and people die they decay and go back to the earth, or into the ground, and it was very common for ancient peoples to bury their dead in the ground. It�s not hard for us to imagine prescientific peoples, who were guided by their sense perceptions, drawing the conclusion that somewhere beneath the earth was the abode of the dead.
We can see here the perceptive nature of prescientific people at work. All living things die, decay, and ultimately make their way down into (or beneath) the earth. This is a view of the world based upon sensory perception and, as such, it is a very reasonable view. It�s only natural that the ancient Hebrews would logically develop the concept of an underworld of the dead existing beneath the ground because this is where they saw all living things eventually go. More importantly, God had revealed to the Hebrews the existence of the abode of the dead (Sheol) as being beneath the earth.
The Hebrews thought of the abode of the dead as being the place where all of the dead go upon their deaths, regardless of their deeds. The first time the concept of Sheol is mentioned in the Bible is when Jacob is told that his son Joseph had died: �All his sons and all his daughters rose up to comfort him; but he [Jacob] refused to be comforted, and said, �No, I shall go down to Sheol to my son, mourning.� Thus his father wept for him� (Gen. 37:35). Both Jacob and his son were righteous, and yet Sheol was their destination upon their deaths. The final destination of the unrighteous is also Sheol: �The wicked shall depart to Sheol, all the nations that forget God� (Ps. 9:17).
When the Hebrews translated their scriptures into Greek (i.e., the Septuagint), the word Sheol was translated into the Greek word Hades which represents a very similar conceptualization of the abode of the dead. For example, the Old Testament passage: �For thou dost not give me up to Sheol, or let thy godly one see the Pit� (Ps. 16:10) is repeated in the New Testament (relying upon the Greek Septuagint translation) and reads: �For thou wilt not abandon my soul to Hades, nor let thy Holy One see corruption� (Acts 2:27).
In a very important New Testament passage, Christ himself gives us an excellent picture of the Hebrew conception of Sheol (or Hades) as being the abode of both the righteous and the unrighteous dead. This passage is found in the sixteenth chapter of the Gospel of Luke and is known to us as the story of The Rich Man and Lazarus; it is worth quoting the story here in full:
�There was a rich man, who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. And at his gate lay a poor man named Lazarus, full of sores, who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man�s table; moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham�s bosom. The rich man also died and was buried; and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes, and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus in his bosom. And he called out, �Father Abraham, have mercy upon me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in anguish in this flame.� But Abraham said, �Son, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.� And he said, �Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father�s house, for I have five brothers, so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.� But Abraham said, �They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.� And he said, �No, father Abraham; but if some one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.� He said to him, �If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced if some one should rise from the dead� (Luke 16:19-31).
In this passage�which, we should note, is not given to us as a parable but as a real event�we find both the righteous Lazarus and the unrighteous Rich Man residing in the abode of the dead. Yet there is an important distinction made between Abraham�s bosom where Lazarus is comforted and Hades where the Rich Man is in torment. Both men appear to be within close proximity of one another (the Rich Man can see Lazarus) and within this realm of the dead there also exists a great chasm that has been fixed in order to separate those who are in torment from those who are comforted. This passage of scripture gives us an excellent visual image of the Hebrew conception of Sheol: the abode of the dead. We see the righteous dead in what we would consider to be Heaven, and the unrighteous dead in what we would consider to be Hell; and yet both groups of people (or departed souls) are in Sheol, the abode of the dead, which, to the ancient Hebrews, existed beneath the earth.
The Prescientific Awareness of Teleology
The Hebrew conception of the world is prescientific, and we find this prescientific view of the world throughout the Bible. It is very similar to the prescientific views of the world that were held by common people, philosophers, natural philosophers (or scientists), scholars, and theologians the world over for many centuries. In the West, even after modern science had come of age, this same prescientific view of the world continued to be held by the Catholic Church. However, both the Church (with its biblically and religiously based worldview) and the earlier Greek thinkers (especially Aristotle and Plato) also thought of the world teleologically, meaning that they thought of the world as having a goal, an end, a function, or a purpose toward which it was directed. This teleological way of viewing the world is quite rational; for example, there is an observably evident goal (i.e., maturity) toward which all living things develop. When prescientific people observed the growth of living things (e.g., people, plants, animals), they observed all living organisms as being directed, in some unseen fashion, toward their mature, fully developed forms.
Religious and philosophical thinkers developed many various explanations for the possible ultimate cause of the origins and purpose of life. These thinkers were, for the most part, in agreement that our world�especially life�was ordered and directed toward ends or goals. The thirteenth century Catholic philosopher and theologian Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)�who was so heavily influenced by the philosophy of Aristotle�reasoned that the existence of the world, with its inherent teleology, must connote the existence of an ultimate being (God) who was (in Aristotle�s terms) the first cause which directed all things (phenomena) toward their various ends (i.e., the Aristotelian concept of form.) On this aspect of Aquinas� philosophy, Gilson comments: �It is impossible that contrary and disparate things should be in accord and reconciled within the same order, either always or very often, unless there exists a being governing them and causing them, collectively or individually, to tend towards one determined end.�29
The sensory perceived view of the world and its phenomena that was held by ancient peoples made them very aware that the world�particularly life�had inherent design, function, direction, and determined ends. To attempt to give an explanation for this apparent design and function is to engage in teleological thinking. It�s to be expected that ancient peoples would engage in thinking (or reasoning) teleologically because they so readily observed the design, functionality, growth, and direction of all living things. Mary Midgley explains how such teleological thinking can act as an explanation:
�Teleological is the name of a kind of explanation, namely, one that works by mentioning a function�not, for instance, by mentioning a cause�All talk of function is therefore in any case teleological. It is about design. What relation this fact may have to the possible presence of a designer is a separate question.�30
The world, as it was observed in prescientific times, was a world appearing to be directed (somehow) toward a goal or a purpose. That some prescientific people would, from this observation of the world, reasonably conclude that such design and function indicated the presence of a guiding intelligence or of a Creator of the world should not surprise us.
The natural world we observe today is no different from the natural world observed by ancient peoples. Many intelligent people today find God to be a perfectly rational explanation for the order, design, and function found in living organisms and found throughout the physical world. Others who, for whatever reasons, do not believe in God as a rational explanation for the existence of the world, or for the order, design, and direction inherent in all living organisms, still find it necessary to find some sort of answer to the question of why order, function, and purpose appear so evidently in the world. People must think teleologically about the world, regardless of what view of the world they may hold, because the world we observe requires a teleological explanation.
Modern people, who are not easily given to believing in God as a valid explanation for the existence of life, usually adopt the explanation given to them by modern science: evolution by natural selection. This provides them with an adequate narrative explanation for the obviously teleological nature of the world as well as providing them with a scientific alternative to the hypothesis of God the Creator. But either way, whether one is religious or not, we all require some sort of narrative teleological explanation for the order, design, direction, and function we so readily observe in our world. The narrative explanations we chose to accept�whether religious or scientific�are stories, narratives, and myths which function as over-all explanatory narrative of the world that helps us to better understand the world. We cannot understand the world without the use of some type of narrative explanation of the world; as Midgley puts it: �We have a choice of what myths, what visions we will use to help us understand the physical world. We do not have a choice of understanding it without using any myths or visions at all.�31
The Modern Scientific View of the World
Science�especially modern science�pursues objective knowledge of the world. As we saw above, in the first chapter, science (or natural philosophy) properly seeks only natural and material physical causes in order to explain the phenomena of the natural world. And because the task of science is to seek only natural and material explanations for phenomena, modern science explains all natural phenomena naturalistically (i.e., as being governed by naturally occurring processes, forces, and laws) and materialistically (i.e., all natural phenomena are (ultimately) some form of matter/energy in space/time). This naturalistic and materialistic (or modern scientific) view of the world has become increasingly discontent to allow any other points of view (especially the supernatural and the subjective) to be considered true but its own. Modern science presents us with the scientific facts about the natural physical world and these facts, to modern science, are beyond dispute: scientific facts are considered to be the only true facts, the only true descriptions of reality, and the only true explanations of our world.
The scientific way of viewing the world is the dominant view of our time. If we want knowledge of the world, or if we want knowledge of the phenomena of the world, then we look to modern science for the answers. If reality and truth have any meaning to those of us living in the modern world they have a scientific meaning; because there is nothing tangible in the world that modern science has not measured, weighed, quantified, or examined that has not been given a factual, scientific definition and explanation. Modern science has given us both universal and particular knowledge of the world and in today�s modern world all of humankind can agree that the facts and theories of modern science give us the only real and true explanations of the world (i.e., cosmos/universe) and its phenomena. Modern science has even been able to provide humanity with its first factually correct cosmology, or ordered sense of the world.
This scientific presentation of an ordered view of the world is provided to us by the science of cosmology: the scientific study of the world (cosmos/universe) in which we find ourselves existing. Our English word cosmology comes from two Greek words: kosmos, meaning: the world, in the sense of an ordered world, rather than simply: the earth; and logos, meaning: the study of. Cosmology, this study of the world, is the science of studying the greater world in which we live: the earth, moon, sun, planets, stars, and galaxies; cosmology presents us with the scientific truths about this greater world that we live in. Cosmology accurately presents our world (cosmos/universe) to us and is able to provide us with factual data about our world. In our day, if someone wants to know what the world really is, then most people believe that only modern science is capable of providing the answers.
In the section above we looked at how the world is presented to us in the Bible, how the world appeared to prescientific peoples, and how these ancient peoples made sense of the world. In this section, about the modern scientific view of the world, we will be looking at how the world appears to modern people who have adopted the modern scientific worldview.
Science has long sought after the fundamental matter or stuff of which all that exists is ultimately composed. The atomist theory of the existence of such fundamental matter (i.e., atoms; the Greek word: atomos, meaning: that which is indivisible) was central to the philosophies of the ancient Greek philosophers Democritus and Epicurus. Modern science presents us with a view of the world in which all things are composed of matter/energy (matter and energy being different and interchangeable forms of the same fundamental stuff). Matter is thought of as that which has mass and occupies space; and energy is thought of as the (active or stored) power to do work.
Albert Einstein recognized that matter (which has mass) also has energy, and that energy (which has the power to do work) also has mass. His famous equation E=mc2 (energy equals mass multiplied by the speed of light squared) demonstrated the equivalency of mass and energy and can be thought of simply as E = m (energy = mass). At present, there is no definite scientific conclusion as to what, exactly, the fundamental stuff of which the physical universe consists actually is. The atom, once thought to be indivisible, was discovered to be made up of much smaller particles (protons, neutrons, and electrons) and these particles are now thought to be made up of even smaller particles (e.g., quarks, leptons) which are themselves made up of small fractions of electrical charges of matter/energy. Presently quarks are thought to be the most elementary particles.
Modern science theorizes that everything in existence�matter, energy, space, time�expanded into existence spontaneously from a point of virtual nonexistence (i.e., from no place at no time); as Louis Bernstein explains it: �The big bang did not occur anywhere in space, nor did it have an origin in time, because initially space and time did not exist. Instead, our current view of the big bang is that spacetime and energy were initially combined in an infinitely dense and infinitely hot state.�32
According to modern science, quarks�considered the most fundamental matter/energy particle�emerged spontaneously and inexplicably from this expansion of matter/energy/space/time. Astronomer David Levy tells us:
�At a particular instant roughly 12 to 15 billion years ago, all the matter and energy we can observe, concentrated in a region smaller than a dime, began to expand and cool at an incredibly rapid rate. By the time the temperature had dropped to 100 million times that of the Sun�s core, the forces of nature assumed their present properties, and the elementary particles known as quarks roamed freely in a sea of energy. When the universe had expanded an additional 1,000 times, all the matter we can measure filled a region the size of the solar system.�33
Out of this primordial sea of matter/energy, quarks emerged spontaneously (due to the forces of nature) and, eventually, developed into the simpler, lighter, elements of hydrogen and helium. From this gaseous mixture, stellar masses (stars) eventually coalesced, and it was within these stellar nurseries that all of the ninety-two naturally occurring elements of matter/energy34 were formed by natural forces and processes.
The vast cosmic ocean that is our universe consists of matter/energy and space/time. The basic ninety-two naturally occurring elements, along with the many and various chemical combinations thereof, give us all that we observe to exist in the universe. Out of this primordial mixture of gases and dust the forces of nature formed the many suns, planets, moons, comets, asteroids, and these have developed naturally into the various types of solar systems and (on a much larger scale) the many galaxies we can observe.
Our own solar system is made up of an average star orbited by an array of planets occupying one arm of an average spiral galaxy. Our home planet, the earth, coalesced out of this mixture of gas and dust; also, contained within this mixture, were all of the naturally occurring elements necessary for the formation of an environment suitable for complex life to evolve. �The origin of life remains a mystery�35 but modern science believes that life must have arisen due to some (as yet unknown) natural process of chemical self-organization, according to the laws and forces of nature, having since evolved (by natural selection) into the myriad forms of complex life that we can now observe.
A good, brief, presentation of the modern scientific view of our world is given to us by popular author Kenneth C. Davis:
�If you didn�t feel insignificant before, get used to it now. This book will make you realize what a tiny mote in space we, a few humans living on Earth, actually are. We exist in a rather small corner of the universe�one small planet orbiting our star alongside billions of other stars tucked inside an ordinary galaxy moving through the vast universe filled with hundreds of other galaxies�all of it moving through space.�36
Space, atmosphere, earth, water; this is the world as seen from the modern scientific perspective, which has been developed by the intelligent inhabitants of planet earth. Space is the vast cosmic ocean in which galaxies, quasars, nebulae, stars, and planets exist. The atmosphere is a thin layer of gases shielding our home planet from harmful radiation, providing the necessary air that we breathe, and allowing for the formation of precipitation. The earth is made up of many various layers, and on its surface are tectonic plates, which make the ground both stable and dynamic. Water forms in the atmosphere and gives the earth its hydrologic cycle, providing a balance of water in the atmosphere, oceans, rivers, streams, and springs under the ground. By taking a closer look at each of these four components of the world (i.e., space, atmosphere, earth, water) we can get a better understanding of our world as viewed from the modern scientific perspective.37
Space
Space can be thought of as: that which mass occupies. If something is, or if something exists (physically), then it can be said to have mass and to exist in space: matter is that which occupies space. When we look into the night sky we can observe countless stars existing in the black emptiness of space; these stars are large masses existing in space. On earth, we think of space as being that in which nothing exists (except for molecules and dust particles). For example, my computer occupies a space on my desk that was empty before I placed it there. My computer is now taking up the empty space that previously existed on my desk. But in the modern scientific cosmological sense, space is conceived of very differently. The earth, for example, is not simply taking up empty space; nor is the sun. According to the currently reigning theory of relativity, both space and time are conjoined into one and the same thing: spacetime. Modern science tells us that spacetime has measurable, quantifiable, physical properties: spacetime has a physical existence. As physicist Paul Davies explains: �Space and time, as it turns out, are not simply �there� as an unchanging backdrop to nature; they are physical things, mutable and malleable, and, no less than matter, subject to physical law.�39
Atmosphere
Earth�s atmosphere consists almost entirely of nitrogen and oxygen, along with smaller (trace) amounts of various other gases. �Though the Earth�s atmosphere extends 1,500 miles (2,414 kilometers) above the surface, the greatest bulk of the gases (about 75 percent) reside within 10 miles (16 kilometers) of the Earth�s surface.�40
The atmosphere, which is a relatively thin layer of gases, provides all living organisms on earth the necessary protection from solar radiation and the breathable air so necessary for survival. The first (and lowest) layer of the atmosphere (extending a mere seven miles above the earth) is called the Troposphere; above this is the Stratosphere (seven to thirty miles above the earth); above this is the Mesosphere (thirty to fifty-five miles above the earth); above this is the Thermosphere (55-435 miles above the earth); and above this is the Exosphere extending from 435 miles above the surface of the earth to the uppermost fringe of the atmosphere where the atmosphere meets spacetime. Yet another layer of the earth�s atmosphere, which overlaps some of the other layers, is known as the Ionosphere: �A layer that overlaps many of the other layers is the ionosphere, from 30-250 miles (48-402 kilometers), as part of the upper mesosphere and lower thermosphere. The ionosphere is part of the atmosphere in which air is ionized by such factors as the Sun�s ultraviolet radiation. Layers within the ionosphere are also responsible for reflecting radio waves and are important for long distant communication.�41
The characteristic blue color of our sky is due to the light waves from the sun being scattered by air and water molecules in the earth�s atmosphere. This scattering breaks the longer white light waves of the sun into shorter blue wavelengths of light, which then scatter profusely within the atmosphere. The longer red wavelengths of light that are visible at sunrise and sunset are due the white light waves traveling through a larger volume of air coming (as these waves are) at a sharper angle through the atmosphere, thus producing the earth�s characteristic reddish-tinted sunrises and sunsets.
The earth�s weather occurs within the atmosphere and is caused by many factors, such as: the atmospheric pressure, low and high pressure air masses, winds, water vapor in the air, heating (by the sun), cooling, convection, and condensation (turning water vapor into liquid water and, in cold air, into solid water, or ice). Our atmosphere is a very important, if not the most important, feature of our planet: the earth�s atmosphere provides the air and water so essential for life and protects life from harmful cosmic radiation. The atmosphere is the earth�s life-providing layer above the ground we live upon and its life-protecting barrier from both the harsh cold of space and the burning radiation of the sun.
Earth and Water
The earth itself is made up of three distinct layers: crust, mantle, and core. The earth�s crust is the uppermost layer upon which we live and, of the three layers, the crust is the coolest and thinnest layer, a layer which is only three to seven miles thick consisting (mostly) of only nine of the naturally occurring elements42. The earth�s mantle makes up the largest portion of the earth (being some 1,800 miles thick) and is made up of both the upper (the asthenosphere) and the lower (the mesosphere) mantle sections. The upper portion of the mantle is more fluid and it is only about 200 miles thick, whereas the larger, lower section of the mantle is solid and makes up the remaining 1,600 miles of the mantle�s thickness.
The section of the upper mantle which meets with the crust is very hot and very active, and it is this section that is thought to be responsible for the movement of crustal (tectonic) plates, which rest upon it, and for continental drift. The core of the earth is 2200 miles thick and is made up of both outer and inner core sections; the outer core being about 800 miles thick and the inner core being about 1,400 miles thick. The entire core is thought to consist mostly of iron (with some amount of nickel) and is thought to be both extremely dense (3 million atmospheres) and extremely hot (7,000�9,000 degrees Fahrenheit; nearly as hot as the surface of the sun).43
Although most of us think of the earth as being the land upon which we live, seventy percent of the earth�s surface is covered by ocean. The vast oceans of the world actually make the earth something of a water planet. The earth�s oceans cover some 145 million square miles at an average depth of 2.5 miles. This overwhelmingly vast amount of water, heated by the Sun, gives rise to the earth�s weather, providing the land with its much needed water. Without the oceans, life on earth could not exist. �The upper ocean comprises 2 percent of the oceans� volume and contains most marine life�44 and those of us who live upon the land can often forget the incredible variety of marine life that exists on our planet: the earth�s oceans are teeming with life, all of which lies beyond our sight beneath the ocean�s surface.
How Phenomenology Can Help Us to Reconcile These Conflicting Views of the World
When we compare the prescientific (biblical) and modern scientific views of the world we recognize immediately how dramatically different these two views are. The prescientific (biblical) view of the world is the view of the world Christian theology is based upon, but, to most modern thinkers, this view is thought to be primitive and outdated; therefore it is no longer considered credible. To the modern mind the modern scientific view of the world is very sensible; it makes sense as a modern, scientific, rational, and factual explanation of the world.
The modern scientific view of the world can, however, seem a bit too rational due to its overly objective, naturalistic, materialistic, and reductionistic tendencies. In a similar way, the biblical/theological view can seem a bit too subjective because it presents us with a supernatural view of the world going far beyond our rational, objective, scientific abilities, and our modern sensibilities. Not that theology requires our perceptual and rational abilities to be disengaged from the world, but because the theological view of the world requires faith (or belief) in a God who is beyond nature; a God who reveals knowledge about the world, which transcends our rational and perceptual abilities (whereas the modern scientific view does not).
By looking at the world phenomenologically we will be better able to understand the proper roles of both science and theology in helping us to make sense of our world. Neither theology nor modern science alone can tell us all that we need to know about our world, and neither of these two fields of knowledge will function properly apart from the other. It may seem as though God, in his providence, has now brought us to a time in history in which modern science and theology present two irreconcilable views of the world, but, in his providence, God has also provided us with a way to reconcile these two distinctly different views of the world. Both theology and science are fields of study requiring on-going intellectual progress in order for the knowledge both fields of inquiry possess to be expanded, improved upon, and presented in a way that is relevant to the times in which we live.
Neither science nor theology can be stuck in the past; both must always make continual progress. Neither God nor the physical world have been explained to such an extent that any thinking person can be satisfied that each of these two fields of knowledge has pronounced the last word on their respective subjects. Theology has hardly exhausted the study of God; even St. Thomas Aquinas, the author of the greatest work of theology ever produced (the Summa Theologica), after having experienced an ecstatic vision of God, said: �Such secrets have been revealed to me that all I have written now appears to be of little value.�45 And modern science is incapable of giving us truly satisfactory answers to the most important cosmological questions of all: What is the universe? How did the universe come to exist? Where is the universe going? Why does the universe exist at all? Does the universe have a goal, a reason, or a purpose for existing?
Phenomenology gives us a philosophical perspective we can use in order to better understand the world and to better understand the roles of both theology and science: perceiving the world as-it-appears-to-us. The world as-it-appears and as-it-presents-itself to us is the world we live in. It is a world of green grass, blue sky, sunshine, clouds, rain, flowers, mountains, rivers, family, friends, and love. It is also a world of darkness, pain, loneliness, anger, sorrow, hunger, greed, hatred, war, suffering, sickness, and death. This is the world we live in, and it is only in this world that we will live-out our lives. This is the only world we know.
What possible point could there be in the study of God, or in the study of the natural world, if such studies do not provide us with the wisdom we need in order to better understand ourselves, our families, our friends, our neighbors, and our world? Viewing the world as-it-appears to us enables us to cut through the abstract, philosophical, theological, and scientific theorizing that gives us so little knowledge of any real practical value and imparts no wisdom to us whatsoever. Knowledge based upon theoretical abstraction offers us very little of any practical value because abstract intellectual theories cannot enable us to become better people who can make our world a better place.
The founder of phenomenology, Edmund Husserl, considered such abstract reasoning to be what he called intellectual-play. Intellectual-play, whether philosophical, theological, or scientific, takes us out of the concrete world-of-life into an abstract realm of intellectuality. This abstract world of intellectuality is a mentally constructed realm wholly divorced from the real world in which we live. This is not the world of imagination, because imagination still images and corresponds to the world we experience. Intellectual knowledge becomes intellectual-play when abstract theories of the world, which no longer correspond to the world, are thought of as representing the real world. The abstract intellectual-play world is thought of as being just as real as the world we experience, but the intellectual-play world has replaced the real world with an abstract intellectual world which has actually become more real to the intellect than the concrete world of human experience. Abstract, intellectual-play, theoretical knowledge is knowledge for the sake of knowledge; knowledge with no practical value or application that could truly help us to live better lives in the very real world of everyday life.
Theology delves into abstract intellectual-play subjects such as the nature of God, predestination, and free will; and yet there are no satisfactory answers to the questions arising from this kind of abstract theological thinking. Questions such as: How can God predestinate anyone to obtain salvation when people are free-will agents? Don�t people have a choice to obey or to not obey his will? If one is predestined to salvation, can one then be saved no matter how much one disobeys God�s commandments? The only satisfactory answers to these sorts of questions are practical, everyday answers applying to the very real world in which we live. Ultimately we cannot know how God works providentially through the free-will of human agents, but since we can know that God�s grace has been extended to us through Christ, we should follow Christ�s teachings (and example) if we wish to be saved.
Likewise, modern science delves into abstract, intellectual-play subjects, such as the origins of the universe and the origins of life, and yet there are no final, satisfactory answers to the questions which arise from this sort of abstract scientific thinking. Questions such as: If all spacetime and matter/energy were once condensed into an infinitesimally small point before the big bang occurred, how then could this point be said to have been in any place at any time? If we believe life began by spontaneous chemical combinations, then why can�t we find evidence that this did (or even can) take place? The only satisfactory answers to these sorts of questions are practical, everyday answers applying to the very real world in which we find ourselves existing. We do not know how the universe began, but we do know the universe�and the earth, our home planet�exists; therefore we should take care of it. We ultimately cannot know how life began, but we do know that life exists; therefore we should concentrate on living our lives better by caring for life.
It�s not wrong to reason about theological matters (such as God�s providence and predestination) and neither is it wrong to reason about scientific matters (such as the origins of the universe and life). What is wrong is when such reasoning becomes so intellectual and so abstract that it no longer corresponds to our perception and experience of the world. Phenomenology is a helpful corrective to intellectual-play theorizing, because as a philosophy, phenomenology emphasizes conscious perception over abstract thought. Thinking about our world phenomenologically allows the world itself�the world we perceive and experience through our senses�to shape our thinking about the world. We should not allow an abstract, intellectually constructed world we can neither perceive nor experience to replace the world we perceive and experience every moment of our lives.
Phenomenology can help us to reconcile the prescientific theological/biblical view of the world with the modern scientific view of the world by accepting both views of the world as true by focusing our thinking upon the appearances of phenomena. More than simply a reconciliation of these two conflicting views, phenomenology offers a corrective to the modern scientific view by emphasizing the direct appearances of phenomena to the conscious subject over the abstract intellectual-play scientific theories, which purport to explain the unperceived and unexperienced causes that give rise to these appearances. What is more real to us, our perceptions and experiences of phenomena as-they-appear to us, or the scientifically explained yet unperceived and unexperienced causes of these phenomenal appearances? Does one view of the world have to be right and the other view wrong? Or could it be that both ways of looking at the world, and both ways of trying to understand the world, are true? (In so far as any human way of attempting to penetrate and understand the incredibly complex phenomenon that is: the world.)
Modern science, in exalting the objective, empirical study of the world, has seemingly lost touch with (and developed a disdain for) the subjective truths of the world, which are equally as important to us as are the objective truths. Truth is more than abstract, mathematically based, modern scientific conceptualizations about the world. We should never allow these sorts of abstract conceptualizations of the world (although important intellectual achievements) to influence our thinking to the extent that we discount the truth of what we perceive about the reality of the world that we experience. Subjectively based truth-claims are just as important to us as are objectively based scientific truth-claims (especially since, as we�ve already seen, science itself is based upon human subjectivity).
As a postmodern philosophy, phenomenology is able to critique both modern philosophy and modern science; and yet we cannot allow this critique to go too far: we should acknowledge the truths of modern thought, with its emphasis upon reason, logic, and objectivity, while at the same time acknowledging the truths of postmodern thought, with its emphasis upon story, emotion, and subjectivity. Postmodern philosophy can err by neglecting or discounting the truths of modern philosophy and science, just as modern philosophy and science can err by discounting the truths of postmodern philosophy. What is needed is for these two different ways of thinking to be complimentary to one another, to be corrective of one another, and for these two ways of thinking about the world to be working-together.
The so-called �war between science and religion�, which has been going on for the past 400 years now, has, in the thinking of most educated and intelligent people, been won long ago by modern science. The prescientific biblical worldview presented in the previous section is ridiculed by modern people who know that modern science presents them with a scientific and factual view of the world, which is the only truth about the reality of the world. The Bible�s prescientific view of the world is seen as being based upon faulty, appearance-based information, which has been extrapolated into a mythological and imaginative worldview that is no longer credible to the intelligent modern thinker. But what if modern science has not been able to completely prove its view of the world, or to completely disprove the biblical view of the world? What if the worldview of the Bible (based as it is upon the supernatural revelation of the Creator of the world) is beyond the abilities of science (as a limited field of human knowledge) to disprove? What if, even though much of what modern science has discovered about the world is true, some important scientific theories about the world are, for all practical purposes, meaningless to us in the daily living-out of our lives? Or, worse yet, what if such scientific theories are actually detrimental to how we perceive and understand our world?
Phenomenology, by focusing on the world�s presentation of itself to human consciousness, enables us to concentrate our thinking not only upon the (objective) phenomena of the world, but also upon ourselves as (subjective) conscious observers of the (objective) phenomena of the world. As I mentioned above, God has always existed both subjectively and objectively: God (eternally and subjectively) perceives his own (objective) existence, and the world he created was finished only when he had created beings able to consciously (subjectively) perceive the (objective) phenomena of the world. If, as we have seen, subjectivity is what makes objectivity possible, then I think we can also say that objectivity is what makes subjectivity possible: objectivity and subjectivity
work-together, and we will always err when trying to keep the two separate. We are objective/subjective beings and the world is an objective/subjective world perceived
Modern science often overlooks the subjective nature of the scientific enterprise, but the scientist herself is bound by her own consciously perceived (subjective) experience of the (objective) phenomena of the natural world. Modern scientists do not hesitate to define and delimit reality for those of us who are not scientists; and yet, as McCarthy points out, �the fact is that the very act of recognizing reality as such, which is the sin qua non of all scientific thought, is itself a development of the intellect not verifiable in the data of sensory experience.�46 Objective reality is defined and delimited by science, but these definitions and delimitations of reality are subjectively-based: they are founded upon the presuppositions and intellectual assumptions of the scientist.
To consciously perceive objective reality is to participate in an experience, and all experience is subjective experience. But we can see here how the objective and the subjective work-together in order to provide us with a complete and total perception of the world of phenomena: the subjective phenomenon of conscious human experience is as dependent upon the existence of objective phenomena as objective phenomena is dependent upon, and can only be said to exist by virtue of, the phenomenon of subjective conscious human experience. Modern science can go too far in its thinking by declaring that only objective reality exists, and by saying the conscious perceptions of the mind are simply physical, material, chemical actions of the brain. Postmodern philosophy can go too far by saying that there is no single, objectively true reality, and that the objective reality espoused by modern science is simply the socially constructed �reality� of a community of scientists, which believes that only one particular definition of reality is acceptable.
Both the modern scientific and the postmodern philosophical theories of reality can be taken to their respectively absurd conclusions (as can all thinking), and yet both can also teach us important truths about our world and we dare not dismiss either. Likewise, it�s important for us to learn what theology has to teach us, and we dismiss theological knowledge at our own peril. Aside from the possibility that we may lose our souls by neglecting God�s revealed truths, it is important for us to learn from theology how we should live our lives in-the-world, because living our lives in this world demands that we share in the common life of all humanity.
Whether we choose to live well, or whether we choose to live poorly, is a decision that we must make: it�s up to us to decide how we will live, and our decisions will affect the eternal destinies of our souls. Our existence in-the-world was not our choice�we are here�the decision we must make is: how will we choose to live our lives. Our lives are inextricably intertwined with the lives of everyone around us and how we choose to live our lives impacts them as well as it does us. And, despite the fact that modern science would discount such a notion, it may even be true that how we choose to live our lives in-the-world will in fact affect the destinies of our eternal souls. Christ�s parable of the rich man, who decided to build larger barns in order to store up all of his many goods, is a warning to those of us who have far more material goods than we actually need, and yet think very little about the needs of others who are much less fortunate. We ignore his words at our own peril:
�And he told them a parable, saying, �The land of a rich man brought forth plentifully; and he thought to himself, �What shall I do, for I have nowhere to store my crops?� And he said, �I will do this: I will pull down my barns, and build larger ones; and there I will store all my grain and my goods. And I will say to my soul, Soul, you have ample goods laid up for many years; take your ease, eat, drink, be merry.� But God said to him, �Fool! This night your soul is required of you; and the things you have prepared, whose will they be?� So is he who lays up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God� (Luke 12:16-21).
All of the science and philosophy in the world cannot give us the moral and theological insight that is offered to us in the Bible; especially in the words of Christ that are found in the Gospels. The Bible offers much more than a primitive, outdated, and prescientific account of the world: the Bible proclaims to us a supernaturally revealed knowledge of the world, of ourselves, and of the Creator of the world; knowledge revealed to humankind by the Creator himself.
A plethora of books have been written in the past hundred years proclaiming that intelligent people can no longer believe in the Bible, or in God, because modern science has disproved the biblical understanding of the world and the revelation of God. A plethora of books has also been written in the past hundred years proclaiming that in order for intelligent people of faith to continue to believe in both the biblical revelation and in God, accommodations with modern science must be made. These types of books break down into two camps: either the Bible must bend to modern science, or modern science must bend to the Bible. Yet neither of these two choices is correct and neither is necessary for intelligent people to adopt in order to believe in modern science, the Bible, and God.
It is possible for both modern science and the Bible to have true knowledge (within their respective fields), because all truth is our Creator�s truth. However, the worldviews established by both modern science and the Bible are, in many ways, contradictory. In the next section we will be taking a closer look at three examples of these contradictory views of the world with the hope that by looking at these three views phenomenologically we can come closer to a view of the world that is true both scientifically and theologically.
Because we live during a time when modern science seems to have all but put to rest the biblical and theological notions of knowledge and truth, the section which follows will seem, at times, to be somewhat hostile to modern scientific thought and theories. Nevertheless, we should remain confident that both science and religion can coexist as realms of human knowledge given to us by our Creator in order for humankind to be better able to make sense of God, the world, ourselves, our neighbors, and all forms of life in our world. Both theology and science are in need of correction at times because we, as human persons, can never reach the point at which we can confidently say that we have gained all knowledge. What we know (or what we think we know) about the world influences how we perceive the world. Both modern science and religion exert powerful influences on people�s perceptions of the world we live in, and it is to the subject of perceiving and viewing the world that we turn next.
Introduction
In this chapter we will be examining three conflicting views of the world: the geocentric versus the heliocentric conception of the universe, creation versus evolution, and absolute time versus relative time. Two of these three views are currently held by the scientific community as true knowledge of the world: evolution by natural selection and the relativity of time. The first view we will be examining�the heliocentric view of the universe�is no longer held by the scientific community as true knowledge of the world, and yet modern science still retains (as true) an important element of this view: the heliocentric view of the solar system. We will be examining the differences, contrasts, and conflicts between the three modern scientific views of the world and the three views of the world, concerning same cosmological subjects, which are held (as true) by religion, the Bible, and theology: the geocentric view of the universe, creation, and absolute time.
Our main purpose here will be to think-through these competing views of the world and to ask ourselves why these views are so different. How can we know that one view is true and the other false? Why does it matter which view of the world we hold? Of all the chapters in this book, I think this chapter is the most important, because it shows us working, practical examples of how phenomenological thinking is able to reconcile both science and religion by demonstrating how the presentation of phenomenal appearances to our lived experience as conscious human persons is the key to our becoming better able to understand our world; and additionally, it can show us how this phenomenological understanding can help us to live our lives better.
The Geocentric versus the Heliocentric View
Of the three conflicting modern scientific and religious views of the world we are examining in this chapter, the geocentric worldview versus the heliocentric worldview would seem to offer us the least amount of conflict. The Bible presents an earth-centered (geocentric) worldview and modern science proved, long ago, that the earth orbits the sun in a (heliocentric) solar system of planets. It would seem that modern science was right and the Bible was wrong. End of conflict. We rarely think about the conflict that once raged between these two dramatically different views of the world, but there has never been a greater conflict between the religious and the scientific views of the world than the conflict which took place between the geocentric and the heliocentric views of the universe during the sixteenth century.
This conflict, in which the modern scientific view prevailed, resulted in what Thomas Kuhn has called, �a revolution in ideas, a transformation in man�s conception of the universe and of his own relation to it�47 This revolution�the Copernican Revolution�was a major shift away from the view of the world wherein the world and humankind was seen as having a central place in the universe (the geocentric) toward a new view of the world wherein the world and humankind was not seen as having a central place in the universe (the heliocentric). The heliocentric view, which prevailed in this conflict, proved (scientifically) that the earth revolved around the sun and that the sun was the central point of a solar system of planets (one of these planets being our world: the earth).
This major shift in the way people viewed the world and their place in the universe had, and continues to have, tremendous consequences for how we perceive the world, ourselves, our neighbors, and our God; and yet few people today think much about the Copernican Revolution, and the revolutionary new way of looking at the world that it created. But all of us learned about it in school, we all know the sun is at the center of our solar system, and most of us know something about how modern science was proven factually correct over religion, the Bible, and the Church. The victory of the modern scientific heliocentric view of the universe over the prescientific religious/biblical geocentric view of the world is still thought of as the greatest single example of the triumph of reason over faith and of science over religion.
The sixteenth century conflict between the modern scientific heliocentric theory and the religious, biblical, and theological (appearance-based) geocentric view of the world was between the intellectuals in both camps. Some scientists and theologians were arguing, basing their argument upon observations and mathematical calculations, that, contrary to appearances, the earth was orbiting a stationary sun (as were the other planets). Another group of scientists and theologians were arguing for the sun�s motion around a stationary earth, basing their argument upon observation, mathematical calculation, appearance to sense perception, and the Bible. From our point of view, some 400 years distant from the outset of this conflict, it can be difficult for us to imagine the intense controversy, during the sixteenth century, that once raged between the long-held geocentric cosmology and the newly developed heliocentric cosmology. Let�s now briefly examine these two very different and contradictory ways of viewing the world.
The Geocentric View
The geocentric theory should not be thought of as unscientific; it was, in fact, the reigning scientific paradigm used by astronomers and cosmologists for centuries, having been developed, as it was, long before the rise of modern science. Science (or natural philosophy) was, during the many centuries before the Copernican Revolution, based upon the observations and calculations of the movements of the heavenly bodies made by the Babylonians, the Egyptians, the Greeks, and the Romans. These ancient observations and calculations, all done within geocentric cosmological frameworks, were later further developed into the scientific, but still geocentric, cosmology of Ptolemy who, by utilizing a geometrical method by which one could better calculate the motions of the heavenly bodies, developed a complex geocentric system of the heavens that became the standard model of ancient astronomy for more than 1,400 years, until it was overthrown by the Copernican heliocentric system during the sixteenth century.
Ptolemy, who lived during the second century of the Christian era, was considered the greatest astronomer and astronomical authority of ancient times. Ptolemy�s major scientific contribution, as John North puts it, was that: �Ptolemy was uniquely responsible for building up astronomy from a coherent set of first principles. With the help of his predecessor�s ideas, he was able to conjecture as to how the heavenly bodies moved in space. Having found the parameters of the models by fitting them to observation, he could then predict the phenomena that would be seen, as the consequences of his geometrical assumptions. In short, where others had found patterns of repetition, Ptolemy gave reasons for those patterns. With Ptolemy, astronomy had come of age.�48
The Ptolemaic astronomical model of the cosmos was geocentric, but it was also scientific: his model adequately explained (mathematically) the motions of the celestial bodies. Ptolemy�s geocentric model was also in accord with the appearances of celestial phenomena as observed from the earth. Both educated and uneducated alike believed the earth to be the center of the universe and that the heavenly bodies were in motion about the earth; this was both the way the world appeared and how science explained (factually and accurately) the world to be in reality.
Since the time of Aristotle, the geocentric universe was basically conceived of as being made up of two large spheres: the inner sphere of the earth and an outer sphere of fixed stars rotating about the earth. This conception of the universe also required many additional (translucent) spheres, located between the earth and the outermost sphere of fixed stars, in order to account for the motions of the sun, the moon, and the many planets (the erratic behavior of which was problematic). In fact, as Edward Harrison tells us: �Altogether, 56 concentric spheres were needed to explain the planetary motions and the rotation of the outermost sphere of stars.�49
In order to account for the erratic behavior of the planets (e.g., retrograde motion, variable luminosity) it was theorized that each planet revolved around a point (called an epicycle) within its own particular planetary sphere, while the planetary sphere itself rotated around the earth (called a deferent). However, even the use of these theoretical points, and the mathematical calculations based upon them, could not account for the anomalous and erratic behavior the planets displayed within this geocentric cosmological paradigm.
To this (already complicated) theory, Ptolemy added yet another complex mathematical concept to account for the problematic motions of the planets: the idea that one could move (or displace) the theoretical center point of the sphere of the planet about which the planet was thought to rotate. Ptolemy called this new off-center point about which the planet rotated an equant (or an equalizing point). Although this did better account (mathematically) for the planets� irregular behavior, it failed to solve the problem of the planets and made Ptolemy�s system even more complicated than it already was. This was a mathematical solution that worked well enough, and yet it seemed unlikely to many scientists that this was actually how the planets moved. It was the Ptolemaic concept of the equant, more than anything else, which most bothered astronomers; especially Copernicus, because although the equant was a mathematical solution to the problem of the planets, it seemed intellectually contrived and added ever more complexity to an already overly complex astronomical system. Copernicus, an astronomer and a mathematician, thought there had to be a simpler solution to the problems residing within the Ptolemaic astronomical system.
The Heliocentric View
The modern scientific view of the earth�s rotation on its axis and its orbiting through space around the sun needs little explanation; we are all familiar with this view, most of us having learned it as children. Many of us, however, are not as familiar with just how powerful the overthrow of the (centuries-old) geocentric view by the heliocentric view really was.
Nicholas Copernicus is credited with displacing the geocentric view of the universe but the ancient earth-centered conception of the universe was being questioned by many scientists long before Copernicus (1473-1543) was born. Copernicus himself was certainly a man of his times, and the times in which he lived were marked by rapid change and progress (a period of history we now call the Renaissance and the Reformation).
The time in which Copernicus lived was one of the most important periods in the history of the West, because this was the time of a great reawakening of interest in the arts, the sciences, philosophy, religion, politics, and social theory. The fundamental changes in people�s thinking in these areas wrought a new world: the modern world we know today owes its very existence to the people of that era. One of the major changes during this era was the challenging of Church authority birthed during the Renaissance and brought to fruition by the Protestant Reformation.
This is why we so often think of the triumph of the heliocentric view of the universe over the geocentric view as being the greatest single example of the triumph of science over religion: it can be thought of as having been the triumph of reason over the authority of the Church. Churchmen took their stand upon biblical revelation regarding the controversy, whereas men of reason and science looked for rational evidence, facts, and mathematical certainty rather than relying upon faith in what the Church and the Bible had to say about it.
The idea of the movement of the earth and of a heliocentric universe (or solar system) was not, however, a new idea when Copernicus� famous book De Revolutionibus Cealestium (1543) was published. The Greek philosopher Hereclides (fourth century B.C.) was the first person known to suggest the concept of a rotating earth in order to explain the motions of the heavens, and the Greek philosopher Aristarcus (third century B.C.) thought the sun was at the center of a sphere of stars with the earth in orbit around the sun.50
Copernicus, however, was the first modern thinker to put forth�in writing�a mathematical system which described a rotating earth revolving around a stationary and centrally located sun. His system, however, was just as complicated as Ptolemy�s and it could not account for the erratic motions of the planets any better than Ptolemy�s did. But the modern Copernican conception of a rotating earth revolving around a central sun provided the impetus for a scientific and intellectual revolution in how scientists began to think about the motions of celestial bodies. Copernicus� work was complex and mathematical; written, as it was, only for those professional astronomers who studied the heavens mathematically and scientifically. The revolution Copernicus began in the science of astronomy later culminated in the works of other men of science and astronomy, such as Kepler and Galileo, who began thinking and working within the new heliocentric conceptual scheme.
Kepler discovered that the planets orbited the sun in elliptical orbits rather than the circular orbits (with epicycles) which were required by the systems of both Ptolemy and Copernicus. Galileo, with his discoveries of the mountains and craters of the moon and the moons of Jupiter, made through his use of the recently invented telescope, along with his book Dialogue Concerning Two Great World Systems (1632), a heliocentric polemic against the geocentric system of Ptolemy, greatly furthered the heliocentric cause. Many other astronomers also worked within the new heliocentric paradigm begun by Copernicus, and these scientists were, over time, successful in resolving the many issues within astronomy that Copernicus himself had not been able to resolve (especially the problem of the planets). The heliocentric view of the world we have today is due to the diligent mathematical and scientific efforts of these followers of Copernicus who, in building upon, furthering, and correcting the work of Copernicus, gave us a better, more true to physical reality, picture of the world and of the universe.
The Copernican Revolution (named in honor of the scientist who made the revolution possible) was, by the time of Galileo�s death (in 1642), complete, and the geocentric notion of an earth-centered universe was all but dead. The heliocentric view had been proven to be correct�scientifically and mathematically�beyond any reasonable doubt and the vast majority of scientists, scholars, and intellectuals had begun to view the world in this totally new way. This new way of viewing the world, begun by astronomers who were concerned with the minutia of mathematical and astronomical calculations regarding the erratic behavior of the planets, had now set the West upon an entirely new intellectual course.
How These Two Views of the World Conflict and Contrast
It�s difficult for those of us living in the modern scientific era to imagine the earth as being the center of the universe, and yet for thousands of years this was what people thought was true�in reality�about the world. And why shouldn�t they have believed this to be true? Is this not the way our world appears to us? It would be difficult, based on the way the world appears, for anyone to imagine that our world was only one of many similar planets, orbiting stars similar to our own sun, existing throughout an infinite void of space. The fact that people were able to think outside the geocentric box at all is indeed a great accomplishment of the human ability to reason.
The modern scientific view of the world is not, however, totally modern; this same sort of view was first expressed by the ancient Greek philosophers (i.e., Democritus, Leucippus) known as the atomists. The atomists believed everything was ultimately made up of atoms, or indivisible units of matter. Much like our modern scientists, the atomists were more interested in the atoms of matter, which made up the appearances of phenomena, than they were in the appearances of phenomena themselves. They sought to lift the veil of ordinary appearances in order to uncover the truth of what phenomena were in reality�just as the scientists of our day seek to do.
