In a cemetery near the fishing village of Mousehole, in Cornwall, stands a memorial stone to Dolly Pentreath. Erected in 1860, it commemorates her death in 1777: already, by then, the last known native speaker of the Cornish language.
What would it be like to watch your language die over your lifetime? A language encodes a way of looking at the world, as much as of interacting with others. The many Inuit words for “snow” may or may not be apocryphal, but the legend captures something true: a language goes into great detail on subjects its speakers believe important. What would it be like to be the only one left for whom these words, those sentences, felt natural and obvious?
In a similar way, a religious faith is a moral language. A faith goes into great detail on themes its speakers believe important. Moral languages can also die, or evolve into something new, as (for whatever reason) its adherents stop passing on its grammar and priorities.
These gloomy thoughts percolated last Sunday as I sat, with my daughter on my lap, gazing around the 800-year-old nave of a little Norman church near our home, as we listened to the Palm Sunday reading of the Passion of Christ. This story is the heart of the Christian faith: it describes an incarnate God, acclaimed in his own capital city as Messiah — and betrayed in the moment of worldly triumph. It tells of that deity swarmed by a mocking crowd, and abandoned by even the disciples who swore never to do so. It recounts his death on the cross, as a criminal flanked by criminals, crying out at the last moment of agony about having been forsaken by the God in whom he trusted.
Today, we view the cross through a 2,000-year prism of Christian meanings. In the pre-Christian tradition absorbed into that symbolism, though, it was often held to symbolise the four material elements of earth, air, fire, and water. And from this perspective, we might read the Crucifixion as in part the story of a God that doesn’t just willingly take on flesh, but also the profound suffering that comes with embodied life: limitation, pain, and — finally — agonising death, in the certainty of having been forsaken by the divine.
And in this sense, the two-millennia trajectory of the Christian Church also echoes the Passion narrative. A faith born among the poor, rising to immense worldly reach and power; even in that little church, one of thousands throughout England, gravestones and memorials mark more than 800 years of the great and the good whose lives pepper this story. Then, the same institution, crippled from within at the moment of peak political reach, and now spiralling toward irrelevance.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeAs a Christian, it is always a pleasure to read a frankly Christian commentary in the public space. The essay is an elegy, but beautifully written and quite moving. And I appreciate the final comment about faith – if ever we needed that virtue it is now.
Be assured that nobody can kill God and Jesus is still the way to the Father as well as being the truth and the life. It is true that the country has fallen back as a whole and no longer believes in God but that doesn’t change the truth none. We all have a choice. Our sin has separated us from God but we can be forgiven through Jesus death on the cross when we believe and act on it by changing our minds. He that believes on the Son has everlasting life and shall not pass into condemnation (where our sin takes us) but has passed from death to life. Christians have no problem with science as they are simply the laws that God has made which we can discover.
Be assured that nobody can kill God and Jesus is still the way to the Father as well as being the truth and the life. It is true that the country has fallen back as a whole and no longer believes in God but that doesn’t change the truth none. We all have a choice. Our sin has separated us from God but we can be forgiven through Jesus death on the cross when we believe and act on it by changing our minds. He that believes on the Son has everlasting life and shall not pass into condemnation (where our sin takes us) but has passed from death to life. Christians have no problem with science as they are simply the laws that God has made which we can discover.
As a Christian, it is always a pleasure to read a frankly Christian commentary in the public space. The essay is an elegy, but beautifully written and quite moving. And I appreciate the final comment about faith – if ever we needed that virtue it is now.
“With that science came the steady withdrawal of God from His creation…”
No doubt that assertion is correct overall, but as someone who spent the first part of his career as a chemist/biochemist I never found any contradiction between science and faith. The longer I studied the working of biological systems (even such “simple” systems as a single cell) the less I understood how they worked. Each successive wave of technology (PCR, gene chips, chromatography-mass spectrometry) revealed a greater layer of complexity until even a single cell became an improbable Rube Goldberg machine, too complicated to function–but somehow it did function. I can readily believe there is a unifying force underlying life that will never be explained by science and can better be explained by religious faith.
I am no longer an observant Christian, but deep down I retain a certain form of faith. I’m pleased that the Unherd comments section, although an unlikely forum, is a place where I can say “Happy Easter” and many people will not be offended by that remark.
A blessed Easter to you and all.
It’s always interesting to hear from someone with a deep study of biology/biochemistry.
Might i enquire whether, should biogenesis be found elsewhere as we expand our ability to explore beyond our own planet, your view might change? If organic compounds developing into cellular life is found to be common, perhaps with many different and strange biochemical bases, would you consider that Faith still plays a part, especially if no other examples other than human religious faith became apparent?
All hypothetical, i know, but i’d still be curious about whether it’s something you’ve considered.
What many scientists with christian faith, including myself as a biology graduate, would conclude after some new scientific discovery is “oh, so that’s how God did it!”. Our faith is not based on gaps in scientific understanding, but on what we plainly see with our eyes, what we read in the scriptures, and what we experience in our spirits.
If you respond to every scientific discovery by saying ‘Oh, that’s how God did it’ you make religion literally unfalsifiable.
What result could disprove religion if you choose to interpret every result that way?
Religion, being comprised of theology, liturgy and morality, is not to be “proven” or “disproven”.
Faith in God, could it be “proven” or “disproven”, would not be faith.
This is not to say there is no “evidence” of God’s existence–the Bible, for example.
Just because “interpreting” the results of experiments in the physical world as evidence of God’s Divine Plan fails to “disprove religion” as you say, is no reason to discard this “interpretation”.
Saying that the Bible provides evidence involves circular logic.
For example, it says in Joshua that the sun stood still in the sky. Do we have any other evidence to corroborate this claim? No. So what weight do we give to the Bible saying that it happened? You may give it a lot if you choose, but it’s not really evidence.
It’s a curious thing is it not that the opening lines of the Bible describe the big bang quite accurately, allowing for language etc. To get it as right as it did, given a million other possible myths, is truly remarkable is it not? Carl Sagan thought so (Dragons of Eden)..
“Quite accurately?” Well, ex nihilo in general, but . . . Wouldn’t it be more impressive if G-d said to Moses: “Hey here’s something better: those upcoming Nature Philosophers will be barking up the right tree with elements and atoms but you guys need to be more precise: not just ordinary sense objects like water and air nor the teeniest bits they can chop. I reveal: the Periodic Table! Your chemistry has numbers, because it is rooted in real atomic structure. In turn it will clue you in to all the biodiversity. And it works anywhere at all in the universe, where by the way you will see billions and billions of stars and planets . . .”?
I don’t see that in the creation narrative in Genesis.
“Quite accurately?” Well, ex nihilo in general, but . . . Wouldn’t it be more impressive if G-d said to Moses: “Hey here’s something better: those upcoming Nature Philosophers will be barking up the right tree with elements and atoms but you guys need to be more precise: not just ordinary sense objects like water and air nor the teeniest bits they can chop. I reveal: the Periodic Table! Your chemistry has numbers, because it is rooted in real atomic structure. In turn it will clue you in to all the biodiversity. And it works anywhere at all in the universe, where by the way you will see billions and billions of stars and planets . . .”?
I don’t see that in the creation narrative in Genesis.
Your point is interesting but your timing leaves something to be desired. It’s Good Friday.
My Christians in Science group had a fascinating lecture about just that and other unusual events reported in the Old Testament! All to do with eclipses and translations of early texts. As a biology graduate in the 1960s I have watched the march of knowledge in this field. We now know so much about cellular activity but we cannot give that divine spark to inanimate chemicals. So that’s where my faith goes. I’m so sad that the subject I love has become the vehicle for such profound evils as surrogacy, “gender affirmation surgeries” and the like.
And the killing of 9.5 million babies.
And the killing of 9.5 million babies.
Similar events have happened much more recently, for example in Portugal in 1917, where the sun seemed to “dance”, witnessed by tens of thousands of people (google “the miracle of the sun”). Some people believe there was a natural explanation for the phenomenon of course, and perhaps there was, but the event was predicted well in advance by three children, which is why the crowds were there.
I thought that even the Vatican had conceded that Copernicus and Galileo were correct. The earth revolves on its axis, which makes the sun appear to be moving across the sky. The earth can’t stop revolving because of the law of conservation of angular momentum.
I’d trust the laws of physics before the accounts of religious Portuguese people in 1917.
The physics was right but God made physics. Religion can be the enemy of God at times.
The physics was right but God made physics. Religion can be the enemy of God at times.
.
Not everything supernatural is from God. Evil has supernatural it appears but Jesus had authority over it and we can have too. Don’t be deceived.