The atomists believed (philosophically) only matter (atoms) and the void (space) existed. All physical objects were thought to be made up of atoms existing in the infinite void of space. This ancient philosophy, which had been lost and forgotten by the West, was rediscovered (found in the works of the atomists Epicurus and Lucretius) during the Renaissance, and it inspired some thinkers (e.g., Giordano Bruno) who recognized its relevance to the new Copernican heliocentric paradigm. As Thomas Kuhn explains:
�Since Copernicanism also destroyed the earth�s uniqueness, abolished the terrestrial-celestial distinction, and suggested the infinity of the universe, the atomists� infinite void provided a natural home for Copernicus� solar system, or rather, for many solar systems�atomism proved the most effective and far-reaching of the several intellectual currents which, during the seventeenth century, transformed the finite Copernican cosmos into an infinite and multipopulated universe.�51
This infinite universe, thought to be populated with innumerable worlds�the earth being only one, small, speck of a planet existing in the vast emptiness of space�is the modern scientific view of the universe we have today. The discovery (over 400 years ago) of the earth�s rotation on its axis and its revolution around the sun changed the way we perceived the world, ourselves, our neighbors, and our God. The Church was not against the Copernican heliocentric conceptualization of the cosmos because it wasn�t a workable mathematical astronomical theory; the theory, by itself, was not problematic. The Church was against the Copernican redefinition of the universe as being true in reality because of the potential moral and ethical consequences that could (and did) result from a heliocentric-based insignificance of the world, of humanity, and of God.
If the theory alone had been used by scientists as an abstract, intellectual, and mathematical tool for calculating planetary motion, the Church would not have resisted it so vehemently (many Church sponsored universities were, at the time, using the heliocentric theory in precisely this manner). The problems with the Church began when the heliocentric theory was put forth by modern science as being the true reality of the world. The Church realized the great danger to ethics and morality humankind would face if people accepted the tenets of heliocentrism as truths about the world: people would likely begin thinking of both themselves and the world, not as the special creation and concern of the Creator, but as purposeless matter existing within an infinite and equally purposeless void of space. The Church was also faced with another very serious problem in that the Bible proclaimed�as truth and in reality�both the stability of the earth and the motion of the sun:
�[T]remble before him, all the earth; yea, the world stands firm, never to be moved� (1 Chronicles 16:30).
�In them [the heavens] he has set a tent for the sun, which comes forth like a bridegroom leaving his chamber, and like a strong man runs its course with joy. Its rising is from the end of the heavens, and its circuit to the end of them; and there is nothing hid from its heat� (Psalm 19:4-6).
Both the Catholic Church and the Protestant Reformers stood firmly in their belief that the Bible�as the infallible and inerrant written Word of God�gave them true knowledge of the world: The Bible could not be wrong about the motion of the sun and the stability of the earth.
The Christian faith was, at this time, being assaulted on two fronts: the first front being the introduction of a new view of the world in which humankind and the world were not the center of the universe, and thus were not of any special concern to God, the Creator; and the second front being that the Bible was wrong in its description of the world. Although we, today, think very little of this matter, at the time, there was no greater issue facing the Christian faith. Those of us, today, who are of the Christian faith, and who believe that what the Bible says is true, are required, in some way, to reconcile the facts about our world presented to us by modern science with the presentation of the world we find in the Bible. This is usually done by saying God communicated truth (in scripture) to prescientific peoples by revealing these truths within an overall prescientific view of the world. In other words, it would not have made sense for God to have spoken to prescientific peoples of the movement of the earth around the sun because, to prescientific peoples, the sun appeared to be in motion around the earth.
More liberally minded Christian believers would likely argue that the Bible is not so much the inspired and inerrant word of God as it is the words of prescientific men who wrote during prescientific times. These men only wrote what they believed to be true about the world, including the stability of the earth and the motion of the sun. The Church and the Reformers believed that because the Bible was God�s word it could not be wrong in its description of the world, and neither could it be wrong about anything else. Yet, eventually, they had to acknowledge that the modern scientific (heliocentric) description of the universe was correct and they were forced to fall back upon poor arguments (such as those described above) in order to explain why the biblical view of the world was not scientifically correct. The Bible, the Church says today, is only inerrant regarding that which pertains to salvation and morals, but it is not inerrant regarding its description of the world (cosmos/universe).
I think these types of arguments are a poor defense of the Bible�s presentation of the world, and I believe a much better argument must be made in order to defend the Bible as God�s written word; an argument which can show that the Bible is correct regarding salvation, morals and its description of the world we live in. In fact, I believe these truths about the world are so inextricably bound together that they must be believed as a whole or they are not to be believed at all. God created the physical world and he created it with morality and salvation in mind: the world is not neutral.
The physical world is not a brute fact; the world is the very expression of the Creator himself. And the way the world appears to us is exactly the way in which our Creator intended for it to appear to us, and it was certainly his intention that the world appear to us in the way that it does for a purpose that is greater than ourselves, and for a purpose that is beyond the abilities of modern science to discover.
The Practical Value of Cosmologies
The way we view the world (universe/cosmos) always has value; the question is: How much practical value does our particular view of the world have? As we�ve seen, the geocentric cosmology had much practical value because it saw both the world and humankind as the central focus of the universe and of the Creator of the universe. In contrast, the heliocentric cosmology displaced this human-and-earth-centered view with the new cosmological view of the world and of humankind which saw everything as random conglomerations of matter in the infinite void of space.
The heliocentric cosmology did not, however, hold true for very long. It soon became obvious to scientists that our sun, an ordinary star, was the center of a solar system of planets but not the center of the universe. Newton soon developed his theories of gravity and celestial mechanics providing modern science with the natural physical law basis upon which all later cosmological schemes were modeled. Scientists later realized that our solar system was located within the arm of a spiral galaxy and concluded that the solar system itself was in motion around the center of our galaxy. Scientists now know that multitudes of galaxies exist and believe that all of these galaxies (including our own galaxy: the Milky Way) are likewise in motion due to the expansion of spacetime since the big bang.
If we think about it, what sort of practical value does the modern scientific cosmology have for us? How are our lives different knowing the earth rotates on its axis and revolves around the sun? How are our lives different knowing our solar system orbits the center of our galaxy? Modern science has uncovered the mechanics of the solar system, but is this knowledge of the world, brought about by the Copernican Revolution, of any real practical value to us? Except for the professional astronomers, who were seeking to better explain and calculate the movements of the stars and the planets, what practical good for humanity has ever come to us through this particular way of viewing the world? We know by what mechanical means the earth has night and day, summer and winter, but does this knowledge change, for the better, the way we live our daily lives?
The scientific revolution brought about by the Copernican heliocentric cosmology did in fact affect the way modern people saw their place in the world, and it also affected their thinking about how they should live their lives in the world. The revolution had a detrimental effect upon people because it seemed that science had proven that the Bible contained inaccurate knowledge of the world and by reintroducing an atomistic view of the world, the rational basis of which was seen as a more certain basis for knowledge than was faith in God�s revelation.
We accept the heliocentric model of the solar system as true, or as a true explanation of what the world is in reality, and yet no one has ever perceived the solar system to appear the way in which modern science describes it to appear. We�ve all seen artists� (as-seen-from-a-distance) conceptions of our solar-system illustrated for us in science textbooks, and perhaps many of us have also seen models of the solar system in museums, but no one has ever actually perceived the solar system to exist in this way. For all practical purposes, the modern scientific conception of the solar system is only an abstract, intellectual-play, mathematically deduced conceptualization of how the solar system would appear to us if we were able to perceive it.
We do, however, have the ability to perceive the sun, earth, moon, stars, and planets from our earth-bound perspective, and, although it is imperceptible to us, we have learned to accept, intellectually, the heliocentric model of the solar system and we are able use it as a framework by which we can make sense of the motions of the heavenly bodies that we do perceive. We are able to perceive the motion of the earth rather than the motion of the sun by intellectual conceptualization more so than by actual sense perception. The data is the same for both the geocentric and the heliocentric models, it is the interpretation (or explanation) of this data that alters our view (or perspective) of the world by allowing us to fit this data into whichever world-model seems best to us.
The fact that there are no valid reasons for reasonably doubting the scientific accuracy of the heliocentric model of the solar system has lent credence to other, more abstract, intellectual-play, imaginative scientific theories and models of the cosmos which are similarly imperceptible to us (e.g., the theory of evolution, the relativity of time, multidimensional spacetime, and the various string �theories�). The heliocentric model of the solar system was a very successful use of scientific and mathematical knowledge, and it provided humankind with an accurate description of the physical world we live in. This is why the old geocentric model of the universe was discarded by science, and why it was also (eventually) discarded by the Catholic Church and the Protestant Reformers. The Copernican Revolution�s victory of reason and science over faith and religion concerning our world�s place in the universe has been forgotten by many Christians, but it has never been forgotten by those who place their trust�not in God�but in reason and science.
The Copernican Revolution gave birth to the modern era, an era that has been characterized by its preference for reason over religion, science over superstition, individual liberty over hierarchical authority, intellect over emotion, and the objective over the subjective. Modern science has played a major role in shaping the modern way of thinking and the modern world we live in. It�s hard for us to imagine the world without the many benefits, which we so often take for granted, of the scientific advancements and technological achievements that have become such an important part of our everyday lives. But is scientific knowledge of the world the only valid knowledge of the world we can have?
Phenomenology can be helpful to us by providing us with a new way of seeing the world, a new way of thinking about the world, and a new way of seeing and thinking about ourselves. Whereas modern science concentrates almost exclusively upon discovering the objective truths about our world, phenomenology concentrates almost exclusively upon discovering the subjective truths about our world. Scientific knowledge is not, however, totally objective: scientific theories are subjectively-based intellectual constructs developed as possible explanations of objective phenomena as subjectively experienced by scientists.
When modern science tells us that it has discovered an objective fact about a particular phenomenon, what science is actually telling us is that certain scientists have experienced the perception of a particular phenomenon in a particular way and have decided that their particular perceptual experience�the scientific experience�is the only valid experience that anyone can (or should) have of this phenomenon. But like everyone else, modern scientists too have their own presuppositions which they bring to their subjective perceptual experiences of objective phenomena, and these presuppositions influence both their perceptual experiences of phenomena and their interpretations of these experiences. In short, modern science is neither as neutral nor as objective as we might imagine it to be.
Phenomenology can help us to recognize the role of the conscious observer as an active participant in the synergic relationship between objective phenomena and subjective experience. The subjective truth and reality of our own perceptual experience of phenomena, though perhaps different from the scientific community�s experience, is just as true-for-us as is the objective truth and reality of the scientific community�s experience of phenomena. As we saw above, the objective nature of phenomena and the subjective perception of phenomena work-together in order to present our world to us as a unity of experience.
The world is not simply an assortment of brute facts, which can be accumulated and catalogued by science; the world is an experiential synergy between the observer and the observed. The phenomenon that is the world is at all times being lived-in and experienced-by conscious beings who are themselves subjectively experienced objective phenomena. Ultimate reality cannot be identified and classified as such by science, because the knowledge of ultimate existential reality is beyond the capabilities of human reason and human knowledge. Truth and existential reality can only find an ultimate basis in God the Creator who is both objective in his eternal being and subjective in his perception of his eternal being; it is he who is the ultimate ground of all being, of all existence. The world exists and has reality because he created it, he brought it into existence, he sustains it, and the created world exists as he does: as a dynamic synergy of objective and subjective being; and yet, whereas the Creator�s being is eternal, the being of all created things is temporal.
When we think about our perception of phenomena as-they-appear to us, what we are thinking about is how the phenomenal world presents itself to our conscious experience as subjective observers of objective phenomena. If, for example, we think about how the phenomenon of the sun appears to us apart from any presupposed theories about the sun, the sun appears to be in motion around the earth: it appears to rise in the morning, to cross the sky throughout the day, and to set in the evening. Dermot Moran, speaking of the phenomenologist Hans-Georg Gadamer, tells us:
�His real claim is that scientific truth is not the whole of truth. In agreement with the later Husserl, Gadamer holds that the Copernican discovery of the motion of the earth does not negate the truth-for-us of the rising and setting of the sun: �the truth that science tells us is relative to a specific attitude toward the world and cannot claim to be the whole.� Truth cannot be limited to what can be gained through the application of scientific method.�52
Because the sun appears to us to be in motion, this phenomenological truth is just as valid a truth for us about our world as is the scientific truth that the earth rotates on its axis and revolves around the sun. I think we could go even further and say that because, to us, the sun always appears to be in motion, and because the earth always appears to us to be motionless, this truth-of-appearances is a more important truth for us than is the scientific truth that the earth is in motion while the sun remains motionless. As for practical value, the geocentric cosmology is of far greater value to us: the earth is the only perspective from which humanity can directly perceive the world. The heliocentric cosmology offers us little-to-nothing of practical value; it is correct in its explanation of the mechanics of the solar system, and yet this mechanical knowledge is of no practical use to anyone (except to the professional astronomers, cosmologists, and scientists who are engaged in a quest to uncover the appearances of phenomena and discover their true reality). The discovery of celestial mechanics was certainly a great intellectual achievement, but I fail to see how the attainment of this sort of knowledge has ever been of much real-world benefit to humankind.
Theologically speaking, God, who is the Creator of the world, created and ordered the world so that we who bare his image should perceive the world as he desires for us to perceive it. The sun, moon, stars, and planets were created, and their motions ordered, so that we could order our earthy lives according to the times and seasons set by them:
�And God said, �Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, and let them be lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth.� And it was so. And God made the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good� (Genesis 1:14-18).
The motions of the celestial bodies enable humankind (and all conscious beings) to live ordered lives in accordance with our perceptions of these regular celestial motions. These regular motions of these celestial bodies give us the perception of existing in a world of ordered time: days, nights, months, seasons, and years. This regularity is of such great practical importance to us that we hardly ever give it any thought, and yet it is the very background of our existence. The regular motions of the sun, moon, and stars continue as they always have, and by these regular motions we are enabled to order our lives today, and to order our lives tomorrow, just as we have ordered our lives during the past.
The fact that modern science has discovered the mechanics of this celestial �clock� is of no real practical importance to us. For example, we speak not of the rotation of the earth, but of the rising and setting of the sun. This perceptual awareness of our world enables us to live in-the-world. It is as though the Creator has designed the solar system knowing that we would need this sense of order and ordered time as the background for living our lives in-the-world.
The bottom line of this is that we have a choice to make: Will we choose to think of our world as an intellectual-play conceptualization of the world, which we can imagine but can never perceive, or will we chose to think of our world as-it-appears to us, which is exactly the way we perceive it to be? We�ve been told by modern science that reality is not that which appears to us, and that true reality is that which underlies the appearances of phenomena. We�ve been told that modern science is able to pull back the veil of appearances and reveal to us the true reality of the world. But is this really the case? Do our senses deceive us? Are our senses unable to recognize the true reality of phenomena in our world? Or could it be that our senses receive the presentation of the reality of phenomena in exactly the way they are supposed to, and that the way in which the world appears to us is true reality?
If God created the world so that the objective phenomena of the world were created in order to be perceived by observing subjects, then perhaps the true reality of the world we can know and experience is the synergic matrix of experiential interaction that exists between objective phenomena and subjective perception; an objective/subjective reality that exists at all times in our world. The attempts of modern science to define reality as being only that which exists objectively fall into subjectivity every time a scientist claims to have discovered (or to have uncovered) such an objective reality because the very recognition of objective reality as such is an activity of the subjective, experiential, conscious perception of the scientist.
Modern science often ignores what is subjective, and presents what is objective as the only reality there is. And when it comes to the subjective conscious perception of the experience of objective reality modern science often ignores our experience by considering it to be irrelevant, or worse: as deceptive and untrustworthy. But is it irrelevant or untrustworthy for us to perceive the sun as moving across the sky, as it appears to us to be doing each and every day? Could this perception of the sun�s motion actually be more relevant, more trustworthy, and more practical for us than is the modern scientific mental image of the solar system as presented to us in artists� conceptions of the objectively true (mechanical) reality of a world that no one can actually perceive?
We need not doubt the modern scientific discovery of the earth�s rotation on its axis and its journey around the sun; we simply need to ask ourselves: What difference does this scientific knowledge really make for us in how we are to live our lives? Theologically, it would be absurd to think that God had allowed the thousands of generations of people who lived before the advent of modern science to have lived-out their lives with a faulty (or deceptive) knowledge of the world simply because they relied upon their senses and thought that the world was�in reality�as it appeared to them: earth-centered (i.e., the sun appeared to move while the earth appeared to remain motionless). And to make matters worse, are we suppose to believe that God then codified this faulty (or deceptive) knowledge by revealing it to humankind as truth in the Bible? Since God cannot lie, I think we can be assured that the biblical description of the motion of the sun was not a deceptive concession made to prescientific peoples by a God who knew, all along, that the sun didn�t move; rather, the biblical description of the motion of the sun has always been, is now, and always will be, a true description of the world.
Thinking about the world as-it-appears enables us to say, along with Gadamer, that: �The truth that science tells us is relative to a specific attitude toward the world and cannot claim to be the whole.�53 All thinking is based upon certain assumptions, presuppositions and perspectives; modern scientific thinking is based upon the assumptions and presuppositions of naturalism, materialism, and rationalism; therefore the modern scientific definition of truth is (unsurprisingly) naturalistic, materialistic and rationalistic (as well as being reductionistic).
As we have already seen, modern science arose in the cultural milieu of the Renaissance and the Reformation, which resisted what was perceived to be the reigning irrational and supernatural (=superstitious) thinking that was so much a part of the cultural milieu of the Middle Ages. Enlightenment rationalism was the cultural force that brought about our modern society�s acceptance of truth as being only that which can be quantified and defined by modern scientific methods. Our culture unquestioningly accepts this scientific definition of truth even though, historically speaking, this is a very recent interpretation of truth and reality. For millennia cultures made sense of the world as-it-appeared to their senses, and they interpreted and defined reality upon this basis. Today this is considered to be a faulty way of thinking about the world, but only because modern science has been so successful in separating us from the world of nature as-it-appears to us. Astronomer and anthropologist Anthony Aveni explains our modern-day separation from nature: �Modern Western culture willfully chose to separate nature from culture. It was a slow and delicate surgical separation, which began only twenty generations ago in the European Renaissance, and is not yet complete, although most will concede that we all live in a scientific world of rationalistic naturalism.�54
As for the practical value of the two cosmologies we have been examining here, it should be evident to us that any culture that thinks of the earth as being the central focus of the universe, and as the concern of its Creator, allows the people within that culture to think better of themselves, of their neighbors, of all living things, of the world, and of God as the Creator of the world. A culture that embraces the materialistic naturalism of reductionist modern science can easily lead the people within that culture to believe they should think less of themselves, of their neighbors, of all living things, of the world, and of God. Practically speaking, we are much better off thinking of the earth as our home and as the center of God�s attention than we are thinking of the earth as modern science would have us to think of it. As astronomer Carl Sagan once described the modern scientific perspective of our world: �Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic darkness. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.55
Although we began this section by recognizing the importance of the conflict between the heliocentric and geocentric theories, modern science had, by the twentieth century, abandoned both cosmological theories. As we�ve seen, modern science soon discovered that it wasn�t just the earth that was in motion: the sun, along with the entire solar system, was also in motion orbiting the center of our galaxy, which was also in motion. Modern science cannot explain what gravitational phenomenon exists at the center of the galaxies, why the galaxies appear to be accelerating through spacetime, or how the galaxies are able to hold-together.
The theories of dark matter/energy and MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics) are postulated as attempts to explain how the galaxies can hold together, although (according to current physics) they lack the proper amount of (visible) matter necessary in order for them to do so. It seems that neither Newton�s nor Einstein�s theories of gravity are able to adequately account for this anomaly. And the phenomenon of the galaxy seems to be the quintessential celestial form found in the universe; there appear to be billions of them, and they are all in motion: both revolving about their centers and accelerating apart from one another through intergalactic space at thousands of kilometers per hour (this acceleration is yet another puzzling anomaly for scientists).
Some 400 years since Copernicus, a few scientists are now theorizing that�contrary to the atomist belief in a multitude of populated planets (like the earth) orbiting stars throughout the universe�the earth is likely the only planet in the universe populated with complex life forms. These scientists are slowly succeeding in returning the earth to the center of the universe, if not physically then biologically in a new sort of bio-centric theory of the universe:
�Ever since Polish astronomer Nicholas Copernicus plucked it from the center of the Universe and put it in orbit around the sun, Earth has been periodically trivialized. We have gone from the center of the Universe to a small planet orbiting a small, undistinguished star in an unremarkable region of the Milky Way galaxy�a view now formalized by the so-called Principle of Mediocrity, which holds that we are not the one planet with life but one of many�If it is found to be correct, however, the Rare Earth Hypothesis will reverse that decentering trend. What if the Earth, with its cargo of advanced animals, is virtually unique in this quadrant of the galaxy�the most diverse planet, say, in the nearest 10,000 light years? What if it is utterly unique: the only planet with animals in this galaxy or even in the visible Universe?56
�What if it [our world] is utterly unique: the only planet with animals in this galaxy or even in the visible Universe?� What if�? Indeed. And yet modern science, in its quest to uncover the building blocks of physical reality, continues to undermine our trust in our sense perceptions of phenomena as-they-appear to us. The many phenomena of our world appear to us as they do�in phenomenal forms�so that our world has form, order, and so that our world is sensible to all forms of complex life that have the ability to perceive the world in which they exist, so that they can live and function in-the-world. If reality appeared to us as the building blocks of matter/energy (quarks?) our world would only appear to us as a sea of formless matter/energy in motion.
But what causes matter/energy to take the various forms that it does? Why are there only ninety-two naturally occurring elements? What causes formless matter/energy to take these�and only these�ninety-two naturally occurring forms? Why is the simplest element (hydrogen) also the most stable and most abundant element, while the most complex element (uranium) is the most unstable; throwing off matter/energy as if it had reached some sort of density/form/matter/energy saturation point? Modern science doesn�t know.
In the modern scientific search for reality, in its quest to remove the veils of appearances of physical phenomena, and in its revelation of the building blocks (or particle clouds) of the hidden reality of the physical world, modern science has neglected the very real world of phenomena as-they-appear-to-us in their various forms. These forms have meaning, and we should not allow modern science to so influence our thinking about the world that we would willingly reduce the world to being nothing more than matter/energy in motion.
Form and appearance are greatly underappreciated in today�s modern scientific way of looking at the world, and yet it is the forms and appearances of phenomena that we perceive throughout our lived-experience of being-in-the-world. It must be more than matter/energy in motion giving rise to these forms and appearances, it must also be information.
Information theory is now an important part of modern scientific thought and in no area of science is it more obviously necessary than in the study of life and its origins. Modern science has its currently reigning theory of how life came to exist on earth: the theory of biological evolution. This modern scientific theory concerning the origins and development of life is methodologically naturalistic (as any natural philosophy or science should be) and is therefore directly opposed to any supernatural explanation (e.g., the biblical account) that God (who is beyond nature) is the Creator of all life. The scientific question today is: How did the information so necessary for the formation and development of complex, intelligent life arise from simple, non-intelligent matter/energy?
Just as the Copernican Revolution in astronomy changed people�s view of the world, of themselves, and of God, the Darwinian Revolution in biology has changed people�s view of the world, of God, and of themselves. But unlike the Copernican Revolution, the theory of biological evolution has yet to be proven as a scientific fact that is beyond reasonable doubt (and this is now over 150 years since the time of Darwin himself). Today, evolutionary theory is engaged in a struggle for its survival as a viable scientific theory. The contrast and conflict between the natural/materialist evolutionary view of the world and the supernatural/creationist view of the world is the subject to which we turn next.
Evolution versus Creation
Introduction
The atomists believed that random collisions of atoms in the void gave rise to the forms of all things that exist, including living things. Aristotle was much closer to the truth in thinking of the form of every living being as that which guides the development of each being toward its maturity: an acorn carries within itself the form of the oak tree that the acorn will become; a fetus carries within itself the guiding form of the mature adult that the fetus will become. The Neo-Platonists believed that all beings�a great chain-of-being from inanimate matter to God himself�developed due to a life-force inherent within matter itself. All living beings came into existence because the life-force unfolded each particular beings preexisting eternal form, the pattern for that being�s growth and development.
The atomist view bares a close resemblance to the modern scientific view in that the combination of matter/energy, time, chance, and chemical law is seen as that which gives rise to all forms of life. The Aristotelian and Neo-Platonic views are both teleological, and have what we, today, would consider to be types of information theories explaining how the forms of life we observe take the particular forms they do. But theories of teleology and information content are inadmissible in the modern scientific theory of biological evolution, which seeks to explain the appearance of design by random, material, natural, physical laws and processes. Evolutionists are certain (due to their presupposed commitment to a naturalistic philosophy and methodology) that a material, natural, chemical law-based explanation for both the origin and development of life will be found; but to date, nothing has been found to support this view.
Intelligent Design Theory claims that the order of high specific complexity (i.e., design) found in living things can only be explained by information, and that such information denotes intelligence. This claim is obviously valid concerning what we might call man-made objects (e.g., a computer, a book, a cell phone), and yet when it comes to living organisms this claim is considered to be scientifically out-of-bounds: modern science looks exclusively for the natural and material causes of natural phenomena; it doesn�t look for intelligence. The only possible intelligent cause for the high order of specific complexity observed in living organisms must be called the Creator (or God) and the postulation of the existence of any supernatural intelligence is beyond the purview of the natural sciences.
The controversy between evolution and creation has now raged on for over 150 years, and this controversy, which we are currently living through, is very similar to the great controversy that arose between science and religion during the Copernican Revolution. History will note both the winners and the losers of this controversy, just as history has noted the winners and losers of the controversy created by the Copernican Revolution. Both controversies concern science and religion: modern science has proclaimed a new, factual, and accurate view of the world over against an outdated, biblical, and religious view of the world. Let�s begin now our study of evolution and creation by examining these two radically different, contrasting, and conflicting modern scientific and religious views of the living world.
Evolution
Two naturalists (working independently) during the nineteenth century, Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace, both hit upon the idea of biological evolution (i.e., decent with modification via natural selection) as a scientific explanation for the diversity of life we observe in the natural world. Even earlier than this, in the eighteenth century, a scientific theory of evolution was proposed by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, who thought the diversity of life found in the world was caused by the adaptation of an organism to its environment, and the passing-on of these adaptive traits to its offspring. Although very similar to the Darwin-Wallace hypothesis, Lamarck�s theory of evolution was very different because he postulated that nature itself held within it a force (i.e., a life-force) which enabled organisms to develop from the very simple to the very complex (a sort of Neo-platonic World-Soul guiding the development of this great chain-of-being).
Evolution, in the Darwin-Wallace sense, did not require a hidden natural power or force to guide organisms from simple to ever more complex forms; instead, their evolutionary theory suggested that such development occurred only by way of natural and material processes in accordance with physical laws. The natural and material process responsible for evolution�natural selection�can be described as: the ability of those individuals and populations most successful at surviving survived, while those less successful at surviving did not. Both Darwin and Wallace were influenced in their thinking on this point by their reading of An Essay on Population (1798) written by Thomas Malthus concerning population growth.
Darwin�s The Origin of Species (1859) was a seminal work and provided scientists working in the life sciences with a new paradigm, a new way of making sense of the facts of observation. It is because of this work that Darwin, and not Wallace (who only wrote an essay on the subject), receives the credit for the modern scientific discovery of biological evolution by natural selection. Until Darwin, most scientists were convinced that some non-physical force (e.g., life-force, World-Soul) or some supernatural intelligence (e.g., Creator, God) was the best explanation for the existence, complexity, design, and diversity of living organisms. Darwin�s real genius was to propose that natural and material causes alone could scientifically explain the apparent design, complexity, and diversity of life, and this is why his theory was so readily accepted by the modern scientific community. Darwin�s evolutionary paradigm has remained (unto this day) the best, working, modern scientific theory for the existence, diversity, complexity, development, and apparent design of all living organisms.
According to present-day modern science, however, the theory of evolution is not a working scientific theory at all; rather, evolution is, as Ernst Mayr declares, a well proven fact: �Evolution is not merely an idea, a theory, or a concept, but is the name of a process in nature, the occurrence of which can be documented by mountains of evidence that nobody has been able to refute�Evolution is no longer a theory, it is simply a fact.�57
The modern scientific �fact� of evolution (supposedly) provides us with true knowledge of the history of life�s natural origins, progression, and development. Modern science theorizes that life first originated from non-organic chemicals when inorganic matter self-organized into the organic molecules (e.g., amino acids and proteins) essential for life. Although origin-of-life theories are only speculative and theoretical, modern science theorizes that this self organization of inorganic chemicals into organic living organisms must not have been too difficult because it did (apparently) happen when the time and conditions on earth were right; as Ernst Mayr explains it: �In spite of the theoretical advances that have been made toward solving the problem of the origin of life�.the production of life cannot be too difficult, because it happened on Earth apparently as soon as conditions had become suitable for life, around 3.8 billion years ago.�58
Evolution is the natural process by which life, once originated, continually develops from this early, first stage into all of the various forms of life we observe existing in the world today; or, if now extinct, which have existed at some time in the distant past. The process of evolution is caused by natural selection, which was �discovered� by drawing inferences from two observations about the natural world: 1) each individual within a species varies slightly from every other individual of the same species; and 2) environmental conditions and demands control the population growth of a given species. Natural selection occurs when: �Those differences that aid individuals to survive and reproduce are shared among members of a species, and those that do not are progressively eliminated.�59
Natural selection is the means by which evolutionary change occurs in living organisms; from the simplest forms of life to the ever more complex forms, life adapts itself for survival and reproduction only by way of this natural and material process. The fossil record is replete with the fossilized remains of myriad organisms of the distant past, giving us a window into the history of life on earth. These fossils reveal that thousands of different species of living organisms failed to survive and reproduce; evolutionary science also tells us the fossil record gives us many examples of transitional forms, which link extant living species with species of the distant past.
The modern scientific �fact� of evolution has (supposedly) proven the common ancestry of all living organisms and this truth provides us with a view of life by which we are enabled to see the interrelatedness of all living organisms. Change was occurring from the very beginnings of life, as simple organisms adapted, survived, and reproduced by passing on to their progeny the ability to endure the rigorous constraints of their environment. Evolution is the modern scientific historical truth of the progression and development of life on earth.
Creation
Creation means, very simply, that all forms of life were created by God. The Bible, in the first chapter of the Book of Genesis, tells us: �In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth� (Genesis 1:1). By the command of the Creator-God, the earth brought forth all plants (1:11) and all land-dwelling creatures (1:24); the waters brought forth �swarms of living creatures� (1:20); all birds were created (1:20); and, finally, God created humankind (1:27).
The Genesis account of how, why, and when life came to exist in our world was told and written by people who lived ages ago, and it has been communicated to us in this biblical story-of-beginnings (Greek: genesis, meaning: beginnings). Written in the form of a historical narrative, the Genesis account of the creation of life is knowledge of the world and of the past we could not have gained solely through our human ability to reason. This knowledge comes to us (by way of the story-writers) as divine revelation: God, the Creator of life, has communicated to humankind the story of the creation of life, and he has provided us with true knowledge of the world and of the past we could not have otherwise had.
This revelation, of God�s creation of the living world, was also proclaimed by Christ when he said: �But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female� (Mark 10:6). Christ is here affirming the reliability of the creation account found in the Old Testament book of Genesis, concerning the origin of life and humankind. It is a matter of religious faith to believe the scriptures contain knowledge that is specially revealed to humankind by God, and Christians are compelled to accept as true this knowledge (conveyed to us by way of special revelation) of God�s having created all life in the world. To reject and deny God�s action in the creation of life is tantamount to the rejection of the Christian faith, because above all else, the Christian faith proclaims: God as Creator.
There are various Christian perspectives on God as Creator, and there are various interpretations of the biblical text concerning God�s creation of the world, and yet all agree that God�s action is required in the creation of life. One Christian perspective is that of theistic evolution, which asserts that life has evolved exactly the way in which modern science has described it to have evolved, with the important exception that God must be considered as the ultimate cause of the origin of life (a problem still unanswered by modern science) as well as the guiding force directing the evolution of all living organisms.
Another perspective is that of the biblical literalist who believes God created the world in exactly the way described in the creation story of Genesis: in six (twenty-four hour) days. A more recent Christian perspective of God�s creation of life is that of the Intelligent Design Movement. Intelligent Design (ID) is a movement of scientists and intellectuals who think the order of high specific complexity found in living organisms can only be explained by positing the existence of an intelligent designer (i.e., God the Creator).
Theistic evolution, although technically a creation position, is simply evolution with the added supernatural element that modern science purposely rejected: a life-force or World-Soul. (Since we have already examined this type of life-force guided evolution in the previous section above, we need not return to it here.) Intelligent Design, although technically a creation position, it is based upon science and philosophy, and does not rely upon the biblical revelation as a source of true knowledge of the world. Intelligent Design can therefore be thought of as theistic creation or as design by an unknown intelligence. Theologically, the biblical literalist comes closest to accepting the Bible as the best source of true knowledge concerning the creation of life. Biblical literalism, although adhered to by many intelligent people, is often thought of as the least intellectual position on creation, because it embraces the creation story of Genesis as true knowledge of the creation event and because it takes the details of the creation account literally as historical facts. Unfortunately, most intellectuals today think that this level of trust in the Bible is both na�ve and credulous.
Creation is a theological perspective any way you chose to look at it, and I think it�s better to be theological, rather than scientific, whenever we attempt to explain creation. As we saw above, the Bible, in the book of Genesis, presents God as the Creator of the world and as the Creator of all life in the world. God, as Creator, is seen as the agent of creation: the ultimate cause of the existence of all created beings (whether animate or inanimate). Although unsatisfactory as a scientific explanation for the existence of life, creation is theologically and philosophically satisfying, because it offers us both a reason and purpose for our existence and it also offers us as a reasonable cause for existence itself.
I believe the Genesis story of creation should be read as revealing true knowledge of the creation of life, and I think the biblical account of creation should be read as it was written: as the story of creation. We need not attempt to prove it literally (e.g., biblical literalism, creation-science), we should not read into the story something that is not there (i.e., theistic evolution), and neither should we ignore it altogether (i.e., Intelligent Design); rather, we should trust the creation story of Genesis to give us true and sufficient knowledge of the creation of life as revealed to us by our Creator.
Conflicting Views of the Living World
Creation and evolution are antithetical ways of viewing the world of life: either life was created by an intelligent Creator, or life began and evolved by natural/material processes. Evolution is thought (by many modern people) to be yet another rational, modern scientific nail being driven into the coffin of a dead (or dying) biblical faith. Having triumphed over the prescientific biblical cosmology with the Copernican Revolution, modern science was, by Darwin�s time, poised to bury the prescientific biblical anthropology as well. And along with it, the human need for salvation.
Modern science, in thinking it had proven the fact of biological evolution, assumed it had also disproven the biblical account of the creation of humankind found in Genesis, and concluded that the biblical/theological Fall of Humankind was disproven as well. (The fact of evolution had seemingly proven that there was no need for salvation.) But in recent years things have not been going all that well for the modern scientific �fact� of evolution. To many intelligent people, including many scientists, the theory of evolution is beginning to look less and less like the objective, dispassionate, scientific truth about the history of life of earth. To these people, the theory of evolution is beginning to look a lot more like a very imaginative scientific creation story.
To illustrate some of the difficulties the theory of evolution is having these days, we need only look at a recent book: Intelligent Thought: Science versus the Intelligent Design Movement60 written in response to a legal decision61 that was made concerning the teaching of Intelligent Design in public schools. This book is a collection of essays written by some of the leading defenders of biological evolutionary science, and yet none of these thinkers has managed to write anything even remotely resembling the fantastic claims made by the book�s publisher (Vintage) found on the book�s back cover blurb:
�Evolutionary science lies at the heart of a modern understanding of the natural world. Darwin�s theory has withstood 150 years of scientific scrutiny, and today it not only explains the origin and design of living things, but highlights the importance of a scientific understanding in our culture and in our lives.�62
The truth is that Darwin�s theory is not accepted by science today as an explanation for the origin and design of living things; and neither is Neo-Darwinism. The truth is that modern science has no explanation for the origin of life; and only attempts to theorize and speculate about the design of living things. Such is the sad state of affairs concerning the creation versus evolution controversy, a controversy which has continued for the past 150 years with both sides asserting their particular positions, guarding their philosophical commitments, and attempting to persuade both scientists and the public that their position alone is correct.
If the Darwinian Revolution had proven its explanation of the origin and design of living things beyond a reasonable doubt, then the vast majority of scientists, philosophers, theologians, and the public (even those of strong religious faith) would have accepted this explanation long ago. Had evolution truly proven its case, people would have adjusted their theologies and biblical interpretations accordingly to fit the new evolutionary view of the world; just as people eventually did when science proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, the truth of the Copernican Revolution�s discovery of the motion of the earth and the existence of the solar system.
In fact, many religious people have accepted evolution as a scientific fact, and many religious people have also adjusted their biblical interpretations in order to fit the Darwinian theory of evolution. Likewise, many people also see God (the Creator) as the first cause and as the guiding intelligence behind biological evolution�s mechanism of natural selection (e.g., the theistic evolutionists). This, however, is not a full acceptance of the modern scientific theory of evolution, because the theory of evolution is naturalistic and materialistic; it does not allow for supernatural intelligent causes or effects. For science, the answers to the questions about life�s origins and design are to be sought in nature alone. Likewise, those of religious faith who believe God is the Author and Creator of life do not seek natural and material explanations where none can be found.
For over 150 years now, those who have not believed in evolution, and who believe instead that God is the Creator of life, have been accused of stopping their ears to the truths of modern science by choosing to believe in the creation myth of Genesis instead of the factual scientific evidence that has been brought to bear against it. Nothing is more frustrating to those who are rationally, naturalistically, and scientifically minded than is the refusal of religious believers to abandon their prescientific mindsets in the face of irrefutable scientific evidence.
But 150 years since Darwin first proposed his theory of evolution, the scientific proofs of biological evolution�despite excited claims to the contrary�have not been produced. Modern science was able to prove that the earth both rotated on its axis and revolved around the sun, but modern science has had great difficulty in trying to prove that simple matter/energy, by obeying physical/chemical law, caused spontaneous chemical combinations which, over a very long period of time, have evolved into complex living organisms.
Biology has proven to be a much more difficult area of natural philosophy, or modern scientific study, than is astronomy and cosmology; and, to many intelligent people, the theory of evolution is beginning to resemble a very imaginative scientific creation story. It would appear that trying to explain (scientifically) the origin and biodiversity of organic life on earth is proving to be a lot more difficult than was trying to explain (scientifically) the motions of the celestial bodies. And this should be of no surprise to us, considering the vast difference between the incredible complexity of life and the (relative) simplicity of the motions of the celestial bodies.
Were Darwin alive today he would no doubt be dismayed by the vast complexity modern science is now able to observe in just one, simple, living cell; the complexity of which was unknown in Darwin�s time. In fact, it would seem that modern science has�inadvertently�met with much greater (albeit unintentional) success in falsifying the theory of evolution than it has in proving evolution�s validity as a scientific theory, let alone as a scientific fact (despite the hard-core evolutionist�s claims to the contrary). The more knowledge science gains concerning life, the less likely it seems that life must have originated and evolved solely by natural/material processes. The high order of specific complexity observed in living organisms (e.g., the biochemical inner workings of the living cell) is quite unlike the simple order found in inorganic matter (e.g., crystalline structures) that are caused by natural/material processes. It seems that the complexity of life is not determined by natural/material processes but by information. And information always denotes intelligence.
Ever since the discovery of the DNA molecule (in the 1950�s) modern science has been forced to deal with the scientific fact that all life is based upon a coded sequence of information detailing instructions about the growth, development, and final mature forms that all living organisms will ultimately attain. An analogy of the coded information found in the DNA molecule could be the code used by modern computers. Computers function on the basis of a two digit code (the binary system, which is made up of only two digits: 1 and 0) that, when commanded by codes created by programmers, is able to carry vast amounts of information and instructions. An entire (digital) virtual world can be constructed within a computer program simply on the basis of the codes developed by programmers in order to command and control the computer�s use of the two digit (binary) code.
The DNA molecule uses, so to speak, a four digit code made up of four biochemical bases: adenine, thymine, guanine, and cytosine. The various combinations of these four bases provide all of the information and instructions necessary for the growth and development of every living organism. If we can construct a virtual world within a computer program by using a two digit code, then it�s not hard for us to conceive of the real world of complex living organisms having been constructed on the basis of a four digit code of biochemical bases. The question modern science has recently been forced to address is: How did such a code, a language, arise solely by natural/material physical processes acting upon simple inorganic matter?
Although some evolutionists deny that the question of the origin of life has anything to do with evolution, I believe the question is simply an extrapolation of the evolutionists own assumptions, and I think that a natural and material explanation of the origin of life is the only possible answer to the question of origins considering those assumptions. I think that if one accepts naturalistic and materialistic evolution as the scientific explanation for the design and development of living organisms, then one should also accept that the origin of life must have also been naturalistic and materialistic. Ultimately, evolution requires the belief in the ability of the most fundamental subatomic particles of matter/energy (quarks?) to spontaneously arrange themselves by natural propensity (gravity?) into very simple atomic structures, to further develop into the most simple chemical elements (e.g., hydrogen, helium), to eventually form (due to gravity?) into stars (allowing for the process of nuclear synthesis), which causes these simple elements to synthesize into all of the naturally occurring elements.
Furthermore, belief in evolution requires one to believe that upon the deaths of these primeval stars (i.e., going supernova) these ninety-two naturally occurring elements dispersed throughout the universe where they then coalesced (due to gravity) into planets (like the earth) and that over time, arising spontaneously (due to chemical law) from these inorganic elements, came the first primitive living organisms, which (eventually) developed into the myriad variety of all known living organisms (including humankind). In short, quarks�given enough time�developed into every form of life�up-to-and-including human beings (with intelligence, consciousness, language, and emotions)�solely by means of natural/material processes. And according to evolution, all of this has occurred without either matter/energy or living organisms having any propensity to develop from simple to ever greater complexity, as if there were some sort of teleological cosmic goal, end, or purpose toward which all of this progression is directed.
Although Darwinian evolution denies the existence of any innate force or teleological drive that could cause life to progress (inevitably) from simple to ever greater complexity, Darwinism asserts, none-the-less, that life has progressed from simpler to ever more complex forms by means of natural selection. Darwinian evolution posits that life forms do progress from the simple to the complex, but that they need not always do so; it is possible that some forms will remain unchanged, or even devolve from complex to simpler forms.
To my thinking, it is an inescapable conclusion of Darwinian evolutionary thought that life must have originated from inorganic matter/energy, and that life must have made the remarkable progress from simple to ever greater complexity. In short, although Darwin�s evolutionary theory demands that no innate force or teleological drive be involved in order to accomplish this amazing progression, the fact remains that any evolutionary scientific conceptual scheme must explain how the simplest element (i.e., hydrogen) eventually developed into the incredibly complex organism that is the human person; a highly complex living being with a body, a mind, a will, and emotions.
Mary Midgely has given us an apt description of the modern scientific theory of evolution: �The theory of evolution is not just an inert piece of theoretical science. It is, and cannot help being, also a powerful folk-tale about human origins.�63 From this perspective the Evolution versus Creation controversy is a controversy over which story of human origins (Genesis or Evolution) makes more sense to us, not which account of origins is scientifically correct. Think about it, does it make more sense for us to believe that quarks�given enough time�can eventually develop into the human body, mind, will, and emotions? Or does it make more sense for us to believe that: �When God created man he made them in the likeness of God� (Gen. 5:1-2)? The question we seem to be faced with is: Which story will we choose as the best conceptual scheme for making sense of life?
The irony here for any rational, logical, modern thinker is that it is neither rational nor logical for us to think of human intelligence as having arisen from unintelligent matter/energy. Only intelligence can give rise to intelligence and information, and only intelligence can create the order of high specific complexity we observe in all living organisms. So why is the belief in a supernatural intelligent being�a Creator-God�thought of as being such a primitive, superstitious, prescientific belief that it is in need of replacement by the rational, logical, modern scientific theory (or fact) of evolution? Are those who believe in a Creator simply uneducated, backwoods fundamentalists bent on taking us back to the Dark Ages before the advent of modern science? Or could it be that they are simply rational, logical, thinking people who find little-to-no philosophical or scientific truth in biological evolution as a rational, valid, scientific explanation for the existence of life as-it-appears to us in-the-world?
Phenomenology and the Practical Value of Our Views of the Living World
We are examining here two very different ways of viewing the living world. Is life the meaningful creation of God? Or is life simply the result of purposeless, natural and material development? The Bible presents the world-of-life to us as-it-appears to us: as a multitude of creatures identifiable by their virtually unchanging fully mature forms. We have no conscious awareness or perception of any evolution of living organisms. We do observe development to maturity and development within species, but we do not observe the development of one species into another. Evolution�s theory of purposeless development sounds like an oxymoron�all development denotes a purpose and a goal�yet Darwinian evolution rejects any function, purpose, end, or goal in the evolution of organic life forms. For evolution there is no higher goal toward which life forms are developing, there are only blind natural forces driving life forms outward into the world and not upward toward any higher complexity.
According to evolution, the progression (or advancement) from simple to ever more complex forms is only a seeming progression. According to Ernst Mayr, the simplest form of life, the bacteria, may in fact be the most successful life form to have ever evolved: �Indeed, evolution seems highly progressive when we look at the lineage leading from bacteria to cellular protists, higher plants and animals, primates, and man. However, the earliest of these organisms, the bacteria, are just about the most successful of all organisms, with a total biomass that may well exceed that of all other organisms combined.�64 If an organism�s success in reproduction and fitness to its environment is what evolution is, then bacteria can be thought of as the most fit and successful living organism in the world.