I thought that even the Vatican had conceded that Copernicus and Galileo were correct. The earth revolves on its axis, which makes the sun appear to be moving across the sky. The earth can’t stop revolving because of the law of conservation of angular momentum.
I’d trust the laws of physics before the accounts of religious Portuguese people in 1917.
.
Not everything supernatural is from God. Evil has supernatural it appears but Jesus had authority over it and we can have too. Don’t be deceived.
I think you may be misunderstanding the point of the Bible. It is a library of books of wisdom not of history. Therefore it is not to be proved factually correct or incorrect. Belief is not literal. Scientific method and faith are not alternatives. They are different ways of apprehending the same thing.
We must trust the science. Unfortunately a lot of the so called science now has not been proved but is an enforced opinion that one is not allowed to question in certain quarters. A kind of science if repeated enough cause people to believe it’s true when it isn’t.
We must trust the science. Unfortunately a lot of the so called science now has not been proved but is an enforced opinion that one is not allowed to question in certain quarters. A kind of science if repeated enough cause people to believe it’s true when it isn’t.
Seems like i remember a story about how they were able to say that the North Star did shine ultra brightly around the time of his birth.
For those who follow Christ and his teachings, it’s not for us to falsify or unfalsify, as though He were a science experiment. Scientific discovery keeps us constantly in awe of God, as it should be.
It’s harder for me to believe that the order of science was just there on it’s own.
It’s harder for me to believe that the order of science was just there on it’s own.
I read that it was proved by science when they were working out time and what happened in Joshua was the missing piece. Nevertheless even if it wasn’t proven I still believe it because God gives me the faith to believe it. It’s not logical I know but God is truer than all the arguments raised against Him. One day all will know. Without faith it is impossible to please God.
It’s a curious thing is it not that the opening lines of the Bible describe the big bang quite accurately, allowing for language etc. To get it as right as it did, given a million other possible myths, is truly remarkable is it not? Carl Sagan thought so (Dragons of Eden)..
Your point is interesting but your timing leaves something to be desired. It’s Good Friday.
My Christians in Science group had a fascinating lecture about just that and other unusual events reported in the Old Testament! All to do with eclipses and translations of early texts. As a biology graduate in the 1960s I have watched the march of knowledge in this field. We now know so much about cellular activity but we cannot give that divine spark to inanimate chemicals. So that’s where my faith goes. I’m so sad that the subject I love has become the vehicle for such profound evils as surrogacy, “gender affirmation surgeries” and the like.
Similar events have happened much more recently, for example in Portugal in 1917, where the sun seemed to “dance”, witnessed by tens of thousands of people (google “the miracle of the sun”). Some people believe there was a natural explanation for the phenomenon of course, and perhaps there was, but the event was predicted well in advance by three children, which is why the crowds were there.
I think you may be misunderstanding the point of the Bible. It is a library of books of wisdom not of history. Therefore it is not to be proved factually correct or incorrect. Belief is not literal. Scientific method and faith are not alternatives. They are different ways of apprehending the same thing.
Seems like i remember a story about how they were able to say that the North Star did shine ultra brightly around the time of his birth.
For those who follow Christ and his teachings, it’s not for us to falsify or unfalsify, as though He were a science experiment. Scientific discovery keeps us constantly in awe of God, as it should be.
I read that it was proved by science when they were working out time and what happened in Joshua was the missing piece. Nevertheless even if it wasn’t proven I still believe it because God gives me the faith to believe it. It’s not logical I know but God is truer than all the arguments raised against Him. One day all will know. Without faith it is impossible to please God.
Saying that the Bible provides evidence involves circular logic.
For example, it says in Joshua that the sun stood still in the sky. Do we have any other evidence to corroborate this claim? No. So what weight do we give to the Bible saying that it happened? You may give it a lot if you choose, but it’s not really evidence.
Your point is accepted, but the reverse is more pertinent. When evolution is unable to explain a phenomenon, you are left with a Creator, or at least, a super-intelligent being/alien race who seeded earth with life. The current explanations of origins based on Darwinian (random) evolution require billions of years, trillions of failures and even multiverses to make the math work. This explanation is ultimately unsatisfying. The deeper we dig into molecular biology the more we realize that the design is far cleverer, by orders of magnitude, than all the software that humans have yet produced. And yet we believe it just grew that way?
I think that’s a mischaracterisation of evolution. The first principle, mutation, is random and directionless. The second bit, selection, is non-random.