Many people mistakenly believe that Darwinism asserts the development of life from simple to ever greater complexity as the goal of natural selection, as if the human being were some sort of natural and highest end result of the process of natural selection. Yet this teleological and goal-driven type of evolution is not Darwinism; Darwin repudiated any teleology because teleology requires some purposing agent to guide and direct life toward this sort of higher goal, which must exist either within nature (e.g., life-force, World-Soul) or beyond nature (i.e., a supernatural Creator).
The modern scientific theory of evolution cannot make allowances for either unknown mysterious forces or for a supernatural Creator: life must be seen as having developed purposelessly from nature alone without the benefit of any preordained plan, goal, or end in mind. Teleology, also referred to as orthogenesis (i.e., a direction of evolution toward a final goal by an intrinsic principle, or force) has no place in Darwinian evolution, �orthogenesis and other teleological explanations of evolution have now been thoroughly refuted, and it has been shown that indeed natural selection is capable of producing all the adaptations that were formally attributed to orthogenesis.�65
A view of the living world that envisions no purpose and no goal is a very dismal view to say the least. Evolutionary thinking has a strong tendency to cause one to view life as an insignificant event, in the history of an insignificant planet, which will eventually die an insignificant death. Without purpose there is little significance. The modern scientific evolutionary model of the living world is, in this regard, not unlike the modern scientific cosmological view of the earth as an insignificant speck in the vast emptiness of space. The biblical view of the living world is thought to be prescientific and mythological, and yet this view at least represents the living world as-it-appears to us and as invested with purpose. Rather than believing humankind descended from quarks and bacteria, the Bible presents humankind as having been created by God, �in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them� (Genesis 1:27). And this view of life�especially human life�could not be more opposed to the evolutionary view.
Life is not a random occurrence on a random planet devoid of purpose and meaning; rather, life is the very creative act of God who expresses his very self through the living world. The practical value of the biblical view is vastly superior to that of the evolutionary view, because we intuitively know that we ourselves, our families, our friends, and our neighbors have purpose and meaning. We know that our lives are invested with meaning and with purpose, and the biblical/theological view confirms this intuitive knowledge. We are conscious beings who neither observe nor experience evolution occurring in-the-world; and the truth is, the modern scientific theory of evolution is simply an abstract, intellectual-play conceptualization of the world that has no correspondence to the very real world of our lived-experience of being-in-the-world.
The Bible presents life to us as-it-appears to us: each life form reproduces after its own kind (see Genesis 1: 20-25). This sort of typological classification is known as essentialism (i.e., living organisms belong to certain classes), and typological classification was the predominant way of viewing the world of living organisms from ancient times until Darwin. This is also the way in which the living world appears to us: we observe living organisms as belonging to particular types, classes, or kinds. Darwinian evolution posits the slow transition over time from one species to another, although this is not a phenomenon we can observe. Phenomenology helps us to make better sense of our world because phenomenology allows us to focus upon the world as-it-appears to us; and from the phenomenological perspective, evolution is simply a meaningless fact (or theory) because we do not consciously perceive either the transition from simple to ever more complex forms of life or the evolution of one species into another.
Evolution, then, is nothing more than an exercise in intellectual-play; another mental abstraction having no correspondence to the world of phenomena we experience. And there is very little of practical value that can be found in views of the world based upon abstract exercises in intellectual-play. If we allow ourselves to be convinced that the world is not as-it-appears to us, and that the world is, rather, as we might imagine it to be intellectually, then we run the risk of misinterpreting and misunderstanding the only world that we can ever really know: this world. And, for all practical purposes, this world is the only world there is.
The living world does not appear to us to be evolving in any major sense of the term. We do observe minor variations and changes (microevolution) within a species (e.g., breeds of dogs, cats, horses), but we do not observe the major changes (macroevolution) evolutionary science asserts to have occurred and to be occurring: species evolving from one species into another (e.g., fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, reptile to bird). Species of living organisms appear to us to be very stable: people are always people, dogs are always dogs, whales are always whales, and there are no observable major changes in any species. Minor variations within species can be called evolution but, as Philip Johnson tells us, these minor variations do not necessarily imply all that the Darwinists would like for us to believe they do:
��Evolution� in Darwinist usage implies a completely naturalistic metaphysical system, in which matter evolved to its present state of organized complexity without any participation by a Creator. But �evolution� also refers to much more modest concepts, such as microevolution and biological relationship. The tendency of dark moths to preponderate in a population when the background trees are dark therefore demonstrates evolution�and also demonstrates, by semantic transformation, the naturalistic descent of human beings from bacteria.�66
The role of natural philosophy, or science, is, as we have seen, to posit natural explanations for the phenomena of the natural world. Supernatural explanations are, by definition, beyond the purview of science. This does not mean, however, that scientists are unable to conduct their scientific inquiries into the natural phenomena of the world while at the same time holding to the belief that not all phenomena may be explicable solely by natural means. Newton described the behavior of gravity scientifically, yet he also conceded the fact that the force itself was ultimately unknown (possibly unknowable) and acknowledged that gravity was, perhaps, God�s way of holding the universe together.67 Seeking natural explanations in science is an appropriate methodology, but it is not good science to view the natural world with the philosophical assumption that nature is all there is; such a view is not one of natural philosophy (i.e., science) but of philosophical naturalism. Philosophical naturalism presupposes that nature is all that exists; therefore, for the philosophical naturalist, all natural phenomena can only be explained by recourse to natural phenomena obeying natural laws, and there can be no God.
If it is the case that evolution is, in fact, a philosophically naturalistic ideology rather than science per se, then what we discover is that the evolution versus creation controversy is not a matter of science versus religion, but of ideology versus ideology; perhaps we could also say it�s a matter of myth versus myth, or even faith versus faith. Evolutionists have accused those scientists who believe that not all natural phenomena can be explained by recourse to natural explanations (such as those in the Intelligent Design Movement) of giving up on the scientific enterprise because they concede that natural explanations alone are inadequate when dealing with the origin and development of life. Yet it is not unscientific to concede the fact that science can never discover the causes of all phenomena; to acknowledge this is to have a humble approach to doing the work of science. To think that we can discover the causes of all phenomena and to think that we can attribute all such causes to nature alone is the opposite of humility: it is hubris.
Philosophical naturalism is part of the metaphysical belief-system known as atomism (which we have already examined above) and atomism, as we have seen, is what led to the Copernican Revolution�s conception of many possible worlds, as well as leading to the conclusion that both our world and humankind were of little-to-no significance. Evolution is, very simply: atomistic philosophy applied to biology. Darwin�s success was due to the simple fact that, through his naturalistic and materialistic theory, the entire cosmos�life included�was finally explicable by the atomistic philosophy. Benjamin Wicker has given us a good explanation of atomism as it has been applied in Darwinist evolutionary thinking:
�Matter is the only reality; and by its random motion and cohesion, it creates the appearance of form (i.e., species). The complex unity, then, is the accidental result of the random variations of simple material constituents. The origin of species, therefore, is the random mutation of matter on the atomic level.�68
And lest anyone think this is not exactly what the Darwinists believe, and what they would have us to believe as well, consider the following statement made by Seth Lloyd, which was published recently in a book purporting to defend the truth of Darwinian evolution against the (upstart) Intelligent Design Movement:
�Atoms collide in every possible way until they form a wide variety of molecules, each selected for by the local concentration of atoms together with the laws of chemistry. Molecules, in turn, explore ever more complicated chemical reactions until they form a molecule capable of catalyzing its own production together with variation in its form: Such a form of proto-life is selected for merely by its ability to reproduce and adapt to different environmental conditions. Because of its ability to adapt to new surrounding, life explores a vast space of possible beings, until it arrives first at sexual reproduction and then at language.�69
This is what the evolutionists would have us to believe: that atoms colliding randomly in the void�given chemical law and enough time�eventually become human beings with the ability to communicate through the use of language. If it weren�t for the fact that some people�s belief in evolution so seriously distorts their view of the world, then this sort of talk would be laughable indeed. But it�s no laughing matter when people�s perceptions of the world become distorted by imaginative, abstract, intellectual-play theories about the world. People�both consciously and unconsciously�allow modern science to define reality abstractly by first dismissing and then replacing the concrete reality of their lived-experience of the world with the imaginative, abstract, intellectual-play scientific theories about the world. It is, however, the consciously perceived experience of living our lives in-the-world that is reality to us in the truest sense of the word, because the world we experience is the only world of which we can ever be consciously aware.
We are much better off trying to understand life by viewing it as-we-perceive-it and as-it-appears to us rather than using imaginative scientific/historical stories about how life might have emerged from non-life, and how simple organisms might have developed into more complex ones. Although the evolutionists are loath to discuss it, and although they react defensively when they are forced to do so, Darwin�s naturalistic and materialistic evolutionary theory leads, inevitably, to the logical moral and ethical conclusions of its premise: life is a competition for survival. For the evolutionists, life is simply animated matter, which by blind and purposeless natural selection, becomes better adapted for the survival of certain populations that are made up of unique individual organisms living within their own particular environments. Individual organisms, therefore, and the populations made up by them, will compete for survival with other organisms (and their populations) within their environments by any and all means necessary. This Darwinian �struggle for survival� is downplayed by the evolutionists, and yet they continue to emphasize it as one of the main features of evolution by natural selection.70
Evolutionists sometimes attempt to explain away the (logical) moral and ethical conclusions of their �survival of the fittest� axiom by attributing the human sense of morality to a genetic improvement as an aid to survival, but survival of the fittest remains an important part of evolutionary theory, because in evolutionary theory survival is still what ultimately matters. If evolution were true, then it would be just as sensible for natural selection to favor genetic improvements fostering an amoral sense in human beings in order to further the survival of the species as it would for natural selection to foster a moral sense.
According to the atomistic evolutionary worldview, the truth is that it makes no difference whether white bits of matter/energy force black bits of matter/energy to sit in the back of the bus, or whether Nazi bits of matter/energy force Jewish and other undesirable bits of matter/energy into concentration camps. In fact it was Darwinism�in the form of Social Darwinism (during the 1920�s and 1930�s)�which gave the modern scientific �stamp of approval� to precisely this concept of racial superiority/inferiority (i.e., the eugenics movement; Greek: eugenics, meaning: good genes). Unfortunately, we have already seen the logical conclusion of Darwin�s evolutionary theory (i.e., the Holocaust) and Darwinism has had a very difficult time making much of a comeback ever since it helped to create the moral sinkhole of Social Darwinism, which was actually the high point of �success� in the out-working of the Darwinian evolutionary conceptual scheme.
The Darwinists today are in a virtual panic, because the abundance of anomalies that exist within their evolutionary paradigm is finally being revealed to the public. The Darwinists, in their quest to make certain that evolution be taught as fact in the public schools, have (unintentionally) exposed both themselves and their beliefs to the public; and as Philip Johnson puts it: �As many more people outside the Biblical fundamentalist camp learn how deeply committed Darwinists are to opposing theism of any sort, and how little support Darwinism finds in the scientific evidence, the Darwinists may wish that they had never left their sanctuaries.�71
Philip Johnson is not a scientist, but he was a (Harvard trained) University of California (Berkley) law professor for over thirty years. Johnson knows bad reasoning when he sees it, and his exposure to the public (during the 1980�s) of the Darwinists� faulty logic was met with much derision from the Darwinian scientific community. Norman Macbeth (also a Harvard-trained lawyer) likewise took the Darwinists (Ernst Mayr in particular) to task (during the 1970�s) for the faulty reasoning undergirding their error-ridden theory of evolution, and he urged them to come-clean with the public: �Perhaps they [the Darwinists] are reluctant to confess error. Perhaps they fear that the fundamentalists will gloat over their discomfiture. These would be human failings, but just the sort that one must resolutely put aside. I urge the Darwinists to take the public into their confidence by a full disclosure. They are not expected to be infallible, confession is good for the soul, and candor is always highly valued.�72
Sadly, the Darwinists did not take Macbeth�s advice, and a decade later, the Darwinists also rejected Johnson�s similar critique of their poorly reasoned theory. Now, over forty years since Macbeth�s book came out, and over thirty years since Johnson�s, the Darwinists are more insistent than ever that their theory�and only their theory�is correct; for them, evolution is a fact! But every day, more and more people�intelligent people�are beginning to realize that the imperial Darwinist emperor has very little rational clothing.
The future does not look very promising for Darwinian evolution, and the theory will likely be seen historically as yet another misguided scientific theory, which the scientific community itself finally repudiated�relegating it to the dustbin of scientific embarrassments.
Absolute Time versus Relative Time
Introduction
In this third, and final, example of conflict between the modern scientific and the biblical/theological ways of viewing the world, we will be examining the modern scientific concept of relative time and how it contrasts with the biblical conception of time as absolute. Our main focus here (as it has been throughout this chapter) is to ask ourselves this question: Have we adopted an imaginary, abstract, intellectual-play, modern scientific view of the world in place of the way we normally experience the world to be? And if we have, how does this alter the way in which we perceive our world?
Most of us are probably at least somewhat familiar with the modern scientific concept of the relative nature of time, and we have probably heard of the existence of time warps, of the possibility of time travel, of how both time and space are now thought of as one fabric of spacetime, or we may have heard of time spoken of as being a fourth dimension. Many of us have also probably read about the theoretical space traveler who, hypothetically, could travel from earth to the nearest star at nearly the speed of light, and of how upon her return to earth she would find that she had not aged as rapidly as had the people on earth, because for her time had run more slowly due to her incredible speed, whereas for the people on earth time had run at the same rate as it normally does.
In many ways this will be the most difficult of the three views we are examining in this chapter. It will be the most technically difficult because we will need to become familiar with Einstein�s two theories of relativity, and it will be the most philosophically difficult because time, as a subject in itself, has always provoked a great deal of philosophical thought, debate, and speculation. But I think this subject will also be the most rewarding of the three views we are examining, because our perception of time is probably the most central feature of our conscious, human, lived-experience of being-in-the-world.
Absolute Time
Isaac Newton thought of time as being absolute, and in his Principia Mathematica (1687) he wrote that: �Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature, flows equably without relation to anything external��73 This description of time is one in which, for the purpose of doing mathematical calculations, time is conceptualized as passing at the same rate for all observers everywhere in the universe. This description of time is both an abstraction and a refinement (for mathematical purposes) of the common sense-experience of the phenomenon that we call time. It is this common-sense experience of the phenomenon of time that we will consider as being absolute, and we will be contrasting this absolute sense of time with the modern scientific concept of time�s being relative. The modern scientific conception of the relativity of time is one in which time is seen as passing at different rates for different observers who are not in uniform motion relative to one another. In relativity theory, there are no observers who hold what could be called a privileged time, which could be thought of as an absolute, standard, or background time.
Newton�s concept of time�s being absolute�based as it was upon our common-sense experience of time�is very similar to the biblical presentation of time: there is only one time which is perceived equally (as such) by all observers. Newton was a theist, and he �adopted the idea [from the mathematician Isaac Barrow] that both time and space are expressions of God�s own eternity and omnipresence.�74 Time, according to the Bible, is commonsense, absolute, and eternal: �He [God] has made everything beautiful in its time; also he has put eternity into man�s mind, yet so that he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end� (Ecclesiastes 3:11, emphasis added). In this passage we can discover three biblical conceptualizations of absolute time: 1) Things occur in time; 2) God�s timeless eternity; and, 3) A linear conception of time as having both a beginning and an end.
For thousands of years, humankind perceived time naturally and phenomenologically by way of the regular motions of celestial phenomena: day and night by the motion of the sun, the lunar month by the phases of the moon, and the seasons by the movements of the stars. This natural/phenomenological regulation and ordering of time is exactly what we find in the Bible: �And God said, �Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years�� (Genesis 1:14).
This perception of the celestial bodies� ordered and regular motions gave prescientific peoples a sense of time, which gave them an ability to order and regulate their lives according to the natural rhythms of their world. The Bible�s presentation of time is prescientific because time is not measured mechanically (i.e., by mechanical clock) but naturally by way of the motions of the celestial bodies (as perceived by conscious observers). For example, rather keeping time by mechanical devices, the Bible (in the following passage) presents us with the keeping of time as marked by the movement of a shadow, cast by the light of the sun blocked by a stationary object (i.e., a sundial):
�And Isaiah said, �This is the sign to you from the Lord, that the Lord will do the thing that he has promised: shall the shadow go forward ten steps, or go back ten steps?� And Hezekiah answered, �It is an easy thing for the shadow to lengthen ten steps; rather let the shadow go back ten steps.� And Isaiah the prophet cried to the Lord; and he brought the shadow back ten steps, by which the sun had declined on the dial of Ahaz� (2 Kings 20:9-11).
It�s important for us to recognize that our modern-day mechanical timekeeping devices (i.e., clocks), which have helped to create the modern scientific conception of time, are based upon the natural, regular motions of the celestial bodies (as perceived by human observers). As John Norton explains, it was the regular motions of the stars at night that allowed for the division of the night into twelve hours by Egyptian astronomers: �Evidence for this way of dividing the night comes from diagrams on the inside of coffin-lids from the Eleventh Dynasty (twenty-second century B.C.). Daylight was later divided into twelve hours, by analogy with the night. And so we were given the twenty-four hours of our day, from which even the �rational� endeavors of Revolutionary France [which sought to impose a ten hour day] did not manage to disengage us.�75
And this is a very important point for us to keep in mind: the concept of time in any absolute sense requires a standard by which to keep (or to mark) time; and it is the motions of the celestial bodies that are the standard and the basis for both natural and mechanical time keeping. Natural time, as marked by the perceived motions of the celestial bodies, provides a standard basis of time keeping for all observers. On a global scale, necessary adjustments have been made for observers in different locations throughout the world (i.e., the division of the world into time zones) and these adjustments in time keeping are based upon how people in different locations throughout the world perceive the motions of the celestial bodies. The consciously perceived motions of the celestial bodies give us our sense of natural time, because both our (subjective) conscious perception and (objective) celestial motion work-together (or synergize) in order to provide us with the awareness of natural time.
Natural time, as perceived from the perspective of the earth-bound observer, has an absolute sense; because no other sense of natural time is perceived. Mechanical time keeping has enabled scientists (especially physicists) to formulate mathematical equations giving us true knowledge of the world, because their equations correspond to the reality of the world we perceive. For example, if a car travels sixty miles in one hour the car can be said to have a velocity of sixty miles per hour.
To calculate the velocity of an object in motion one simply divides the distance the object travels by the time it takes the object to travel that distance. Scientists use the equation: V = d/t meaning: velocity (V) equals the distance (d) divided by the time (t) that it takes for the object to travel a certain (known) distance. What is important in mathematical calculations of this sort is that a standard of measurement must be used in order for the equation to work properly. In this example, we have used miles as the standard for measuring distance and hours as the standard for measuring time. And in order to get an accurate measurement the standards of measurement must be fixed (i.e., they cannot change or vary).
Most of us probably take for granted the ability of science to use measured time in order to give us just this sort of true and useful information about our world, but until the invention of the mechanical clock, and its mechanical measurement of time, modern science could not have existed. Time is a very important feature of the world we perceive, and it is necessary for scientists to be able to measure time accurately in order for them to be able to study the world. As theoretical physicist Richard Morris explains:
�The invention of the mechanical clock was one of the most significant developments that has taken place within Western society. As social historian Lewis Mumford points out, it was the clock that dissociated time from natural rhythms and �helped to create the belief in an independent world of mathematically measurable sequences� that was so essential to the development of science. And it was the clock that made time into an abstract entity that could be contemplated in its own right as a sequence of hours, minutes and seconds.�76
It�s no coincidence that the rise of modern science occurred not very long after the invention of the mechanical clock. Time is an essential feature of our experience of living in-the-world and in order to engage in science one must be able to measure phenomena; especially the motions of physical phenomena.
It is motion together with our perception of motion that gives us our conception of the phenomenon we call time. Without motion, and without our conscious perception of motion, the phenomenon of time would be imperceptible to us. Time is not simply our perception, nor is time simply motion: time is the synergy of (objective) motion with our (subjective) perception of motion.
Both time and space can be thought of as absolute in the sense that they contextualize all physical phenomena. For example, matter is that which we perceive to occupy a particular space at a particular time; time is our perception of the motion of material objects from one particular space at one particular time to another particular space at another particular time. Time need not be thought of as absolute as though it had a physical reality, it�s only when time is used in mathematical calculations that time is treated as if it had a physical reality. We can perceive physical objects in the world as being in motion, and scientists use time as the means by which to measure, calculate, and properly represent the motions of these physical objects through space.
Standards of measurement are required (by definition) to be unchanging, and this is why the physicist Isaac Newton conceived of both space and time as being absolute. The ability of scientists to measure time and space by an absolute standard made it possible to calculate the motion of matter through space, and made it possible for scientists to derive physical laws accurately describing (mathematically) these motions; thereby enabling science to apply these descriptions universally.
Relative Time
The modern scientific concept of relative time derives from Albert Einstein�s theory of special relativity, and it has succeeded in overthrowing the Newtonian concept of absolute time: relativity is the current modern scientific understanding of time. Einstein developed a conceptual scheme in which the velocity of a particular electromagnetic phenomenon (i.e., light) could be assumed as the constant in the mathematical equation for the determination of velocities (V = d/t); it was this assumption that completely transformed the scientific meaning and understanding of time.
Einstein was aware of James Clerk Maxwell�s equations regarding wave mechanics, which predicted that light waves traveling in a vacuum would not be affected by the speed of the source of those waves, and he realized that this contradicted Galileo�s laws of motion for the determination of both velocity and relative velocity. Galileo�s law of motion for determining the velocity of a moving object was to divide the distance an object traveled by the time it took the object to travel that distance (V = d/t). As for Galileo�s law for the determination of relative velocity, let�s use the following example: To determine the velocity of a person who is walking forward at three miles per hour down the aisle of a moving train, which is in forward motion traveling at fifty miles per hour, we must add the velocities of both the person (v1) and the train (v2). This gives us the velocity of the person as being fifty-three miles per hour, as determined by what is called the addition of velocities (V = v1 + v2). This is considered relative motion because the person walking down the aisle of the train perceives himself to be walking three miles per hour while a person who is standing at the train station watching the train go by would perceive the person to be traveling fifty-three miles per hour: the velocities are relative to the locations of the observers.
Einstein thought about what might happen if one were to apply these two laws of motion to the electromagnetic phenomenon of light and what he discovered led him to conclude that time itself must be relative. If the velocity (V) of light is assumed to be the constant (c) in the equation for the determination of velocities (c = d/t) then this constant cannot be changed. For example: a source of light, say the headlamp of a moving train, is moving at 100 miles per hour, and the speed of the source of this light (i.e., the speed of the train) cannot be added to the speed of the light itself (300,000 kilometers per second), because the light travels at a constant velocity regardless of the velocity of the source of that light. In this particular case, involving the velocity of light, the law of the addition of velocities does not work; what Einstein realized was that the light (c) would travel a greater distance (d) in the same amount of time (t). Normally this would be seen as a change (i.e., an increase) in velocity (v) but since the velocity of light is assumed as the constant in the equation (v = c) it cannot be changed. With the velocity of light set as the constant in the equation for the determination of velocities, the only possible mathematical solution for this equation (c = d/t) was for Einstein to change time (t). In order for the equation to work, the value of t cannot be absolute: it must be relative; as Pearcey and Thaxton explain: �The theory of relativity results from a purely logical deduction. If the velocity of light is a universal constant, then when d changes, t has to change. It is strictly mathematical.�77
According to relativity, time must have varying increments depending upon the relative perspectives of particular observers: no observational perspective is allowed to be absolute and time is relative, because the velocity of light is assumed as the only constant. In Einstein�s relativity theory there are no absolute frames of reference by which one could determine a standard (i.e., absolute) time for all observers.
In our example of relative motion above, the person who is walking forward at three miles per hour is moving at three miles per hour relative to the train. The train, however, is also in motion, moving forward at fifty miles per hour mph relative to the earth. Thus, to an observer on the ground, the velocity of the person who is walking forward inside of the train is fifty-three miles per hour relative to this observer�s position on the earth. In Einstein�s theory of relativity there are no privileged frames of reference (such as our earth-based observer�s) by which we can determine absolute motion through time and space: for all observers, all reference frames are equally valid; any observation made from within any frame of reference is true.
Motion and the assumption of the velocity of light as a constant are the keys to understanding Einstein�s theory concerning the relative nature of time. Let�s consider now what two observers in uniform (non-accelerated) motion will (hypothetically) observe. Time increments shorten or lengthen depending upon how one particular observer in one frame of reference perceives another particular observer in another frame of reference who is traveling in uniform motion relative to the first observer. Within any observer�s own reference frame time does not change. It is important to keep this in mind because time increments do not lengthen or shorten within one�s own particular reference frame regardless of the velocity of that reference frame: all observers in every frame of reference will always measure the velocity of light at its constant speed (300,000 kilometers per second). Time, for one observer, will only appear to dilate (i.e., the increments of measured time will either shorten or lengthen) when this first observer (in one reference frame) perceives a second observer (in a different reference frame that is in uniform motion relative to the first observer�s) traveling at nearly the velocity of light. To the first observer, a clock within the second observer�s reference frame will appear to be running more slowly: to the first observer, the increments of time within this observed reference frame will appear to be lengthening (when compared to the unchanged time increments within the first observer�s own frame of reference). To the first observer, time appears to be slowing down in the reference frame of the second observer who is in traveling at nearly the velocity of light (although the second observer will perceive no such slowing of time increments). In relativity theory, this apparent lengthening and contracting of time increments applies to distance as well as to time. A standard for the measurement of distance, such as a ruler, will lengthen or contract in a way similar to the lengthening and contracting of time increments measured by a clock, dependent upon the first observer�s perception of the second observer�s clocks and rulers.
Remember, the time dilation of relativity theory is a logical deduction based upon the assumption of the velocity of light as the constant. If light is assumed as the constant in the equations for determining velocity, then, according to the laws of motion, the velocity of light cannot change; rather, both time and distance must change. Time, in relativity theory, has only one possible logically deductive and mathematical explanation: time cannot be absolute, time must be relative. As physicist Paul Davies explains: �Speed is distance traveled per unit of time, so the speed of light can only be constant in all reference frames if distances and intervals of time are somehow different for different observers, depending on their states of motion.�78
Gravitation also affects time in Einstein�s general theory of relativity, because gravitation is not a thought of as a force but as curvatures in the geometry of spacetime, caused by masses located within regions of spacetime. For example, the earth revolves around the sun because the larger mass of the sun creates a large curvature of spacetime which causes the smaller mass of the earth to be in a free-fall orbit around the sun. In relativity theory the only absolutes are acceleration and the velocity of light (c), everything else�space, distance, time, and force�is relative to each particular observer�s perceptions as experienced from within each particular observer�s own reference frame. The relativistic concept of force means that gravity is a curvature of the geometry of spacetime, and in regions of intense gravity, such as a black hole, mass distorts spacetime causing time to slow down (or causes the mechanical measurements of the increments of time to lengthen) A black hole is a theoretical region of spacetime wherein time effectively ceases to exist. The gravitational effect at the center of a black hole is infinite and is thought to be �a boundary to time itself, an edge of infinity where time ceases to exist.�79
For modern science, time is considered to be a physical property of spacetime. In spacetime the mechanical measurements of time increments lengthen both as one�s velocity increases (to nearly light speed) and as one�s distance from large masses (such as a black hole) decreases. Time distortions of this kind are imperceptible to us in normal (natural) everyday life, and yet they (supposedly) become readily apparent as one�s velocity approaches c or as one approaches the vicinity of a black hole. The modern scientific conception of time is one in which there is no single, absolute standard by which one can measure time in a universal sense; according to relativity theory everything is dependent only upon two unchanging absolutes: velocity (=c) and acceleration (=gravity).
Phenomenology and the Practical Value of Time Conceptualizations
The modern scientific conception of time�s relativity is, I think, an imaginative and abstract intellectual-play scientific theory which, as modern science admits, has no correspondence to our perceptual experience of time. One of the conclusions about Einstein�s time Paul Davies comes to is that: �Einstein�s time is seriously at odds with time as we human beings experience it�Einstein�s time is inadequate to explain fully the physical universe and our perception of it.�80
As such, the theory of time�s relativity has no phenomenological basis whatsoever because we can never experience time�s being relative in the world. Thus the theoretical conceptualization of relative time has little-to-no practical value for us, because we experience our lives in-the-world. Einstein�s theory of relativity is perhaps the best example of an abstract modern scientific theory based solely upon a strict logical/mathematical deduction. The logically deductive basis of time�s relativity purports to reveal universal, necessary, and certain truths about the reality of the physical world of natural phenomena and is, therefore, supposedly able to tell us what the world is in reality, contrary to how the world appears to us in our experience of the world.
Although rather technical, the theory of relativity provides us with our best example of the differences between the modern scientific view of the world and the religious/theological/biblical view of the world. In this case, the modern scientific view of time has no correspondence to the world, and is such an abstraction of intellectual-play that it is almost totally without meaning for us. The theological/biblical view of time does, however, correspond to our commonsense perception of time, so much so that even the physicists themselves, as Davies tells us, live out their lives as if time were not relative: �In appropriating time for themselves, and abstracting it into a stark mathematical parameter, physicists have robbed it of much of its human content. The physicist will usually say, �Ours is the real time�and all that there really is��and then go about his or her work and daily life immersed in the complexities of human [commonsense] time like everyone else.�81
Time is objective motion perceived by the subjective human consciousness, it is not the physical (material) characteristic of spacetime that the physicists imagine it to be. Rather than thinking of time and space as the background in which matter, motion, and conscious human experience exist, physicists today think of time as having physical (material) reality, so that they can to do the mathematical calculations required of relativistic physics: �Space and time, as it turns out, are not simply �there� as an unchanging backdrop to nature; they are physical things, mutable and malleable, and, no less than matter, subject to physical laws.�82
But thinking of time as if it had physical reality does not make time physically real. Does time have an ontological reality? Because time exists as motion or change perceived it does exist, it has reality, it has being; but time has no physical or material reality. Einstein�s theory of relativity is shot-through with the subjective perceptual view points and perspectives of conscious observers who make their observations from within particular frames of reference. The theoretical basis of time�s relativity is based upon the perspectival perceptual experiences of individual human observers: the constancy of the velocity of light (=c) as perceived and experienced by individual conscious observers; and, acceleration (=force) as perceived and experienced by individual conscious observers from within their own particular frames of reference.
As we�ve already seen, the basis of modern science is the scientist�s subjective experience of the objective world, and the two�objective and subjective�can never truly be separated. The subjective and the objective continually work-together in order to provide us with a coherent view of the world; the two working-together provide us with the only true reality we will ever experience: the subjective-objective reality of the world as we experience the world, as we live in the world, and as the world appears to us.
Relative time is individual time, whereas absolute time is public time: in relativity theory, time is relative to the individual; time can only be considered absolute when space is public. The theory is called relativity because there is no agreed upon public background of time and space: individual observers making individual observations from within their own individual reference frames are granted superiority over the public time of the human community as we experience time within the only reference frame of which we are ever aware: our world.
Time is not only a matter of objective motion and subjective perception working-together, time is also a matter of the agreement of the human community concerning what standard of time will be used by the community, as well as how such a standard of time is to be used by the community on a practical basis. But of course any standard besides that of the velocity of light (c) is anathema to relativity theory; but then maybe that�s the problem with relativity theory.
The theory of time�s relativity purports to give us universal, necessary, and certain knowledge of the physical universe by way of deductive mathematical reasoning and idealized thought experiment. Yet the basis of the relativistic conception of time is radically individualistic, and what it actually provides us with is a conception of time that is particular rather than universal; contingent rather than necessary; and uncertain rather than certain. There are no privileged reference frames in relativity theory from which we can determine the correct time: everything depends upon the individual observer�s perspective, and all individual time perspectives are equally valid even though they differ between individuals.
There does, however, exist one universal, certain, and necessary reference frame we can take as a basis for time that is absolute: the earth, the world we live in. If time means anything at all it means that we�as a community�can agree upon what time it is. In truth, although the relativity theorists say that all individual times are equally valid, they do in fact assert which perception of time is more valid than others: the one experiencing the (theoretically required) relativistic time dilation. If this were not the case then time would be absolute and not relative, and the only valid time would be the absolute time of our earth-based perspective.
According to relativity theory the closer one approaches the velocity of light the greater the time and distance distortion. This is why (theoretically) someone who has travelled at nearly light speed could travel such great distances in such short periods of time: both the time and the distance of their journey is much shorter than we would measure it to be from the earth. Relativity theory, tied as it is to its geometrical conception of spacetime, tells us that the shortest distance between two points is not always a straight line. In the universe of spacetime, when one travels at nearly the speed of light, the intervals of time lengthen and the measurements of distance contract allowing one to travel vast distances in very brief amounts of time. In fact, at the velocity of light (c) the time distortion becomes infinite (t = 0) and there is no time at all. Theoretically, this same infinity of distortion occurs with distance as well (d = 0) because the measurements of units of length get smaller the closer one approaches the speed of light. It is obvious here that the theory does not correspond to the physical world: if both time and distance equal zero at velocity c then, for all practical purposes, motion has ceased to exist. For example, a photon of light with the velocity c would exist along all points in spacetime and it would not be moving at all. In fact, it is wrong to speak of something as moving through spacetime because motion through space is determined by time, and since relativity theory subsumes time into space we cannot use time twice by speaking of something as though it were moving through spacetime; spacetime is frozen:
�Spacetime is a frozen, unchanging state, and we refer to all its regions in a common tense. It is misleading to say of spacetime that an event has happened, another is happening, and yet another will happen, for all are present and displayed together. It is also misleading to say that an object moves along a worldline from the past to the future, for the object exists simultaneously at all points along the worldline. We must guard our tongues and continually remember that time is already contained within spacetime and cannot be used twice.�83
Ever since the time of Descartes and Galileo, modern science has represented time as a frozen curve (i.e., a worldline) on a space-time graph making time appear as another dimension so that it can be used mathematically and scientifically. Relativity theory treats this abstract spatialization of time as if it were a physically real spacetime continuum, complete with physically real time dilations. But the real problem is not just with relativity theory�s time dilations, it�s the much larger problem of: How could modern science more properly represent time as we experience time in-the-world without combining it into space?
Motion, time, space, mass, and measurement; these are the concepts Einstein thought about, and these are the fundamental concepts that all theoretical physicists should be thinking about. If these concepts are to have any meaning to us at all, then we will have to define these terms and hold to these definitions as a community (just as communities of scientists do in order to do science). Relativity theory redefines time, space, and the measurement thereof, all measurements of spacetime are keyed to the speed of light (c) and, as such, the theory of relativity approaches some potentially true information about the behavior of the electromagnetic phenomenon we know as light, but we should not allow this light velocity-based standard of measurement to redefine our commonsense definitions of space, time, motion, and measurement.
If standards of measurement are required by relativity theory to change depending on motion, velocity, observational perspective, and proximity to dense concentrations of matter/energy, then it�s no wonder that relativity theory has no privileged reference frame by which to judge all such measurements; it truly is relativistic. Of course the theory of relativity also says that within each observer�s frame of reference the laws of physics apply for everyone, and that all measurements made by individual observers within their reference frame use the same standard measurements. It�s only when different observers in different reference frames compare notes with one another that they find discrepancies in their respective observations and measurements, due to the peculiarities of the spacetime continuum. And these discrepancies, according to relativity, are (supposedly) caused by the effects of high velocity and high gravitational situations upon the results of the measurements and observations made by observers who are in uniform motion relative to one another.
Relativity theory�s conception of time is contrary to our commonsense perception of time and it has no correspondence to the reality of time as we experience time in-the-world. In fact, Einstein�s theory is only applicable to situation of extremely high velocities and in regions of extremely high gravity; Newton�s physics remain valid in all other situations. Relativity theorists acknowledge that our commonsense notion of time (as past, present, and future) are contradicted by relativity, yet it is far more than just our commonsense notion of time that is contradicted by relativity, our intellectual conceptualizations of the nature of space, time, and motion are also contradicted by relativity theory, because the theory postulates the physically reality of the spacetime continuum.
It should be no surprise to us that Galileo�s equation (V = d/t) for determining the velocities of moving objects in the physical world does not work when one attempts (as Einstein did) to replace velocity (V) in the equation with the astronomical value (300,000 kilometers per second) of the velocity of light (c). How could it? This was never the purpose for the equation. The purpose for the equation was to determine velocity, not to see what results the equation would produce when the value of the velocity (V) was preset as a constant with an astronomical value (c). When Einstein did this, he realized that both time (t) and distance (d) must be allowed to change; but time is not simply a value in an equation that one can necessarily change at will�especially if the results don�t correspond to the physical world. Time, in the physical world (which is what physics studies) does not become spacetime and dilate simply because the mathematics of an equation seems to demand that it do so. Needless to say, time and space are in no way relative in the world as-it-appears to us: both are absolute.
I think it�s time for physics and the physicists to come back down to earth. Relativity theory is good in that it tells us something about what happens in physics if we assume the speed of light as a constant, but that�s about as far as it goes. In yielding infinities (as it does) the theory cannot claim any correspondence to the physical world, because there are no mathematical infinities in the physical world. I think it�s illegitimate for physicists to speak as though the theory corresponds to the world, or worse yet, to claim that the physical world must correspond to the theory (even though it doesn�t appear to) simply because the mathematics are correct. The geometry of a four dimensional spacetime continuum may be interesting intellectual-play for physicists and mathematicians, as are the current multi-dimensional spacetimes of string theory, but they are physically unimaginable, without correspondence to the world, and have little-to-no application to the physical world of objective reality that we can perceive.84
It should not surprise us that a theory based upon individual observer�s subjective perceptions (of other observers in motion) made from within their own individual reference frames should yield relativistic results. If time in physics is anything, it needs to be agreed upon as an objective unchanging standard of measurement; the type of measurement needed in order to study the physical world. Physicists need to bring time and space, distance and motion, back to the objective physical reality of the world and move beyond what has, I think, become an out-dated paradigm based upon the subjective perspectives of imaginary observers.
Galileo�s theories of relativity (i.e., velocity and the addition of velocities) corresponds to the world universally (i.e., for everyone), but I think that allowing Einstein�s (non-world corresponding and unimaginable) subjective individual perceptions, observations, and conceptions of space and time to determine the objective physical reality of time and space universally is simply not good science. Einstein�s relativity theory no longer functions as a good paradigm by which we can make sense of the physical world in which we live, and I think we would do better to focus upon what we do know about the physical world instead of trying to make the physical world conform to our intellectual-play conceptualizations of the world. As theoretical physicist Lee Smolin has recently put it to his fellow physicists:
�I believe there is something basic we are all missing, some wrong assumption we are making�What could that wrong assumption be? My guess is that it is two things: the foundations of quantum mechanics and the nature of time�We have to find a way to unfreeze time�to represent time without turning it into space�85
So what should the physicists do? Lee Smolin tells us what he plans to do: �I�m going to�erase the blackboard, get out some good chalk, open a new notebook, take out my favorite pen, sit down, and start thinking�86
Conclusion
As we conclude this study of three examples of contrasting and conflicting views of the world, we will examine what they have shown us about how we perceive our world according to the different frameworks we have chosen to help us understand our experience of the world and how well these frameworks serve us in living out our daily lives.
By now it should be obvious that, although I am not anti-science, neither do I believe that the modern scientific way of viewing our world is superior to the religious, biblical, and theological way of viewing of the world. The reason for this is that I consider our existence in-the-world to be both phenomenological and theological. I think our Creator made the world with us in mind, and that the world appears to us as it does for a reason: so that we can live in the world, and, more than this, I believe that our Creator made the world in order to communicate to us truths about himself through the world as-it-appears to us in order for us to come to know him.
If we view the world from the perspective of modern science we often get just the opposite impression: there is no Creator, there are many worlds (universes) and we are just lucky enough to exist in a universe that is conducive to the formation of the laws of physics, the organization of matter/energy, and the evolution of non-living matter/energy into complex life. To modern science, our existence is simply the luck of the draw: given enough time and probability we would have appeared somewhere, eventually, and since we are here this must be exactly the way it happened (the possibility of a Creator being out of the question).
In short, modern science tells us that the world appears to us as it does for no particular reason, other than: that�s just the way things are in a world (universe) such as ours. This is the reductionist view of the world adopted by many popular science writers as well as by many atheists, who, in fact, are not atheistic but antitheistic: to them there is no need and no place for God; and the people who adopt a religious, theological or biblical view of the world are seen as uneducated fundamentalists who are burying their heads in the sands of an outdated religion by ignoring the proven facts of modern science that, if seen, would shatter their ignorant prescientific belief system.
I think science should be epistemologically and methodologically naturalistic, but that science should not be philosophically naturalistic. Science properly seeks only natural explanations for natural phenomena, and science should not attempt to answer every cosmological question (especially questions of origins) naturalistically as if matter/energy is all that exists, and as if science must be able to provide a naturalistic and materialistic explanation for everything.
For example, the very existence of the cosmos itself is beyond any scientific explanation; all scientific explanations for the existence of the cosmos are simply unproven and unfalsifiable naturalistic hypotheses. For science to attempt to answer every cosmological question with a philosophically naturalistic answer is simply a vain attempt by science to prove that it knows everything. But, the truth is, there are just some things about the world that science can never explain.
We have examined three views of the world wherein the modern scientific view conflicts with the biblical and religious view: the geocentric and heliocentric views of the world, the creationist and evolutionist views of life, as well as the absolute and relative views of time. Let�s now briefly summarize what we have discovered about these views, think about why they are so contradictory, and reflect upon how we should evaluate their practical usefulness in our day-to-day experience of living in-the-world.
Phenomenologically, the geocentric view of the world corresponds to the view of the world as we perceive it, and (phenomenologically) we can consider this perceptually-based view to be just as true-for-us as is the modern scientific view. The Bible presents the world to us as the world is perceived by us and this is not simply a prescientific view of the world, this is the view of the world that humankind has always had, and always will have. The Bible should not be seen as outdated but as being more relevant to us than we have ever imagined (being as up to date as it is with a philosophical system as recently developed as phenomenology).
Theologically, because of the perceptually-based view humankind has, the world is perceived geocentrically, and it is understood as having been created as a home for living beings of all sorts: the Creator made the world in such a way that all creatures could live their lives in-the-world as the occupants of a world-home. This view of the world sees the world as central, because the world is the only context within which we live and it is the only perspective from which we can perceive and make sense of the universe around us.
The scientific discovery of the sun�s not orbiting the earth, but rather the earth�s orbiting the sun, led many people to conclude that our world was only one of a multitude of similar worlds revolving around a myriad of sun/stars in the infinite vastness of the visible universe. This view (quite naturally) led many thinking people to the conclusion that our world and its inhabitants were not the unique creations of the Creator (as the Bible presents us to be) and modern science was on its way to proving that space/time and matter/energy were all that exists, and that all appearances of design in the world are attributable only to natural laws and processes.
This way of thinking led Darwin to conclude that, given enough time, life must have evolved from a common simple ancestor into the myriad diversity of complex forms found in the world. Modern evolutionary biology claims the combination of time, space, matter, energy, and physical law is all that was necessary for complex life to have developed from non-living matter/energy. Modern cosmology confirms this by telling us space/time and matter/energy emerged only by natural and physical processes, eventually developing into the universe in which we exist. Accordingly, modern cosmology also asserts that our universe is likely only one of many universes: the universe we live in is not one uniquely created for us by our Creator, rather the universe exists because, of the billions of universes (theoretically) in existence, it was probable one universe (ours) would exist that was conducive to the development of complex life.
However, for all of our scientific advancements, there is little proof that these scientific theories (or hypotheses) are correct. It turns out that the universe is not heliocentric, no other worlds with complex life have ever been found, and no process has ever been discovered that leads non-organic matter/energy to develop into complex living organisms.
Modern scientific cosmology is unable to discover any universes other than the one universe we know, and yet modern science continues to put forward the notion of multiple universes, despite the fact that it not possible to discover them. Much of modern scientific theorizing about the cosmos is based upon faith (not unlike a religious faith) in space/time and matter/energy as all that ever was, is, and ever shall be.
All of this leads me to conclude that we should focus upon what we know, and what we know is our experience of the world. I agree that the earth moves about the sun, but what practical knowledge does this modern scientific truth provide for me? I perceive the sun to move across the sky and this perception of the sun�s movement gives a sense of order and regularity (i.e., time) to my existence in-the-world. It is this phenomenological sense of time that I depend upon to live my life in-the-world, not the modern scientific knowledge of the earth�s rotation and orbit around the sun. The appearance of the stability of the world and the motion of the sun is more real, more in accord with my experience of the world, and of much more practical value than is the theory of Copernicus.
I don�t think that life has evolved from non-living matter/energy, and my conscious experience of how the world appears to me gives me no indication that life has ever evolved in such a way. I experience the world as I find the world appearing to me, and not as it may have once been. It is living in-the-world that binds me inextricably to all other living beings, and I belong to the community of life in-the-world. It matters very little in a practical, everyday sense, how we got here; what matters is how we choose to live our lives having now found ourselves to be alive and in-the-world.
Modern science tells us time and space is (physically) one thing: spacetime can warp and dilate at extremely high velocities and in vicinities of extremely high gravity. Yet nothing even approaching these situations will ever be present to my experience of living in-the-world. Relativity is a helpful mathematical tool for doing calculations, but it does not present us with a true picture of the reality of time and space. In my thinking, time is simply motion (or change) perceived, and this is my way (as a human person) of making sense of a world of phenomena that is continually in motion about me every moment of my existence. Scientific speculations about time dilation have no impact on my day-to-day existence, and yet if I allow this theory of time dilation to impact my thinking, I have begun to allow an abstract intellectual-play world to replace the concrete world of my lived-experience.