Only mutations that confer better survival get passed on, so after three billion years of life the product can be very sophisticated indeed. It will look designed, even if it was fashioned by repeated iterations of trial and error.
No-one seriously thinks life evolved just by random errors; it had an organising principle, just not a supernatural one.
Exactly! Thank you.
I would say a created one.
Exactly! Thank you.
I would say a created one.
If all the organs needed to produce just one birth after millions of years the species would have died out long ago.
I think that’s a mischaracterisation of evolution. The first principle, mutation, is random and directionless. The second bit, selection, is non-random.
Only mutations that confer better survival get passed on, so after three billion years of life the product can be very sophisticated indeed. It will look designed, even if it was fashioned by repeated iterations of trial and error.
No-one seriously thinks life evolved just by random errors; it had an organising principle, just not a supernatural one.
If all the organs needed to produce just one birth after millions of years the species would have died out long ago.
Since science is unable to grapple with Why (only How) your question cannot fly.. Science, like football is a set of rules.. As wonderful as they both are, neither explains everything
Exactly!! Thank you. Well said, D Glover. I could not have said it more succinctly myself.
You said that already. I thought this was a discussion not a fight.
You said that already. I thought this was a discussion not a fight.
Here we get a multi-edged sword. “Science tells us how G-d worked” keeps the peace; dissenters need not be persecuted, science and religion celebrate a division of labor. (This is what Gould called “NOMA,” what in the Middle Ages was called “Averroism.”) By the same token theology accepts general intellectual impotence. Some religious folk find this acceptable, but others do not. To embrace Averroism means thinking it pointless to falsify theology; but this also makes it pointless to assert theology as truth — and not all religious believers will agree to give up such assertion. (At least some creationists would agree that theology should not be made “literally unfalsifiable” — but only so that they can assert their theological claims as True.)
Theology can be personal and maybe wrong. The bible is the only source of true theology but it also shows that there is a Spirit of truth that backs it up.
Theology can be personal and maybe wrong. The bible is the only source of true theology but it also shows that there is a Spirit of truth that backs it up.
It’s not religion it’s faith. Faith is the evidence of things not seen (based on the word of God) the substance of things hoped for. If one believes in God why should one go out of his way to try and prove that God didn’t create it.That doesn’t make sense
Religion, being comprised of theology, liturgy and morality, is not to be “proven” or “disproven”.
Faith in God, could it be “proven” or “disproven”, would not be faith.
This is not to say there is no “evidence” of God’s existence–the Bible, for example.
Just because “interpreting” the results of experiments in the physical world as evidence of God’s Divine Plan fails to “disprove religion” as you say, is no reason to discard this “interpretation”.
Your point is accepted, but the reverse is more pertinent. When evolution is unable to explain a phenomenon, you are left with a Creator, or at least, a super-intelligent being/alien race who seeded earth with life. The current explanations of origins based on Darwinian (random) evolution require billions of years, trillions of failures and even multiverses to make the math work. This explanation is ultimately unsatisfying. The deeper we dig into molecular biology the more we realize that the design is far cleverer, by orders of magnitude, than all the software that humans have yet produced. And yet we believe it just grew that way?
Since science is unable to grapple with Why (only How) your question cannot fly.. Science, like football is a set of rules.. As wonderful as they both are, neither explains everything
Exactly!! Thank you. Well said, D Glover. I could not have said it more succinctly myself.
Here we get a multi-edged sword. “Science tells us how G-d worked” keeps the peace; dissenters need not be persecuted, science and religion celebrate a division of labor. (This is what Gould called “NOMA,” what in the Middle Ages was called “Averroism.”) By the same token theology accepts general intellectual impotence. Some religious folk find this acceptable, but others do not. To embrace Averroism means thinking it pointless to falsify theology; but this also makes it pointless to assert theology as truth — and not all religious believers will agree to give up such assertion. (At least some creationists would agree that theology should not be made “literally unfalsifiable” — but only so that they can assert their theological claims as True.)
It’s not religion it’s faith. Faith is the evidence of things not seen (based on the word of God) the substance of things hoped for. If one believes in God why should one go out of his way to try and prove that God didn’t create it.That doesn’t make sense
Good on ye! Shout it from the rooftops!
Agreed – indeed, faith and “rational inquiry” might be seen as separate domains.