The bottom line is: Are we allowing abstract, intellectual-play, modern scientific theories to replace our lived-experience of being-in-the-world? How do we perceive the world? Do we perceive the world through the eyes of modern science, which defines reality as the unperceived causes behind our experience of phenomena and which gives rise to the appearances of phenomena? Or do we perceive the world through our own perceptions and experiences of living-in-the-world, as the world of phenomena appear to us? Is the Bible outdated because of the many discoveries that have been made by modern science? Is the Bible�s worldview prescientific and therefore outmoded? Or is the biblical worldview phenomenological, and therefore just as relevant for those of us today as it was for ancient peoples? Modern science itself cannot escape from the subjective experience of objective phenomena. No matter how hard a scientist may try to discover the objective fundamental elements of reality underlying and giving rise to phenomena (e.g., quarks), the scientist�s (indirect) perceptions of these fundamental elements is still an experience of a phenomenon, a phenomenon that is experienced by the subjective human consciousness of the scientist herself. It�s not so much a question of who can define reality and who can�t; it�s more a question of which definition of reality is the best and why?
The next chapter deals with phenomenology, theology, and the Bible; and although we�ve already seen much of what both phenomenology and the Bible have to say about our experience of the world, we have also focused more in the previous chapters upon how modern science views the world. Modern science, as beneficial and as practical as its many contributions to society certainly are to us, is, due to its very nature as a certain kind of knowledge, unable to provide us with ethical guidance. Let�s turn now to a phenomenological/theological exploration of the Bible and see whether or not the Bible�s view of the world is able to assist us in answering one of the most important questions of all: How are we to live in the world?
Working Toward a Theology of Appearances
In the previous chapters we have been examining how we think about and how we perceive (or view) the world; in this chapter we will examine how the world both appears and presents itself to our conscious lived-experience. And we�ll also be taking a much closer look at how this presentation of the world is interpreted by the conceptual schemes of phenomenology, modern science, and (most especially) the Bible. Our purpose will be to make use of the phenomenological paradigm in order to construct the beginnings of a theology of appearances.
The Bible, through its own interpretive framework, presents the world to us in the way we experience the world to be: as-it-appears to us. There are several reasons for why this is the case, and I believe there are three particular reasons for why the Bible presents the world to us this way: 1) this is the way the world appears to our senses; 2) perceiving the world through our senses is the way our Creator enabled us to live in the world; and 3) Our Creator communicates truths about himself to us through the appearances of phenomena.
Perhaps the most common explanation for why the Bible does not present the world to us in the way we (today) know the world to be in reality (i.e., as defined by modern science) is because the Bible was written by-and-for prescientific people. People before the advent of modern science could not have known the correct (=modern scientific) way to view and interpret the phenomena of the world, and they could not have known the objective scientific reality underlying our subjective experience of phenomena. The question then naturally arises: Why did God�who inspired the authors of the biblical books and who knows the truth�communicate to us, through the Bible, information about the world that is scientifically false? Certainly the Creator must have always known about the motion of the earth, and yet he communicated to us (through the biblical text) information about the world that was scientifically false: the motion of the sun and the stationary earth. The common explanation for this is to say that the Bible was written by prescientific people who knew nothing about the scientific truths of the world; therefore their �god� was as ignorant as they were about the reality of the phenomena of the world they perceived.
The most common religious/theological response to this sort of explanation is to say that God certainly knew the scientific truths about the cosmos, yet he was unable to communicate these truths to prescientific people, because they had no modern scientific knowledge of the true reality of the world. My contention is that this type of response is inadequate. I think this situation is best understood by realizing that the world of appearances�the way we perceive and experience the world of phenomena�was the same for prescientific peoples as it is for us today. In short, our Creator presents the world to us through the biblical text as the world appears to us, because this has always been, now is, and always will be, the way the world appears to humankind�whether it be in prescientific times, modern scientific times, or at any time in the future. An example: For those of us now living in the era of modern science, the sun appears to be moving across the sky just as the sun appeared to be moving across the sky to prescientific peoples. Despite the modern scientific knowledge of the earth�s motion making it appear as though the sun were moving across the sky, this apparent motion of the sun is the way the world appears to us. There is as much truth to the subjective apparent fact of the sun�s motion as there is to the objective scientific fact of the earth�s motion.
There are no bare, isolated, or uninterpreted facts: all facts are interpreted facts. Facts about the world of phenomena are always situated within conceptual schemes that impose meaning upon those facts. Conceptual schemes allow us to place the facts into a broader over-all context of meaning in order for us to make sense of them. Facts do not exist in isolation; facts exist in contexts. The question we should be asking ourselves is: Which context, which conceptual scheme, makes the best sense of the facts? The Bible presents the phenomena of the world to us in the same manner as we ourselves perceive and experience those phenomena: the world appears to us the same as it appeared to prescientific people. Modern science presents the world of phenomena to us in a way that is often contrary to our perceptual experience of the world, often telling us to ignore our perceived experience of the world in order to truly know the world in reality (i.e., that which exists behind, beneath, or beyond the appearances of phenomena).
To modern science, reality is the fundamental matter/energy that�according to natural laws and processes�gives rise to the appearances of phenomena. Modern science often says that we cannot trust our senses to perceive the reality of the world, and yet what is more real to us: phenomena as-they-appear to us (e.g., people, clouds, trees, rivers) or the matter/energy of which these phenomena ultimately consist, but that we are not able to perceive (e.g., molecules, atoms, quarks, leptons)?
The scientific quest to lift the veil of appearances in order to reveal the true reality of phenomena is a somewhat misguided quest. Science should proceed in its quest to gain knowledge of the world and its phenomena, but science is not the sole authority regarding the definition of reality. Phenomena are much more than simply the sums of their parts, and appearances are much more than just illusory veils needing to be lifted: the world of phenomena�as-they-appear to us�is the only reality we will ever experience. The world we live in�the world our Creator brought into existence�is not simply an objective world of matter/energy, and neither is it simply a subjective world of conscious experience. Our world is both objective and subjective: in our lived-experience of the world we perceive the objective and subjective aspects of the world always working-together (synergizing) in order to give us real, true, practical knowledge of the world.
Certainly the Creator of the world knows what the world is, he knows how the world appears to us, and he knows the underlying mechanics of the world he brought into being. Our Creator-God has not communicated false knowledge of the world to us through the biblical text; our Creator�s presentation of the world to us through the Bible is the true perception of the real world. What we have in the Bible is an accurate picture of the world that our Creator brought into being: a world of objective phenomena together with the conscious beings endowed with the ability to subjectively perceive the objective phenomena of the world. What our Creator has brought into being is: a world perceived.
Our Creator made the world as our environment, as our living space, similar to the way in which we ourselves would construct a home for our family to dwell in. God created the phenomena of the world to be perceived by conscious beings, and these phenomena are created to be perceived as-they-appear to conscious beings. We live in-and-through the world subjectively, perceiving and experiencing the objective phenomena of the world: sun, moon, stars, clouds, rain, trees, animals, people, family, friends, and ultimately, ourselves. We perceive everything in the world by way of our senses: our conscious human experience of living and being-in-the-world. Only the world as it is lived in-and-through our life-experience has any real meaning for us. From the beginning of the world this was our Creator�s intention: The creation of the objective world was not finished until conscious beings, made in the image and likeness of their Creator, were created, capable of subjectively perceiving the world as-it-appeared to their conscious experience of living in-the-world: �So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them�Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them� (Genesis 1:27; 2:1; emphasis added).
It is this synergy of objective and subjective that is missing from so much of modern science. Too often, modern science presents us with what it considers to be the true (i.e., objective scientific) facts about the world, portraying this reductionist definition of fact as if it were the only valid explanation of reality. Most often, these scientific facts concern the unexperienced causes of phenomena we readily perceive by way of our conscious experience of living in-the-world. This type of scientific knowledge can be a helpful and practical knowledge of an unseen reality that does exist in the world (e.g., unseen conditions revealed by a medical x-ray, CAT scan, or MRI), but this type of knowledge can also be an unhelpful and impractical type of intellectual-play pseudo-knowledge of the world (e.g., the theory of evolution, theoretical relativistic time dilations, or multiple universes).
Modern science claims to give us universal, necessary, and certain knowledge of our world, and when this is practical and applicable knowledge (and it works) there is virtually no controversy regarding it (except when it comes to the ethical uses of technology, which is no small problem). But when, for example, modern science attempts to extrapolate its theories back into the distant past in a quest to discover the cosmological origins of the universe, it is only presenting us with a quasi-religious mythical view of the world�a view many intelligent people choose to believe, rather than believing in the biblical and religious view). Today the biblical/religious view of the world is thought of as unbelievable by modern, intelligent, educated people because we have true (scientific) knowledge of the world and we no longer have need of the old religious myths.
Because of the true good that modern science has done, and because of the many advances that modern science has made, we have granted to modern science the status of ultimate authority: modern science has become the official interpreter of the world and the only trustworthy expositor of reality. As we have already seen, many modern people who are familiar with the biblical view of the world consider it to be false in light of modern scientific truth. It seems obvious (to many intelligent people) that the Bible�s view of the world was simply the view of the world had by its authors, who described the world in the only way they could describe it�by way of a prescientific conceptual scheme, the only intellectual framework available to them at the time.
On the other hand, the many intelligent people who believe in the divine inspiration of the biblical text are obliged to defend the biblical description of the world and to explain why it does not correspond to the reality of the world as defined by modern science. Only the dominant and prevailing influence of modern science in our society could have given rise to these sorts of opinions concerning the biblical text. For centuries the readers of the biblical text had no need to explain why it was that the biblical view of the world did not correspond to reality because reality corresponded to the biblical presentation of the world: the world was perceived to be�in reality�just as it appeared to people.
For most of us�either consciously or unconsciously�modern science determines what is and what is not real or true about the world. And more often than not, we allow modern science to order, arrange, and interpret the scientific facts about the world into a grand overarching conceptual scheme by which we can make sense of the facts and understand the world as a whole (i.e., as a universe/cosmos). Modern science doesn�t just give us the facts, it gives us an overall view of the cosmos: a grand story (or metanarrative) providing us with the context necessary for these facts to be interpreted properly (i.e., scientifically). The facts about the world are not seen as random, neutral bits of knowledge, but as pieces of a puzzle that, when assembled according to the modern scientific interpretive scheme, begin to resemble the picture of the world that modern science presents to us as being the only true picture of the world. Not unlike the words of a text properly strung together in order to tell a great story, the facts of modern science, when creatively strung together, find their proper places in the great world-story (or cosmic narrative) told to us by modern science.
Modern science tells us the story of how the universe came into existence, the story of how the earth was formed, the story of how life arose on earth, and the story of what the world�s end will be. However, this type of grand storytelling (or metanarrative construction) does not really belong to the physical sciences at all; this is metaphysics (or beyond physics). Scientists don�t know how the universe came into existence, they don�t know how life came to exist in the world, and they don�t know how the world will end. But scientists, like the rest of us, need more than just the bare facts; they, too, need stories to explain why the world is here, what the world�s purpose is, and where the world is going.
Modern science is out of its epistemological area of expertise when it constructs narratives explaining the origins, purpose, and meaning of the world, because the construction of narratives with explanatory power on this cosmic a scale is the province of metaphysics and religion. It�s no coincidence that the so-called �war between science and religion� began when modern science was seen as having a better explanatory story of the cosmos than did religion. Such stories have little to do with the facts about the world (although the facts must be fitted into the stories), they have much more to do with the power of myth-making and story-telling itself, because myth-making�whether scientific or religious�is inescapable; as Mary Midgley tells us: �We have a choice of what myths, what visions we will use to help us understand the physical world. We do not have a choice of understanding it without using any myths or visions at all.�88
The myriad phenomena of world present themselves to our consciously perceived lived-experience of being-in-the-world, and the Bible is telling us that this presentation of phenomenal appearances is a revelational text written to us by our Creator in a phenomenal language of appearances. The problem, as postmodern philosophy teaches us, is that we cannot interpret any text from a neutral perspective: there is no neutrality. We are unable to approach a text from a neutral perspective because we always bring certain presuppositions with us when we approach any text. These presuppositions influence our interpretation of a text and our interpretation of a text leads us to our understanding of a text. And the text of the phenomena of the world is no different: all of us interpret the world according to the presuppositions we have concerning what the world is.
Neutrality is presupposed by modern science, and neutrality was also the most important (yet unexamined) presupposition of the (supposedly) neutral, objective, and rational historical period known as the Enlightenment. The idea that neutrality is not possible for us is not a modern concept at all: it�s a postmodern one. All of us have presuppositions which influence our thinking, and the fact that there is no neutrality is an important truth that philosophers have only recently come to realize. We all need to identify our presuppositions in order to gain at least some measure of neutrality while at the same time realizing that total neutrality is never possible for us.
What presuppositions do we, as twenty-first century people, bring with us when we perceive the world? Do we view the world as modern science tells us we should view it? Do we view the world as the Bible tells us we should view it? Do we attempt to somehow harmonize these two distinctly different views of the world? Have we become so familiar with the world that we don�t really give much thought to how the world presents itself to us? What would the world look like if we made an honest attempt to lay aside our presuppositions and attempt to see the world as-it-appears to us? I think we�d be rather surprised at what we would see.
The biblical way of seeing the world is a view of the world wherein the phenomena of the world are seen as symbolizing various aspects and qualities of our Creator. God created the world symbolically, so that, through our perceptions of these phenomenal world-symbols, we might gain knowledge of our Creator: �The universe and everything in it symbolizes God. That is, the universe and everything in it points to God. This means that the Christian view of the world is�and can only be�fundamentally symbolic. The world does not exist for its own sake, but as a revelation of God.�89
Why does the world appear to us in the way that it does? What is the sky telling us? What does a river tell us? What is a tree telling us? Are these objective phenomena simply physical objects we should be studying�reducing them to their bare objective physicality as modern science does? Are their atomic, chemical, or cellular structures what these phenomena are in reality? Or could the way these phenomena present themselves to our consciousness�the way they appear to us�be what they really are?
As we saw above, the Bible tells us God created these phenomena as a way of communicating to us the revelation of his glory; our Creator has fashioned the world as an expression of his very self (his being). As we also saw above, the creation of the world was not considered complete (i.e., finished) until human beings existed who were able to perceive the world: the objective world was created in order to be subjectively perceived. God eternally experiences the subjective perception his own objective being as well as the objective physical world; similarly, we also experience the subjective perception of our own objective being as well as the objective physical world. As the revelation of God our Creator, the world in its entirety�all of God�s creation�is a dynamic mediation of our Creator�s presence to us. The world can therefore be seen as a sacrament and, as Terence Nichols explains, �seen sacramentally, nature is a sacred cosmos, for anything that mediates God�s presence is sacred.�90 When we begin to view the world and its phenomena as a sacred text we will begin to realize that the text of the world (seen as a cosmic metanarrative) is telling us something about our Creator. Nichols, again, explains: �Because each type of creature reflects only a very limited aspect of God, the fullness of God�s goodness and beauty is best represented by the whole array of creatures and creation.�91
Theological speculation about the nature of God�s being, substance, or essence is just as off-the-mark as is modern scientific speculation about the nature of the elementary particles, which make up the being, substance, or essence of the phenomena of the world. The world itself has never existed objectively without its also being perceived subjectively: the world exists as an existential, co-relational, dynamic existence of objective/subjective reality. Much like postmodern literary theory would tell us about a written text, the world presents its text to us as a phenomenal world-text open to interpretation by the readers of that text.
The text of the world is not limited to only one correct interpretation, there are many interpretations of the world�some interpretations being better than others�but the text itself is what it is and we cannot alter it; we can only attempt to interpret it. Not only are we unable to alter this word-text, we also find ourselves (as symbols of God) embedded within the text of the world. Our Creator has given to us the responsibility of reading, properly interpreting, and living according to the biblical text. And in order to do so we must place the biblical text within the ultimate context of the Author of the biblical text: our Creator. Likewise, as Nichols tells us, the text of the world�in order to be properly interpreted�needs to be placed within the larger, ultimate context of our Creator himself: �By itself, nature is a text that is ambiguous and not fully explicable�Nature only really makes sense if understood as existing within a larger context: God, the ultimate context of both nature and human life.�92
We can begin to unpack this concept of the world-as-text by thinking of our perceptions of the world on a basic level: our very existence as people who live in-the-world. On a perceptual level, our existence is very brief; especially in comparison to the most fundamental phenomena commonly experienced by us throughout our lives. For example, the earth and sky are seemingly eternal when compared to individual human lives, societies, nations, and empires.
We are all too well aware of the fact that everyone who has ever lived, every society that has ever been formed, and every empire that has ever ruled is nothing in comparison to the ageless phenomena of earth and sky. People, societies, and empires are like vapors; and like the mist of the morning, so easily dispersed by the heat of the rising sun, they all fade away. The phenomena of both earth and sky are fundamental to our basic perception of the world, because together they provide the context and background for our perception of all other phenomena. The earth and sky together are not unlike a stage with its backdrop of scenery�a platform of existence�whereupon our experience of life lived in-the world takes place.
We are very conscious of the brevity of life (those we love soon pass away) and yet we perceive the sun, moon, and stars to remain�unchanged. Even the earth, with its hills, mountains, rivers, and valleys appears to be a changeless witness to our brief stay upon its surface: �A generation goes, and a generation comes, but the earth remains forever� (Ecclesiastes 1:4). But what are the appearances of the phenomena earth and sky telling us? And how should we interpret these most fundamental portions of the text of the world?
What of our own part? Immersed, as we are, within the text of the world? What can we discover about ourselves? Are we content to reduce everything to subatomic structures or chemical compounds? Are such reductions the only true explanations of what the world is in reality? Are we content to accept modern scientific explanations, such as the big bang theory, for how the world came to exist? Or will a grander narrative begin to reveal itself to us if we will take the time (and make the effort) to understand the story our Creator is telling us through the text of the world?
The truth of the brevity of our lives in comparison to earth and sky is a truth we realize simply by observing the world as-it-appears to us. A totally presuppositionless perception of the world is not possible for us, but regardless of the presuppositions we may have, it is impossible for us to be dissuaded from the fact that�when we look at the world�our lives appear to be very brief in comparison to the enduring phenomena of earth and sky. Our presuppositions are unable to affect, to any great extent, this overwhelming experiential and observational truth.
It is evident to us that the heavens are proclaiming the glory of God because no other phenomena in the world are, from an appearance-based observational perspective, more eternal and unchanging than are the sky, sun, moon, and stars. We know that generations of people have lived, loved, and died under the ceaseless watch of these magnificent heavenly bodies. The earth and sky are proclaiming to us the eternal nature of our Creator by symbolizing and representing to us (visually) the eternity of God.
In the first chapter of Genesis, God creates light and separates the light from darkness (Genesis 1:4-5); the day is ruled by the light of the sun and the night is ruled by the light of the moon (Genesis 1:14-18). The sun, with the light and warmth it provides, makes it the most life-sustaining phenomenon we perceive. The appearance of the sun has often led people to conclude that the sun is the most god-like phenomenon in the world. The sun is the most visibly powerful phenomenon in the world, and apart from its life-sustaining warmth all life on earth would cease to exist. Because the sun has these god-like qualities, we can easily imagine how prescientific peoples would have developed a cult of sun worship. The biblical view of the sun, however, is one wherein the sun is perceived as a mediator of God�s person and presence to us as a powerful symbol of our Creator. Our Creator gives us life, he sustains us, and the sun, likewise, sustains us: the sun represents the life-giving and life-sustaining attributes of our Creator.
In the creation account of Genesis we read of how God separated the light from the darkness and of how he set the sun, moon, and stars within the firmament of the sky (i.e., the heavens). In so doing, our Creator is setting in motion the backdrop of our existentially perceived experience of living in-the-world. First, the heavens and the earth are created, and then the sun, moon, and stars are created and set in their regular motions, which gave those creatures with the ability to consciously perceive the world (i.e., animals and humankind) a sense of regular order and time: �And God said, �Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years�� (Genesis 1:14). This regularity of the light of day and the darkness of night enable those creatures with the ability to consciously perceive the world the ability to function in the world: the light of day providing conscious beings with a life of wakefulness and activity, and the darkness of night providing them with a period of rest and inactivity.
The Bible presents the world to us as having been created in such a way as to be conducive to the lived-experiences of conscious beings dependent upon sense perceptions. From our sense-dependent perception of the world, our world appears to us exactly as the Bible depicts it: as a suitable environment in which to exist (as embodied beings) and as a home to dwell in. Our world is the text in which we live, its various phenomena providing us with the context of our existence, and their appearances guiding us toward a fuller understanding of the ultimate context of our existence: our Creator-God. That order and regularity are imposed by God upon the world communicates to us the knowledge that we have been fully enabled by our Creator to live our embodied existences in-the-world. We are able to gain knowledge of our Creator through the order of the world, and through this same sense of order we are also enabled to gain knowledge (i.e., science) of the world. Without order and regularity, scientific knowledge would not be possible. And if this order is not imposed upon the world by our Creator, then where could this order have come from?
Both the conscious experiences of our sense perceptions and our ability to reason are necessary to our being able to live-out our existential experience of being in-the-world; therefore we should not allow either (perception or reason) to take pre-eminence over the other. As conscious, rational, and emotional beings we are the most god-like of all creatures; our Creator having made us in his own image: �So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them� (Genesis 1:27). Of all the many symbols embedded within the text of the world, humankind is the best representative symbol of God. In the biblical passage quoted above, we should note that the creation of �man� is, in fact, the creation of humankind (i.e., the creation of both male and female). The best representative symbol of our Creator is humankind; the two�male and female�are the best expression of the one Creator�s image and likeness.
The separation of humankind into the two categories of male and female points up the obvious differences between the two, and yet it is only in the existence of both male and female that we are enabled to understand God as one, and humankind as a unified whole. Our Creator is best represented by the particular characteristics of both male and female when seen as one. The separation of humankind into male and female is similar to our separation of the objective (male) and the subjective (female) aspects of how we think about the world. The two are not radically different, but are simply two different aspects of the one, common, human experience of being and living in-the-world. They should be seen as unified�as working-together and as existing in synergy�providing us with a true, balanced, and holistic knowledge of the world and of the world�s Creator. And these aspects of our existential human experience also represent the eternal synergy of our Creator�s existential and experiential (subjective) perception of his own (objective) self.
Our human existence is an embodied existence; therefore it�s difficult for us to imagine ourselves as living purely intellectual or purely spiritual lives. Life�as we know it�is embodied life. We are not simply embodied intellects, nor are we simply bodies that think; we are our bodies, but we are also more than our bodies. When our body dies, we die, and our life�as we know it�ceases to exist. Our life is to light what darkness is to death: life is activity in the light and death is inactivity in the darkness. Our waking life is actively conducted in the light, but our sleeping life, conducted in the darkness, is not completely inactive. Although the body is resting, the mind remains active and continues to live-out its embodied physical existence virtually in our dreams. And whether it be during our conscious waking life, or during our unconscious dream life, it is the sun (or the light) illuminating the myriad phenomena of the world by revealing them to our senses and enabling us to perceive them as phenomena.
Our sun is the preeminent visual phenomenon of our world, and without it our world would be visually imperceptible. Light can also be understood as symbolically representing the triune God, and the Gospel of John illustrates this truth for us by drawing an analogy between light and Christ:
�In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God; all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it�The true light that enlightens every man was coming into the world� (John 1:1-5; 9).
The passage quoted above, from the first chapter of John�s gospel, has its source in the first chapter of Genesis:
�In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters. And God said, �Let there be light�; and there was light� (Genesis 1:1-3).
There is clearly an analogy being drawn here between the light that was created �in the beginning� and the Word who is �the light that enlightens every man� who was also �in the beginning.�93 The light spoken of in the Gospel of John is very similar to the light that is spoken into existence by God at the creation. In Genesis, God is not the light, the light is created by God to enlighten the world and to dispel the darkness; and in John�s gospel the light is the Word who enlightens all humankind, �the Word became flesh and dwelt among us full of grace and truth. We have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father� (John 1:14). John�s gospel tells us: �The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it� (1:5); �The true light that enlightens every man was coming into the world� (1:9); �The light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil� (3:19); "For everyone who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed� (3:20).
In John�s gospel Jesus proclaims: �I am the light of the world; he who follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life� (8:12); �As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world� (9:5); �Walk while you have the light, lest the darkness overtake you; he who walks in the darkness does not know where he goes. While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light� (12:35-36); �I have come as light into the world, that whoever believes in me may not remain in darkness� (12:46).
These many allusions to light in John�s gospel are drawn upon the analogous correspondence between Christ and the phenomenon of visible light that we observe in our world. Light is the one phenomenon that makes all other phenomena in the world visible to us. If there were no light, none of the other phenomena in the world would be visible to us. Likewise, apart from the light of Christ we would be groping in the darkness when attempting to understand, relate to, and know our Creator-God. The phenomenon of light is a symbol of Christ: the light we observe in the natural world points us toward the greater truth of God�s Son, Jesus Christ, as the true light who shines both in the world and in our hearts. According to John, it is living the gospel of Christ that delivers us from the darkness of sin and brings us into the true knowledge of God himself:
�God is light and in him is no darkness at all. If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not live according to the truth; but if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness� (1 John 1:5-9).
Here John equates light with truth, and darkness with lies. In the theological sense, apart from the knowledge of the gospel (a knowledge only revealed to us by God), we are living in darkness. Human reason alone cannot lead us to the true knowledge of God. Just as it was �in the beginning� when �darkness was upon the face of the deep� humankind was in darkness until God spoke the light of truth to us through his Son Jesus, the Christ.
The lights of the heavens�the sun, moon, and stars�symbolize God (and his angels) eternally watching over us: the celestial (spiritual) beings providentially guiding and watching over the terrestrial (physical) beings. This symbolism is so obvious that God explicitly warns his people Israel not to mistake these created symbols for the Creator himself:
�And beware lest you lift up your eyes to heaven, and when you see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the host of heaven, you be drawn away and worship them and serve them, things which the Lord your God has allotted to all the peoples under the whole heaven� (Deuteronomy 4:19).
The sun, moon, and stars are physical phenomena that represent and symbolize spiritual realities: both their light and their seemingly eternal and unchanging natures make them created symbols of God. The starry heavens (of the night sky) and the radiant sun (of the day sky) are the most changeless of all the phenomena we can observe. The celestial bodies do move in their regular courses, the sky does changes its appearance from the black of night to the blue of day, the clouds are of various types and are always in motion, and yet all of these changes are minor. These phenomena are observed by everyone the world over and are the �things which the Lord your God has allotted to all the peoples under the whole heaven.�
The sky provides us with the background of our embodied existence. Most people never travel very far from the particular region of the world in which they live, but those who do quickly realize that, although the people, plants, animals, climate, weather, and even the ground can vary dramatically, the heavens remain virtually the same no matter how far from home they may travel. The sky, sun, moon, and stars remain virtually unchanged as the celestial background beneath (or the context within) which all of our earthly, embodied, human activities take place. It is quite comforting for the traveler who is far from home in a foreign land�surrounded by strange and different peoples, languages, animals, and plants�to be able to look up into the night sky and see the moon appearing exactly as it does back home. Although even very far from home, the traveler is still at home in-the-world; we can never travel so far from our home that the world itself is no longer our home.
The moon is often thought of as feminine, and the sun thought of as masculine. These celestial bodies, which are symbols of our Creator, represent both the tenderness and the strengths of our Creator. Just as humankind images our Creator, and just as humankind is created both male and female in order to image him, our Creator has aspects of both the male and the female (although he transcends such physical categorizations).94 The light of the moon is softer, gentler, and is a reflection of the more powerful light and heat of the sun. This makes the moon similar to the sun, and just as glorious, yet it also makes the moon very different from�even somewhat opposite, or in opposition to�the sun. In short, the sun and the moon compliment each another, with each one providing for us what the other one cannot, and with both of them working together in order to provide us with what neither of them alone could have provided us. In like manner, men and women (although very different), compliment each another by work together and by providing each other with those things that neither of them alone could have provided.
While it is impossible for us to imagine the world without the sun, it is just as impossible for us to imagine the world without the moon. Although we in the West mark calendarical time by the motion of the sun (i.e., the solar year), the earliest time keeping was based (and, in the Middle East is still based) upon the phases of the moon (i.e., the lunar month). It is much more natural to keep time by following the frequent and easily perceived changes in the moon than it is to keep time by the slightly perceived and much slower changes in the apparent position of the sun. The sun may well rule the day, but the night is ruled by the moon (see Genesis 1:16-18).
The stars enliven the clear night sky with their brilliant points of light, and although we, today, think of the stars as distant suns, prescientific peoples saw the stars as-they-appeared to them: as points of light illuminating the darkness of the night sky. The creation account of Genesis mentions the creation of the stars immediately after the creation of the two �great lights� of the sun and the moon (Genesis 1:16) declaring that (like the sun and the moon) the stars are to give their light upon the earth: �And God set them [the stars] in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth� (Genesis 1:17). The innumerable stars in the night sky attest to the glory of our Creator (Psalm 19:1) and we feel humble in the presence of the vast, innumerable, multitude of stars that appear to us as scattered points of light throughout the heavens. Even today (with the Hubble Space Telescope) we are humbled by the incredible vastness�not only of the multitude of stars�but of the multitude of galaxies existing far beyond the capabilities of even our most powerful telescopic vision. The entire phenomenon that is the world/cosmos is awe inspiring and transcends the reductions of modern science:
�The pride of the heavenly heights is the clear firmament, the appearance of heaven in a spectacle of glory. The sun, when it appears, making proclamation as it goes forth, is a marvelous instrument, the work of the Most High. At noon it parches the land; and who can withstand its burning heat? A man tending a furnace works in burning heat, but the sun burns the mountains three times as much; it breathes out fiery vapors, and with bright beams it blinds the eyes. Great is the Lord who made it; and at his command it hastens on its course. He made the moon also, to serve in its season to mark the times and to be an everlasting sign. From the moon comes the sign for feast days, a light that wanes when it has reached the full. The month is named for the moon, increasing marvelously in its phases, an instrument of the hosts on high shining forth in the firmament of heaven. The glory of the stars is the beauty of heaven, a gleaming array in the heights of the Lord. At the command of the Holy One they stand as ordered, they never relax in their watches� (Sirach 43:1-10)
The stars, like the sun and the moon, give us a sense of the passage of time, because we observe them to be in regular motion; the stars having also been created (according to the Bible) for the keeping (or marking) of time (see Genesis 1:14-18). Although we, today, think of space as being populated with galaxies, to our direct sense perception we perceive the night sky as the starry vault that is the background of our embodied existence in-the-world. All of our actions during the night occur beneath the starry night sky, which our Creator has provided for us as a contextual background for living our lives in-the-world.
From our present perspective of living (as we do) in the era of modern science, the stars can give us a sense of our being aliens in the cosmos; alone and insignificant in the vastness of the universe. Yet the theological view, which tells us that God has created both our world and humankind as his special creation, reminds us that our Creator has provided us with both the only world-home we will ever have and the only world-home we will ever need. Our world�and all that is within it�is the special concern of our Creator; he cares for our world and he cares for us. We are never alone or very far from our Creator-God. The stars�each and every one of them�testify to the glory of God our Creator; and they also testify to his care and concern for each and every one of us.
The sky�day and night, clear or cloudy�is undoubtedly perceived by us as the horizon of our existence. We perceive the meeting of sky and earth together in the distance and this horizon of earth and sky forms the very background of our existential experience of living in-the-world. This horizon of earth and sky places all other phenomena within the larger context of the world as-it-appears to us and forms our most basic existential perception of the world. All of us have a choice about how we will interpret the phenomena of the world, but none of us has a choice about what phenomena we can interpret. The myriad phenomena of the world and the greater phenomenon of the world/cosmos are pre-given to us by Our Creator, and it is our perception of these created things which grants us the perception of our Creator: �For from the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of their Creator� (Wisdom of Solomon 13:5).
More than simply the subject of natural philosophy or science, the world is pre-given to us as the place of our existence, without which our existence and our understanding of the world (and of ourselves) would not be possible. As James Jordon points out, God could have created a world wherein:
�There are only people interacting with God and with other people, on a nearly infinite flat plain. God could have made such a world, but He didn�t. And this raises the question of why God chose to fill up the world with all kinds of things. Why create geographical diversity: mountains, rivers, seas, wildernesses? Why create animals, plants, bushes, trees, fish, and birds? Why create alternating days and nights, weeks and years, with sun, moon, and stars to measure them? In other words: why this world?�95
We are not simply mind and intellect, and neither are we simply animated bodies: we are people made in the image and likeness of our Creator, and we have been created in order to live in-the-world. As people created in the image and likeness of our Creator, we have many of the attributes of our Creator�though to a much lesser degree. We are not everywhere present, but we do have presence; we do not have all knowledge, but we do have knowledge; we are not holy, but we are moral beings; we are not eternal, but we do have existence. Our existence (body and soul) in-the-world will, according to the Bible, continue beyond the grave. We live, now, in-the-world and we will live, then, in-the-world. The human future is one of a resurrected physical existence (similar to that of the risen Christ) in a regenerated physical world (see Matt. 19:28).
In comparison to our Creator we are very limited beings; especially considering the bodily aspect of our existence. But our bodies are, in fact, the most essential aspect of our human existence: our bodies provide us with the sense perceptions that enable us to live and move (i.e., have being) in-the-world. Certainly our minds (or intellects) process the data arriving via our senses, but apart from the data the mind would be useless. Likewise, apart from the mind (or the brain) the senses would not function and our bodies would be unable to live and move in-the-world.
Our brains are, of course, a part of our bodies; but our minds are much more than simply the activities of our brains. There is no universally accepted modern scientific explanation for how the activity of the brain gives rise to the human mind and consciousness. Mind and body�as one being�lives, moves, exists, acts, and perceives the myriad phenomena of the world, which is the context of our existence in the world, and, as such, the world exists as-it-exists and the world appears as-it-appears for us. The world appears to us as it does so that we, as perceiving beings, can function in the world, and so that we�by properly understanding the appearances of the phenomena of the world�can gain knowledge of our Creator, of the world, of ourselves, and of one another: we are enabled to be in-the-world.
Our being-in-the-world is the purpose of the phenomena�s being-in-the-world, and our being-in-the-world grants us our perception of the phenomena of the world, the ultimate purpose of which is to present us with the perception of our Creator through his revelational world-text. We can begin to understand this by learning to view both our world and ourselves as a living unity of objective/subjective existential/phenomenal beings who are both in-the-world and of-the-world. The phenomena of the world of our experience should not be artificially divided up into the abstract categories of objective and subjective as if our experience of being-in-and-of-the-world were so easily categorized; rather, we should see our lived-experience, what we conceive of intellectually as objective and subjective, as being two mutually dependent aspects of our one conscious experience of being-in-the-world.
Interpretations of the World-Text: Phenomenology, Theology, and Modern Science
The theological and phenomenological view of the world�although embracing good science�stands opposed to the naturalistic and materialistic modern scientific view of the world. Because modern science, with its naturalistic, materialistic, and reductionistic theories of the origins of the universe (universes?) and the origins of life, presents the world to us as the product of law driven�yet random and purposeless�natural material causes.
The theological/phenomenological view of the world holds that sentient beings who live-in, perceive, and experience the world could not have arisen from non-living matter/energy (i.e., the inanimate chemical elements); rather, the theological/phenomenological view of the world holds that both the objective world of phenomena and our subjective experience of the phenomena of the world coexist because the world has always existed as we experience the world to exist today. It is this phenomenal world that our Creator has fashioned for us, and he has fashioned this world in such a way as to provide the meaning, the purpose, and the context of our very existence, along with providing us with the knowledge of himself through the created natural world�a natural world capable of being known through the use of reason and science.
When we view the world (and ourselves) in this way, all of the world�s phenomena take on a new look and have new meaning for us: the world becomes filled with signs and symbols, a phenomenal language we must learn to interpret and understand. A tree, a smile, a river, or a child�s laughter are not simply manifestations of the natural elements having followed chemical laws spontaneously arising and developing�over eons of time�in a universe that exists simply because the probability of such a universe existing somewhere apparently manifested itself here. Rather, the world�s phenomena are the expressions of our Creator, who communicates to us the knowledge of himself; if only we can understand the language of this expression of knowledge that comes to us through natural revelation. This world-language of phenomenal signs and symbols is very familiar to us�perhaps too familiar�because we live our lives surrounded by this world-language at all times: we are immersed within the text of the world in much the same way as the letters are immersed within the text of a book�s pages.
For a world to exist as an unexperienced world would make no sense. Without conscious subjects perceiving, living-in, and experiencing the world of phenomena, there would be little point to the existence of objective phenomena. The modern notion of a world of lifeless matter/energy somehow, eventually, gaining sentience, for no particular reason and for no particular purpose, is in stark contrast to a world wherein the existence of living, conscious, beings is the very reason and purpose for the existence of non-living matter/energy. Our lives are embedded within the world, and we, as conscious perceiving subjects, are the most important portion of the world that we experience as being objectively real. In fact, the objective reality of the world of phenomena presupposes the existence of subjective conscious beings able to perceive and experience objective reality.
The detached, objectivist, and reductionist modern scientific view of the world tends to lead us into a way of perceiving and thinking about the world that is distorted: it distorts our natural perception of, and our thinking about, the way the world appears to us. Rene Descartes� methodological doubt of everything except his own ability to think (his cogito ergo sum: I think, therefore I am) proves very little, and is a very thin philosophical foundation upon which to base the entire superstructure of modern science, which has in fact arisen upon it since his time. But Descartes did, however, acknowledge the existence of God; something the modern scientists and philosophers of our day don�t often do.
Detached as it is from God our Creator, modern philosophy and modern science offer little-to-no meaning or purpose for our existence in-the-world; and yet it is our existence in-the-world that we are the most aware of at all times. Our existence is pretty much the only thing that we are really certain of in life, and it seems absurd to think that our existence is without any meaning or purpose. The existentialists, of course, embrace this existential absurdity of meaninglessness and purposelessness, because apart from God (whom they reject) this existential absurdity is completely logical and rational. And yet, just as we are aware of our own existence, we are also aware of the existence of the phenomena of the world; and just as we are aware of the phenomena of the world, we are also aware of our Creator�s existence through the phenomena of the world. The created world, like the Bible, is a revelatory text attesting to the existence of our Creator and guiding us toward a way of living our lives in-the-world and providing us with the meaning and the purpose for our existence in-the-world.
The rationalist and reductionist modern scientific approach to the study of the natural world is a hubristic quest to unveil and lay bare the secrets of nature. Interestingly, Mary Midgely has found that the men of modern science, in their own words, have often described their task of studying nature in ways very similar to those describing the sexual violation of a woman by a man:
�Nature [should], by no means [be thought of] as a neutral object, but as a seductive but troublesome female, to be unrelentingly pursued, sought out, fought against, chased into her innermost sanctuaries, prevented from escaping, persistently courted, wooed, harried, vexed, tormented, unveiled, unrobed, and �put to the question� (i.e. interrogated under torture), forced to confess �all that lay in her innermost recesses�, her� beautiful bosom� must be laid bare, she must be held down and finally �penetrated�, �pierced� and �vanquished� (words which constantly recur).�96
The modern scientific interpretation of nature�as something to be unrobed and conquered�has succeeded in overturning the religious/theological interpretation of nature, which understood nature as being a cosmos of divine origins; a cosmos wherein the natural philosopher (or scientist) remained humble before and respectful of the majesty of nature, by seeking to understand the world/cosmos as the sacred, holy, creation of God. This sacred natural world is the world we should allow to be our guide, a world we should be willing to listen to, a world we should respect, and a world we should be striving to protect rather than exploit.
Modern science desires to conquer the natural world, to dominate the natural world, and to make the natural world serve our own purposes. All too often, modern science today does not seem to have the atheistic (or agnostic) view of the world that it is often thought to have; rather, it seems to have more of an antitheistic view of the world. Many popular science writers seem to think that modern people should be actively opposed to the belief in God. It�s as though it were an important piece of modern thinking for people to reject religious belief in God as the folly of ignorant, uneducated, anti-scientific fundamentalists. Whenever we peruse the contents of the bookshelves in the science sections of the larger bookstores, we can�t help but notice just how many popular science writers believe that God must be kept out of our thinking. The biblical/theological view of the world no longer seems tenable to the modern mindset of many scientists and the people who are enamored with modern science. Modern scientifically minded people think of the biblical view of the world as a way of viewing the world that was long ago proven false by modern science: it is considered an outdated view having absolutely no basis in reality.
As we�ve already seen, the biblical and modern scientific views of the world are very different; even contradictory. And yet the biblical and modern scientific views are simply two different kinds of worldviews, which incorporate two different kinds of knowledge about the same world. The biblical view is based upon divine revelation and is phenomenological (i.e., it presents the world as-it-appears); the modern scientific view is based upon reason (i.e., both inductive and deductive logic) and is methodologically and, most often, philosophically naturalistic. It is quite possible both of these views are accurate but that they are simply presenting us with different views and perspectives of the same world. Their starting points are different, their methods are different, and their conclusions are different only because they seek different kinds of knowledge about the world. Neither an extremely naturalistic view nor an extremely literalistic biblical view can be thought of as being an accurate presentation of the world. What we should be seeking is an openness between the natural and biblical views; a working together of these two different perspectives of the world wherein each is allowed to compliment and correct the other.
The biblical worldview incorporates knowledge of the world that is unattainable by human reason alone; and the modern scientific worldview�rejecting, as it does, supernatural revelation�reduces everything to its natural, physical, and material elements. What is needed is an ordering of knowledge, the realization that neither modern science nor the Bible can tell us everything there is to know about the world. Only both sources of knowledge�working together�can help us to come as close as humanly possible to gaining the fullest understanding of our world. We should not ignore one in preference to the other, but should allow each their proper place in their own respective fields of human knowledge. In an earlier era, modern science was needed to correct a biblical view gone too far astray from the truth; and, in our day, the biblical view should be allowed to correct a modern scientific view that has likewise, now, gone too far astray.
Modern science sets forth its view of the world as the only correct view of the world. This view allows for no supernatural causes or explanations and often seems to feel the need to explicitly deny the existence of a Creator�ridiculing those who are unscientifically minded enough to still believe in God. And yet, when dealing with certain questions about the world (e.g., the origins of the universe, the origins of life), modern science attempts to explain things that simply cannot be known or explained naturalistically and materialistically. This, however, doesn�t stop the modern scientists from explaining such things naturalistically�they do so anyway�and in so doing they�re not constructing physical theories of the world, they�re constructing (philosophically rather than methodologically) naturalistic, metaphysical stories about the world.
Science cannot disprove the existence of God because it�s not logically possible to prove that God doesn�t exist. As the limited beings we are, we simply don�t have the ability to search out the entire universe in order to make a case against God�s existence. In logic, assertions such as �God does not exist� or �Science has proven there is no God� are logically fallacious (known in logic as the fallacy of The Universal Negative). Besides the fallaciousness of this sort of argument, it�s not the place of science (or of scientists) to attempt to either prove or disprove the existence of God, or of anything else that might exist beyond the natural world, because science is natural philosophy. Modern science has quite enough to do in trying to understand and explain the natural world, which is the proper role of science, without trying to explain (=disprove) the existence of the supernatural, which is not its role. Modern science isn�t even able to fully explain the physical world we can observe, let alone a supernatural realm we cannot observe. Many phenomena in the world exist without having any agreed upon scientific explanation, but we don�t doubt their existence. And it�s quite reasonable to believe many phenomena might exist that are beyond the abilities of science to investigate and explain.
To the scientist, if a phenomenon can�t be quantified, it doesn�t exist; despite the fact that such a phenomenon might be experienced by conscious observers. Yet experience itself is the very key to gaining knowledge and understanding of our world. Apart from our experience of our perception of the appearances of phenomena we could have no knowledge of the world whatsoever. Science can assert theoretical explanations for the unexperienced causes of what we experience, yet science cannot prove the purely objective existence of these unexperienced causes (of experience) because science itself can never go completely beyond (or behind) conscious human experience. The scientist is limited by experience just as everyone else is: every scientific observation is a conscious human experience. Likewise, a supernaturally based theological/biblical view of the unexperienced causes of experience cannot prove supernatural experiences are supernaturally caused: the biblical/theological view can only assert such explanations based upon supernatural revelation.
That the world we experience was created as-it-appears to us is a matter of theological reflection. Phenomenology is helpful to us here because phenomenology is concerned with how the world as-it-appears presents itself to the conscious human observer. Modern science is concerned with the unperceived causes underlying these appearances and downplays (or discounts) these appearances by telling us that appearances are deceiving: the sun only appears to move across the sky; life only appears to have been designed; time only appears to flow at the same rate for everyone. Reality, to modern science, is that which gives rise to appearances and not the appearances themselves. But what, to us, is more real than that which appears to us as-it-appears to us?
Modern science takes the existence of the physical world as a pre-given assumption: the very existence of the world/cosmos is the great unquestioned and presupposed starting point of all scientific investigation. The philosophical view of phenomenology seeks to go beyond the scientific assumption of the world as pre-given, as a-thing-already-there to be investigated. Phenomenology questions the appearance of the thing itself (in this case, the world) and asks: What presuppositions are we bringing with us when we experience the world? How would the phenomenon of the world appear to us if we could approach it without any presupposed notions about it?
In developing a theology of appearances, phenomenology can help us attempt to view the world as-it-appears and as-it-presents-itself to us before our biblical/theological presuppositions enter into our thinking about the world. We can observe phenomena, we can have a conscious perceptual experience of phenomena as-they-present-themselves to us, and we can utilize this as-presuppositionless-as-possible view of the world of appearances as the starting point of our theological inquiry. A theology of appearances should incorporate and build upon three important truths: 1) The world as-it-appears to us (i.e., philosophical and phenomenological truth); 2) The knowledge of the Creator, which has been revealed to us through the created world of phenomenal appearances (i.e., natural revelation); and 3) The revealed knowledge of our Creator that has been given to us in the Bible (i.e., supernatural revelation).
The most important benefit of doing a theology of appearances is being able to begin our theological investigations with the world as-it-presents-itself to us in our everyday experience. This makes for a very practical theology, without the need of theological, philosophical, or scientific abstractions. Our starting point is simply the world as-we-observe-it and as-we-experience-it. The world appears to us as a world filled with myriad phenomena: light, people, water, trees, animals, darkness, clouds, flowers, mountains, rain, wind, rocks, etc. We observe these phenomena as-they-appear and as-they-present-themselves to our conscious human experience. Our observations of these phenomena reveal that they are of many and various types; that is, they present themselves to us as distinctly observable wholes with each phenomenon being observably distinct from every other phenomenon. These phenomena appear to us as functional in their various forms as-they-appear to us, the world/cosmos itself appears to be functional as-it-appears to us, and all phenomena appear to us to be in their proper places in order for the world to function as a whole. The world appears to us as more than simply the sum of its many parts: the world appears to us as a world created with the purpose of functioning as a unified whole.
We depend upon these phenomena (e.g., water, plants, air) to live our lives in-the-world, and we are also caught-up in-the-world living as phenomena among phenomena experiencing both the world of phenomena and our own phenomenal selves. We ourselves, like the phenomena we observe, appear to be amazingly functional in-the-world and the world/cosmos we experience is all we really know; there is, in fact, no other world of living experience that is even imaginable to us. Modern science likes to break the world (including people) down into their various constituent elements, telling us how that everything we observe is made up of the same fundamental stuff (matter/energy) in different forms; but what really matters is not the basic universal stuff (matter/energy) itself, but the various forms that it has taken, which appear to us as particular phenomenal forms. If reality is anything, it is certainly not a particle of matter/energy; reality is that which is before us at every moment: the forms of phenomena in-the-world as-they-appear to us.
For example, it�s of little use breaking a person down into her constituent parts, as if that�s what a human person really is (i.e., 61% oxygen, 23% carbon, 10% hydrogen, 2.6% nitrogen, 1.4% calcium, 1.1% phosphorus, 0.2% potassium, 0.2% sulfur, 0.1% sodium, 0.1% chlorine, plus magnesium, iron, fluorine, zinc, and other trace elements). People are not simply human beings (i.e., Homo sapiens), and people are also far more than just the sums of their matter/energy chemical parts. Modern science alone can never tell us what�in reality�a human person is. We have a better sense of what a person is by simply observing people as-they-appear to us: as almost limitless horizons of thought, beauty, passion, strength, mystery, complexity, intellect, compassion, love, and countless other phenomenal qualities, which express to us who they are. The reality of a person�s existence presents itself to our conscious experience as a person, with all of the complexities that go with being a person.
Modern science explains the existence of human persons by proposing that lifeless matter/energy, by natural causes and chemical processes, without any purpose or direction, eventually resulted in what we observe to be human persons. This is the modern scientific explanation for the existence of everything; even living things. Yet denuded of any teleological influence, brute matter/energy has no goal toward which to strive in its supposed development (i.e., evolution) from inorganic chemicals to living organisms; and it�s hard to believe that all living things came to exist (as they have) without the benefit of some sort of teleological and developmental end-goal.
The word evolution is, in fact, a teleological term, which comes from the Latin word: evolvere, meaning: to unroll. Despite the Darwinian evolutionist�s claims to the contrary, any theory making use of the term evolution must (by definition) incorporate some sort of teleological, purposeful, functional, directional end-goal. In the final analysis, what we call Darwinian evolutionary theory must logically conclude with the teleological �hydrogen-to-human mind� or �gas-to-genius� theory of the evolutionary theorist and philosopher Herbert Spencer; and not Charles Darwin. A theory proposing that nonliving matter/energy could eventually (somehow) become human is actually quite an incredible and unbelievable hypothesis; especially if you really think about it. And thinking about the world is supposed to be what scientists do best.
However, even before the scientist can begin thinking about the world, both the scientist�s (subjective) conscious experience of the world and the (objective) world of phenomena are found to be pre-given. The scientist finds herself alive and in-the-world even before she attempts to make sense of the world of phenomena in which she finds herself. Our experience of the world and our experience of being-in-the-world is the inescapable lived-experience that is our existence in-the-world as human persons. The scientist has no choice about which world or which experience of being-in-the-world she will study: there�s no world but this one; and there�s no other lived-experience she will ever have but her own.
Prescientific peoples based their knowledge of the world largely upon the way the world appeared to them. Likewise, those of us who are not scientists (as well as the modern scientists themselves) live our lives in-the-world as though the world is exactly as-it-appears to us to be. We are not aware of any ultimate, underlying, elemental reality that makes up what we observe (directly) in the world; we are aware of things existing as-we-find-them and as-they-appear to us. When the scientist observes (indirectly) what she believes to be the most fundamental particles underlying and giving rise to the appearances of phenomena, she is engaged in an experience of the world as-it-appears. The idea that reality and appearances are not the same is illusory: reality appears to us when we observe the world at any level. We are inescapably bound to our conscious, human, lived-experience of phenomenal reality.
The real issue here is whether or not the reality directly observable to most people (i.e., non-scientists) is any less real than the reality indirectly observed by the scientists. Or, to put it another way, is the reality scientists observe any more real than the reality non-scientists observe? In my opinion, when a scientist observes a phenomenon the rest of us are unable to observe (because we lack the technical means to do so) such a phenomenon is certainly real, but when scientists assert that this privileged scientific observation is more real, or is the only reality (as opposed to what the rest of us observe as being real), then the scientists� assertion is wrong. And science is especially off the mark when it asserts as reality that which is only a theoretical, intellectual-play hypothesis. It�s erroneous to speak of a hypothetical reality as though it were a true reality.
Modern science is not the final authority to which we must defer for the definition of reality. Modern science presents its own particular view of reality because it has a particular framework (or conceptual scheme) that it uses to make sense of the data gathered from its observations of the phenomenal world. And like any conceptual scheme, the modern scientific scheme is not perfect; the world is far too complex to be reduced to a catalogue of data arranged by conceptual schemes. The world is an on-going synergic matrix of objective/subjective reality, as is our conscious, human, existential, lived-experience of living our lives in-and-through the world.
Living in-the-world is what living beings do: they experience life. Of all the wondrous phenomena we observe in the world, life is the most wondrous, the most complex, and the most interesting. Life is, therefore, the most difficult phenomenon to study and to attempt an understanding of. Modern science, using its theory of biological evolution, is attempting to make sense of, understand, and explain (naturalistically) the phenomenon of life�with all of its complexities�and modern science is finding it increasingly difficult to persuade intelligent people into accepting its belief that life is simply the blind consequence of chemical law. Modern science, in choosing to explain the complexities of living organisms naturalistically has, I think, bitten off far more than it can rationally chew. And when it comes to tying to understand the origins of life from the naturalistic evolutionary perspective, modern science is at a complete and total loss for any rational explanation. For example, according to the well known evolutionist Ernst Mayr, it should be obvious to any intelligent, educated, thinking person that all living organisms have evolved from non-organic matter/energy: �Many more years of experimentation will likely pass before a laboratory succeeds in actually producing life [from non-living matter/energy]. However, the production of life cannot be too difficult, because it happened on Earth apparently as soon as conditions had become suitable for life, around 3.8 billion years ago.�97
How did this development of organic life from non-organic matter/energy occur? Mayr says ��the production of life cannot be too difficult, because it happened��, but what Mayr is asserting here is the very existence of organic life as proof that organic life arose from non-organic matter/energy. It must be Mayr�s philosophical naturalism leading him to make this assertion because it certainly can�t be his analysis of any observable and (supposedly) neutral scientific facts (Mayr�s admission in the quote above that organic life has never been produced by experiment in the lab actually falsifies his own theoretical conclusions). Mayr�s assertion here of the existence of life as proof that non-organic matter/energy produced organic life is not scientific, his reasoning is fallacious (in logic: the fallacy of Affirming the Consequent), and he gives us no knowledge of the world whatsoever.
Mayr would like for us to believe that the bare assertion of an expert scientist is knowledge when in fact it is just the opposite: an admission of ignorance masquerading as knowledge. Mayr�s assertion of the existence of life as proof that life had non-organic origins is no different from my asserting the existence of organic life as proof that God created it. But assertions aren�t science. Science is supposed to give us knowledge of the natural world, but making assertions based solely upon a faith commitment to a theory is neither knowledge nor good science. Our experience of living in-the-world cannot possibly lead us to Mayr�s conclusion about the origins of life. One can only come to Mayr�s conclusion if one has already presupposed a philosophically naturalistic view of the world before one even attempts to begin making sense of the world. Actually, most scientists live out their lives as if their naturalistic presuppositions didn�t exist, but scientists (and those who are enamored with science) can easily allow their naturalistic presuppositions to influence their everyday perceptions of (and their thoughts about) the world. We all experience the world on a daily basis, and yet we all view the world differently; we all view the world through the lens of our own, particular, presupposed notions about what we think the world is.
The Practical Value of Phenomenal Appearances
All of us enjoy the light and warmth of the sun, the refreshment of cool water, the love of a friend, the enjoyment of hard work, the rest of sleep, the stillness and beauty of a snow-covered landscape. These sorts of phenomena present themselves to our lived-experience as-they-are and as-they-appear to us: we have no choice other than to experience them as-they-present-themselves to us. But we can choose how we are going to understand them.
An artist tends to see beauty and wonder in the world as-it-appears, and the modern scientist tends to see matter/energy in motion. The artist lives the limitless wonders of his subjectively lived-experience of the world, and the scientist analyzes and reduces the world to objective scientific facts. Is one view of the world right and the other wrong? I believe both are accurate views of the world. However, I do believe the reductionist view of modern science has lead to scientism, which is a particularly dangerous way of viewing the world: scientism is the belief that true knowledge can only be gained by science. Recall the words of Pope John Paul II, quoted above in the first chapter: �This [scientism] is the philosophical notion which refuses to admit the validity of forms of knowledge other than those of the positive sciences; and it relegates religious, theological, ethical and aesthetic knowledge to the realm of mere fantasy.�98 There is a particularly acute danger here, because modern science is so capable of accurately explaining the natural world; even more so, because applied science (i.e., technology) works so well for us. It�s very easy for us to believe that true knowledge of the world can only come through modern science.
There is a danger in having an objective knowledge of the physical world�a science�that is free from any and all moral restraints; moral restraints that ultimately derive from our subjective, innate, unquantifiable, human experience of living in-the-world. Our inability to quantify this experience is due to the weakness of human language: words alone cannot adequately describe our lived-experience. And the fact that modern science does have such a language (i.e., mathematics) certainly gives it the upper hand. We tend to defer to modern scientific explanations of the world and we tend to discount our own lived-experience; and modern science tells us that what we experience is only appearances, and not reality.
As valuable as the scientific explanation of the world is, what we lose in deferring to the scientific explanation of the world is priceless. For example, are we supposed to imagine that life�with all of its beauty, complexity, and wonder�is best explained (by modern science) as the random, purposeless, spontaneous occurrence of inorganic chemical processes over incredibly long periods of time? Modern science tells us that our world�with all of its wonderfully complex life forms�exists simply because (given enough time and enough possible universes) a world (cosmos/universe) such as ours will eventually come to exist. And yet the only proof given for this sort of theoretical explanation for the existence of the world is the very existence of the world itself: the world exists; therefore this must be how the world came to exist. But this isn�t a scientific explanation at all; worse yet, this isn�t even intellectual-play. This is not knowledge (i.e., science) at all. This (again) is simply ignorance masquerading as knowledge; scientific reasoning has ceased.
The world we experience is experienced as a unity; and we experience ourselves as individual parts of the unity that is: the world. Although it�s interesting to speculate about how such a world as ours might have come to exist, the fact is that we experience the world as our world-home, which is a home that is furnished with everything we need so that we can live-out our lives in-the-world. This world is the only world that we know, and this world is the only sort of world that we can even imagine. We create our own smaller �worlds� within the world (e.g., families, homes, communities, schools, nations, etc.) and we should certainly be willing to consider the possibility that the world itself was created for us, by our Creator, as our home, which is the context of our existence.
How we think about the world leads us to form a particular view the world; thinking about and viewing the world leads us to an understanding of how we should live (or act) in the world; and we will usually live according to these thought-shaped worldviews. Cosmological questions of origins, direction, purpose, and ends have led humankind to many and various mythological, religious, theological, philosophical, and scientific answers to these questions. The biblical story of creation provides answers to these cosmological questions, but since the biblical Creator is presented as the supernatural unseen cause of the world the biblical view is considered to be scientifically untrue. The modern scientific story of origins provides answers to these cosmological questions�physical processes following natural laws�and these answers are considered to be scientifically true simply because they are naturalistic and materialistic explanations for the existence of the world.
But a story that explains the world is not the same thing as a good scientific explanation of the world. Imaginative modern scientific creation stories are presented as true descriptions of reality, but, in fact, they are simply imaginative narratives based upon philosophically naturalistic and materialistic scientific speculations about the universe. The truth is that modern science doesn�t know nearly as much about the universe and its origins as most popular science writers would like for us to believe that it does.
A theology of appearances will recognize that modern science is correct in its understanding and explanation of the phenomena of the world, but it will also recognizes that these descriptions neglect appearances by being reductive to only to natural/material causal explanations. A theology of appearances recognizes that modern science often considers abstract, intellectual-play theorizations about the world to be true descriptions of the reality of the physical world, although, in fact, such imaginative theories bare no correspondence to the concrete world we experience. A theology of appearances also recognizes that the appearances of phenomena are not misperceptions of reality�our senses do not mislead us�the appearances of phenomena as-they-appear to us are, if anything, more real to us than are the (supposedly hidden) realities that modern science says it reveals to us by lifting the veil of phenomenal appearances from natural phenomena.
That which we perceive through our senses�the appearances of phenomena�are the realities that our Creator intended for us to perceive: phenomenal realities that are observed as whole forms (e.g., a river, a cloud, a frozen lake) which are both in-the-world and of-the-world. The theology of appearances tells us that these phenomenal forms are precisely what we should think of as being true reality, whereas modern science tells us that true reality is the unseen, hidden, elemental nature of these phenomenal forms, which modern science alone can reveal to us (e.g., H2O in different states: liquid, gas, and solid). The theology of appearances allows us to think of that which we observe�the forms of phenomena as wholes�as reality; not as illusory appearances taken by some unseen, elemental, ultimate reality.
For example, as I write on my computer, I see and feel the computer as the solid object that it is. This perception of the computer is, for me, a valid perception of the reality of the computer. It is my perception of the computer�s solidity�its form as a unified whole�that makes it appear to me as a computer; to be a computer in reality. A scientist, however, commenting upon this very same experience, would likely say something like: �The computer on which I am typing these words seems like a solid object to me but it is really a web of electromagnetic forces connecting a few tiny, widely-spaced quantum entities�a framework of interacting photons.�99
In this instance, the object�s appearance, as perceived by the conscious human observer, is not reality. Reality, for modern science, is that which lies hidden�imperceptible to human consciousness�beneath the object�s appearance; reality is the elemental particles and forces that constitute the object. But is a computer really just a web of electromagnetic forces that only seems (i.e., appears) to be a solid object? What is the computer? What is its being? What is it in reality? Modern science tells us the reality of objects and phenomena in the world is not found in the way in which these objects and phenomena appear to our conscious perception; modern science tells us that their reality is beyond our normal abilities to perceive, lying somewhere beneath their appearances. A theology of appearances defines reality as the appearances of objects and phenomena in the world as-they-present-themselves to us, as-they-appear to us, and as we consciously perceive them as human persons.
A theology of appearances also respectfully rejects the Aristotelian metaphysical categories of traditional scholastic theology. What matters most is that which appears to us: the world as God made it to be perceived by conscious beings; not the abstract metaphysical categories of matter, form, substance, and accident. These categories are abstract, intellectual-play, metaphysical speculations about the world and not the world as we perceive it to really be. A theology of appearances is not an exhaustive, speculative, abstract theology requiring arcane metaphysical categories. The theology of appearances is a biblical theology and allows the Bible to present the world to us as our Creator intended for us to perceive it�as we do in fact perceive it�and is built upon this existential, perceptual, phenomenal, and experiential basis. The appearances of phenomena are the revelations of our Creator, and he intends for us to perceive and understand them as-they-appear to us. He reveals himself to us through the created world and we, through our conscious ability to perceive the world, exist correlationally with the world that he has created by living within this phenomenal world, which is guiding us toward our Creator.
Although both modern science and traditional scholastic theology are excellent examples of the human ability to reason, which our Creator certainly desires for us to make use of, we must keep in mind that human reasoning is never done in a vacuum. Assumptions and presuppositions are always present whenever we reason, and it�s important for us to recognize what these assumptions and presuppositions are and why we have chosen them. I don�t think we need the ancient Greek metaphysical/philosophical categories in order to understand the Creator of the world. What we need is the proper perception of the world he has created (i.e., the perception of phenomena as-they-appear to us), the Bible�s presentation to us of that world, and the Bible�s presentation to us of our Creator.
The theology of appearances isn�t bogged down by speculations on being, matter, form, substance, or accidents; neither is it bogged down by speculations on mass, energy, motion, space, and time. These are all very interesting and important subjects to speculate upon, because they do relate to our human experience of being-in-the-world, but they are not necessary for gaining the true knowledge that God has already given to us about himself, about how we can relate to him, about the world we live in, and about how we should be living in harmony and in community with others in-the-world.
We�ve been speculating upon�and will continue to speculate upon�these metaphysical and physical subjects, because they touch upon theology (i.e., they concern our world and our Creator), but we should not let our thinking about these subjects take us onto an intellectual-play sidetrack. We need to stay focused upon the most obvious truths about God, which are plainly revealed to us in both creation and the Bible. Our Creator did not choose to reveal himself only to the intellectuals (e.g., scientists, philosophers, and theologians); he chose to reveal himself to everyone who lives in-the-world. His revelation is simple�perhaps too simple for the intellectual�and is, therefore, something the average person can easily perceive and understand.
How does modern science, for example, explain the commonly experienced phenomenon of human love? Can science explain the experience of such a phenomenon? A person who loves (or has loved) someone can attempt to relate this experience of human love to another person (who also loves (or has loved) someone), but human love is an experiential phenomenon that is beyond our ability to ever fully explain. The modern scientific explanation of love would no doubt begin with an introduction to evolutionary biology and conclude with an explanation of brain chemistry; and yet this sort of explanation tells us absolutely nothing about the existential phenomenon in question: the experience of human love.
The modern scientific answer misses the whole point of the experience: the emotion of love cannot be reduced to chemical action/reaction or biological cause and effect. A modern scientific analysis of the human experience of love is beyond the capabilities of science, as the particular field of human knowledge that it is, to explain. This example, of the phenomenon of human love, is, admittedly, a very complex one; and yet the explanation of even a very simple phenomenon, which would (seemingly) be easier to explain, can also become more complex than we might imagine.
For example, how would modern science explain a river? The scientist explains what the river is physically: it is H2O (i.e., water) along with trace amounts of chemical elements, it contains living organisms of various kinds, it exists as the result of the combination of geological formations and the hydrologic cycle, and it obeys physical laws (e.g., it flows due to gravity). Taken to the extreme, a scientist might even say (as with our example of the computer) that a river is simply a web of forces and quantum entities. It seems that, for science, all phenomena can be thought of simply as matter/energy in motion.
Much like the ancient Greek philosophers, who thought that everything was made up of water or fire, modern science tells us that everything is simply matter/energy in motion. To modern science, all of what we would normally consider to be real is, in reality, matter/energy in different forms, giving us the false impression that their apparent forms are real, solid, fluid, or gaseous physical objects. Beneath the appearances (i.e., the apparent realities) of these phenomena lies the ultimate, hidden, and true reality of matter/energy in motion. Our senses, modern science tells us, deceive us; the appearances of these phenomenal forms are misleading. Yet the appearances of these phenomenal forms are what we perceive. We perceive these phenomena as-they-are and as-they-appear-to-us; we don�t perceive them as matter/energy in motion.
Imagine if we could perceive the world as modern science describes it to be in reality: as a flux matrix of matter/energy. How would we be able to live our lives in-the-world? We wouldn�t be able to function very well if we were able to perceive the reality of the world as described by modern science. However, our Creator has designed us specifically to live in-the-world; therefore the world appears to us in precisely the way that it does: in stable, functional, phenomenal forms.
When I perceive a river�as I am looking at it and thinking about it�I reflect upon many things at once: the river�s beauty, its life, its sense of timelessness, my sense of insignificance before it, and the river�s flow of life-giving water. I reflect upon all of these things (and more) as I perceive this one, simple phenomenon existing in-the-world. Although my reflection upon the river is not a factual, accurate, scientific analysis of the river, my perception of the river is an accurate analysis of what the river is. It is simply a different analysis coming from a different perspective and seeking to explain different aspects of the same phenomenon.
The Bible speaks of water, springs of water, and rivers as being life-giving (see Gn. 2:10; Ps. 104:10; Jn. 4:11; Rv. 21:6; Rv. 22:1-2). This biblical analogy, drawn between water and life, is common both to the Bible and to the way we ourselves perceive streams of water: water is life-giving; without water, life cannot exist. And a theology of appearances, which views the world both as-it-appears to us and as the Bible presents it to us, considers springs, streams, and rivers as symbolic representations of our Creator as life-giving and life sustaining. Just as water both gives and sustains life, our Creator gives us life and sustains our lives. There is much more to the reality of springs, streams, and rivers of water than what modern science is able to explain. No doubt modern science would tell us that the ultimate reality of these phenomena is simply matter/energy in motion (e.g., �a web of electromagnetic forces connecting a few tiny, widely-spaced quantum entities�); but a theology of appearances considers the reality of these phenomena to be the appearances of these phenomena as-they-present-themselves to our conscious experience (e.g., springs, streams, rivers). Modern science has not disproven the way we perceive the world, nor has modern science disproven the way in which the Bible describes the world to appear. Modern science simply presents a different view of the same world because it approaches the world from its own particular perspective. But the modern scientific perspective is not the only true perspective of reality.
The modern scientific perspective of the world, because it has been so successful in accurately analyzing, describing, and explaining the physical world, has, for most modern people, become the sole arbiter of truth. But the modern scientific way of perceiving and thinking about the world is not the only valid way of doing so. Science, philosophy, and theology are all valid expressions of humankind�s ability to reason about the world, and each of these disciplines requires the input of the others in order to find a balanced approach to the study of our world.
As a case in point, let�s return to our perception of the phenomenon of the sun�s daily motion across the sky. Both the Bible and our sense perceptions tell us that the sun moves across the sky, whereas modern science tells us the earth is in motion, and that the sun only appears to move. The truth is both: in physics, the earth is rotating and orbiting the stationary sun, and to our conscious perceptions the earth is motionless and the sun is moving across the sky. Dermot Moran, describing the position of phenomenologist Hans-Georg Gadamer (regarding scientific truth-claims), tells us that: �In agreement with the later Husserl, Gadamer holds that the Copernican discovery of the motion of the earth does not negate the truth-for-us of the rising and setting of the sun: �The truth that science tells us is relative to a specific attitude toward the world and cannot at all claim to be the whole.��100
Modern science tells us appearances are deceiving, appearances are unimportant, and appearances are misleading; only modern science can tell us what the world is in reality. But the truth is that appearances do reveal the reality of the world to us, and they do so for everyone; not just for an elite and educated few. The danger I see here is that people will often neglect their lived-experience of the perception of the reality of the world�the appearances of phenomenal forms�by deferring to the scientific authorities who say reality is that which lies hidden beneath a deceptive veil of appearances.
For example, someone who disregards the appearances of what they perceive (because modern science tells them appearances are not reality) can look at a chair and see matter/energy in motion; the chair only seems (i.e., appears) to be solid and stable when, in (scientific) reality, it is not. The chair only appears to be solid and stable because our senses are unable to perceive the true reality of the chair. Yet the scientific truth-claim that the reality of the chair is matter/energy in motion is only an assertion of the modern scientific perspective of the world of phenomena. This scientific view has its truth, but it cannot claim to be the whole of truth.
Despite what popular science writers might lead many people to believe, modern science does not have the ability to perceive, or to even define, what, precisely, this ultimate, true, and hidden reality is. Modern science constructs usable models of this ultimate, hidden reality (e.g., quantum states) that describe behavior allowing scientists a certain level of predictability, which can then be translated into workable technologies, but this �reality� can never be perceived by us; it remains hidden from our conscious human perception. Even if such an ultimate reality could be directly perceived by us, it would simply be yet another (subjective) experience of the appearances of a particular phenomenon and not the true, ultimate, and hidden (objective) reality the modern scientists seek. All of science�as all of life�is based upon our existential experience of being-in-the-world. Science can never get beyond or behind the conscious human experience of our perception of the appearances of phenomena. Even today, with the standard model of particle physics, the subatomic quantum states of matter/energy that modern science thinks of as the true, ultimate reality remains elusive (=hidden) to science.
The standard model is only a model; it is not a true picture of what an atom (or a quark) is in reality. The modern scientists are relating to us their perceptions of the appearances of the behaviors of extremely minute phenomena, but these scientific perceptions are always human perceptions of the appearances of phenomena, regardless of how minute the phenomena may be. We can never get beyond or behind the synergic objective/subjective matrix that is our human experience of existing (being) in-the-world. And it is to this inter-active field of conscious, existential, human experience of being in-the-world that we turn next.
The Life-World and the Bible
The life-world is the field of interaction between the phenomena of the world and the conscious perception of the world of phenomena by the observing subject. The founder of phenomenology, Edmund Husserl, described this pre-given interactive experience of the world of phenomena with our conscious human experience of the world as, �the universal framework of human endeavor�including our scientific endeavors. It is the ultimate horizon of all human achievement. As conscious beings we always inhabit the life-world, it is pre-given in advance and experienced as a unity.�101
Our experience is of the world, and the world itself exists for us as-we-find-it; both we ourselves (as conscious subjects) and the (objective) world are pre-given. The world of phenomena presents itself to us and we experience the world of phenomena as-they-appear to us prior to any and all cultural, religious, philosophical, or scientific interpretations of the world.
The Bible imposes a framework of interpretation upon the world of experience. The source of this biblical framework is, ultimately, our Creator who (through the Bible) revealed knowledge of himself to humankind that goes beyond the world of natural phenomena (i.e., a supernatural knowledge). The Bible doesn�t give second place to the natural world: the Bible presents the natural world as a revelation given to us by our Creator through the world as-it-appears to us. And, in addition to the natural world, the Bible presents us with the existence of a supernatural world of phenomena, which is beyond our natural abilities to perceive.
The Bible presents God as a being who is not material or physical: he is a spirit being: �God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.� (John 4:24). Angels are likewise presented to us in the Bible as non-material spirit beings: �But to what angel has he ever said, �Sit at my right hand, till I make thy enemies a stool for thy feet�? Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to serve, for the sake of those who are to obtain salvation?" (Hebrews 1:13-14).
The Bible presents both God and angels to us as being real, even though they exist beyond our natural perceptual abilities. In the Bible, we find many instances in which both God and angels interact with humankind; an interaction only made possible by our Creator�s granting (to certain people at certain times) the perceptual awareness of a world that exists beyond the world we can normally perceive. Our Creator reveals this supernatural world to us in order to direct and to guide humankind by a special revelation that is greater than his natural revelation of himself (i.e., a supernatural revelation), which gives us knowledge of our Creator that we could never attain through natural means alone (i.e., through creation and human reason).
A theology of appearances must also account for the appearances of the many supernatural phenomena (e.g., God, angels, dreams, and visions) that are presented to us in the Bible. Although beyond the normal range of our perceptual abilities, these supernatural phenomena have been experienced (according to the Bible) by certain people when they are enabled to do so by God. The Bible presupposes the reality of such supernatural revelations and relies upon them as (particular) sources of the (general) special revelation of God (i.e., the knowledge of God humankind could never have attained through human reason and natural revelation). People take on faith the reality of the (supernatural) existence of God, angels, dreams, visions, miracles, and revelation. Such supernatural realities cannot be proven by reason (although they are not unreasonable), but must be believed by faith (even though these supernatural realities cannot be personally and directly perceived). This is somewhat similar to the modern scientific assertions of the reality of atoms, quarks, evolution, time dilations, and dark matter; none of which we can (personally and directly) perceive. It�s important for us to realize that both modern science and the Bible assert the existences of invisible realities that are beyond our (limited) human abilities to perceive.
In the Bible, this interaction between humankind and the supernatural is not predominant. For the most part, the Bible presents the world to us in exactly the way in which we normally perceive and experience the world to be. The Bible is (in general) written as a historical narrative, and the perspective of this narrative is phenomenological in that the Bible presents the world to us as the world appears to us. The world of the Bible is the same world we are familiar with: a world filled with mountains, trees, people, animals, rain, clouds, stars, etc. In short, the Bible presents the world to us just as we perceive and experience the world to be. The Bible presents the world to us in a humanly sense-perceived way (as opposed to a scientific way of presentation) because this is the way in which we perceive the world. It�s not that the prescientific people of biblical times would have been unable to understand a modern scientific presentation of the world (although they wouldn�t have been able to do so); it�s that the scientific presentation of the world is not the world as-we-perceive-it to be.
A theology of appearances must also account for the supernatural knowledge of phenomena that comes to us only through divine revelation. As we saw above (in Chapter Two) the Bible presents Sheol�the unseen and unobservable underworld of the spirits of the dead�as existing in the heart of the earth. This, for most modern people, is beyond belief: can we really be expected to believe the spirits of the dead go to a physical place within the earth? Modern science tells us that the center of the earth is �thought to consist mostly of iron with some amount of nickel, is extremely dense (3 million atmospheres) and extremely hot (7,000�9,000 degrees Fahrenheit)�nearly as hot as the Sun�s surface�102 and modern people do not think it possible that this physical place could be an underworld abode of departed spirits.
But let�s think about this for a moment, does modern science know the earth�s core is an 8,000 degree molten mass of iron and nickel? Modern science doesn�t know this because no one has ever been to the core of the earth to determine exactly what it is made of and to measure its temperature. Modern science makes a determination of what the core might possibly consist of based upon what it does know of the world that it is able to observe and measure (mass, density, gravity, pressure, heat) and science describes the nature of the unobservable core based upon these observations. It should be no surprise to us that modern science is unable to detect either the existence or the nonexistence of any invisible spirits of the dead that might exist within the heart of the earth, because this is beyond the abilities of science, as knowledge of the natural�not the supernatural�world. And neither should it surprise us that the Bible does proclaim their presence there: God, unlike scientists, can know this; and he can reveal this (supernatural) truth to us.
There is no life-world�no field of interaction�between conscious observing subjects and phenomena that cannot be perceived (in this case Sheol). Yet the Bible does assert the real existence of these (normally) unexperienced phenomena, and they are no more or no less dependent upon our perception of them in order for them to be said to exist than are the objective phenomena that we do consciously perceive. The only dependence any created thing has�in order for it to be said to have a real existence�is its dependence upon the Creator, and it is this dependence for existence upon the Creator that gives rise to philosophical/theological speculation about being. God is the ultimate being, and all other things (beings) exist because they (ultimately) derive their being (or their existence) from him: �As it is written, �I have made you the father of many nations�� in the presence of the God in whom he [Abraham] believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist� (Romans 4:17, emphasis added).
Modern science considers as nonexistent anything that it cannot explain (i.e., quantify), and this includes (especially) anything supernatural as well as all those phenomena considered to be paranormal (e.g., extra sensory perception, ghosts, teleportation, visions, levitation, etc.). This dismissal (as nonexistent) by modern science of things it cannot explain gives modern science a very one-sided (rationalist) view of the world, and yet the world is not one sided; the world is not always rational�especially the people (even the scientists) who are in-the-world.
How, for example, are we to explain the dream world? There is a field of interaction between the observable phenomena and the conscious subject when we dream, but the (subjective) dream world is not the (objective) real world. Yet the dream world is a vibrant world that certainly does exist; it exists in such a way that it is virtually real. The scientific community has no agreed upon explanation for the phenomenon of the world of dreams, but science cannot completely dismiss its existence because the dream world is a universally experienced reality of our conscious human existence. How does one begin to quantify a dream? Dreams cannot be examined under a microscope, and the reductionist scientific theories of brain chemistry and electrical activity are simply not adequate explanations for this phenomenon (that is (subjectively) visible to the dreamer but (objectively) invisible to others).
Many people believe in God, and many people also experience God�s presence in their lives; modern science, however, can neither prove nor disprove the reality of these subjective beliefs and experiences. Modern science can cast doubt and dispersion upon them; modern science can marshal a multitude of scientific facts and theories in an attempt to explain these beliefs and experiences away; but science cannot disprove them. Science, as the particular discipline of knowledge that it is, is unable to do so because this is beyond its abilities as a natural philosophy.
The biblical view of the world is not a presuppositionless view of the world; and neither is any view of the world: all worldviews have presuppositions; there is no neutrality. The Bible asserts the existence of God, angels, demons, immortal souls, and miracles�the existence of which cannot be proven by modern science. The Bible presents the world to us in the same way we experience the world (as-it-appears) and along with this presentation comes (as we�ve already seen) the interpretive meaning of the world we experience.
In order for us to be better able to understand the world we must know what worldview we hold, identify what presuppositions are entailed in our worldview, and recognize how our worldview affects our thinking about the world as well as our perception of the world. Do we perceive the world scientifically, religiously, philosophically? Do we view the world according to some other interpretive framework (e.g., economically, politically, or environmentally)? It�s important for us to recognize that all of us make sense of the world by way of some sort of conceptual scheme (worldview) that makes the world more comprehensible to us. If the modern scientific view of the world made little-or-no sense, then no one would bother viewing the world through the lens of modern science. Likewise, if the biblical view of the world made little-or-no sense, then no one would bother viewing the world through the lens of the Bible either. Both views help us to make sense of the world by organizing the many facts and phenomena of the world into some sort of over-all picture that describes the world as a unified whole (i.e., cosmos). Yet these two particular views are very different�they present us with two very different pictures of the world�and both views, seemingly, cannot be true.
And this is where the philosophy of phenomenology can help us, especially its concept of the life-world. The one thing we all have in common�no matter what our view of the world may be, and no matter how strongly we may hold to our view�is the world in which we find ourselves existing. What does this world look like to us? What does this world smell like? What does it taste like? What does it sound like? What does this world feel like? What is our living-experience of the world?
Two people can observe the same phenomenon and have two very different explanations for what that particular phenomenon is. Both people consciously observe and experience the same phenomenon, but each has learned how to interpret the phenomenon according to whatever conceptual framework of the world they think explains the phenomenon best. The concept of the life-world reminds us that, before we can begin to think about the world, we must first experience the world as-it-appears to our conscious lived-experience of being-in-the-world.
The life-world, the field of interaction between the objective phenomena of the world and the conscious perception of the world of phenomena experienced by perceiving subjects, is an important place to begin our philosophical investigations. This meeting place of objective phenomena with subjective consciousness gives rise to our experience of the world, and our experience of the world is the only place where we will discover a solid foundation upon which to construct a theory of being (or an ontology).
Theologically, God�existing eternally as one God in the three Persons of the Trinity�is our ontological starting point. Before the world existed and before anything was created: God is. He has always been, he is, and he will always be. By eternally perceiving (subjectively) his own (objective) being, God is the ultimate being: God exists (eternally) both objectively and subjectively. Humankind is created in God�s own image and likeness; and we perceive and experience our own (objective/subjective) existence (being) in the world that he has created. We live, we move, we exist103 in-the-world as embodied conscious beings, continually experiencing the dynamic synthesis of the objective world with our subjective consciousnesses. We are always-and-everywhere alive in-the-world.
Although the Bible makes very little use of the philosophical term being, the Bible does deal with the concept of being: existence. The world, and everything within it, exists because God created it. Not only did God create the world, or cause the world to exist, but he also�through his Son�continually upholds and sustains the existence of the world:
�He [Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities�all things were created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together� (Colossians 1:15-17, emphasis added)104
All things are�they exist�therefore all things have being. Whatever exists can be said to have being, and both the world and the Bible attest to the existence (or being) of our Creator God. God exists both objectively (he is) and subjectively (he perceives); and, likewise, we also exist both objectively (we are) and subjectively (we perceive). The phenomena of the world exist (they are) and they are perceived by all creatures with the ability to consciously perceive the world. Objective things in-the-world exist�they are�and our conscious subjective perception of the objective world exists�it is�therefore it too has being. Objective being (i.e., objective things) and subjective being (i.e., subjective perception) are and they exist together in synergy in-the-world. A thing can be inanimate and unable to perceive the world, or a thing can be animate and able to perceive the world. Only living beings have the ability to consciously perceive the world; non-living things have no perception of their existence, or of the existence of the world, and yet these things exist (i.e., they have being).
God created our world as a world to be perceived by conscious beings. The world exists now, and the world has always existed, as a unity of objectivity and subjectivity. Ever since the creation of the world God has perceived the world, and he created conscious being also able to perceive the world. Neither our subjective perception of the world nor God�s subjective perception of the world grants existence (or being) to the objective phenomena of the world; objective phenomena are, but they only exist to be perceived as such. Ontologically speaking, all objective phenomena can be said to exist apart from subjective perception, and subjective perception can likewise be said to exist apart from objective phenomena; neither can be said to grant existence to the other. And yet we can also say that objective phenomena and subjective perception do grant existence to one another, because the world exists as a synergic objective/ subjective phenomenal matrix of experience; and it is this dynamic existential experience alone which can be thought of as pure existence, pure being, or being in itself: we are, we exist, and we perceive our existence in a world that is.
Our perception of our existence in-the-world is the basis for our thinking about the world. We can think philosophically about the world, we can think theologically about the world, and we can gain scientific knowledge of the world, but we must ultimately base our thinking and our knowledge of the world upon our experience of being-in-the-world. Both our world and our experience of being-in-the-world are prior to any conceptualizations about the world we experience. What we are seeking to do here, by thinking phenomenologically, is to experience the world as-it-presents-itself to us and to recognize how this world of experience exists prior to our intellectual conceptualizations about the world we experience (including the intellectual categories of objective and subjective). All of our thinking about the world presupposes both the world of phenomena and our experience of being-in-the-world. Whatever knowledge we gain from philosophy, from theology, or from science is gained through our lived-experience of being-in-the-world; ultimately we can never get beyond, beneath, or behind our experience of the world.
We can think rationally about the world and we can think rationally about God, in attempting to better understand and make sense of our existential lived-experience of being-in-the-world, but we can never fully comprehend the mystery that is: the world. We are misguided when we imagine that we can actually think the thoughts of the Creator of the world (to understand the world as he does) or when we imagine that, by simply discovering and cataloguing every fact about the world, we can have the mind of God himself.
Both theology and science could benefit by returning to our conscious human experience of being-in-the-world: to experience the world as-it-appears to us before we begin constructing our intellectual conceptualizations about the world we experience. Much of theology and science has delved off into the realms of intellectual-play theorizations about God and about the world, but, in so doing, they offer us virtually no help in our quest to better understand and make sense of our lived-experience of the world. By returning to the beginning of our experience, to the basis of our existence, and to the world as-it-appears to us we will discover that the world in which we live is a world that is meant to be lived-in and experienced more than it is a world that is in need of an explanation.
Explanations of the world and explanations of God are the provinces of science and theology respectively. We, as rational human beings, will inevitably think about our world and think about God, but we should not neglect, in the process, our experience of living in-the-world. Rather, we should allow our experience of the world to influence our thinking about the world and we should not allow our thinking about the world to influence our experience of the world. We can only know, or define as existing, what we can perceive and experience (whether directly or indirectly) and even science (or scientific knowledge) is dependent upon subjective human experience. Yet modern science is always attempting to discover what exists behind the appearances of the phenomena we experience and reveal the (supposedly) true, ultimate, hidden reality which underlies this experience, as if this were the objective reality that gives rise to our illusory subjective experiences. However, subjective experience is quite real, and it is the basis upon which all scientific reasoning about the world ultimately rests.
Theology is dependent upon special (supernatural) revelation; theologians attempt to understand and explain that which is beyond our natural human experience of being-in-the-world: the Creator of the world. Both science and theology (as forms of human knowledge) are incapable of giving us a total and complete explanation, either of the world or of God. Our desire to seek to better understand both the world and our Creator is a desire given to us by God: our ability to reason. And reason we must but we should recognize that our human reasoning can only take us so far, and we should not attempt to reach beyond what we are able (intellectually) to grasp hold of. When we attempt to do so, we run the risk of distorting what little we actually do know about God and the world and we run the risk of thinking of ourselves as knowing more than�or knowing better than�the Creator himself.
Nothing can be said to exist if we have no experience of its existence, or if something is unimaginable to us. How could it? Even a scientific explanation of an ultimate reality must be an experienced reality of some sort (directly or indirectly); it must, in some way, be perceptible to us. This is the way the world is, the way we are, and the way we are created to be: to live-in-and-experience the world. For all practical purposes, our way of being, of existing, and of living in-the-world allows us to function with purpose in the world. And it is our way of living in-the-world that is (ultimately) of the most importance to us, to others, to the world, and to our Creator. Theological and scientific abstractions cannot help us to become better persons, better neighbors, better stewards of the earth, or develop a better relationship with our Creator. In fact they can (and often do) lead us away from such betterment, plunging us into the abyss of a self-centered existence.
The biblical presentation of the world is one of a world we can easily recognize, because the most important aspect of the world is living in-the-world. Modern science may tell us that reality is simply objective matter/energy in motion, and it may tell us that what appears (to us) to be solid is, in fact, not solid at all; but what about our perception of the world? Does the world not appear (to us) to be made up of definite forms which are solid (i.e., whole forms)? Is the true reality of the world that which appears to us? Or is it the unperceived causes of those appearances? Since the world in which we find ourselves presents itself to us as-it-appears, the world of appearances should, I think, be understood as being true reality.
Consider what would happen if modern science discovered a four digit code underlying all observable phenomena in the world; a code not unlike the four digit code modern science has discovered underlying all of life (DNA). What would the true reality of the phenomena of the world be: the code or the phenomena? When computer programmers create a virtual world within a software program, the code used by the programmers is the information needed in order to build the virtual world the programmers want to create. The virtual world is the goal and the purpose for the existence of the code. The code underlies this virtual world and, if we lift the veil of appearances from this virtual world, what we discover is not the reality of the virtual world, but the informational tool devised in order to create the reality of the virtual world as-it-appears. We would immediately realize that the virtual world as-it-appeared was the purpose of the encoded information, and that the existence of the virtual world was the reality that was intended by the programmers to be perceived by those using the software. The code itself is real�it exists�but it is simply the hidden tool used in the construction of the world the programmers wanted to create.
It is the world as-it-appears that is the reality of this virtual world; this is the world that is intended to be perceived. The code behind the phenomena of this virtual world is not an ultimate reality, and the code is not any more real than the phenomena that appear in this virtual world. If anything could be considered to have a superior reality, it would likely be the phenomenal forms produced by the code, because the formation of these phenomena was the very purpose for the code to begin with. Our Creator made the world to be perceived as-it-appears to us and he intended for us to live our lives according to this perceived reality. Modern science could discover a hidden reality�a code underlying all phenomena in the world�but this would not be an ultimate reality, the discovery of such a code would simply be the discovery of the informational tool used to create the phenomena of the world (the purpose of the code being for the phenomena of the world to appear to us as they do).
Even if such a DNA type code underlying phenomena were to be discovered, it is very unlikely humankind could ever gain the knowledge necessary to completely understand such a code; let alone the wisdom necessary in order to use such an incredible knowledge of the world. A frightening thought, when we consider that modern science would, no doubt, attempt to reprogram the world into whatever the modern scientists believed would be a better world than the one in which we now find ourselves (humankind�s research and development in genetic engineering as well as chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons certainly comes to mind here).
The biblical view of the world is a difficult view of the world for those of us who live in the modern era to accept as being valid; it seems to be an invalid perspective of the world. Modern science and modern sensibilities have overthrown much (if not all) of the old religious truths, which were easily accepted during prescientific times. For example, the biblical account of the creation of the world is, today, not taken literally by many (most?) people and it hasn�t been for quite some time. Many theologians eagerly accepted Darwinian evolution as scientific fact (in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century) and adjusted their biblical/theological accounts of creation to fit with evolution, because they saw the modern scientific theory as having greater explanatory power than did the Bible when it came to explaining the world.
These theologians thought it necessary to adjust their biblical/theological presentation and explanation of both God and the world by deferring to the reigning authority of modern science. They believed modern, intelligent, and educated people could no longer adhere to the premodern, prescientific, biblical, and theological understanding of the world and of God. I believe this was also the intellectual motivation behind the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century: the Reformers recognized the need to update a prescientific (=erroneous) Catholic theology in order to salvage both the Christian faith and its Bible; to make them more palatable to modern, educated, intellectual, and scientifically minded people.
But if the Bible is to be believed at all, then its text should be accepted as-it-presents-itself to us. The Bible�s narrative account of the history of salvation�culminating with the life, death, burial, and resurrection of God�s Son, Jesus Christ�is what it is: the biblical text is either relevant as it is written or it is not. All adjustments, reinterpretations, and updated re-presentations of its text (e.g., higher criticisms, source theories) are simply the misguided efforts of modern, scientifically minded critics who have succeed only in missing the entire point of the text itself. The stories we find in the text of the Bible should be taken as-they-present-themselves to us: as stories based upon historical events.