“Science” (perhaps more correctly, natural philosophy) is concerned with whether a model, paradigm or proposition can be falsified. Faith cannot be falsified, since it’s really not amenable to objective scrutiny. Hence, there need not be any conflict between the spiritual and natural philosophy.
Stephen Jay Gould referred to these two independent spheres as “non-overlapping magisteria”, which always appealed to me as a sensible descriptive.
“Faith cannot be falsified . . . ” But sometimes it can. Glover’s example (above) of the sun stopping for Joshua; Elijah calling down fire from YHWH in heaven when Baal could not do the same; Gideon using the oracle of the fleece; Noah building a boat to save two of each kind of animal; Jonah being swallowed by the big fish; Shadrach Meshach & Abednego surviving the fiery furnace, and Daniel the lions’ den — these examples from TaNaK are depicted as empirical events. Cameras from Eye’M Witless news would have shown the sun stopping, the fire coming down, and so forth. Now, one may say, but faith understands such reports in non-literal ways. Some faith does, but some does not. Thus it is that Gould’s NOMA is more a performative utterance, a formula for keeping civil peace perhaps, than it is a universal characterization of religion and rationality.
“Faith cannot be falsified . . . ” But sometimes it can. Glover’s example (above) of the sun stopping for Joshua; Elijah calling down fire from YHWH in heaven when Baal could not do the same; Gideon using the oracle of the fleece; Noah building a boat to save two of each kind of animal; Jonah being swallowed by the big fish; Shadrach Meshach & Abednego surviving the fiery furnace, and Daniel the lions’ den — these examples from TaNaK are depicted as empirical events. Cameras from Eye’M Witless news would have shown the sun stopping, the fire coming down, and so forth. Now, one may say, but faith understands such reports in non-literal ways. Some faith does, but some does not. Thus it is that Gould’s NOMA is more a performative utterance, a formula for keeping civil peace perhaps, than it is a universal characterization of religion and rationality.
If you respond to every scientific discovery by saying ‘Oh, that’s how God did it’ you make religion literally unfalsifiable.
What result could disprove religion if you choose to interpret every result that way?
Good on ye! Shout it from the rooftops!
Agreed – indeed, faith and “rational inquiry” might be seen as separate domains.
“Science” (perhaps more correctly, natural philosophy) is concerned with whether a model, paradigm or proposition can be falsified. Faith cannot be falsified, since it’s really not amenable to objective scrutiny. Hence, there need not be any conflict between the spiritual and natural philosophy.
Stephen Jay Gould referred to these two independent spheres as “non-overlapping magisteria”, which always appealed to me as a sensible descriptive.
The question will always remain, however. Where did the material or celestial matter for life first come from and how did it get here? Without a plausible scientific explanation, the Creator option is on par with any attempt then, no?
The question may not always remain. We haven’t yet been able to establish precisely how matter (including dark matter) came into being, but it’s not beyond the realms of scientific discovery that an explanation will emerge whereby invoking a deity becomes redundant.
..nor vice versa, except of course that won’t be scientific will it. Notwithstanding, nuclear physics is getting close is it not?? While Higgs may have hat3d the term God Particle it didn’t arise purely by accident did it?
Exactly, Steve. And wouldn’t that discovery open a can of worms for the believers!
“the believers”? Believers in God? Are they wrong?
Yes. It’s a belief not a fact. Beliefs are subjective.
Is that a fact?
We know it is true. Why would christians die for that belief? Do they know something you don’t know or are not willing to know?
Is that a fact?
We know it is true. Why would christians die for that belief? Do they know something you don’t know or are not willing to know?
Eternity will show that, but faith is something God gives when our hearts are right.
Yes. It’s a belief not a fact. Beliefs are subjective.
Eternity will show that, but faith is something God gives when our hearts are right.
“the believers”? Believers in God? Are they wrong?
Oh I think we’ve got that already with Ed Witten’s vacuum fluctuation plus inflation-just remains to be seen whether it’s once and for ever or infinite bounceback. Covariant quantum fields rule.
..nor vice versa, except of course that won’t be scientific will it. Notwithstanding, nuclear physics is getting close is it not?? While Higgs may have hat3d the term God Particle it didn’t arise purely by accident did it?
Exactly, Steve. And wouldn’t that discovery open a can of worms for the believers!
Oh I think we’ve got that already with Ed Witten’s vacuum fluctuation plus inflation-just remains to be seen whether it’s once and for ever or infinite bounceback. Covariant quantum fields rule.
Well put!