It doesn�t matter if these stories are thought to be accurate in the modern (or pre-modern Greek philosophical) sense of the term; these stories are true and accurate for us in the same sense that they were written to us: as being true and accurate historical accounts of events according to how the presentation of historical events were presented to peoples who lived in the Middle Eastern world during the times in which these stories were written. The Bible�s narratives are not mythological in the sense of their being fictional but in the sense of their being stories rather than the (supposedly) dispassionate, rational, objective, and neutral accounts of history that those of us who live in the modern Western world have grown accustomed to considering as factual histories. The narratives of the Bible are much like our own experiences in life: we relate to others what we have seen and what we have heard as best we can and as accurately as we can, knowing that a flawless, neutral accounting of history is never possible. It is the content of the information passed on to us that is important, more so than the means through which this information is presented.
The gospel accounts of the life and ministry of Christ are given to us in the form of eyewitness accounts (i.e., Matthew and John) and second hand accounts derived from eyewitness testimony (i.e., Mark and Luke) and they are presented to us in the form of accurate historical narratives. These narrative presentations of the life and ministry of Christ are presented to us, and should be read by us, as if we ourselves were present at the time these events occurred; as these recorded events would have appeared to us had we actually been present and personally observed them. And this is as good as it gets: the Christian faith is based upon historical narratives that can either be accepted as true (or true enough) accounts of the reality of the life and ministry of Christ, or they can be rejected as being false and unreliable accounts. But, whether we choose to believe in Christ or not, our belief or our disbelief will ultimately be based upon these written gospel accounts.
If the gospel accounts are true accounts of what really happened in Palestine over 2,000 years ago, then it is interesting to speculate upon why God the Father would have chosen such a prescientific time in which to send his only begotten Son into the world. The world, at that time, was much like the world as it had always been. For example, no one had ever traveled faster than a horse until the development of the modern railroad during the nineteenth century. Why would God send his Son into such a primitive prescientific era? God certainly knew of (and determined) the rise of modern scientific knowledge, just as he also knew the modern era would be imbued with a naturalistic and materialistic philosophy that was contrary�even hostile�to the supernatural revelation he had given us. How would our Creator have us to make sense of his revelation to us today?
This presents us with our central question: How are we to make sense of the Bible in the context of the modern world? In our modern world, the Bible is a text that has been taken out of its context if there ever was one. This has been a challenge for modern theology ever since modern science began to displace faith in the biblical/theological view of the world. What we appear to be faced with today is a choice between only two theological positions: 1) we can capitulate to the modern scientific view of the world and adjust our theology accordingly; or 2) we can maintain the biblical view of the world despite the challenges posed by the modern scientific view of the world.
We do, however, have another option: we can come up with better explanations that remain true to theology, the Bible, and modern scientific explanations of the world. We should recognize that both science and theology give us knowledge of the world, but that neither�working together or alone�is able to present us with a complete and total explanation of the mystery that is: the world. These two fields of human knowledge are to remain expert in their respective fields�complimenting rather than conflicting with one another. Each must always press forward toward a better, more complete understanding of the world, and each should be allowed to correct and to guide the other whenever the two come into disagreement in their common pursuit to gaining true knowledge of the world. Each must be willing to understand the other�s point of view and to recognize the other�s area of expertise as being necessary in their common pursuit of true knowledge of the world.
Science should not surrender its most basic epistemological and methodological premise: that the causes of natural phenomena are only explicable by positing natural causes. There is nothing wrong or inappropriate with this most basic approach to the study of natural phenomena by modern science. Problems only arise when modern science oversteps this epistemological and methodological premise by setting about to create a naturalistic metaphysic, which goes beyond what the physical sciences can know about the world, by speculating upon the natural origins of the universe and rejecting outright the possibility that anything could exist beyond nature.
Likewise, theology cannot surrender its most basic assumption: God has revealed knowledge of himself and of the world that human reason alone cannot attain. Problems arise only when theology attempts to dismiss clear scientific knowledge of the world because it does not fit, or does not seem to fit, with this revelation. If and when this does occur, theologians should acknowledge the truth about the world science has discovered and seek a clearer understanding of the Bible in order to better understand the world, without giving up core biblical and theological truths. True knowledge of the world will not contradict either good science or good theology.
We have already looked at a few examples of the differences between the modern scientific view and theological/biblical view of the world and I have attempted to show how these different understanding of the world might be resolved by looking at the world in such a way (i.e., phenomenologically) that both good science and good theology can lead us to true knowledge as well as a better understanding of the world. Before moving on to the next chapter, let�s look at an example of the life-world and the Bible; an example taken from the life and ministry of Christ, which presents us with exactly the type of conflict that can arise between modern science, theology, and the Bible. In the Gospel of Luke (4:40-41) we read:
�Now when the sun was setting, all those who had any that were sick with various diseases brought them to him; and he laid his hands on every one of them and healed them. And demons also came out of many, crying, �You are the Son of God!� But he rebuked them, and would not allow them to speak, because they knew that he was the Christ.�
In this one, very brief passage of scripture�a passage relating only one evening in the three year ministry of Christ�we are presented with a serious conflict between modern science and the biblical revelation upon which all of Christian theology is based. The writer of this gospel account (Luke) relates this event to us (the readers) as he understood this event to have occurred (Luke was not an eyewitness); as a historical event well attested to by many. This writer�s account of this event was and is�even in the modern sense�a historically accurate record of past events (see: Luke 1:1-4). This written account of Christ�s having healed the sick and cast out demons on this one evening in Palestine (over 2,000 years ago) presents itself to us as a real event that, had we been present, we could have observed for ourselves. As we read the text of the gospel (as it is written) we find ourselves (virtually) in Palestine, on this one particular evening, watching, listening, perceiving, and experiencing the world as Christ heals and delivers the multitudes of people brought to him.
There is quite a bit of conflict here between modern scientific knowledge and the biblical revelation throughout this entire passage. Even the gospel writer�s simple statement that these historical events occurred when �the sun was setting� could be understood as being scientifically incorrect. This could easily be dismissed as the gospel writer�s use of a figure of speech (we, today, still say that the sun rises and sets, even though we know that it is actually the earth that is moving). However, as we have already seen, the Bible makes it quite clear that the motion of the sun is to be taken literally: the sun appears to move, therefore the sun does move.
Theologians, after the Copernican Revolution had taken hold, were well aware of this biblical sun-motion problem, and they did their very best to defend the biblical truth concerning the motion of the sun. Over time, however, the theologians conceded defeat and adjusted their theologies accordingly. The sun�s motion could no longer be taken literally, since modern science had proven the Bible�s statements concerning the sun�s motion to be false. And yet, as we�ve seen, both the scientific and the biblical truths about the appearance of the sun�s motion can be reconciled when the phenomenon of the sun�s motion is viewed phenomenologically: our perception of the motion of the sun is just as true-for-us as is the modern scientific truth that the earth�s motion is the cause for us perceiving the sun�s (apparent) motion. Phenomenologically, both truths are true-for-us depending upon our perspectives, and neither perspective can claim to be presenting us with the only true account of this phenomenon.
Following the brief mention made of the time of day when this particular event occurred, we read that �all those who had any that were sick with various diseases brought them to him; and he laid his hands on every one of them and healed them.� This, to the modern mind, is a most fantastic claim to make. The writer is stating here�as historical fact�that Jesus of Nazareth healed every diseased person who was brought to him on this one particular evening in Palestine over 2,000 years ago. This healing event must have taken hours to accomplish; most probably all night long, since the text tells us that Christ did not depart until the next morning (see 4:42). This miraculous healing of a multitude of people is contrary to all modern scientific explanations of sickness, disease, and health. According to modern science, this event could not have occurred. But did it occur? Could it have occurred? And how, really, could we ever know?
From this point in the story on, things, for the modern mind, only get worse. According to the text, not only did Christ heal a multitude of people who were sick with various diseases, but �demons also came out of many, crying, �You are the Son of God!�� What are we, the intelligent, educated, modern thinking people that we are, supposed to make of this? Are we expected to believe that this event actually occurred� demons? Please, my modern sensibilities are being offended. This is taking things way too far. But again, how could we know this event didn�t actually occur? What theory of knowledge would we use in order to know? The scientific epistemology would be of no use to us here, because, by this point, this event has clearly become a supernatural phenomenon, and, by definition, only natural phenomena can be accounted for by the scientific epistemology.
This is only one example of the miraculous taken from only one of the four gospel accounts of the life and ministry of Christ; there are many more. What are we to make of them all? Should they be dismissed as prescientific nonsense? Should we (as many theologians have already done) hold fast to the scientific epistemology, believing these (supposed) miracles to have rational (i.e., modern scientific) explanations? Obviously, to someone who bases their thinking upon scientific facts fitted within a modern scientific conceptual scheme, none of the miraculous events described in the gospels could have occurred. This would include, especially, the resurrection of Christ from the dead; and yet belief in the risen Christ is central to the Christian faith. Without faith in the risen Christ we are, as St. Paul tells us, �of all men [people] most to be pitied� (1 Corinthians 15:19); �If Christ has not been raised, [our] faith is futile and [we] are still in [our] sins� (1 Corinthians 15:17). There is no Christian faith apart from the miraculous and the supernatural, no matter how fantastic or unbelievable these phenomena may be to our modern minds.
Historical phenomena do not need to be directly perceived�experienced�by us in order to be believed; all of us must, at some point, accept some accounting of past events (whether written or oral) that we consider valid (or valid enough) accounts of human history. The supernatural phenomena recorded in the gospels are considered by many intelligent and educated people today to be valid historical accounts of past events. We all rely on witnesses or upon the testimony of witnesses (those who observed and experienced past events) in order to know (as best as humanly possible) what has occurred in time and in-the-world. And no legitimate reasons can be given for why the gospels should not be accepted as valid historical records; the gospels are just as valid�even more so�than are any other written accounts of ancient history.
The historical narrative presented to us through the Bible, especially the New Testament, is the basis of the Christian faith. The gospels are historical records of the experiences of persons alive during the time of the life and ministry of Christ, and all Christians should hold them in highest regard, since they contain for us the teaching and example of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Christ himself prayed especially for those who would believe in him on the word (i.e., testimony) of his disciples, because it was not possible for everyone to be able to personally see his miracles and hear his teachings: �I do not pray for these [disciples] only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me� (John 17:20-21).
How else could �the world� ever believe in Christ except for the disciple�s communication of these events to those of us who were unable to know that they had occurred? These events were, after all, events that occurred only during this one particular time and in this one particular place; they were perceptible only to a relatively small group of people who happened to be alive in that place during that time. Our faith as believers in Christ is ultimately based upon the word of those whose lived-experience was with Christ during his lifetime, in the places where he ministered. These disciples experienced the supernatural phenomena that we, today, can only read about in the gospels. Though inexplicable by reason and science, such supernatural events and experiences are not irrational. It is quite rational for us to believe in God, because of the very existence of the natural world itself; and is it not just as rational for us to believe that the God who created the world could also (as the Son, the image of the invisible God) heal the sick, open the eyes of the blind, and raise the dead in order to demonstrate his love, compassion, power, and authority? Christ himself, teaching at synagogue, interpreted the words of the Old Testament prophet Isaiah as being fulfilled through his ministry:
�And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up; and he went to the synagogue, as his custom was, on the sabbath day. And he stood up to read; and there was given to him the book of the prophet Isaiah. He opened the book and found the place where it was written, �The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.� And he closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant, and sat down; and the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him. And he began to say to them, �Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing�� (Luke 4:16-21).
The people who lived in-the-world with Christ experienced him and his ministry by way of the interaction of their subjective consciously lived-experience with the objective phenomena they perceived, and they have handed on to us what they themselves had once experienced. As we read the gospels, we enter into the world they experienced and we are enabled, through our reading of the gospel texts, to make the historical accounts of their conscious human experience of these phenomena our own. All historical accounts�whether ancient, medieval, modern, or contemporary�are based upon the experiences of those who were alive at the time who have related past events to us in a reliable manner. And all of us must inevitably place our trust in someone�s account of past events we are unable to perceive for ourselves.
Modern science, which consists of very specialized knowledge, likewise presents to those of us who are not scientists (and to those scientists working within their own particular specialties) knowledge of experienced phenomena that we ourselves can have no direct (or indirect) experience of. We have not seen a quark, or a black hole, or the slow transition from simple to complex life, or the earth�s orbiting of the sun, but we don�t hesitate to believe that modern science is giving us accurate and true information about our world and about its history. None of us has personal experience of every phenomenon that exists, or that has ever existed; we only have personal experiences with the world of phenomena as-we-perceive-it in our own individual, embodied, conscious lived-experience. The history of the world, of the church, and of modern science is a collective history of the human community; a knowledge attained and achieved by humankind as a whole, because no one person is able to know and personally experience all that we as a human community have learned and experienced throughout history.
We have communities of knowledge and experience: scientific, theological, historical, philosophical, literary, mechanical, architectural, musical, etc� with each community contributing their own part to the whole of human knowledge and understanding of the world. No one community has knowledge and experience of all fields of human endeavor; communities of human knowledge and experience share their knowledge and experience with the broader human community. They share the knowledge and experience they have acquired so that humankind as a whole can benefit from it, creating a communal knowledge and experience of the world, which none of us could ever attain on our own.
Ultimately, even modern science�like the Bible�presents us with a world of phenomena experienced (whether directly or indirectly) by someone other than ourselves; someone whose experiences and whose historical accounts of such experiences we must rely upon in order to gain knowledge our world. Do we believe the gospel accounts of Christ�s having healed the sick and cast out demons? Do we believe the accounts of the particle physicists who claim to have discovered the quantum uncertainty principle and the quark? Why or why not?
In the next chapter, we will be looking more closely at the Bible�s presentation of the world from the human perspective. As we�ve already seen, the Bible presents the world to us in the same way that we perceive the world: as-it-appears to us. It is the world of appearances and the existential human experience of living in-the-world that the Bible is proclaiming to us as the world of reality. Not that the unobservable to us is not real�such things certainly can be real�but that what is observable to us is what is most important to us, and what is most important to our Creator. Especially when it comes to how we live our lives in the very real world in which we find ourselves.
Modern science, theology, and philosophy often journey into abstractions that have no correspondence to the concrete world of everyday life. But Christ did not come into the world preaching and teaching intellectual-play abstractions to a learned few; rather, his message was for everyone, and his message was very simple: Follow me, repent and believe the gospel; turn from selfishness and serve others, love God and love your neighbors as you would yourself. As we will see, love of God and love of others is the key that unlocks the mysteries of living in-the-world. And this love is no intellectual abstraction; it is the very concrete reality of human life lived in-community and in-the-world.
Introduction
In this chapter, we will be examining the human perspective from which the Bible is written. Not that the Bible, having been written by human authors, is necessarily written from the human perspective, but that our Creator�having revealed himself through both the created world and the Bible�has granted preeminence to the human perspective of the world: the world as-it-appears to us. The Bible presents the world to us in the same manner as we experience the world: from the human perspective. The biblical presentation of life lived in-the-world and in-community with others is a presentation of the world as-we-find-it and as-we-experience-it. This is the pre-given world in which we live; the world that exists before we begin to reason about it, and before we begin constructing conceptual schemes (worldviews) by which we can make sense of it. It is the world as-we-experience-it, a world filled with countless, wonderful, and amazing phenomena. Our world is a world of reason and rationality, and yet it is also a world of powerful emotions that often defy reason: love and hatred, joy and sorrow, generosity and greed, compassion and cruelty.
As we have seen, modern science strives to see the world from an objective and dispassionate perspective, which results in modern science having a very reductionist view of the world. But the world is far too complex to be reduced to a collection of facts about the world�even a vast collection of facts�and this is why even modern science must inevitably adopt some sort of metaphysical view of the world: some narrative, some myth, must be utilized in order to fit the facts into a greater story (a metanarrative) that gives us a greater overall meaning of the world as a cosmic, unified whole. Human life, for example, is far too complex to be reduced to scientific explanation. Emotions are an important part of who we, as human persons, are, but science has difficulty in adequately addressing the question of human emotions. This is because emotions are not objective facts, they are subjective experiences.
Our emotional experiences, which are a part of our conscious human experience of being-in-the-world as a mind/body unity, are very complex and powerful phenomena. The emotions we experience (at all times) throughout our lives defy modern scientific explanation (except for the typical reductionistic/materialistic �brain chemistry� explanation), yet the Bible presents these emotions to us as a very important facet of who we are as human persons. Our Creator made us in his own image and likeness (Genesis 1:26) and this makes us much more than simply rational animals: we are human persons having both intellect and emotion, just as our Creator has. Reason and feeling, intellect and emotion, are necessary for us to live-in and experience our world, ourselves, our friends, our families, our neighbors, and our God.
In this chapter, we will be taking a closer look at how the Bible presents this balanced portrait of the human person and at how we should live our lives in-the-world. Science and technology are continually changing, but human nature has not changed since the beginning of the world. The Bible�s human perspective provides us with a wealth of timeless wisdom, which, if we avail ourselves of it, can enable us to live better lives�both individually and in-community with others�in-the-world.
The Bible�s Human Perspective
The Bible presents God as one who loves (Exodus 34:6; Deuteronomy 10:18; Psalm 103:17; Isaiah 61:8; John 3:16); as one who hates (Psalm 11:5; Isaiah 61:8; Amos 5:21; Malachi 1:2-3; Romans 9:13); as one who is jealous (Exodus 20:5; Deuteronomy 6:15; Joel 2:18; Nahum 1:2; Zachariah 8:2); as one who is angry (Exodus 4:14; Deuteronomy 11:17; Judges 10:7; Isaiah 13:9; Mark 3:5); and as one who is sorrowful (Genesis 6:6; Isaiah 53:3-4; Isaiah 54:6-10; Matthew 26:37; John 11:33-36).
These are emotions we are all very familiar with, because they are an integral part of our human experience of living in-the-world as human persons. Our Creator�in whose image we are created�is not a dispassionate, impersonal Force; nor is he the dispassionate, rationalistic Grand Architect of the universe: our Creator is the one God who exists in the three Persons of the Holy Trinity. The Bible presents God as being personal and relational; not as abstract and intellectual.
As human persons we are personal and relational beings. We do have a great capacity for reason, but our ability to reason alone is not what makes us who we are. The most important things in life are not really things at all, they are people: the people we love, the people we hate, the people we are jealous of, the people we are angry with, the people we grieve over. This is what makes us most truly human and most truly alive in-the-world; this is what our experience of living in-the-world is really about: this is reality.
Our Creator is intimately concerned with his creation. His creation (and subsequent blessing) of animal life (Genesis 1:22) before his creation (and subsequent blessing) of humankind reveals the expression of God�s loving kindness toward all life in-the-world that he created. Our Creator�s love, concern, and compassion for his creation are evident throughout the first chapter of Genesis (as well as throughout the entire Bible). God�s very creation of the world (and of life) is an expression, not simply of his knowledge and his power, but of himself and of his love. It is very common to hear of how God framed the world by his infinite reason, and of how this allows us, through the use of our intellectual and rational abilities, to discover the workings of the universe. And yet I think we can know more about our Creator, more about ourselves, and more about our world when we understand that the world was created by-and-through God�s infinite love. Our human capacity to love grants us access to the divine nature of love; a human capacity to love that is far more god-like than is our human capacity to reason. As the psalmist says:
�The Lord is merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love. He will not always chide, nor will he keep his anger forever. He does not deal with us according to our sins, nor requite us according to our iniquities. For as the heavens are high above the earth, so great is his steadfast love toward those who fear him; as far as the east is from the west, so far does he remove our transgressions from us. As a father pities his children, so the Lord pities those who fear him. For he knows our frame; he remembers that we are dust. As for man, his days are like grass; he flourishes like a flower of the field; for the wind passes over it, and it is gone, and its place knows it no more. But the steadfast love of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting upon those who fear him, and his righteousness to children�s children, to those who keep his covenant and remember to do his commandments� (Psalm 103:8-18).
The creation of the world�of the entire universe�must certainly be more than an expression of God�s reason, intellect, and power; the creation of the world must also be an expression of our Creator�s love, mercy, and compassion. Love separated from reason is never a good thing, and neither is reason (or rationality) separated from love: both conditions of separation could, very likely, be dangerous. Both love and reason should be in harmony, in agreement, and in cooperation with one another; and when they aren�t, when one takes precedence over the other, we are only separating ourselves from who we really are.
The study of theology requires the rationality of science because theology is the science of God. Likewise, science requires both the knowledge of God (theology) and the love of wisdom (philosophy) to have a complete and balanced view of the world it studies. Science separated from God, love, mercy, compassion, and wisdom can easily devolve into an inhuman technological tyranny of efficiency over the world (especially over humankind). In fact modern science, as separated as it currently is from true religion, and as antitheistic as it has now become, is quickly becoming a sort of anti-religion; a false religion in-and-of itself.105
A recent work by a University of California physics professor (written along with his wife, who is both a lawyer and a writer) goes so far as to advocate recasting our modern scientific knowledge of the universe into the form of a new religious myth (complete with symbols). This new religion of modern scientific knowledge would (supposedly) enable us to finally realize our true place in the cosmos and guide us in our ethical decision making; the other religious myths of the past (Christianity included) having been found (by these authors) incapable of so doing.106
Our sense of ethics and morals derive more from our emotions than from our ability to reason; although both do work-together when we make our moral and ethical decisions. Ultimately it is our sense�our feeling�that something is either right or wrong which guides us in our moral decision making, not rational and intellectual proofs. This is especially true when we are confronted with an immediate demand for moral decision making. True, our thought-out reasons for doing (or for not doing) something weighs heavily upon us at such times, and we will (more often than not) defer to what we have already learned is the right thing to do; yet we also have within us a moral sense of repugnance for doing (or for seeing done) that which is obviously evil.
We don�t need to be taught that it is wrong to torture a small child: we know this intuitively. For one to believe that an act as heinous as this was morally right, one would have to unlearn the intuitively known truth of the evil of this act by rationalizing away the obviously evil nature of this act. In such cases of what are obviously evil acts, human reason is much better at rationalizing and legitimizing brutality than it is at guiding us into moral and ethical truth. The Holocaust, for example, was not perpetrated by those who allowed their conscience be their guide, but by those who allowed their conscience to be overridden by intellectual rationalizations for genocide.
For those of us who may be seeking guidance in moral decision making from the halls of academia�the very seat of reason in our society�one could listen to the pseudo-wisdom of Professor Peter Singer, holder of the Ira W. DeCamp chair of Bioethics at Princeton University. Professor Singer writes about ethics as one whose innate sense of morality has obviously, long ago, been overridden by intellectual rationalizations for brutality: �Human babies,� writes Singer, �are not born self-aware or capable of grasping their lives over time. They are not persons. Hence their lives would seem to be no more worthy of protection than the life of a fetus.�107 One could no doubt receive better ethical guidance from one of the (supposedly uneducated) service employees (no offense to them or to their professions intended) working at Princeton university who were smart enough not to waste their time getting an advanced university degree, if Professor Singer is any indication of the damage today�s higher education can do to the human heart and mind.
It�s not at all uncommon to hear people (often ourselves) rationalizing their way out of a moral dilemma. Our minds, it is said, are never harder at work than when we are trying to justify our sins. We might escape prosecution by the state, we might even escape the notice of others, but we cannot flee from our own conscience: we know�intuitively�what is right and what is wrong. As St. Paul explains it:
�When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus� (Romans 2:14-16).
In this passage, St. Paul is telling us that everyone (i.e., the Gentiles) who does not have knowledge of God�s specially revealed truth (i.e., the Law to the Jewish nation) is still accountable to the law of the (natural) human conscience. We would have to override our conscience in order to say, or in order to believe, that ��human babies�seem no more worthy of protection than a fetus.� A human child is the most vulnerable creature on the face of the earth and is, therefore, the most worthy of protection. Even the most antitheistic Darwinist would probably say that we have evolved a natural desire to protect a human baby in order to propagate our species. It�s often said that emotions can�t be trusted, but it is emotion that (quite naturally) leads us to protect a human child; whereas the intellect is much better at reasoning its way out of this natural and emotionally driven human desire to protect a baby. Ethics and morals is the area in which both theology and philosophy can make the most important contribution to human knowledge and where they are able to be of the greatest assistance to modern science. The rationally driven modern scientific quest for knowledge of the natural world knows no bounds. For all practical purposes, the only ethic modern science has is: Whatever can be done should be done. And this sort of �ethic� is no ethic at all. Philosophy and theology has hundreds of years of accumulated knowledge and wisdom regarding ethics, which they can bring to modern science in order to help guide scientists in ethical principles; ethics being a field of knowledge that is completely beyond the realm of scientific expertise.
Modern science is epistemologically unable to place limits on scientific knowledge and technology�whatever can be done is being done�often with an arrogant disregard for the other disciplines of human knowledge, which are thought to be beneath science (i.e., the humanities). And yet society, as a whole, is faced with the challenge of dealing with the myriad technologies that modern science has generated. Society certainly needs to utilize every field of human knowledge in order to better understand, utilize, and control modern technologies. For example, our society is often confronted with technological issues in the political arena, such as the moral questions which arise concerning the government�s moral reasoning regarding medical and biological technologies (e.g., stem cell research, cloning, genetically engineered plants and animals, animal testing, and the abortion of human babies).
Many people, especially scientists, have rational explanations for why such advances in science and technology should be developed and utilized. Other people, mostly non-scientists, often feel something is wrong with the use of (some of) these technologies, and the new abilities given to us (as a society) by this type of scientific research and development. Philosopher and physician Dr. Leon Kass, M.D. has said that our most reliable guide in moral questions (regarding bioethics) is our innate moral sense of repugnance.108 When we learn of a new advancement in the biosciences, such as genetic engineering or cloning, our initial reaction to these technologies is often one of repugnance, we sense (innately) that the use of such technologies is wrong. Such feelings do not easily lend themselves to logical, rational explanations, but, as Dr. Kass realizes, our human experience of repugnance at the thought of using such technologies is a moral guide that we should not ignore.
The Bible is replete with examples of moral dilemmas, and it provides us with an abundance of moral guidance. Because human nature has not changed in the thousands of years since the Bible was written, the Bible is still able to provide us with moral and ethical guidelines for living. The Bible presents us with the Law of God given to Moses and the people of Israel as moral and ethical guidelines for society, and it also presents us with Christ�s teachings on the supreme moral demands and responsibilities of love. The Bible, for people of faith, is a reliable guide for living in-community with others in-the-world. The problem we face today is that the Bible does not speak directly to our modern scientific and technological moral dilemmas. Thankfully, the Bible does speak to us directly about the moral and ethical challenges we face as human persons living in-community and in-the-world; challenges that have not changed over time. Yet we do lack�in the Bible alone�direct answers to our modern scientific and technological ethical questions.
With these sorts of questions our most reliable guide is the living community of the faithful; the community already imbued with the biblical/traditional moral standards for living in-community: The Church. The overseers of the Church have been in the practice of applying biblical and traditional ethical standards to timely moral issues for centuries. And, even in our day, it remains as a reliable moral guide. The Catholic Church has written extensively on every moral and ethical issue facing the modern world�from worker�s rights to stem cell research�and it is foolish to ignore the guidance the Church is able to provide our society. Without such guidance, our modern society will inevitably do whatever it is able to do, simply because it can.
People today still struggle with sin and temptation; therefore the Bible is still our most reliable guide to living our lives in harmony with God, with our neighbors, and with ourselves. None of us is without sin, and all of us struggle with the temptation to do what is wrong rather than doing what is right. Our Creator knew the struggles with temptations we would face (as creatures made of flesh and blood) and He provided us�not with a list of rules�but with guidance for living our lives in-the-world. God gave humankind the Law (through Moses) knowing the temptations we would face; the Law being both a warning to us and a guide for us. Our Creator knew (before he created us) that we would violate the Law by giving-in to the temptation to sin. The entire, elaborate, sacrificial system of the Old Testament was given to Israel by God based upon the presupposition that the Law could not be kept. The sacrificial system was put in place by God in order to manifest his mercy and grace toward sinners by providing a way for the forgiveness of sins. And the Law acted as a guide to help humankind in our struggle to live in-the-world and in-community according to the wisdom of our Creator.
The Law provided Israel with a social order that enabled the people of Israel�as a community�to live together in harmony. The Law also provided the people of Israel with the concept of equity as a standard of justice.109 Under the Law some of the more serious sins were, in fact, crimes so destructive of the social order that those who committed them were punished with death (i.e., absolute exclusion from the community). Law is the most basic requirement for order in a society; a society cannot exist without law or without some standard of justice and moral behavior. Most importantly, God has given the Law as a guide to help us to live our lives in harmony with him, with others, and with ourselves.
All of us have an innate sense of what is right and what is wrong, and we also have a natural desire for human social order. It is possible for our consciences to be overridden, and it is also necessary for our consciences to be properly formed by our families and by the various other authorities within our society. A person can become virtually without a conscience if their conscience is not properly formed by their parents and by their society, but everyone has enough of (even a rudimentary) conscience that they remain without excuse when they act contrary to both their own conscience and the moral standards of their society. The fact that this sense of moral order is bound up within the human conscience makes it impossible for anyone to escape it completely. The inescapable nature of moral order found within the human conscience does not require belief in God, because it is put there by our Creator. We can choose to acknowledge or to suppress the knowledge of God�s existence (clearly revealed to us through the natural order of the world and the moral conscience) but we cannot escape from this knowledge.
Someone who does not believe in God (or in the Bible as God�s revelation to humankind) still has moral and ethical standards, which guide their behavior and provide them with the moral standards they expect themselves and the people in their society to abide by. Ultimately all non-theistic (or, non-biblical) standards of moral behavior are based upon human law rather than divine law, and human laws are either just or they are unjust. Laws are just only when they are guided by divine law, and they are unjust when they are opposed to divine law. As St. Augustine said, �a law that is unjust seems to be no law at all� and we are not bound by conscience to obey the unjust laws of men, which are contrary to both natural and divine law.110 The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. used this same standard of distinguishing just laws from unjust laws in his famous Letter From Birmingham Jail:
�[T]here are two types of laws: just and unjust�.Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is one that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.�111
Any society that rejects the guidance of our Creator�s natural and eternal laws will, inevitably, institute unjust laws. The modern world, especially of the past one hundred years, has seen more than its share of unjust laws; many nations and governments of the past, which were built upon the shifting sands of unjust human laws, have fallen. Raw political power posing as legitimate authority cannot stand the test of time (or of God�s judgment). God�s revelation through nature, the human conscience, and his special (biblical) revelation provide us with everything we need to construct our social and legal theories. The spirit of rationalism and neutrality that infused the Enlightenment, and upon which the modern era was built, has now come to a bitter end. As postmodern philosophy has revealed, there is no neutrality. We cannot rely upon reason alone to guide our individual and corporate lives. Reason and emotion, science and religion, text and interpreter, individual and society, intellect and intuition; our lived experience as human persons is only fully realized when the two (seemingly opposing) sides of our experience are in balance and working-together in harmony. And in human societies, where important decisions about law, morality, and ethics must be made for all members, this is especially important.
A theological ethical standard is (ultimately) based upon God�s law (both natural/temporal and divine/eternal), whereas a human ethical standard is (ultimately) based upon the human will to power. God�s law and his will represent a standard that is beyond humankind: a transcendent standard to which all of humankind is held accountable. An ethical standard of human origin cannot transcend humanity; it is always subject to modification, exception, and exploitation (i.e., the assertion of raw political power by the elite and powerful few over the common and powerless many). The ethical philosophy of humanistic thinking is (ultimately) might makes right and is always opposed to whatever would transcend the collective will of humankind (especially: God, religion, theology, natural and divine law).
Our Creator knows us better than we know ourselves, and he has revealed to us a treasury of knowledge and wisdom concerning himself, our world, ourselves, our relationships with others, and our relationship to himself. We would be wise to heed this knowledge. Theology and religion are not simply prescientific superstitions modern people can now dispense with; theology and religion provide a counterbalance to the weight of human reason, knowledge, and will; human abilities that, if not countered by divine wisdom, have the potential to destroy us.
Nature, the human conscience, reason, and emotion are not enough to guide us beyond the very basics of moral behavior. The human conscience needs to be properly formed, because the conscience, if not properly formed, is too easily overridden by reason and the human will. The knowledge that comes to us through the special revelation of God�along with God�s grace�elevates the human conscience to a higher level and enables us to live our lives in the way our Creator knows is best for us. For humankind to consider the special revelation and grace of God unnecessary, faulty, superstitious, and prescientific would be to cast away our best hope of living in-the-world in harmony with others, with the world, and with our Creator.
Christ, who is �the image of the invisible God� (Colossians 1:15), points us toward God and demonstrates the will of our Creator for us. The teachings of Christ are emblematic of the phenomenological and theological view of the world we are exploring in this work, and by following the lead of Christ, we can begin to see the world as he saw the world: as-it-appears. The teachings of Christ, especially in the parables, are presented phenomenologically: the world exists as-it-appears to us and as-we-experience-it. The parables of Christ present us with spiritual truths concerning the kingdom of God, God�s relationship to us, and our relationships with others in-the-world. Christ�s parables presuppose the phenomenological, existential, and experiential reality of the world as-it-appears to us.
Modern science, philosophy, and theology are important fields of knowledge our Creator has intended for us utilize in our attempt to understand the world, and yet we can be easily sidetracked by the abstract conceptualizations of the world that are so common to all three of these disciplines. But the world we live in is not abstract; it is very concrete. The world we live in is not the intellectual-play world of scientists, philosophers, and theologians; it is the very real world of everyday life. This concrete world of everyday lived-experience is the true reality of the world Christ presupposes in order to communicate spiritual and moral truths to us through his teachings in the parables.
The parables of Christ are presentations of divine, spiritual, and moral truths conveyed to us in the form of stories (or narratives) involving the common phenomena of world as these phenomena appear to us in our consciously perceived human experience of the world. Christ�s presentations of spiritual and moral truths in the form of stories make his teachings very unlike the teachings of theologians, philosophers, and scientists. Christ�s teachings are not abstract, intellectual-play theorizations about the world; his teachings are concrete, practical examples of how we should live our lives in-the-world.
Christ�s parables convey practical, spiritual, and moral truths to us as vividly as they do because they presuppose our human perception and experience of being-in-the-world. The parables make use of the existential reality of the world we experience as human persons in order to communicate to us divine truths that apply to the very real world of life as-we-experience-it.
The parables of Christ contain real-world examples of living in-the-world we perceive and experience. These stories, taken from the human perspective of living in-the-world, are easily understood by anyone: educated or uneducated, rich or poor, believer or unbeliever. These divine truths are conveyed to us through stories about the things with which we are familiar, the things which appear to us in our everyday lived-experience of being-in-the-world: people, places, objects, animals, plants, clothing, food, drink, etc.
And this is the very crux of our exploration into the phenomenological and theological way of perceiving the world; a view of the world which enables us to balance the (prescientific) biblical worldview with the modern scientific worldview by focusing our attention on the world as-it-appears to us. Phenomenology brings us back to our most basic conscious human experience of living in-the-world and back to the world as-it-presents-itself to our conscious experience. The pre-given world of appearances exists before we begin reasoning about the world and before we develop conceptual schemes of the world. The world itself should be thought of as our greatest and most often overlooked presupposition (a sort of metapresupposition): the world as-it-appears to our conscious human experience is the great unexamined starting point of all human thought.
It is through the pre-given world of appearances that our Creator reveals himself to us (see Psalm 19:1-4; Wisdom 13:5) and it is the world of appearances that Christ uses to so powerfully reach into our hearts and minds through his parables. The everyday world of the appearances of the phenomena we experience is the same world that the parables of Christ presuppose: the world of phenomenal appearances that every human person experiences. Taking the life-world as pre-given, Christ�s teachings reach us where we live: in-the-world as-it-appears to us. A lost coin, a lost sheep, a seed planted, a barn built, a king going to war, dinner guests at a banquet, two debtors, a wayward son, a man who fell among thieves; all of these concern the world we live in, and the phenomena of the world as-they-appears to us. This is the phenomenal world we live in and the phenomenal world we experience: this, for us, is reality. And �[the] parables are generated from Jesus� experiential world and give his fundamental vision of reality.�112
Jesus is the (incarnate) Son of God; he is the Christ (Greek: christos) the Anointed One of God; he is the God-Man (Greek: theanthropos), and we should think about what his �experiential world� and �fundamental vision of reality� was when he existed (embodied) in time, on earth, and in-the-world. Any reality that might exist and yet be hidden from us, due to our limited powers and abilities to perceive the world, can certainly be perceived and experienced by the Son of God because:
�He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities�all things were created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together� (Colossians 1:15-17).
And yet Christ chose to present reality to us as-he-experienced-it as the incarnate Son of God: as one of us; as we perceive and experience the world. But why would he do this? It�s often said that if God had revealed the modern scientific truths about the world to prescientific people they would not have believed these truths, because they are so contrary to observation. Yet even today, if God had chosen to reveal the true hidden realities of the world, the modern scientists wouldn�t believe them either, because they would be far beyond what the scientists�as human persons�are able to perceive, observe, and understand about the world. Such knowledge, as only God himself can have about the world, is undoubtedly beyond any-and-all human ability to observe, experience, or understand. But this is exactly the sort of knowledge about the world Christ must have as the incarnate Son of God. The Son of God humbled himself by becoming a human person (see Philippians 2:5-8), and yet the eternal Person who is the Son of God and who became the man Christ Jesus has�eternally�the divine knowledge of the Son of God who is the Christ: the embodied Son of God.
As the Son of God incarnate, Christ could have explained and expounded upon all things pertaining to the natural world with knowledge only the one by whom and through whom the world was created and holds together could possess. Yet Christ�s perception of reality is not the hidden reality sought after by modern science; rather, reality was that which surrounded him, and that which also surrounds us: people, animals, trees, food, water, sickness, hunger, sorrow, joy, friendships, family, earth, and sky. This is reality as perceived by Christ himself, and this is the same reality we ourselves perceive. This is the reality of the world of phenomena the Son of God created and upholds (Colossians 1:15-17); this is the reality of the world that Christ uses to communicate to us practical, spiritual and moral truths; and this is how these truths can be known: through the reality of the world of phenomena as-they-appear to us in our everyday conscious perception and experience of living-in-the-world.
The parables of Christ are the richest of all moral and spiritual teachings, and when reading the parables we are able to place ourselves amongst those who personally heard these teachings from the mouth of Christ himself. It is as if we are present at those times and in those places experiencing them for ourselves.
The Parables of Christ
The use of parables was Christ�s favorite method of teaching, and some of the most profound and memorable of all his teachings have come down to us in the form of parables. A parable is a comparison between one thing and another, �the gospel parable is the illustration of a supernatural truth by means of a simile given in a complete self-dependent discourse.�113 Parables use similes such as: the kingdom of heaven is like�a mustard seed, a pearl of great price, leaven hidden in a measure of meal. The spiritual truth meant to be communicated is done so by comparing the spiritual truth itself (e.g., the kingdom; the responsibilities and duties of all believers; the relationship of God and believers) with the sorts of things, perceptions, and experiences we have; the things, perceptions, and experiences all of us are very familiar with from everyday life.
It is the everyday life aspect of the parables that we are most interested in here. In the parables we find Christ disclosing the greatest of all divinely revealed truths in the simplest of everyday stories; stories that reach our hearts rather than our heads. The discourses of modern science, theology, and philosophy reach the head rather than the heart. Christ chose to speak spiritual truths to us in the form of stories about everyday life, instead of presenting us with lengthy intellectual discourses. Certainly Christ could have told us everything about the natural physical world, about God, about human reason and logic; why then did Christ teach what he taught in the way that he taught it?
Christ�s perception of reality is communicated to us through his parables. His teaching through parables was not condescending; he was not reaching down from above in order to communicate with us on our primitive level, and he was not communicating to us in the only way possible for someone who was, at that time, living in an ancient, prescientific, Jewish social context. Christ, the incarnate Son of God, taught in parables because our perception of the everyday world of human experience is reality. By teaching through stories, which presuppose this human experiential reality of being-in-the-world, Christ was able to penetrate the hearts and minds of those who heard him, and those who, through reading the parables, hear him still. The truths Christ communicates to us through the parables give us instruction in how to act�how to live�in the world we perceive, observe, and experience every moment of our lives.
How we are to act toward God, how we are to act toward others, how we are to act toward the world, as we live our lives in-the-world, is the most important aspect of the reality of the world we continually perceive and experience. Nothing could be more important to us (or to God) than how we live our lives in-the-world. And the truths Christ has taught us through his parables are far more important than the truths of modern science, theology, or philosophy.
In the following section we will be looking at three examples of the parables of Christ found only in the Gospel according to St. Luke: The Great Banquet, The Good Samaritan, and The Prodigal Son. The parable of The Great Banquet is an example of a parable of the Kingdom of God; the parable of The Good Samaritan is an example of the duties and responsibilities the followers of Christ have toward others; and the parable of The Prodigal Son is an example of how God relates to humankind.
The Great Banquet
This parable was given by Christ, �one sabbath when he went to dine at the house of a ruler who belonged to the Pharisees�� (Luke 14:1). Christ challenged the Pharisees by asking them whether or not it was lawful to heal someone on the sabbath day; they had no reply to his challenge, and Christ then proceeded to heal a man (who was present at the banquet) of an illness (14:2-6). Christ instructed the guests who had been invited to the banquet not to presume to take the places of honor, lest they be asked by the host to step aside and give place to a more honorable person. Christ admonished them to take the lower positions at the banquet and wait for the host to invite them to take a more honorable place (14:7-11). Christ then proceeded to instruct the host of the banquet not to invite his friends and those who had the means to repay him to such a banquet; rather, he should invite those who had no social standing and no means to repay his kindness, telling him that he would be rewarded for his kindness at the resurrection of the just (14:12-14). And, �When one of those who sat at table with him heard this, he said to him: �Blessed is he who shall eat bread in the kingdom of God!�� (Luke 14:15). This exclamation is what led Christ to proclaim his teaching about the kingdom of God in the parable of The Great Banquet:
�But he said to him, �A man once gave a great banquet, and invited many; and at the time for the banquet he sent his servant to say to those who had been invited, �Come; for all is now ready.� But they all alike began to make excuses. The first said to him, �I have bought a field, and I must go out and see it; I pray you, have me excused.� And another said, �I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I go to examine them; I pray you, have me excused.� And another said, �I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot come.� So the servant came and reported this to his master. Then the householder in anger said to his servant, �Go out quickly to the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in the poor and maimed and blind and lame.� And the servant said, �Sir, what you commanded has been done, and still there is room.� And the master said to the servant, �Go out to the highways and hedges, and compel people to come in, that my house may be filled. For I tell you, none of those men who were invited shall taste my banquet�� (Luke 14:16-24).
Here Christ likens the kingdom of God to a great banquet, or supper, given by a wealthy man who invites his many friends to join him. The spiritual truth about the kingdom Christ is teaching us here (through this example taken from ordinary, everyday life) is that God has made a banquet for his people Israel (of whom the leaders of the people, the Pharisees (who knew the scriptures), are those who should be the first to attend). When the time of the banquet was ready, that is, when the kingdom of God had come, the leaders of Israel all made excuses for why they were unable (or unwilling) to attend. All of the excuses given had to do with matters concerning the cares of business and of everyday life (e.g., buying a field; buying yokes of oxen; marrying a wife). Rather than expectantly awaiting the coming of God�s kingdom, and of joyfully attending the Great Banquet given by God, the leaders of Israel did not even recognize it as such; they rejected God�s invitation and went about their everyday pursuits as if the banquet wasn�t important.
The host (God) was greatly offended and he commanded his servants to invite those who were of much lower social status (e.g., the poor, maimed, blind, and the lame) to attend the great banquet; those who, having little in the way of daily food and material possessions, could appreciate such a wonderful banquet. The spiritual truth here concerning the kingdom of God is that, once the greater part of the leaders and the people of Israel had rejected Christ and his kingdom, God then invited the Gentiles, who more readily accepted his invitation into the kingdom.
This principle, that God�s kingdom is more readily accepted by the poor, the outcast, and the unlearned applies today to those of both the Jewish and the Gentile communities alike, as is made clear throughout the New Testament (see Mt. 11:5, 25; 19:21; Mark 10:21; Luke 4:18; 6:20; 7:22; 10:21; 14:13, 21; 16:22; 18:22; 1 Cor. 1:26-27; James 2:5). Those who are rich, and who hold positions of prominence and power in society, are in danger of being unable to enter the kingdom of God, unless they willingly forego their riches and power in order to serve the poor and the outcast. Likewise, those who are learned and intelligent are in danger of being barred from the kingdom unless they willingly become the humble servants of the simple and the unlearned (see Mt. 13:22; 19:21-24; Mark 4:19; 10:23-25; Luke 1:53; 6:24; 8:14; 12:16-21; 16:19-31; 18:18-30; 2 Cor. 9:9; 1 Tim. 6:6-10, 17-19; James 5:1-2).
Through the simple story (parable) of a great banquet given by a wealthy host for his friends, Christ teaches us that those who are rich in this world�s goods, and those who are rich in learning, often reject God�s gracious invitation into the kingdom; they are too busy with worldly things, which ultimately come to nothing, to honor the host by attending his banquet. On the other hand, the poor, the outcast, and the unlearned readily accept the invitation to the great banquet given to them by the host�s servants, and although they may have felt unworthy of such a great honor, they are able to enjoy the banquet with God in his kingdom.