It’s as good a hypothesis as any but of course doesn’t lend itself the the scientific methods and so is dismissed. Check out Steven Meyer on Darwin’s Doubt et al..
But that just kicks the can down the road. Where did the Creator come from? If you say he was always there you can’t defend against others saying the universe has always been there. You’ve just introduced a middleman. If you say there was another creator of the creator, it’s turtles all the way down. The deism of Spinoza and those who followed him into the Enlightenment has always intrigued me in this regard. It seems to be a laudable attempt to grapple with this issue, though poorly understood today.
The things that are not revealed belong only unto God. The things that are revealed belong unto us to do them and follow them. God has not revealed everything but He has and is revealing Himself while the world is here.
The things that are not revealed belong only unto God. The things that are revealed belong unto us to do them and follow them. God has not revealed everything but He has and is revealing Himself while the world is here.
The question may not always remain. We haven’t yet been able to establish precisely how matter (including dark matter) came into being, but it’s not beyond the realms of scientific discovery that an explanation will emerge whereby invoking a deity becomes redundant.
Well put!
It’s as good a hypothesis as any but of course doesn’t lend itself the the scientific methods and so is dismissed. Check out Steven Meyer on Darwin’s Doubt et al..
But that just kicks the can down the road. Where did the Creator come from? If you say he was always there you can’t defend against others saying the universe has always been there. You’ve just introduced a middleman. If you say there was another creator of the creator, it’s turtles all the way down. The deism of Spinoza and those who followed him into the Enlightenment has always intrigued me in this regard. It seems to be a laudable attempt to grapple with this issue, though poorly understood today.
“Religious faith” is a misnomer. Christianity is a faith, not a religion. A religion is a man-made rip-off institution designed through fear and observance to enslave people.. Buddhism by contrast always eschewed religiosity and so survived much better. It too is a Way, not a religion and indeed there is a huge overlap with Christianity.. why wouldn’t there be? There us only one truth, ie only one Way while there are a myriad of religions.
I can agree with much of that, even though i’m neither a Christian or Buddhist. It’s religion as such, followed blindly by multitudes – some of whom are prepared to kill in the name of their god – that i abhor.
Exactly.
Religion can be the enemy of God.
Exactly.
Religion can be the enemy of God.
Buddism seems more like a philosophy except for the reincarnation bit.
“Religious faith” is redundant.
If you can call it faith. Faith in Christ and through Him also the Father is something else.
If you can call it faith. Faith in Christ and through Him also the Father is something else.
I can agree with much of that, even though i’m neither a Christian or Buddhist. It’s religion as such, followed blindly by multitudes – some of whom are prepared to kill in the name of their god – that i abhor.
Buddism seems more like a philosophy except for the reincarnation bit.
“Religious faith” is redundant.
I don’t see much conflict anymore between intelligent design and natural selection. Now that we are sequencing DNA we know that the genetic possibilities are not infinite and they are not random. Applying a field of mathematics called combinatorics to DNA sequences, gives us a very, very large but finite number of genetic combinations that are mathematically possible. Of those, there are likely a lot smaller but still very large number of combinations that are biologically viable. At this point, if you want to consider the biologically viable genetic combinations intelligently designed I don’t think the science is changed at all. The natural selection of Darwin chooses which of the biologically viable designs survive and which don’t. There’s no scientific conflict between intelligent design and survival of the fittest, but there is also no evolution driven by random events. The laws of genetics were all baked in the cake before the natural selection began with the original set of biologically viable designs.
The open questions have to do with the exploration of which of the mathematical genetic combinations are biologically viable. At the moment, we are in the early stages of genetics and can only glimpse that these questions will exist once we get further information. However, I would expect that eventually we will have models that will be able to explore the biologically viable combinations for clues as to hidden aspects of extinct lifeforms. If you want to dwell in the past conflicts of pre-genetic Darwinism versus creationism, enjoy yourself.
The creationists believe G_d designed man. The Darwinists believed man evolved through natural selection. At this point, our knowledge of genetics is leading us towards the position that both are right. So from a scientific point of view, we can stop arguing and get on with more interesting questions.
The faith is that God made the universe the stars and everything. I believe that and have never seen any contradiction. The scriptures show us that the things that are seen were made by the things unseen. that is good enough for me.
What many scientists with christian faith, including myself as a biology graduate, would conclude after some new scientific discovery is “oh, so that’s how God did it!”. Our faith is not based on gaps in scientific understanding, but on what we plainly see with our eyes, what we read in the scriptures, and what we experience in our spirits.
The question will always remain, however. Where did the material or celestial matter for life first come from and how did it get here? Without a plausible scientific explanation, the Creator option is on par with any attempt then, no?
“Religious faith” is a misnomer. Christianity is a faith, not a religion. A religion is a man-made rip-off institution designed through fear and observance to enslave people.. Buddhism by contrast always eschewed religiosity and so survived much better. It too is a Way, not a religion and indeed there is a huge overlap with Christianity.. why wouldn’t there be? There us only one truth, ie only one Way while there are a myriad of religions.
I don’t see much conflict anymore between intelligent design and natural selection. Now that we are sequencing DNA we know that the genetic possibilities are not infinite and they are not random. Applying a field of mathematics called combinatorics to DNA sequences, gives us a very, very large but finite number of genetic combinations that are mathematically possible. Of those, there are likely a lot smaller but still very large number of combinations that are biologically viable. At this point, if you want to consider the biologically viable genetic combinations intelligently designed I don’t think the science is changed at all. The natural selection of Darwin chooses which of the biologically viable designs survive and which don’t. There’s no scientific conflict between intelligent design and survival of the fittest, but there is also no evolution driven by random events. The laws of genetics were all baked in the cake before the natural selection began with the original set of biologically viable designs.
The open questions have to do with the exploration of which of the mathematical genetic combinations are biologically viable. At the moment, we are in the early stages of genetics and can only glimpse that these questions will exist once we get further information. However, I would expect that eventually we will have models that will be able to explore the biologically viable combinations for clues as to hidden aspects of extinct lifeforms. If you want to dwell in the past conflicts of pre-genetic Darwinism versus creationism, enjoy yourself.
The creationists believe G_d designed man. The Darwinists believed man evolved through natural selection. At this point, our knowledge of genetics is leading us towards the position that both are right. So from a scientific point of view, we can stop arguing and get on with more interesting questions.
The faith is that God made the universe the stars and everything. I believe that and have never seen any contradiction. The scriptures show us that the things that are seen were made by the things unseen. that is good enough for me.
Happy Easter to you too. I know it’s Good Friday, but as is quoted above “Sunday is coming!”
Happy blessed Easter to you and everyone..!
I wish you a blessed and happy Easter, too! ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ ΑΝΕΣΤΗ!
ΑΛΗΘΩΣ ΑΝΕΣΤΗ..!
HE IS RISEN INDEED..!
ΑΛΗΘΩΣ ΑΝΕΣΤΗ..!
HE IS RISEN INDEED..!
I wish you a blessed and happy Easter, too! ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ ΑΝΕΣΤΗ!
It sounds to me like you ARE an observant Christian but have eschewed the man-made controlling religiosity that was never truly Christian. Christianity is a Way, not a religion. Check out Dawkins’ predecessor Anthony Flew.. like you he saw the light, but unlike you (and like Dawkins) he was a devout atheist for most of his life. To be fair he said when the proof came he would change his mind.. it did and he did.
What proof was that?
In my case it’s not about changing one’s mind in the event of “proof”. If such were to emerge, i’d simply shrug and get on with my life. I’ve said before, any god that required to be worshipped wouldn’t be worthy of the name, and since we didn’t ask to be created, worship becomes redundant.
That’s not to say i don’t appreciate spirituality, nature and the universe – quite the reverse. If a god emerged, it’d spoil it for me.
“That’s not to say I don’t appreciate spirituality”. Could you explain what you mean by ‘spirituality’? I’m always puzzled by this sort of remark by atheists.
Connecting with nature is one form of spirituality. Religion another. Cosmic vs. divine. Rejecting man-made (“man”-made, of course…) religions does not make one an atheist. This from a former catholic who loves Easter for the chocolate and traditional “gigot d’agneau”!
What’s spiritual about nature, surely by it’s nature it’s purely material, I mean that’s what nature is, how matter works. Does connecting with it mean you like a nice view of the Downs or something or does it means you appreciate the savagery of most of life on earth?
It’s not really spiritual in itself but it does for me give an appreciation of God’s creation.
It’s not really spiritual in itself but it does for me give an appreciation of God’s creation.
What’s spiritual about nature, surely by it’s nature it’s purely material, I mean that’s what nature is, how matter works. Does connecting with it mean you like a nice view of the Downs or something or does it means you appreciate the savagery of most of life on earth?