Modern scientists, theologians, and philosophers are similar to those who were first invited to the banquet: those who think they are more intelligent than the common people because of their great learning. These are they who think their knowledge of the world makes them godlike; those who think their knowledge of God is greater than Christ�s; and those who think themselves to be so wise that they have no need for the hypothesis of God.
The Good Samaritan
Christ gave this parable in response to a question put to him by a lawyer; and his answer, given in the form of an easily understood�very real-world�story, is the most wonderful and memorable example of compassion known to humankind. In the tenth chapter of the Gospel of Luke, a lawyer who desires to �put him to the test� (10:25) asks Christ, �Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?� (10:25). Christ responds by putting a question in return to the lawyer, �What is written in the law? How do you read?� (10:26) and the lawyer responds by saying, �You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself� (10:27). His answer was affirmed by Christ, who said, �You have answered right; do this, and you will live� (10:28). It was the lawyer�s next question, �And who is my neighbor?� (10:29) that prompted Christ�s telling of the parable now known to us as the parable of The Good Samaritan:
�A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him, and departed, leaving him half dead. Now by chance a priest was going down that road; and when he saw him he passed by on the other side. So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was; and when he saw him, he had compassion, and went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine; then he set him on his own beast and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. And the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, �Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back�� (Luke 10:30-35).
After the telling of this parable Christ puts the following question to the lawyer: ��Which of these three, do you think, proved neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?� He [the lawyer] said, �The one who showed mercy on him.� And Jesus said to him, �Go and do likewise�� (10:36-37).
The parable of The Good Samaritan is a very human story, and it�s a wonderful example of the Bible�s human perspective. The story teaches us about how the emotion of human compassion for those in distress should flow naturally from the human heart, as well as teaching us about how it often does not. How odd it seems for Christ to have told a story about the victim of a crime in order to teach us about how we can live our lives in a way that would be pleasing to God. A theologian would not likely use a story such as this, because it would bring up too many (unanswerable) theological questions (e.g., the nature of evil, God�s providence, predestination, primary and secondary causes, free will, etc.). And yet Christ does not shrink from using such a terrible, yet common, everyday example we are all very familiar with (some of us personally).
The road to Jericho, on which this poor fellow in the parable was robbed and beaten, was known, at the time Christ told this parable, to be very dangerous for travelers. Although the identity of the man who was the victim of the robbers is not given to us, we are told that three men saw him lying beaten and half dead on the roadside: a priest, a Levite, and a Samaritan. The first two men are religious leaders of the chosen people of Israel; the third is not Jewish, he is racially mixed and did not worship God as did the Jews (i.e., at the temple in Jerusalem). If Christ were to tell this parable to the Church today, it might go something like this:
�A man was walking through an alley in a large city, and he was robbed, beaten and then left for dead. Just by chance, a Catholic theologian was going down the alley and when he saw him he passed by on the other side. So, likewise, an Evangelical minister, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But an antitheistic scientist, as he came through the alley, came to where he was and when he saw him, he had compassion on him. He gave the man first aid, called 911, followed the ambulance to the hospital, and then allowed the hospital to bill him for any and all necessary medical services the man might further require.�
This story strikes us a little closer to home than does the original parable; much as the original parable must have struck those who first heard it. The telling of the parable of The Good Samaritan is Christ�s way of prodding us to become better people by becoming more concerned with the lives of our fellow human beings. None of us lives our lives on our own, we are all individual members of a much larger social community, and we all need someone�s help at one time or another. Each of us can be in need of assistance at times; and at times, each of us can be in a position to offer assistance to others who are in need. This parable instructs us to be willing to lay aside our time and our money by investing our lives in the lives of others.
In our modern version of the parable, the two people who should have been the first to be willing to help the victim were the two Christian leaders; yet they passed by and did nothing to help him. There could be many reasons for why they were unwilling to help. They may have feared that the victim was a ruse: a trap laid for them by robbers. They may have feared that the robbers would beat and rob them just as they had the victim. They may not have wanted to get involved in helping the victim, as this would have required a great investment of their time in the life of someone other than themselves.
Whatever their reasons for not helping might have been, the religious leaders were certainly not living-out their religious beliefs. Worse yet, they were not even following their own natural (innate) human sense of empathy and compassion for someone who was (so obviously) in need of their help. Even the person in this story who is not religious (i.e., the antitheistic scientist) is able to show compassion for the one in need, because his innate human sense of compassion is alive and active.114 For a person to be able to pass by someone who is so obviously in need of help requires that the natural human reaction to help be squelched and overridden (usually by self interest).
When it comes to living our lives in-the-world, we live our lives as members of the human community and not as individuals. And as members of the human community we must be willing to embrace our humanity: we are human persons, part of the human family, with all of the emotional turmoil that goes with being human. We are not isolated individual intellects encased in glass containers; nor are we simply minds contained in physical bodies: we are human persons who are mind and body, emotion and intellect, irrational and rational, subjective and objective realities existing together as one human person with all of the complexities that this entails.
How we perceive the world matters, and it matters most of all when it comes to living and acting in-the-world we perceive. How we think and how we act reflect our perception and our understanding of the world in which we find ourselves existing. How we act in situations requiring us to assist those in need reveal our priorities in life. Are we more concerned with ourselves than we are with others? Do we put our own safety and well being before that of others? Do we place a higher priority upon the security and needs of our nation before we do the security and needs of the nations of peoples who are our neighbors? Are we willing to pour billions of dollars into the scientific search for an elusive, hidden reality while virtually ignoring the plights of millions of very unhidden and very real people who are so obviously in desperate need around the world? All of theology is wrapped up in this very simple story of The Good Samaritan: rather than engaging in theological/philosophical intellectual-play theorizations, Christ tells us that our love for God should cause us to act with compassion toward others:
�And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him [Jesus] to the test, saying, �Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?� He said to him, �What is written in the law? How do you read?� And he answered, �You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.� And he said to him, �You have answered right; do this, and you will live�� (Luke 10:25-28).
The Prodigal Son
In the fifteenth chapter of the Gospel of Luke (just before the parable of The Prodigal Son) Christ tells two short parables about the love God has for sinners: the parable of The Lost Sheep and the parable of The Lost Coin:
�Now the tax collectors and sinners were all drawing near to hear him. And the Pharisees and the scribes murmured, saying, �This man receives sinners and eats with them.� So he told them this parable: �What man of you, having a hundred sheep, if he has lost one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness, and go after the one which is lost, until he finds it? And when he has found it, he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing. And when he comes home, he calls together his friends and his neighbors, saying to them, �Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep which was lost.� Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance. Or what woman, having ten silver coins, if she loses one coin, does not light a lamp and sweep the house and seek diligently until she finds it? And when she has found it, she calls together her friends and neighbors, saying, �Rejoice with me, for I have found the coin which I had lost.� Just so, I tell you, there is joy before the angels of God over one sinner who repents�� (Luke 15:1-10).
Christ was often criticized by the scribes and the Pharisees for associating with sinful people (see: Mt.9:10-13; 11:19; Mark 2:15-17; Luke 5:30-32; 7:34-39; 15:1-2; 19:7). One response made by Christ to such criticism was to say, �Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick; I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.� (Luke 5:31-32). The parables of The Lost Sheep, The Lost Coin, and The Prodigal Son illustrate the very purpose for Christ�s coming into the world: to seek and to save those who are lost (see: Luke 19:10).
Both the man with the lost sheep and the woman who had lost her coin laid everything aside in their search for what they had lost; what they had lost was now of the greatest importance to them. Most of us can relate to the loss of an animal and to the importance of searching for it until it is found; we put all else aside until we find it. Likewise, we can all relate to the loss of an object or a possession (e.g., money, keys, or jewelry) and of how important it is that we search for the lost item until we recover it. The lost animal, or the lost object, quickly becomes what is most important to us. In the parable of The Prodigal Son we have the story, not of a lost animal or a lost object, but of a very lost young man:
�And he said, �There was a man who had two sons; and the younger of them said to his father, �Father, give me the share of property that falls to me.� And he divided his living between them. Not many days later, the younger son gathered all he had and took his journey into a far country, and there he squandered his property in loose living. And when he had spent everything, a great famine arose in that country, and he began to be in want. So he went and joined himself to one of the citizens of that country, who sent him into his fields to feed swine. And he would gladly have fed on the pods that the swine ate; and no one gave him anything. But when he came to himself he said, �How many of my father�s hired servants have bread enough and to spare, but I perish here with hunger! I will arise and go to my father, and I will say to him, �Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you; I am no longer worthy to be called your son; treat me as one of your hired servants.�� And he arose and came to his father. But while he was yet at a distance, his father saw him and had compassion, and ran and embraced him and kissed him. And the son said to him, �Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you; I am no longer worthy to be called your son.� But the father said to his servants, �Bring quickly the best robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet; and bring the fatted calf and kill it, and let us eat and make merry; for this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found.� And they began to make merry. �Now his elder son was in the field; and as he came and drew near to the house, he heard music and dancing. And he called one of the servants and asked what this meant. And he said to him, �Your brother has come, and your father has killed the fatted calf, because he has received him safe and sound.� But he was angry and refused to go in. His father came out and entreated him, but he answered his father, �Lo, these many years I have served you, and I never disobeyed your command; yet you never gave me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends. But when this son of yours came, who has devoured your living with harlots, you killed for him the fatted calf!� And he said to him, �Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours. It was fitting to make merry and be glad, for this your brother was dead, and is alive; he was lost, and is found�� (Luke 15:11-32).
In this parable, we have a situation many parents can relate to: having a wayward child. And we are not speaking here of young children, but of young adults who, at whatever age they may be, will always be the children of their parents. Unlike the two previous parables, which deal with a lost animal and a lost object, in the parable of The Prodigal Son the father does not search diligently until he finds his son. As Leopold Fonck explains:
�Here in this third narrative the divine Redeemer again sets before us one who has suffered a loss, but this time of a far more precious possession. It is not an irrational animal nor an inanimate substance which has been lost. Rather is it a tenderly cherished child who forsakes his father and turns to evil ways�For it was not the natural impulse of an irrational creature, nor external circumstances, nor unmerited misfortune which occasioned this loss. It was the perverse free-will of the lad who yielded to his evil passions and desires.�115
Many parents have gone through (or are currently going through) an experience very similar to this one. The heartbreak is indescribable, and yet the best thing the parent can do is to do exactly what the father in this parable did: let the child go his (or her) own way; while hoping and praying that they will�in time and on their own�come to their senses. The worst thing a parent could do in such a situation would be to try and stop the child from leaving home, or to chase after them after they had done so. A wise parent provides a child with a loving environment in which they can discover who they are, and the parent gives their child the freedom necessary for such self-discovery. In this parable the son knew his father loved him and would accept him back at any time, and when the time came for him to return home, this is exactly what he did: the son, humbled by his experience of freedom from his father�s house, eventually returned home.
This parable, like all of Christ�s parables, is a simile: the father in the story represents God (our heavenly Father) and the prodigal son represents the people who have turned away from God. Like the father in the story, God�s love for his wayward children never ceases. This was the very point of the story: Christ is telling us here that God�s concern for his lost children is paramount. This is why Christ ate and drank with prostitutes, tax collectors, and other sinners while he was in-the-world; much to the dismay of the religious leaders of his day. The religious leaders were missing the point: Christ came into the world to seek and to save those who were lost.
The young man in the parable leaves his father�s house, sets out for a far country, and there squanders his inheritance with loose living.116 Although the father knew better than to seek out his lost son, he was anxiously awaiting his return�both to his senses and to his house�as is evident in the story, �while he [the son] was yet at a distance, his father saw him and had compassion, and ran and embraced him and kissed him� (15:20). The father was waiting; and the son, having repented, returns to his father�s house feeling unworthy to be called his father�s son; his only wish is to become one of his father�s hired servants (15:18-19). The father, who here represents our Father in heaven, welcomes his son home with open arms and wishes to celebrate the return of his son. The repentant sinner always finds his heavenly Father anxiously awaiting his return; as Fonck puts it: �In the son�s reinstatement in his father�s house and his investment with robe, ring, and shoes, together with the feast prepared in honor of his return, Christ shows us the picture of God�s loving reception of the repentant sinner.�117
The older brother in the parable represents those who are faithful to God from a very young age; they are not without sin, yet their lifestyles are not at all like the lifestyles of those who are not saved (as was the younger brother�s). The older brother is resentful of the love and mercy shown by the father towards his sinful, yet repentant, younger brother. The great love and mercy shown by the father is misunderstood by the older brother. The father is not celebrating the fact that his son lived a life of debauchery, but that he had recognized the error of his ways and had repented of his sinful lifestyle.
A dramatic conversion is always, well, more dramatic. And those who have not personally experienced such a dramatic conversion will sometimes envy those who have. The older, obedient, and more responsible son never wasted his father�s money on prostitutes, as had his younger brother, so naturally he wondered: Why the big celebration? Why not celebrate the fact that he had never done such a thing to begin with? But the father understood what the older brother did not yet understand: his obedient child was always with him and everything that he owned (and not just a portion) was his (see: 15:31). The older brother�s attitude was one of condemnation, and rightly so, because the younger brother�s wanton and profligate living was worthy of condemnation, as he himself recognized when he said: �Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you; I am no longer worthy to be called your son� (15:21). But the father not only refused to condemn his prodigal son, he celebrated his son�s return and restored him to his proper place in his house as his son. What unfathomable love and mercy this father, as a loving parent, demonstrates for us here.
Like our heavenly Father, the father in the parable loves his son as only a parent can. The older brother cannot understand the love his father has for his wayward son because a brother loves his brother as an equal; but the father, who gave life to his (then wayward) son, is brokenhearted at the loss of his son in a way that the older brother cannot comprehend. It is as though his son was dead and has now been returned to life. And this is exactly how he attempts to explain his great joy (at the return of his lost son) to his older (obedient) son: �It was fitting to make merry and be glad, for this your brother was dead, and is alive; he was lost, and is found�� (15:32).
Our Creator loves us as his own children (no matter how much wiser than him we may think ourselves to be) and he lets us go our own way, which most of us do, although many of us, thankfully, do so (like the prodigal son in the story) with the knowledge that our Father loves us unconditionally, and that when we come to an end of ourselves (and have made a wreck of our lives) we can turn to him and he will welcome us into his house (kingdom) with open arms. If people don�t know our Creator has this kind love for us, if they don�t know they can turn to him when they realize they have nowhere else to turn, then they need to hear about it; because this is indeed good news for all humankind (without exception); this is the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God and the Savior of the World, who said, �For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him� (John 3:17).
Life as Experienced Reality
We can never have all knowledge of God, nor can we ever have all knowledge of the world. Revelation grants us what we need to know about God and doing science enables us to know what we need to know about the world. To attempt to gain knowledge of God that goes beyond what he has revealed to us is hubris, as is the attempt to gain all knowledge of the natural world. For us, such complete knowledge of God and the world (even if such total knowledge could be gained) would be knowledge that we would never have the wisdom to use. There is far more to God, and to the world, than we could ever know or comprehend. What we do know and what we can know involves the everyday experience of living our lives (e.g., work, family, and friends), and it is the living of this everyday experience that should be of the most importance to us. No religious belief, no scientific theory, no philosophical assertion is of any real importance to us if it does not translate into an improvement of our interpersonal human relations with, and our concern for, other people.
Christ taught through parables because parables are stories based upon the human perspective of lived-experience: they are the pictures of reality Christ uses to instruct us in how we should live our lives�how we should act�in-the-world. We should live our lives in a way that would be pleasing to our Creator by acting with compassion for others. The Bible takes for granted our human perspective of the world as-it-appears to us and this is not because the Bible was written by prescientific people, or simply because the Bible was written from a prescientific perspective; it is because reality�as experienced�is what appears to us. The phenomena we perceive, and the way in which we perceive them, are the most real things (i.e., existential beings) we will ever experience. Our entire lives are spent in the human lived-experience: every moment of every day we experience the world around us. And every moment of every day we must decide how the experience of our lives will impact the life-experiences of those people around us.
The stories of the Bible are human stories, and this is why they still speak so clearly to us today. The Bible attributes the creation of the world and its phenomena to God, our Creator, and yet it does not attempt to explain how God created (or how he continues to sustain) the world. Neither does the Bible attempt to explain how God can be sovereign when people obviously have the freedom to do as they please. Scientists, philosophers, and theologians speculate about such things but, for all practical purposes, such inquiries into the infinite wisdom and knowledge of God is too far beyond our intellectual capacities to comprehend. Our focus should be upon what we do know, and what we do know is what we directly perceive at all times: our world, our families, our friends, and ourselves. Our questions should be more along the lines of: How can I be a better person? How can I be a better friend? How can I be a better member of my family? How can I be a better member of the human community? How can I be a better steward of our world?
We encounter profound differences when comparing the Bible with a book of science, a book of theology, or a book of philosophy. The Bible contains stories of human lives, human drama, history, poetry, and wisdom; books on science, theology, or philosophy are commonly very rational, very intellectual, and very dry. Although much knowledge can be gained through reason and intellect, wisdom is gained only through experience. Our quest to gain intellectual knowledge about ourselves, the world, and God will amount to little-or-nothing if we neglect the existential and emotional aspects of our human experience. As we�ve seen, the objective/subjective distinction is an intellectual construct; a rationalization of the dynamic experience of the reality of the world that we are immersed in. Yet prior to this rationalization there is only the living, working, synthesis of the two, which is our lived-experience of being-in-the-world. Our lives are one, long, phenomenal and existential experience of human existence: from birth to death, all we really know of reality is the dynamic, synergetic, objective/subjective matrix of our (individual and corporate) human perceptual lived-experience of being-in-the-world. And it is here, in our human experience, that the Bible meets us; this is where Christ and his teachings meet us�in our human experience�because there is no other experience for us: all our experiences are human experiences and it is our lived human experience of-the-world and of being-in-the-world that is, for us, reality.
The stories (or narratives) found throughout the Bible communicate truths to us about God, his relationship to us, our relationship to him, and truths about our relationships in-community with others. That the Bible, for the most part, communicates to us through narrative, rather than through discourse, is important. These narratives portray the images of life in-the-world as-we-know-it, and as-we-experience-it to be in reality: life is lived in the broader context of the world of phenomena, experience, and interpersonal relationships. Storytelling is often thought to be a (mostly) premodern phenomenon, but modern-day storytelling is both very popular and very powerful: film. Many powerful stories are told to us today through the medium of film. A good film offers us the opportunity to enter into the lives of others, to perceive the world through their eyes, to witness the unfolding of human drama in a more powerful way than is possible through any other form of media. Storytelling through film presents the film viewer with life-as-experienced from the human perspective, very similar to the way in which the viewer of the film experiences her own life. Likewise, the biblical stories present the reader with a narrative resembling a motion picture of human experience and reality, something the narrative reader is already very familiar with from their own experience, and can easily enter into.
The Bible is much more than a collection of stories; the biblical stories are presentations of God�s relationship with humankind, and it is a record of the history of salvation�the outworking of God�s plan for the salvation of humankind throughout history (i.e., the salvation of his people). Although many people discount the Bible as an untrustworthy historical source, the Bible is the most carefully kept record of ancient human history in existence. More than this, the Bible is a carefully recorded and preserved account of God�s (special) revelation. We can easily imagine the entire biblical narrative being made into a film. The life of Christ, for example, has, many times, been made into film versions of the gospel accounts of the life and ministry of Christ; some of which are indeed very powerful films, due to the powerful content of the gospels upon which they are based.
This is what we mean when we say that the biblical presentation of the world is from the human perspective: the human person is central to the biblical narrative, just as the human person (both ourselves and others) is central to our human experience of life lived in-the-world. People�s experiences, thoughts, emotions, perceptions, relationships, concerns, prayers, songs, writings, and speech are what make up the narrative that is the Bible. This is a world with which we are very familiar and this is why the Bible (unlike a book of science) is timeless; its teachings remain relevant to us today.
Today, those of us who live in the Western world live within what could be considered a post-Christian cultural milieu. The West was long ago permeated with the gospel and the Bible has long held a revered place in our Western culture (e.g., art, literature, architecture, music, philosophy, and law), and yet with the rise of modern science, the Enlightenment, rationalism, and skepticism the Christian religion has been dismissed by intellectuals as irrational and superstitious; based, as it is thought (by intellectuals) to have been based, upon primitive prescientific human beliefs that are no longer tenable to intelligent, educated, and modern people.
For centuries now, in the minds of many modern thinkers, modern science has more effectively explained the world of experience than has the Bible. Confidence has now been placed in modern science as the most reliable guide to truth; the Bible and faith in God having been deemed outdated and outmoded. In our contemporary modern culture we are faced with a plentitude of moral and ethical dilemmas that modern science is wholly unable to resolve. As we have already seen, ethics and morals is not the area of expertise for which science is adapted. Science is a field of knowledge that investigates the natural world, and at this, science is quite capable; but not as a moral and ethical guide. Ethics and morals deal with human experiences within the human community, interpersonal and social relationships requiring other areas of knowledge to guide us; areas such as law, philosophy, ethics, theology, and religion.
Being as Purpose
We�ve looked at purpose earlier, and we�ve seen that our world has a built-in teleology. Things in the world�and the world itself�seem directed toward a goal, to have a purpose, and to have a function. This is especially evident in the growth of living things. We�ve also taken a look at the philosophical notion of being: things are, they exist, and they can, therefore, be said to have being or existence. We should now examine being from the biblical (i.e., human) perspective we are currently studying. Being or act-of-being is existence-in-itself: a thing is said to be because it exists and is in the act of existing. In philosophy, the study of the subject of being is called ontology (Greek: onta, �the really existing things,� �true reality,� and logos, �the study of,� �the theory which accounts for�).118
Intellectual theorizations about the world only take us so far. Our Creator�s intention is for us to use our ability to reason, to think about the world, but reason alone can only take us so far. Intellectuals are easily sidetracked by the enjoyment of rigorously thinking about various subjects, but often such thinking can lead people to become engaged in what amounts to only intellectual-play theorizing. And intellectual-play theorizing leads to the construction of intellectual-play pseudo-realities that are believed to be true representations of the world and which are presented to the public as such, when, in fact, they have absolutely no correspondence to the real world. We�ve already seen this in the example of Einstein�s theory of relativity. Although we perceive time (together with motion) in the concrete world of our everyday lives, if we are not careful, we will grant the abstract, intellectual-play, scientific theory greater authority than we do our own perception of the world before us; we can begin believing in something we can never perceive, something with no correspondence to the real world: that time is a physical thing capable of dilation by gravity and by speeds approaching the velocity of light.
So without letting ourselves get too intellectually sidetracked, let�s think about the subject of being. What is being? Is being simply that which is as opposed to that which is not? Is being what exists as opposed to nonexistence? Being as opposed to nonbeing? The study of being (or ontology) is, in philosophy, a metaphysical endeavor; it is not so much a study of the physical world as it is a thinking deeply about the why�s and how�s of the existence of the physical world: Why is there something rather than nothing? Why do things exist? How do they exist? What are things in reality? Theology is very interested in questions of being: Who is the being who is God? Do created beings derive their being from the ultimate being who is God? In theology, God is the ultimate source of all being; all creatures and all created things derive their being from God�s (ultimate) being. All of created existence exists because the origination and the continuation of existence derive from God himself, who is the source of all being and existence.
Theology has two traditional streams of thought on this subject: that of St. Augustine (based upon the philosophy of Plato and Neo-Platonism) and that of St. Thomas Aquinas (based upon the philosophy of Aristotle). Both agree that all being is derived from the ultimate being of God resulting in a hierarchy, or a great chain of being (i.e., God, angels, humans, animals, plants, and minerals). And this way of thinking does make a certain amount of sense when we think about it, because the various phenomena of the world do appear to be organized in just this sort of hierarchy of existence. However, thinking about being can become very abstract and very philosophical; whatever being or act-of-being is, our experience of living in-the-world is not at all abstract, it is very concrete.
We plainly understand our existence in-the-world as the most real thing (i.e., being) imaginable to the human mind; our conscious perception of ourselves in-the-world is what we know above all else. Whether engaged in science and the study of the natural world, or in philosophical/theological reasoning, we are always caught-up the existential/phenomenal living experience of our lives, which we cannot transcend. We can never get beyond our consciously perceived experience of living in-the-world and our experience of living in-the-world leads us to consider the possibility that the world we experience is shot-through with purpose. In fact, the only logical alternative to the conclusion that our world is filled with purpose is to suppose that our world has no purpose whatsoever. And it would do us no good to imagine our world as having only some purpose, because even some purpose is purpose.
The simplest and most obvious starting point in any investigation of being is our observation of phenomena as-they-appear to us. In fact, I think how the world appears to us tells us all that we really need to know about being. Our observation of the world tells us that the world is, that we are, and that both we ourselves and the myriad phenomena of the world change over time. The physical world is in a constant state of change; some of this change is from order to disorder (e.g., decay, erosion, entropy) and some of this change follows an ordered pattern (e.g., the motions of the celestial bodies, the changing of the seasons). The world of life is likewise in a constant state of change; the most readily observed being that of the ordered pattern of growth seen in birth, immaturity, and maturity as well as the procession from order to disorder seen in aging, death, decay, and decomposition. These readily observable features of our world indicate to us that our world is a world wherein all is in motion and all phenomena have a direction and an ordered purpose; a goal toward which they are striving, an end toward which they are destined.
When we observe any inorganic inanimate phenomenon we experience that phenomenon as-it-appears to us, and our perception of that phenomenon always reveals itself to us as being (or as having once been) in a state of motion or change, whether presently in motion when we observe it or whether it had once been in motion (at some time in the past) in order to for it to be at rest in the place where we now observe it to be. The phenomenon that is the world of living things is in a constant state of motion and change, and the appearances of all living things show order and the appearance of design always directing them toward the goals of growth, development, and maturity.
These are the same sorts of observations made of the world that the philosopher Aristotle once made and reflected upon, and his philosophy was the intellectual framework used by St. Thomas Aquinas, which although at first rejected by the Church for its integration of Christian theology with pagan philosophy, has since become the de facto expression of Catholic theology for the past 800 years. Aristotle�s and Aquinas� categories of matter, form, substance, and accident are reasonable intellectual categorizations of being and of the phenomenal world of existence, and yet such intellectual categorizations are, at best, only outdated intellectual-play theorizations and speculations about the phenomena of the world we experience: they purport to tell us of a hidden, ultimate, reality, but they tell us very little about the very open and unhidden reality of what we so readily observe.
Although metaphysicians and scientists seek to understand how the world was formed and how it continues to exist, we can never have knowledge of the ultimate causation of the reality of phenomena beyond our experience of the appearances of those phenomena themselves.
Metaphysicians reason their way to conclusions about the real world of experience, but such reasoning does not make these intellectual conclusions about reality into reality; these speculations are only rationalizations about reality. Physicists explore the physical world at the subatomic level in search of an ultimate reality, which lies hidden beneath the veil of phenomenal appearances, but what they discover is simply another level of phenomenal appearances. The physicists are still engaged in the conscious experience of phenomena as-they-appear to them in their conscious human experience of living-in-and-perceiving the world; it doesn�t matter at what level of observation the appearances of phenomena may be.
Our Creator has made us to live in the world as-it-appears to our unaided sense perceptions; this is the human perspective from which the Bible was written, and this is also why the Bible remains so meaningful for us today. Theology should begin with the world as-it-appears to us (natural theology) and with the revelatory narrative of God�s interaction with humankind (the Bible). Theology should not allow itself to be sidetracked by intellectual speculation into what is ultimately beyond our ability to know through our use of human intellect and reason; even human reason guided by divine revelation. What has been revealed is made very plain to us, and we will always err when attempting to know more than we can know. Some things about God and about our world will always remain unknown to us: �The secret things belong to the Lord our God; but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law� (Deuteronomy 29:29).
Theology is best done when we stick with what we know best: that which has been revealed to us through both natural and special revelation. The world and its phenomena were created by God with a purpose: our world provides us with a home wherein we live-out our lives, and the world is the environment providing us with everything necessary for our lives; the world is the very context of our existence. Although we often take the world for granted, our lives are incomprehensible apart from the greater context our world provides for our existence. That the world we exist in is a created world is plain for all to see, and those who would deny the world is the creation of God the Creator are simply engaging in the suppression of this most evident truth:
�For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse� (Romans 1:18-20).
The created world of myriad phenomena we experience is the revelation of God�s glory, of his invisible (and unknowable) nature, of his eternal power, and of his love. All that we perceive�moment-by-moment and day-by-day�is the expression of God�s glory, power, and love. To attempt to suppress this knowledge is to work against God and against the created order of the world. It should, then, be no surprise us that one of the first orders of business for the antitheist is to attempt to dismiss God�s creation of the world by insisting the existence of the world is simply the product of spontaneous naturally occurring non-intelligent causes and by postulating the existence of an infinite number of universes as well as an infinite amount of time, which would then allow for a world like ours to exist simply by the luck of the draw (against truly astronomical odds). As we�ve already seen, such theories are not scientific at all, they are just the opposite: such theories actually tell us nothing about the natural world and are, therefore, the very denial of reason; the death of knowledge and science.
God created the world and declared his creation to be �very good� (see Genesis 1:31), and those who suppress the knowledge of God, which is so evidently observable in the natural world, do so �by their wickedness� (see Romans 1:18). The knowledge of good and evil is something we humans possess innately: we know both good and evil when we see it. The natural world is the expression of God, and the natural world is overwhelmingly good. The only way for us to recognize evil is for us to first acknowledge the overwhelming good so evident to us in the world. Evil is understood by us as whatever works against the evident good purposes inherent in the world. For example, if we simply step outside our door and look around, we rarely observe evil.
Certainly evil does exist somewhere close by us, but we rarely observe it by simply stepping outside our door and looking at the world around us. Of course, if there was a war going on right outside our door, or a hurricane, we might say otherwise, but the truth remains that hurricanes, car accidents, sickness, war, and death are the evil exceptions to the overwhelming rule of the goodness of life. Life and goodness overwhelmingly predominate in our world, despite the fact that evil also exists. To state that evil exists in the world we must first presuppose the existence of good in the world, and we must then define evil, not on its own terms, as if it were a thing in itself, but as what it is not, or as that which is working against that which we already know to be good. We know what is good, and we do not need to presuppose evil in order to define it; we define what is good on its own terms: life, growth, joy, love, beauty, knowledge, wisdom. Evil must always be defined as being that which sets itself over against that which is good, especially life: sickness, death, sadness, hatred, ugliness, ignorance, foolishness. These are not simply opposites, as if good and evil were in some sort of perpetual balancing act, the world exists�to an overwhelmingly degree�as a good world; as a world of life, of growth, of joy, of love, of beauty. It is that which takes away from the world�s natural goodness, its life, its growth, its joys, its love, and its beauty that we call evil. Evil is a taking away from that which is by nature good, by virtue of its having been created by God.
The creation of all that exists, of God�s bringing everything into existence by his power, wisdom, and love, is the greatest imaginable demonstration of his goodness. It is not possible for us to perceive, or to even imagine the perception of, the entire created world (cosmos) nor could we ever have the knowledge and wisdom necessary for us to be able to fully comprehend it. We are bound to the world and we are bound to our own, limited, individual experience of the world. God alone transcends the world of created things, and he is the supernatural reality beyond our natural, limited, experience of the reality of the natural world. Our human lived-experience and perception of the world of phenomena is the one reality that we can and do know best.
God created the world as a world in which we could function: we perceive the world through the natural abilities of our sense perceptions, as well as through aides to our natural perceptual abilities; this we can know and understand, and this is enough for us to have the ability to function in our world. Beyond a certain level of perception, even perception aided by devices, we do not have the ability to clearly perceive the phenomena of the world (as is clearly evident in the observations of quantum physics; i.e., the uncertainty principle). There was no need for God to have designed us to clearly perceive the appearances of phenomena at the quantum level, because there was no reason for us to be able to perceive things that are totally unnecessary for attaining our true purpose: living our lives in-the-world for God and for others.
Modern science has sought to find an ultimate and hidden reality, but any phenomenon observed (directly or indirectly) at such levels lies beyond our perceptual abilities as human beings. We do not doubt the observations of physicists who experimentally observe and experience phenomena at the quantum level. Although we have not observed the phenomena ourselves, we trust that the phenomena they observe appear to them to be (or to exist) just as they have described them to be; we believe these quantum phenomena would appear exactly the same way to us if we were able to observe them (experimentally) ourselves. We have not observed Christ�s resurrection from the dead, but we can trust the apostles when they say that they observed Christ alive and risen from the dead; and, had we been present at the time, we too could have observed him alive and risen from the dead, just as well as they did. In fact, the Bible records the fact that over 500 people bore witness to the resurrected Christ:
�For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles� (1 Corinthians 15:3-7).
All of us must trust the word of another person at some time or another; especially regarding phenomena or events people have experienced which we can never experience first-hand. The faith of the Christian is not a blind and credulous faith; it is a faith based upon reliable historical facts, facts just as reliable�even more so�than are any other historical facts known about the persons and events of ancient times.
Any theory of being ought to begin with that which is perceptible to all human observers: the phenomena of the world as-they-appear to us. A common sense theology (and ontology) would begin with the world as-it-appears and would not delve into abstractions that philosophers and theologians can�t even clearly explain, and which most people don�t even care to try and understand. The Bible does not attempt to give us an abstract ontology, theology, or philosophy: the Bible presents us with the reality of the phenomena of the world as experienced by conscious human observers. In the Bible, we encounter God, angels, women, men, children, animals, plants, rocks, mountains, rivers, villages, cities, life, death, hope, sickness, love, sin, beauty, doubt, joy, faith, and the myriad human experiences we are so familiar with, because we live in-the-world.
Granted, some ancient people�s experiences, found recorded in the Bible, are not observable to us, such as those experiences that are not repeatable or those experiences that were given by special revelation (e.g., God, angels, Christ raised from the dead), but the vast majority of the types of human experiences recorded in the Bible are observable to us. None of the biblical presentations of the phenomena of the world are abstract conceptualizations; rather, they are the concrete observations of the phenomenal world around us. The Bible presents us with life in-the-world as we experience it, and as the world was experienced by the people whose experiences of life in-the-world (and of God) are recorded for us in its text. When the Bible records Moses� parting of the Red Sea, or David�s taking of another man�s wife, or Christ�s opening the blind eyes of a beggar, these events are presented to us as historical events having occurred in the life-experiences of the people who were alive at the time they occurred; they are presented to us as historical events having occurred in-time and in-the-world.
The biblical text has come under much scrutiny by modern scholarship, with its theories of a multiplicity of authors and redactors (e.g., the Documentary Hypothesis, source theories) and such criticisms have succeeded only in missing the point of the biblical text itself. Postmodern scholarship is much closer to the truth: the text is-what-it-is and the text should be read as-it-stands and as-it-presents-itself to the reader.
The biblical presentation of historical events is from the human perspective, it is as if we ourselves had been there at the time and had perceived and experienced these historical events for ourselves. The events are not reduced to a scientific, philosophical, theological analysis or critique, as if these sorts of reductions would allow us to finally get to the real truth about the real events. The reality of the events is their having been experienced as-they-were-perceived by conscious human observers who were alive at the time. To develop a theology and an ontology of appearances may sound unusual, but what appears to us in our encounter with the world is what we truly know and understand best of all. It only makes sense for us to think more deeply about those things we already know and understand�what we experience every moment�rather than spending our time and our efforts thinking about abstractions, which can never be experienced. If we cannot visualize or imagine our ontology, then it will never be of much practical use to us; an ontology that is abstract and unimaginable is simply intellectual-play. If being is important to us at all, then that which we perceive is certainly the most important aspect of being.
The sort of philosophical thinking that delves into distinctions between the appearance of a thing and the thing-in-itself (i.e., being, or ultimate reality) is missing the point. The thing is that which appears to us as-it-presents-itself to our conscious perception; it is the appearance of the thing (i.e., the observable phenomenon) that matters most of all. The world appears to us as it does because we are meant to function in the world, and living in-the-world is more important (and more real to us) than are abstract intellectual-play conceptualizations about the world.
Imagine, for instance, if we could perceive, with our (unaided) sense of sight, the entire electromagnetic spectrum. We would not need science to tell us about infrared and ultraviolet light (for example) because we would perceive these wavelengths of light, as well as x-rays, radio waves, microwaves, and every wavelength in the electromagnetic spectrum. But if this were possible, then we would be totally unable to function and live-out our lives in-the-world.119 Our Creator has designed us so that we can perceive only that which is necessary for us to perceive in order for us to be able to function in-the-world. Our being has purpose, as all being does.
Why can�t we directly perceive some phenomena in the world? Why don�t they appear to us? Why is it that some phenomena are perceptible to us? Why do they appear to us? It is because the appearances of phenomena are created by God; they are created as-they-appear to us in order that he may more fully reveal himself to us through the natural world of phenomena, and so that we could be able to live (functionally) in-the-world. This is why a theology of appearances is so important: any theology that attempts to understand God, his relationship to his creation, our relationship to our Creator, to the world he has created, and our relationships within the human community must begin with the phenomena of the world we perceive. This is both a biblical and a commonsense approach to doing theology, and it is a good approach for theology to take, because, at the end of the day, theology is supposed to tell us how to live in-the-world in a way that demonstrates our love for God and our love for others.
Thinking abstractly about being is part of our human nature; the use of our ability to reason and to think. It is reasonable to postulate the notion that any created being must have an originating first cause, which is true being in itself, that this ultimate being is God, and that all lesser beings derive their being from him. But this sort of abstract reasoning does us little good in our attempts to live better lives. Thinking abstractly about the natural world is also part of our human nature; it is the use of our ability to reason. Modern science postulates the existence of multiple universes, wormholes, event horizons, time warps, and many other phenomena; but these are intellectual abstractions, and not physical realities. And this sort of theoretical, hypothetical, and intellectual-play science does not help us to live our lives better.
Theology and modern science both do better when they are focusing on the here-and-now reality of the world we live in and when they focus upon those with whom we share this world. We would much rather hear a theologian teaching about how God desires for us to love our neighbor as ourselves, or hear of a scientist who, after many years of research, discovered a cure for a disease, than we would desire to hear a theologian teaching about the ontological nature of the hypostatic union, or a scientist lecturing on the purely hypothetical theory of time travel.
We would do well to replace our abstract intellectual conceptions of being with a more concrete and practical theory of being-as-purpose. God�s creation of the world as-it-appears to us is his display (to us) of a functional world created with purpose and meaning. Purpose displays mind, intellect, will, and emotion; and this is a much more complex and comprehensive view of being than is the simple (reductionist) concept of God as the ultimate being and as the source of all other beings. Purpose is apparent�it appears to us in-the-world�and it is much wiser for us to focus upon God�s purpose, as revealed to us both in creation and revelation, than it is for us to engage in intellectual speculation about his being, essence, and nature. Science is unable to get to the bottom of the nature of the physical world, and theology is unable to grasp the ultimate reality of God.
The fields of both science and theology may have finally learned the truth: the human understanding of ultimate reality will always remain a mystery. The truths that are known about God and the world are always held in tension with those truths about God and the world that we can never know. Both modern science and theology, within their respective fields of knowledge, must be content with this level of imperfect knowledge:
�Quantum physics has had to be content for eighty years to live with the uncomfortable fact that not all its problems have yielded to solution. There are still matters that we do not fully understand. Theology also has had to be content with a partial degree of understanding. Trinitarian terminology, for example in its attempt to discriminate the divine Persons in terms of a distinction between begetting and procession, can sometimes seem to be involved in trying to speak what is ineffable.120
The human perspective of living in-the-world is the Bible�s perspective, and it should be our perspective as well. How much truth and wisdom could be gained simply by taking the biblical, human view of the world we experience�the world pre-given to us by God�as our context for living? As we saw above, when Christ taught in parables he did not go into elaborate philosophical/theological discourses about being, or the nature of things. Instead, he taught through stories about very human people who experienced life as lived in-the-world, life as lived in-community and in-relationship with others, and God�s living relationship with humankind. It is this biblical/phenomenological human perspective that we should allow to guide us in our theological and philosophical thinking. Theological/philosophical thinking is reasoning that is based upon our human perspective of the world and upon our conscious experience of living in-the-world; thinking that is based upon the phenomenological concept of the pre-given life-world.
Nothing could be more intellectually important to us than grounding our reasoning upon that which we can perceive and experience every moment of our lives: the experiential field of interaction between our conscious minds and the world of phenomena. If God has created the world of phenomena, and if God has created us to directly experience the perception of those phenomena as-they-appear, then is this not also the way in which he has intended for us to best know and understand him, and the world he has created? Is there knowledge God has hidden from us but that he desires for us to gain, which comes to us only through abstract intellectual-play? Or has he made plain to us, through the natural revelation of world we perceive and through the special revelation of the Bible, all that he desires for us to know (and all that we are capable of knowing) about himself? We have a God-given natural ability to perceive the world via our senses, and this is all we need in order to know that the world has a Creator: �For from the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of their Creator� (Wisdom 13:5). Special revelation is based upon and presupposes this natural revelation, and it communicates to us that which we cannot know through the natural revelation of the created world alone. God exists (natural revelation); God loves his creation and he provides the way for the salvation of his creation (special revelation).
From this human, embodied perspective of the world, and from this human, perceptually-based perspective, comes a revealed knowledge of God and salvation. God has provided this knowledge of himself and of his relationship to us in such a way that all people can readily understand it. This knowledge is not abstract, it is not complicated, and it is not only for intellectuals: it is a knowledge based upon and presupposed by the common existential/phenomenal human experience of living-in-the-world.
Theological and philosophical reasoning can help us in thinking-through concepts of morals and ethics, but a real-world illustration (such as a story or parable) of people confronting and dealing with ethical dilemmas can force us to rely upon our consciences and upon our emotions, which are as much a part of our human nature as is our ability to reason. We need both�emotion and reason�and not one to the exclusion of the other. Stories based upon human experiences presuppose the conscious human experience of life lived in-the-world and this experience of living-in-the-world is the one, very simple thing that is the most real to us all.
When it comes to acting ethically in-the-world we are guided best, not by abstract reasoning, but by our hearts. Christ was moved with compassion121 to reach out to those in need; he did not need to reason abstractly in order to act ethically, and neither do we. We are, quite naturally, moved with compassion whenever we see (or hear of) people who are truly in need. We can squelch this natural emotion, but squelch it we must, because it rises up within us by virtue of our very nature. We will exercise our ability to reason in order to know how we can best respond to someone in need, but our urge to respond comes from our hearts.
The Bible presents a world of people who are in need of salvation. And not just a spiritual salvation, but a physical salvation as well: �Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked� (Psalm 82:4). We are living unities of both physical and spiritual being (like Christ, who is the image of the invisible God) who are in need of both physical and spiritual salvation. It is only by the grace of God, through the living Christ, that we can find salvation; both in this world and in the (regenerated) world to come. The Bible presents us with our Creator�s perspective of the world: people are his main concern. This is why the Bible�s human perspective is the Bible�s primary perspective: we are of the greatest concern to our Creator, and our greatest concern should be for our fellow creatures, our fellow inhabitants of the world we perceive, which is our Creator�s world. This is our purpose for being-in the-world.
Conclusion
In conclusion, let�s consider how this theological/philosophical worldview�a theology of appearances�should affect us in our daily lives. The way of viewing the world as-it-appears-to-us, which we have been considering throughout this work, is both very familiar to us�it is the way in which we perceive the world everyday�and also very unfamiliar to us, because modern science claims that reality is imperceptible to our direct sense perceptions. Most of us are conditioned�through education�to accept the picture of reality presented to us by modern science, and to reject any view of reality that conflicts with or contradicts the modern scientific view. From an early age, we all learn that modern science is best able to tell us what is true about the world.
As we have seen, modern science claims that its objective view of the world is the best path to gaining true knowledge of the reality of the natural world; and yet modern science virtually ignores the very subjectivity (i.e., the consciousness of the scientist) upon which science itself is ultimately based. Science is not the neutral, objective endeavor we are often led to believe it to be; science, like all human interaction with the world, is a consciously perceived human experience of the world. The objectivist view of modern science leads to a reductionist view of the world, which modern science presents to us as the way the world really is. But there�s much more to the world (and to reality) than modern science�on its own assumptions�will often allow for. The phenomena of the world are far too complex to be reduced, categorized, and compartmentalized by science. Science, as a field of human knowledge and inquiry, has a very important place in the human understanding of the world, but it should not be granted sovereign authority over all other fields of human knowledge.
Making sense of the world is something we all must do, and how to best to make sense of the world is a choice that we all have to make. We are presented with many different views of the world, which all claim to be the best way to make sense of the world (modern science being only one particular view), and all of us�whether consciously or unconsciously�make a choice about which view of the world is the best view for making sense of the world. Our conceptualized view of the world not only influences our thoughts about the world, but it also influences our actions in-the-world�we choose how we will live in-the-world. If we adopt the modern scientific view of the world, then we could tend to see the world in reductionist terms, which could then cause us to act as though this reduced world were in fact the real world.
Any view contrary to the reductionist modern scientific view of the world is thought to be erroneous, and quite possibly harmful to human knowledge itself. The religious, the theological, the philosophical, and the metaphysical are thought of by modern science as subjective, irrational, and nonscientific; therefore the truth-claims made by these fields of knowledge are considered to be false, or meaningless. Yet this sort of traditional, modernist attitude appears to be changing; the appeal of modernist thought has waned, its rationalist and reductionist weaknesses now more exposed than ever before, and a more holistic approach to human thought, emotions, and existence has gained a greater following in recent years. The modernist notion of rational, universal, necessary, and certain truths, which all people everywhere can assent to through the use of human reason alone, does not exist in the same sense that the modernists once believed it to exist. Postmodernist notions of emotional, particular, contingent, and relativistic truths have revealed the uncertainties that lay hidden (like an epistemological bomb) within the presuppositions of the modernist�s conceptual scheme. We can now recognize that neither modernism nor postmodernism alone are correct; both points of view reveal aspects of human nature and human thought that are true-for-us, and yet the greater truth lies somewhere in between these two philosophical extremes.
Modernism rejects divine revelation, inspiration, and miracles; postmodernism rejects metanarratives (especially the Bible), absolute truth-claims, and hierarchy. And yet the biblical view of the world embraces all of these. We should be willing to embrace all of the truths found in objective/modern thought as well as all of the truths found in subjective/postmodern thought. But our Creator has also given us truths that we can know through both our ability to reason and our lived-experience, and he has revealed these truths to us in both the natural world and in the words of scripture.
As we have seen, both the world and the scripture are texts that we interpret, and our interpretations are based upon whatever presuppositions we bring with us when we approach these texts. God has given us the Church (earlier, the Church of the Jewish nation; and later, the Church built by Christ himself), which provides us with the correct guidelines of interpretation, along with the knowledge that comes to us only through special revelation. Apart from the Church, humankind (relying solely upon human reason and emotion) would develop countless interpretations of these texts, leading to numerous conflicting opinions and beliefs about both the world and the Bible (this is precisely the situation we find in the world today).
The modern scientific quest for an ultimate reality underlying our experiences of phenomena is misguided: reality is that which we experience, that which appears to us: it is the on-going experience of living and of being in-the-world. Science, as we have seen, is neither as neutral nor as objective as it is commonly assumed to be. Modern science is the observation and study of the phenomena of the world, and, as such, science itself is also a conscious human experience of living and of being in-the-world. Modern science had hoped to discover universal, necessary, and certain truths about the ultimate reality of the physical world, and yet what quantum physics (for example) has discovered is uncertainty rather than certainty, and probability rather than necessity. The world of our experience is far more complex than modern science had ever anticipated. What is universal, necessary, and certain is our common human experience of being-in-the-world. All of us consciously perceive the world we live in, and we all experience the world in a way that is common to all humankind.
All people can agree about the appearances of the phenomena of the world, because these phenomena present themselves to us via our sense perceptions. And it is the order and structure of phenomena (i.e., phenomenal forms), what modern science considers matter/energy, that is of most importance to us here. Rather than seeking an ultimate, hidden reality underlying our experience of phenomena, modern science should be seeking the cause for the order, structure, and complexity that is so evident in the various forms of the many phenomena that we so clearly observe. Order, form, and complexity denote design and purpose, and yet order, structure, and complexity are the exact opposite of everything modern science tells us that our world is: a random, purposeless, chance occurrence. Modern science prefers randomness, purposelessness, and chance�asserting that the phenomena of the world only appear to have purpose or design. Our world and its phenomena, according to modern science, are the product of an infinite number of possible combinations of matter/energy, which over an infinite amount of time, gave rise to the forms we observe; all of this having occurred by shear, random probability. As we have seen, such scientific assertions tell us absolutely nothing about the world, provide us with no knowledge of the world, and are tantamount to saying that modern science has no idea how the world came to exist, but that it does know one thing for certain: the world cannot have been designed with a purpose, goal, or direction (despite the appearance of design so evident in the world).
The world as-it-appears to us is the best place for us to begin making our intellectual conceptualizations about the world. Appearances are what we perceive throughout our human lived-experience and good science, good philosophy, and good theology will always acknowledge the value and importance of these appearances in their quest for true knowledge of the world. When we perceive the world open before us, we perceive ourselves as both being-in-the-world and being-of-the-world: our (subjective) consciousness synergizing with our (objective) bodies forming our individual, embodied, conscious, human existences. Each of us is an individual phenomenon immersed within the myriad phenomena which make up the greater metaphenomenon that is the world itself. How does the way we view or conceptualize the world cause us to think about ourselves, about others, and about God? How do our intellectual conceptualizations of the world influence the way we choose to live our lives in the world? Does it matter? How can perceiving the world as-it-appears to us help us to live better lives?
If we think of both ourselves and the world as being random occurrences without purpose, then we might live rather random and purposeless lives. Purpose, however, is built into us by our Creator, and most of us do not live random and purposeless lives; rather, we live truly meaningful and purposeful lives. The intellectual, however, who has a conceptual scheme which interprets the world as random and purposeless, can be led to the (logical) conclusion that life�despite the appearance of having been designed with meaning and purpose�is without meaning: existence is all we know and existence is all there is. Existentialism or Christianity, meaninglessness or purpose, randomness or design, chaos or order; nevertheless, our world appears to us as a world, as a cosmos, as a highly ordered and purposeful universe having been designed with us in mind.
The biblical and religious conceptualization of the world, wherein the world is viewed as being the special creation of God (with humankind as central to the universe), seems to have died with the rise of modern science; especially after the eventual success of the Copernican Revolution. Evolution was later seen as the final modern scientific nail in the coffin of a dead religious faith, which intelligent, educated, thinking people could no longer adhere to�the bright light of reason having finally dispelled the darkness of prescientific, religious credulity and superstition. Since the ascendency of modern science, many people have turned from faith in Christ to faith in modern science.
For modern peoples, only modern science is thought to be capable of presenting a true picture of the reality of the world. And because modern science gives us the only proven facts, it is seen as the only sure guide to knowledge, life, and the future. God, angels, heaven, hell, miracles, resurrected messiahs? None of these things can be observed and quantified; therefore they don�t exist. This has been the prevailing state of Western thought regarding science and religion for the past 500 years, and this way of thinking continues today; perhaps more so in our own time than ever before. The authority of science has never been greater than it is today, and it is this authority that needs to be challenged. Modern thought challenged the reigning authorities of its day: the Church and the Bible, and postmodern thought challenges any and all authority. So what course should our thinking take? And how will the course of thinking we choose to take affect our lives in-the-world?
Science and religion have been in competition for a very long time now, but science and religion�when working properly within their respective fields, and when working in cooperation with one another�are each necessary, and both are beneficial to humankind. Likewise, both science and religion can be harmful to humankind when these fields of knowledge are improperly practiced, and when they compete with one another. As strange as it may sound, both science and religion are best guided by one thing: love. Without love, the practice of either science or religion can devolve into a means to an end: the power of an elite few over the lives of the powerless many.
Knowledge is what scientists, philosophers, and theologians seek after. Knowledge is very empowering, but apart from wisdom, knowledge has the potential for great danger. Modern science presents us with incredible advancements in knowledge of our world, and with many innovative, technological applications of this scientific knowledge; but at what price? Apart from the influence and guidance of religion and philosophy (with its combined wisdom in morals and ethics), science and technology are without ethical boundaries. The setting of ethical boundaries belongs to religion, theology, and philosophy; not to science and technology.
A science that shuns religion as superstitious nonsense is a powerful science (i.e., knowledge) of the natural world which has become intoxicated with the power it has over the things (beings) it is able to control, and is poised to reshape the world into its own image. It�s no coincidence that the more powerful science and technology becomes in reshaping the world, the more the world begins to resemble the new creations of the scientist�s imaginations, appearing less and less like the natural world, which was created for us by our Creator. Many of us live in artificial, urban world environments, which are the creations of scientists and engineers, separating us from the natural world�s testimony to the glory of our Creator. This artificial world is a highly technical environment testifying�not to God�but to the power, pride and glory of human reason and human accomplishment.
On Perceiving Our World
By viewing the world from a phenomenological/theological perspective we can begin to perceive the world as-it-appears to us prior to any intellectual conceptualizations we have about the world. We can begin to experience the world of phenomena as-they-present-themselves to our conscious experience and we can allow this presentation to guide us in forming our conceptual schemes, which help us to make sense of the world we find ourselves in. The view of the world presented in this work is one which, if taken to heart, can allow us to better appreciate the wonder of creation, the wisdom of our Creator, and our proper place in the created world.
All of us think about the world, we all perceive and form views of the world, we all live and act in-the-world, and we all experience our existence in-the-world. Our experience of the world of phenomena as-they-appear to us, the knowledge that comes to us through the natural world, and the knowledge specially revealed to us by our Creator are all trustworthy guides to living our lives in harmony with others, with our world, and with our Creator.
Whether we engage in thinking scientifically, theologically, or philosophically about the world, we must begin our thinking about the world with our experience of ourselves and our experience of the world. There is no more basic or appropriate starting point for our thinking than is our experience of the world, and we should allow this experience, above all else, to shape and influence our thinking. Thinking�in-and-of-itself�only takes us so far. Our world is a world created as well as a world perceived and experienced by us. Viewing the world as a created world provides us with the context necessary for us to develop our thinking in ways that allow us to grow toward the ultimate goal our Creator intends for us: to love him with all of our hearts, all of our minds, and all of our strength; and to love our neighbors as ourselves. Nothing could be more real to us than are the phenomena of the world, which appear to us every moment of every day of our lives. Reality, in our experience of the world, is that which appears to us. This is the world as our Creator has designed it: a real world, of real phenomena, perceived by us as real phenomenal forms. There are no greater experiences of reality than are the wonderful experiences we have of living our lives in-the-world: the beauty of a sunset, the laughter of children, or the embrace of a lover. Nor are there any greater experiences of reality than are the horrible experiences of living our lives in-the-world: the ugliness of war, the screams of suffering children, or being rejected by someone we love.
Of the good experiences in life, we have no qualms�life is wonderful and we enjoy it. Of the bad experiences, however, life can become an unimaginable horror, mocking and tormenting our very existence. These horrible experiences (more so than the good experiences) can drive us to question the meaning and purpose of our lives, and of our very existence. When Job�s world fell apart (he had lost his health and all of his children) he said, despairingly, �Why did I not die at birth, come forth from the womb and expire?� (Job 3:11). It is religion most people often turn to for answers during life�s most difficult times, because religion provides us with the best answers to our most perplexing existential human questions. Many intellectuals and antitheists consider religion to be a crutch for weak minded people who are unable to face the difficulties of life head-on with a stoic/existential resolve in the face of our seemingly random and meaningless existences. And yet this resolve of the intellectual and the antitheist also provides them with answers to life�s most perplexing existential human questions: their existential resolve is very similar to the religious beliefs that they ridicule. Perhaps the antitheists need a crutch too; just a different kind of crutch.
All of us must have some sort of anchoring for our souls, be they existential anchors, religious anchors, philosophical anchors, pleasure anchors, work anchors, or whatever. All of us must make some sense of the world we live in, and we all have the need to make some sense of both the joys and the tragedies of life that we experience. Religion, when used as a way of making sense of the world, is no more of a crutch than is any other way of perceiving the world. Religion and belief in God provides us with a much better grounding for our minds, emotions, and souls (especially during difficult times) than do the nonreligious or antireligious worldviews. Meaninglessness rings very hollow. Do the atheists and antitheists really believe that their children�s (and their grandchildren�s) lives are without meaning?
When it comes to the reality of life as experienced by us in-the-world, modern science and philosophy have very few real answers. What does modern science have to say to the parent whose teenage son or daughter was recently killed in a car accident? What does philosophy have to say to the young boy or girl whose parents are getting a divorce? For that matter, what could theology possibly have to say to these people? No one wants to hear a theological discourse at times like these. Theology often waxes philosophic, and philosophy has very little to say at these times in life. What these people need, at times like these, is the compassion of God in Christ flowing to them through us; they certainly don�t need intellectual-play theories.
The Bible gives us an account of the events that occurred during the life and ministry of Christ in the four gospels, and in these four gospels we discover the heart of God for us: he reveals to us his love, his compassion, and his desire for us to live our lives for the betterment of ourselves, of others, and of our world by way of our relationship with him (made possible for us through his Son, Jesus Christ). An especially amazing account of Christ�s compassion (and of his power over death) is related to us in the seventh chapter of the Gospel of Luke. Jesus and his disciples came into a city called Nain, and upon observing a funeral procession in progress, Jesus showed compassion to a woman whose only son had recently died:
�Soon afterward he went to a city called Nain, and his disciples and a great crowd went with him. As he drew near to the gate of the city, behold, a man who had died was being carried out, the only son of his mother, and she was a widow; and a large crowd from the city was with her. And when the Lord saw her, he had compassion on her and said to her, �Do not weep.� And he came and touched the bier, and the bearers stood still. And he said, �Young man, I say to you, arise.� And the dead man sat up, and began to speak. And he gave him to his mother. Fear seized them all; and they glorified God, saying, �A great prophet has arisen among us!� and �God has visited his people!� And this report concerning him spread through the whole of Judea and all the surrounding country (Luke 7:11-17).
In this gospel account of the life and ministry of Christ, we can see the reality of the world as Christ himself experienced it. Christ does not delve into a theological/philosophical discourse in order to explain God to his disciples, nor does he deal with the problem of evil in the world, nor with questions about whether or not this world is the best of all possible worlds that God could have created. Rather, Christ expresses the love and compassion of God�as well as his power and authority over death. At the depths of her greatest despair, the woman encounters Christ�the image of the invisible God�and she experiences his love, compassion, and power in a way that is contrary to all known scientific facts about the natural world: her only son, now dead, is given back to her alive.
Imagine, if you will, this same sort of event occurring today. If we were attending the funeral of a young man or woman who had recently been killed in a car accident, and some strange teacher stopped the hearse, brought the deceased to life, and presented them back to their mother or father alive; what would we think? The grave had already been dug, and the parent had already begun to deal with the fact they would never again see their beloved son or daughter alive. A mother or a father who has to bury their child is reality. This is as real as anything in life can ever be. We�ve no need here to seek a hidden reality behind the appearances of this phenomenon. Life in-this-world as-we-experience-it is as true a reality as we will ever find. It is this reality of life-as-experienced and of the world as-it-appears to us that grounds us in our very existence in-the-world, and it is here�and not in our intellectual-play theorizing�that we truly discover ourselves, others, our world, and God our Creator.
It is always difficult for us to reset our thinking. Science and religion seem to be contradictory; therefore most people will usually subject one to the authority of the other, instead of allowing both to function equally within their particular spheres of knowledge. Most intelligent and educated people don�t want to see a world wherein an intolerant, religious dogmatism stifles legitimate, rational thought about God and about the world; and yet these same people are very accepting of a similarly intolerant, modern scientific dogmatism that would seek to stifle legitimate, rational religious and theological thought. What we should be seeking is a balance between the two. Modern science should not have priority over religion, and neither should religion and theology have priority over science; both are legitimate fields of human inquiry adding the wealth of their findings to the treasury of knowledge belonging to all of humankind.
Modern science, rather than seeking a balance, has sought to achieve imperial status by claiming to be the only legitimate authority able to determine both what is and what is not true of the real world. Theology and philosophy are very unwelcome intellectual guests in the kingdom of the modern world, which science and technology are busily establishing, but these important guests are excluded from this kingdom at our own peril. Does anyone want to live in a world where technological efficiency drives everything? But this is the only world into which science and technology�left to its own abilities�can ultimately take us: into a cold, heartless, machinelike world where emotions�such as human compassion�would be seen as inefficient, genetic programming flaws in need of correction. Writing about humankind�s long history of curiosity over the centuries, Roger Shattuck says:
�A sensible interpretation of this history of curiosity concerns us very deeply. I do not believe we should read the account of these developments down to the present exclusively as the record of gradual liberation from superstitious restrictions on human creative and imaginative powers. For the same history furnishes a cautionary tale, telling us that complete liberation from constraints in the arts and sciences may endanger our humanity and the fragile entity we call civilization.�122
Shattuck argues here (and throughout his work) that humankind�s curiosity leads us to desire the knowledge of things we are better off not knowing. In a hubristic reaching for what is beyond our grasp, our desire to know everything can easily become our undoing. Knowledge, without the wisdom to use it properly, can ultimately destroy us. In short, there are some things we should not desire to know. But to say that there are some things we should not desire to know is to speak blasphemy in our modern scientific/technological era. In our day, it is the very goal of science and technology to gain knowledge of everything and to reshape the world in a way that fits with our own desires, rather than those of the natural world God has created.
Modern science, for example, thinks of sickness and death as something that must be totally eliminated; at least for those of us who live in first-world nations (perhaps at the expense of those people who live in third-world nations?). Yet sickness and death are a necessary piece of the order of things in-the-world. Healing the sick is a noble task, one Christ himself engaged in, but Christ didn�t heal everyone who was sick. Saving someone from death is a heroic dead, one Christ himself engaged in, but Christ didn�t save everyone from death. What we are in danger of here is allowing modern science to replace Christ as our savior.
Modern science, however, is no savior; science is only one form of human knowledge, which, although very helpful to us, is unable to deliver us from our deepest human problem: ourselves. Sickness and death are only the symptoms of a much deeper problem: our souls are sick, and they are sick unto death. Christ came to save us from ourselves: from our arrogance, pride, selfishness, greed, envy, lusts, anger, laziness, hatred, and gluttony. Science attempts to solve these (and other problems which plague humanity), but since science is a human endeavor, science itself faces these same problems; the scientists are just as human as the rest of us. Knowledge is power, and the power of modern science and technology lies in the hands of the few, the elite, who already wield political and technological power over the lives of millions of people. Science and government work hand-in-hand�mainly in the area of military research and development�and, for good or for ill, they already orchestrate the destinies of millions of people around the world.
Are there some things about the world we should not know? Should science and technology have limits? Are there some things we are better off not knowing, because we lack the wisdom to use the knowledge and power we would gain by knowing more (if not all) that can be known about the world? Knowledge is powerful, and human nature is such that once power is gained it is not often relinquished; there is always a quest for ever more knowledge and for ever greater power. For example, the danger to humanity coming from the modern scientific discovery and development of thermonuclear weaponry is extraordinary. The fact that, at any given moment, entire cities could be incinerated in the blinding light and heat of a thermonuclear explosion is a fact that we, in the modern world, must live with; it�s become a part of our lives. Yet of what benefit to humanity was the discovery and further development of this technology? As Robert Oppenheimer (the head of the Manhattan Project, which developed the first atomic bomb for the U.S. military) once said about his experience of witnessing the world�s first nuclear blast:
�We knew the world would not be the same. A few people laughed, a few people cried, most people were silent. I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad-Gita. Vishnu is trying to persuade the Prince that he should do his duty and to impress him takes on his multi-armed form and says, "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds." I suppose we all thought that, one way or another.�123
Advances in genetic engineering, cloning, and artificial intelligence can tempt some scientists and researchers to think of themselves as having a god-like creative powers. And why shouldn�t they? With no limits, restrictions, or boundaries placed upon scientific knowledge and technology by the human community, modern science is poised to reshape the world in its own image; and who has the ability�or the power�to resist its will? With religion (long ago) put safely out of the way, modern science has developed a tendency toward replacing the former faith in God with a new faith: faith in our own abilities to achieve whatever we set our minds to. Religious authority, once repudiated for squelching human freedom, has been replaced by a new and powerful scientific authority. It is not the religious priests who, today, have a privileged knowledge granted only to a few, giving them the power to control the many; it is the high priests of science who now hold this sort of privileged knowledge, power, and control.
In our modern era we no longer worship a God who hears us, but does not always answer our prayers; why bother with God when we now have the scientific knowledge to manipulate the physical world in almost any way that we so desire? Certainly modern science is not all powerful, but the continuing quest for ever more knowledge, and for ever more power over the natural world, is resulting in the exponential increase of scientific knowledge. It will not be long before, if left unchecked, modern science is able to do tomorrow that which is, today, totally unimaginable. The question we should be asking ourselves is: Do we trust ourselves with this kind of knowledge and with this kind of power?
Modern science and technology are able to reshape the world; they create artificial environments for us (our urban work and dwelling spaces) representing and symbolizing the glory of humankind, and not the glory of the Creator (whose raw materials humankind uses to reshape the world). The natural world is a text that both symbolizes and represents God to us; likewise the artificial world is a text that both symbolizes and represents humankind to ourselves. Science disparages the world of natural appearances and elevates that which underlies appearances to the status of true reality. In short, the world modern science presents to us as the world is a re-formation of the world. Modern science wants us to reimage the world, to see the world as modern science describes it to be, and not as the world appears to us in our lived-experience of the world.
It�s not just modern science, however, which can be dangerous to humanity: philosophy and theology can become dangerous as well. Philosophy is simply a way of thinking about the world, or about a particular aspect of the world (e.g., the philosophy of a particular a field of knowledge, art, or science). There can be a philosophy of any subject imaginable to us, simply because philosophy allows us to logically think-through any subject. A particularly dangerous�and very popular�philosophy today is nihilism, a philosophy which asserts that nothing really matters, or has any real meaning whatsoever. It�s hard to imagine that an idea as inane as this would have the dignity of being called a philosophy, the word philosophy means the love of wisdom and nihilism is certainly the very antithesis of this. Nihilism is, however, considered to be a valid philosophical position; since any logically well thought-out position (no matter how foolish) can be considered philosophical. Nihilistic meaninglessness is probably the most popular philosophy today; especially with young adults. This is a sad commentary on contemporary life in the modern world, but it should not be at all surprising to us, considering how much effort has gone into removing (in recent years) any meaning to life, which had (for centuries in the West) been infused into humankind by way of thousands of years of human civilization through the inculcation of moral, ethical, and religious teachings.
Theology can likewise be dangerous to humanity. Different religious belief systems have different theologies, and all religions are not created equally. Hinduism has its (logically and theologically consistent) caste system; Islam tells Muslims they should lie in wait to slay infidels (i.e., Christians and Jews); and Christianity, for many years, taught Christians that infidels (i.e., Jews and Muslims) should be slain and heretics burnt at the stake (for their own good, as well as for the good of society). Bad theology, bad religion, and a corrupt and powerful Church authority is what the modern world (since the rise of modern science) has been fighting against for the past 500 years. Theology and religion can be dangerous, because people hold so firmly to their theological/religious beliefs; they believe their entire worldview is at stake should this view be contradicted, refuted, challenged, or even doubted.
Agnostic, atheistic, and antitheistic humanistic rationalism can be just dangerous as religious belief, and for precisely the same reasons: because people hold so firmly to their humanistic/rationalistic beliefs; they believe their entire worldview is at stake should this view be contradicted, refuted, challenged, or even doubted. Science is likewise dangerous because of its limitless curiosity, its power over nature, its imperialistic truth-claims, and its antagonism toward religion, ethics, and anything subjective.
Philosophy can be dangerous because of how it can so powerfully influence people�s thinking and ideological development. Rationalist ideologies, religious beliefs, and the military usage of science and technology are all equally responsible for causing some people to kill other people.
Had Christ never come into the world, the world today (for all of its faults) would be a far worse place than it is now. And had modern science (and medicine) not come into the world, the world would also be a far worse place than it is now. The modern era did not occur outside the providence of God; our Creator gives us the freedom to follow the way of our own choosing and, for the most part, the modern world has turned away from God, religion, and theology. The discoveries of modern science seem to have disproven the Bible and the technological wonders and abilities of science seem to have displaced our need for faith, prayer, and trust in God. Because, after all, science and technology delivers the goods; whereas God may or may not answer our prayers the way in which we would desire. Herein lies a great lesson: suffering is a necessary part of life, which, when endured, grants us great strength of character. Sometimes God desires for us to become stronger through our pain and our suffering, whereas our modernist tendency is to seek after a quick fix via science and technology.
Yet for all the wonders and benefits of modern science, we still face the same old human problems that humankind has always faced. Perhaps if we look at the world anew, perhaps if we listen anew to the teachings of Christ, we may find a new life in a new world that can satisfy the longings within our souls. Much like the prodigal son, humankind�s newly-found freedom from God (in the modern era) is thrilling and pleasurable�for a while. But when the famine of our inability to solve our own inner human conflicts comes upon us, we can either destroy ourselves or we can humble ourselves and return to our Father, who, all along, has been allowing us the freedom to choose our own way, and who has always hoped that we would choose the course of wisdom and return to his eternal home of divine love and wisdom.
Wisdom cannot be had apart from our Creator; in fact wisdom begins with our Creator. The philosophical nihilism so popular today only makes sense in a world that has rejected the Creator of the world. Such nihilistic thinking is not the course of wisdom, but it is the rational philosophical course to take in a world that had been totally denuded of all meaning and purpose. As the existentialist philosopher Albert Camus put it so well: �There is but one truly serious philosophical problem and that is suicide.�124 Camus understood what most people don�t: a meaningless existence is worse than non-existence. What we long for is a meaningful life, our greatest, and yet unspoken, inner fear is that we will leave this world having made no meaningful difference in it. And yet the existentialist and nihilistic worldviews mock our attempts to live a life filled with meaning and purpose.
Apart from God, life is simply a cruel torment ending in the oblivion of death and nonexistence. Modern science confirms the existentialist view of our world, and of our lives: we exist only by random chance, and death is the end of our existence. This viewpoint, however, is nothing new; as one writer, centuries ago, put it, �we were born by mere chance, and hereafter we shall be as though we had never been� (Wisdom of Solomon 2:2).
The world we experience prior to any and all conceptual schemes, which we might develop in order to make sense of the world, is an experience of the world all humankind has in common. This world of appearances, as-it-presents-itself to our consciousness, should be our starting point: in science, in philosophy, and (especially) in theology. It is this world of phenomenal experience that we all have in common, it is this experience we know and understand better than we do anything else, and it is our human experience that enables us to know and understand the needs and emotions of our fellow human beings.
All of us love, and we all grieve the deaths of those we love; we all hunger and we all thirst; all of us experience the reality of our lives lived in-the-world as embodied, conscious, human persons. If our Creator desired (for whatever reason) to experience life in-the-world, he would become an embodied, conscious being who could live, move, and be in-the-world. He would laugh, he would love, he would weep, he would hunger, and he would thirst. He would be as we are, and we are as he would be (were he to be embodied). Jesus Christ, God the Son incarnate�the visible image of the invisible God�has come into the world. He lived, he ministered, he was crucified, he died and was buried, and on the third day he rose from the dead; he ascended into heaven and from thence he will come again to judge the living and the dead. The apostles testify to these facts, and their testimony is trustworthy.
We are created in the image of our Creator and the world he created for us testifies to his glory, his power, his wisdom, and his love for his creation. We would do well to lay aside much of our intellectual-play theological, philosophical, and modern scientific theories and begin thinking more seriously about how we can better care for the people with whom we share our world and for the world itself. Because this is the only world there is.
Abrams, Nancy Ellen. (Joel R. Primack). The View from the Center of the Universe, New York: Riverhead Books, 2006.
American Heritage Dictionary (Fourth Edition), New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2001
Angeles, Peter. Dictionary of Philosophy, New York: Barnes and Noble Books, 1981.
Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica, Allen: Christian Classics, 1948.
Aveni, Anthony. Conversing with the Planets, Boulder: University Press of Colorado, 2002.
Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958, 1979
Bernstein, Louis. The Scientific American Book of the Cosmos, David Levy, editor; New York: Random House, 1995.
Brockman, John (Editor). Intelligent Thought, Science Versus the Intelligent Design Movement, New York: Vintage, 2006.
Brownlee, Donald (and Peter Ward). Rare Earth, Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe, New York: Copernicus Books, 2000, 2004.
Camus, Albert. The Myth of Sisyphus, London: Penquin, 1955, 1975.
Davies, Paul. About Time, Einstein�s Unfinished Revolution, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1995, 2005.
Davis, Kenneth C. Don�t Know Much About The Universe, New York: HarperCollins, 2001.
Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum)
Fonck, Leopold, S.J. The Parables of Christ, Fort Collins: Roman Catholic Books, 1918 (reprint).
Freed, Fred (Producer). The Decision to Drop the Bomb, New York: NBC White Paper, 1965.
Gilson, Etienne. The Christian Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas, Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1956, 2002.
Goldman, Steven L. Science Wars: What Scientists Know and How They Know It, Chantilly: The Teaching Company LTD, 2006. Course Guidebook, (Part 1).
Gowler, David B. What Are They Saying About The Parables?, Mahwah: Paulist Press, 2000.
Gribbin, John. Schrodinger�s Kittens and the Search for Reality, Boston:Back Bay Books, 1995.
Harrison, Edward R. Cosmology, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1981, 1985.
John Paul II. Fides et Ratio
Johnson, Philip. Darwin on Trial, Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1991, 1993.
Jordon, James. Through New Eyes: Developing a Biblical View of the World, Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 1988, 1999.
Kass, Leon R. (with James Q. Wilson). The Ethics of Human Cloning, (Washington: The AEI Press, 1998)
King, Jr., Rev. Martin Luther. Letter from Birmingham Jail, (see http://www.mlkonline.net/jail.html)
Kuhn, Thomas. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Second Edition), Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970.
Kuhn, Thomas. The Copernican Revolution, (MJF Books, New York, 1957, 1985)
Macbeth, Norman. Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason, Harvard: The Harvard Commons Press, 1971.
Mayr, Ernst. What Evolution Is, New York: Basic Books, 2001.
McCarthy, James F. The Science of Historical Theology, Rockford: TAN Books, 1976.
Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. Phenomenology of Perception, London: Routledge 1945, 1962.
Midgely, Mary. Evolution as a Religion, London: Routledge, 1985, 2002.
Midgely, Mary. Science as Salvation, London: Routledge, 1993.
Moran, Dermot. Introduction to Phenomenology, London: Routledge, 2000, 2004.
Morris, Richard. Time�s Arrows, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1985.
New York Public Library Science Desk Reference, New York: Stonesong Press, 1995.
Nichols, Terence L. The Sacred Cosmos, Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2003.
North, John. The Norton History of Astronomy and Cosmology, W.W. Norton: New York, 1994.
Ott, Ludwig. Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Rockford: TAN Books, 1960, 1974.
Pearcey, Nancy R. (Charles B. Thaxton). The Soul Of Science, Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1994.
Polkinghorne, John. Quantum Physics and Theology, New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007.
Primack, Joel R. (Nancy Ellen Abrams). The View from the Center of the Universe, New York: Riverhead Books, 2006.
Sagan, Carl. Pale Blue Dot, New York: Ballentine Books, 1997.
Scott, Bernard Brandon. Jesus, Symbol-Maker for the Kingdom, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981.
Shattuck, Roger. Forbidden Knowledge: From Prometheus to Pornography, New York: St. Martin�s Press, 1996.
Singer, Peter. Rethinking Life and Death: The Collapse of Our Traditional Ethics, New York: St. Martin�s Press, 1995.
Smolin, Lee. The Trouble With Physics, New York: Mariner Books, 2006.
Thaxton, Charles B. (with Nancy R. Pearcy). The Soul Of Science, Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1994.
The Holy Bible, Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.
Ward, Peter (Donald Brownlee). Rare Earth, Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe, New York: Copernicus Books, 2000, 2004.
Wicker, Benjamin. Moral Darwinism, Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2002.
Wilson, James Q. (with Leon R. Kass). The Ethics of Human Cloning, (Washington: The AEI Press, 1998)
1. American Heritage Dictionary, Fourth Edition (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2001)
2. James F. McCarthy, The Science of Historical Theology (Rockford: TAN Books, 1976) p. 41
3. For example, theory A is given as an explanation of the world and predicts the occurrence of phenomenon B. An experiment is designed to detect phenomenon B and phenomenon B is observed. But although phenomenon B occurs as predicted it is not necessarily the case that theory A is the only possible explanation of the world, or for the occurrence of phenomenon B. It is possible theory A is a correct explanation of the world, but theory A is not necessarily correct. To assert the observation of the occurrence of phenomenon B as proof that theory A is necessarily correct is known in logic as committing the fallacy of Affirming the Consequent. Yet this is precisely what modern science so often does when making truth-claims about reality.
4. Steven L. Goldman, Science Wars: What Scientists Know and How They Know It (Chantilly: The Teaching Company LTD, 2006) Course Guidebook (Part 1), p10.
5. See Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions , Second Edition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970).
6. Mary Midgely, Evolution as a Religion, (London: Routledge, 1985, 2002) p. 120
7. Dermot Moran, Introduction to Phenomenology (London: Routledge, 2000, 2004) p. 180
8. John Paul II, Fides et Ratio, 88
9. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, ( I, 1, 1)
10. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, (Rockford: TAN Books, 1960, 1974) p. 3
11. Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum) 2, 9
12. Etienne Gilson, The Christian Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas, (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1956, 2002) p. 13
13. ibid., p. 13
14. ibid., p. 13
15. Summa Theologica, I, 1, 5
16. Fides et Ratio, 93 (emphasis in original)
17. Dermot Moran, Introduction to Phenomenology, (London: Routledge, 2000, 2004) p. 4-5
18. Dictionary of Philosophy, Peter Angeles, editor (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1981) p. 27
19. Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Phenomenology of Perception, (London: Routledge, 1945, 1962) p. vii
20. ibid., p. ix
21. ibid., p. xi-xii
22. Dermot Moran, Introduction to Phenomenology, p. 189
23. Peter Angeles, Dictionary of Philosophy, (New York: Barnes and Noble Books, 1981)
24. St. Paul (in this passage of scripture taken from his Letter to the Colossians) is here referring to Christ (in particular) as the Creator and Sustainer of all creation. I have taken the liberty of here referring to Christ as God (in the more general sense) as the Creator and Sustainer of all creation in order to clarify the subject at hand. As Christians we believe the one God exists eternally in three divine Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
25. In this section (on the various metaphysical categories) I have simplified the much more detailed explanation given by Etienne Gilson in: The Christian Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas (see pp. 29-36) and I refer the interested reader to that excellent work.
26. Terence L. Nichols, The Sacred Cosmos (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2003) p.41
27. In this passage we see the dynamic relationship that exists eternally within the Trinity: �Let us make man in our image, after our likeness� (emphasis added).
28. The world is perceived by all conscious beings, such as animals, but we are mainly concerned here with human perception because it is the most God-like.
29. Etienne Gilson, The Christian Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas, p.75
30. Mary Midgley, Science as Salvation (London: Routledge, 1993) p.11
31. ibid., p.13
32. Louis Bernstein, The Scientific American Book of the Cosmos, David Levy, ed. (New York: Random House, 1995) p. 70
33. David Levy, ibid., p.35
34. According to The New York Public Library Science Desk Reference, of the 109 existing known elements, �The first 92 elements occur in nature (with a few exceptions: astatine, atomic number 85; technetium, atomic number 43; and some other elements are artificial although their artificiality is debated); the remaining elements have been artificially created in laboratory particle accelerators.�
35. Stuart A. Kauffman, Intelligent Thought, Science Versus the Intelligent Design Movement (New York: Vintage, 2006) p. 174
36. Kenneth C. Davis, Don�t Know Much About The Universe, (New York: HarperCollins, 2001) p. 79
37. This will also allow us to compare and contrast the similar, but very different, four components of the prescientific biblical view of the world (i.e., the abode of God; the firmament; the earth; and Sheol).
38. Paul Davies, About Time, Einstein�s Unfinished Revolution, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1995, 2005) p. 16
39. See: Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee, Rare Earth, Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe, (New York: Copernicus Books, 2000, 2004)
40. The New York Public Library Science Desk Reference, (New York: Stonesong Press, 1995) p. 420
41. ibid., p. 422
42. The nine elements are: Oxygen (45%); Silicon (27%); Aluminum (8%); Iron (5.8%); Calcium (5.1%); Magnesium (2.8%); Sodium (2.3%); Potassium (1.7%); Hydrogen (1.5%); and trace amounts of other elements).
43. The New York Public Library Science Desk Reference, (New York: Stonesong Press, 1995) p. 377
44. ibid., p.395
45. �On 6 December, 1273, he [Aquinas] laid aside his pen and would write no more. That day he experienced an unusually long ecstasy during Mass; what was revealed to him we can only surmise from his reply to Father Reginald, who urged him to continue his writings: �I can do no more. Such secrets have been revealed to me that all I have written now appears to be of little value�.� See http://www.malaspina.org/aquinas.htm
46. McCarthy, The Science of Historical Theology, (Rockford: TAN Books, 1976) p. 41, (emphasis in original).
47. Thomas Kuhn, The Copernican Revolution, (MJF Books, New York, 1957, 1985) p. 1
48. John North, The Norton History of Astronomy and Cosmology, (W.W. Norton: New York, 1994) p. 120 (emphasis in original)
49. Edward R. Harrison, Cosmology, (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1981, 1985) p. 74
50. See: Thomas Kuhn, The Copernican Revolution, p.42
51. Thomas Kuhn, The Copernican Revolution, p. 237
52. Dermot Moran, Introduction to Phenomenology, (London: Routledge, 2000, 2004) p. 266
53. ibid.
54. Anthony Aveni, Conversing with the Planets, (Boulder: University Press of Colorado, 2002) p. 218
55. Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot, (New York: Ballentine Books, 1997) p. 9
56. See Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee, Rare Earth, Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe, (New York: Copernicus Books, 2000, 2004) p. xxvii-xxviii
57. Ernst Mayr, What Evolution Is, (New York: Basic Books, 2001) p. 275
58. ibid., p. 43
59. Edward B. Harrison, Cosmology, p. 304
60. Intelligent Thought: Science versus the Intelligent Design Movement, John Brockman, editor (New York: Vintage Books, 2006)
61. Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. versus Dover Area School District, et al (United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 04cv2688)
62. Intelligent Thought, back cover
63. Mary Midgely, Evolution as a Religion, (London: Routledge, 1985, 2002) p. 1
64. Ernst Mayr, What Evolution Is, p. 278
65. ibid, p. 275
66. Philip Johnson, Darwin on Trial, (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1991, 1993) p. 153
67. See Nancy R. Pearcey and Charles B. Thaxton, The Soul Of Science, (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1994) p. 90
68. Benjamin Wicker, Moral Darwinism, (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2002) p. 217
69. Seth Lloyd in, Intelligent Thought, p. 189
70. See Nicholas Humphrey�s use of this term in, ibid., p. 61. See also Richard Dawkins use of the phrase �evolutionary arms race� (!) in, ibid., p. 99.
71. Philip Johnson, Darwin on Trial, p. 146
72. Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason, (Harvard: The Harvard Commons Press, 1971) p. 150
73. Quoted in, Edward Harrison, Cosmology, (London: Cambridge University Press, 1981, 1985) p. 128
74. Nancy R. Pearcey and Charles B. Thaxton, The Soul Of Science, (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1994) p. 90
75. John North, The Norton History of Astronomy and Cosmology, p. 14-15
76. Richard Morris, Time�s Arrows, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1985) p. 28
77. Nancy Pearcey and Charles Thaxton, The Soul of Science, p. 173
78. Paul Davies, About Time, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1995, 2005) pp. 52-53
79. ibid., p. 121
80. ibid., p. 10
81. ibid., p.275 (emphasis in original)
82. ibid., p.16 (emphasis in original)
83. Edward R. Harrison, Cosmology, p. 139
84. One commonly asserted application of General Relativity is the adjustments required by GPS satellite clocks: they eventually become off to approximately the same degree that the theory of General Relativity (GR) predicts that they should (according to GR�s conception of time dilation). This application, however, does not prove that time dilation is a true fact about the physical world. It is possible that GR could be a true explanation of gravity�s effect on time, but applications and experimental results cannot prove the theory true by necessity�it is possible that a better explanation for the phenomenon exists. In fact, GR is considered to be the one theory in physics today with the least amount of empirical evidence.
85. Lee Smolin, The Trouble With Physics, (New York: Mariner Books, 2006) pp. 256-257 (emphasis in original)
86. ibid., p. 355
87. Mary Midgley, Science as Salvation, (London: Routledge, 1992) p. 13
88. James Jordon, Through New Eyes: Developing a Biblical View of the World, (Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 1988, 1999) p.12
89. ibid., p.25
90. Terence Nichols, The Sacred Cosmos: Christian Faith and the Challenge of Naturalism, (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2003, p. 9
91. ibid., p.56
92. ibid., p.20
93. This is especially evident when we compare the Greek wording of John 1:1 found in the NT with the Greek wording of Genesis 1:1 found in the LXX: �in the beginning� is rendered εν αρχη in both.
94. I have, throughout this work, used the term he at times when referring to our Creator not because I believe our Creator to be male or female, but because it is how the Bible refers to God. It is also necessary, at times, to use some sort of pronoun simply in order to express, in writing, the Person who is God.
95. James Jordon, Through New Eyes, p. 19
96. Mary Midgley, Science as Salvation, p. 77
97. Ernst Mayr, What Evolution Is, (New York: Basic Books, 2001) p. 43
98. John Paul II, Fides et Ratio, 88
99. John Gribbin, Schrodinger�s Kittens and the Search for Reality, (Boston: Back Bay Books, 1995) p. 184 (That the phrase �and the search for reality� is contained within the title of Gibbin�s book says a lot in itself: modern science is always engaging in the search for an hidden and ultimate reality when, in truth, reality is that which is openly observable to everyone at all times.)
100. Dermot Moran, Introduction to Phenomenology, (London: Routledge,
2000, 2004) p. 266
101. Quoted in, Dermot Moran, Introduction to Phenomenology, p. 182
102. The New York Public Library Science Desk Reference, (New York: Stonesong Press, 1995) p. 377
103. "[F]or �In him we live and move and have our being�; as even some of your poets have said, �For we are indeed his offspring.�" (Acts 17:28)
104. The Greek word here (at the end of verse 17) translated as �hold together� is the word: sunesthken meaning: to �continue, endure, exist, hold together� (Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958, 1979).
105. I�m thinking here of the people who so proudly display on their cars the Christian fish symbol (the Ichthus) with the word Science, or the name Darwin, within the fish symbol�replacing the acronym for Jesus Christ God�s Son Savior ( IXQUS ) normally found therein. I am also reminded of the bumper sticker I saw recently, which read: �One Nation Under Science�.
106. Joel R. Primack and Nancy Ellen Abrams, The View from the Center of the Universe, (New York: Riverhead Books, 2006). Although I do appreciate the authors� honest attempt to deal meaningfully with our existence�contra the existential meaninglessness which follows logically from modern cosmology�I believe they are taking things much too far by advocating for what amounts to the construction of a religion of modern scientific cosmology.
107. Peter Singer, Rethinking Life and Death: The Collapse of Our Traditional Ethics, (New York: St. Martin�s Press, 1995) pp. 213-214
108. See: Leon R. Kass and James Q. Wilson, The Ethics of Human Cloning, (Washington: The AEI Press, 1998)
109. This is the principle (known in Latin as: lex talionis) of exacting no more punishment than is due for the crime committed. The principle establishes fairness in justice by protecting the guilty person from the person who was wronged and who may wish to exact an unfair and excessive punishment (or vengeance) upon the guilty person (see: Exodus 21: 23-25).
110. Quoted in: Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, 1, 96, 4
111. Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., Letter from Birmingham Jail, April 16, 1963 (See http://www.mlkonline.net/jail.html)
112. David B. Gowler, What Are They Saying About The Parables? (Mahwah: Paulist Press, 2000) p. 92 (The author is commenting here on Bernard Brandon Scott�s take on Jesus� vision of reality in his book: Jesus, Symbol-Maker for the Kingdom, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981).
113. Leopold Fonck, S.J., The Parables of Christ, (Fort Collins: Roman Catholic Books, 1918 (reprint) p. 22 (emphasis in the original).
114. We may also note how the antitheistic scientist in this parable does not act as though people are simply matter-in-motion; rather, he acts according to his immediate sense perceptions of the world: a fellow human person is in need, and he sees himself as a person who has the power to act in order to help.
115. Leopold Fonck, S.J., The Parables of Christ, p. 782
116. The Greek word used in Luke 15:14 (translated as loose living) is the word aswzws which literally means not saved (a = not, swzws = saved) and occurs only here in the NT. In the story, the older brother describes his prodigal brother�s not saved lifestyle as one in which he had �devoured [his father�s] living with harlots� (Luke 15:30). (See entry in Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958, 1979).
117. Leopold Fonck, S.J., The Parables of Christ, p. 784
118. Peter Angeles, Dictionary of Philosophy, (New York: Barnes and Noble Books, 1981)
119. I am indebted here to my good friend Ian (Patrick) Downin for this example.
120. John Polkinghorne, Quantum Physics and Theology, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007) p. 20
121. Greek: splagchnizomai meaning: to be moved with compassion (See entry in Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958, 1979)
122. Roger Shattuck, Forbidden Knowledge: From Prometheus to Pornography, (New York: St. Martin�s Press, 1996) p. 310
123. From an interview about the Trinity atomic blast explosion that was first broadcast as part of the television documentary: The Decision to Drop the Bomb, produced by Fred Freed, NBC White Paper, 1965
124. Albert Camus, The Myth of Sisyphus, (London: Penguin, 1955, 1975) p. 1
I would like to thank everyone who used to hang out at the Frappe House Coffee Company in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania�where so much of this book was written�for their love, friendship, and support. I will never forget you guys. Special thanks go to my very good friend, Ian Patrick Downin. More so than anyone else, he was of the greatest assistance to me in fleshing out the ideas and concepts found in this book. Thanks Ian, I couldn�t have done it without you.
I would also like to thank my parents, Alex and Alice MacDonald, and my sister, Leslie MacDonald. Thank you for your continual love and support. Thanks for putting up with me over the years; I love you all very much. I wish Dad had lived long enough to see this book in print. No doubt he would have disagreed with my ideas, but I�m sure he would have been pleased that I taken the time and made the effort to write them out. Thanks Dad. If you hadn�t passed on to me your love of knowledge and your love for reading, this book never would have been written.
Very special thanks go to a fellow writer, J.M. Wallas, who is also the woman I love. Thanks for your input, your support, your love, and your patience, which, I know, was tried at times. You understand just how much work has actually gone into writing this book, and I couldn�t have done it without you. I will always love you Jen, forever.
All errors contained in this work are my own, and I ask that the readers of this book please advise me of any mistakes needing correction. I also welcome any comments (either positive or negative) readers of the book may have regarding it. You can contact me by email at: [email protected]
A.J. MacDonald, Jr.