That one foxes me too. When I ask it seems to come down to I like nice music and pretty things.
A bit vague really.
A bit vague really.
Connecting with nature is one form of spirituality. Religion another. Cosmic vs. divine. Rejecting man-made (“man”-made, of course…) religions does not make one an atheist. This from a former catholic who loves Easter for the chocolate and traditional “gigot d’agneau”!
That one foxes me too. When I ask it seems to come down to I like nice music and pretty things.
Oh dear.
“That’s not to say I don’t appreciate spirituality”. Could you explain what you mean by ‘spirituality’? I’m always puzzled by this sort of remark by atheists.
Oh dear.
What proof was that?
In my case it’s not about changing one’s mind in the event of “proof”. If such were to emerge, i’d simply shrug and get on with my life. I’ve said before, any god that required to be worshipped wouldn’t be worthy of the name, and since we didn’t ask to be created, worship becomes redundant.
That’s not to say i don’t appreciate spirituality, nature and the universe – quite the reverse. If a god emerged, it’d spoil it for me.
I find myself in a similar position to yourself, attitudinally, spiritually and, it would appear, professionally. I’d also wholeheartedly second (in particular) the last sentence of your comment.
So, a very happy Eastertide to you and yours – and to all of us here gathered – from me and mine.
Indeed, the complexity of the living (and one could even extend this to how the whole of the earth keeps some degree of balance (yest it changes as well)) is beyond our capability to explain/understand fully through simple physics, chemistry and biology.
Our faith nowadays is in linear science. We like to explain things in linear science and trust that this also applies to the living. This is of course an illusion (the religion of the western world?!) as living things are systems part of ever larger systems only behaving in none-linear ways.
And what do we get: the spectacular failure of medicine for chronic illness, a lack of realistic relationship with our surroundings: social and environmental.
A simple protein of 250 amino acids has 20 power 250 different possible combinaisons. The protein depends on precise folding and polarity. “Only” 10 power 40 organisms have lived on earth. The complexity of the cell requires proteins to appear without natural selection. Evolution does not work….it takes a lot of faith to not believe in a God of Creation.
Ditto – a scientist who is no longer a Christian, and now an avid reader of history, I feel a loss of the moral societal framework that Christianity has provided over the millennia, albeit not always for the best. I still practice my life according to the same essential framework, and watch my eldest (23, born a girl, but now part of the trans mass movement that has taken over her very being) struggle with life after Christianity.
A blessed Easter to you and all.
It’s always interesting to hear from someone with a deep study of biology/biochemistry.
Might i enquire whether, should biogenesis be found elsewhere as we expand our ability to explore beyond our own planet, your view might change? If organic compounds developing into cellular life is found to be common, perhaps with many different and strange biochemical bases, would you consider that Faith still plays a part, especially if no other examples other than human religious faith became apparent?
All hypothetical, i know, but i’d still be curious about whether it’s something you’ve considered.
Happy Easter to you too. I know it’s Good Friday, but as is quoted above “Sunday is coming!”
Happy blessed Easter to you and everyone..!
It sounds to me like you ARE an observant Christian but have eschewed the man-made controlling religiosity that was never truly Christian. Christianity is a Way, not a religion. Check out Dawkins’ predecessor Anthony Flew.. like you he saw the light, but unlike you (and like Dawkins) he was a devout atheist for most of his life. To be fair he said when the proof came he would change his mind.. it did and he did.
I find myself in a similar position to yourself, attitudinally, spiritually and, it would appear, professionally. I’d also wholeheartedly second (in particular) the last sentence of your comment.
So, a very happy Eastertide to you and yours – and to all of us here gathered – from me and mine.
Indeed, the complexity of the living (and one could even extend this to how the whole of the earth keeps some degree of balance (yest it changes as well)) is beyond our capability to explain/understand fully through simple physics, chemistry and biology.
Our faith nowadays is in linear science. We like to explain things in linear science and trust that this also applies to the living. This is of course an illusion (the religion of the western world?!) as living things are systems part of ever larger systems only behaving in none-linear ways.
And what do we get: the spectacular failure of medicine for chronic illness, a lack of realistic relationship with our surroundings: social and environmental.
A simple protein of 250 amino acids has 20 power 250 different possible combinaisons. The protein depends on precise folding and polarity. “Only” 10 power 40 organisms have lived on earth. The complexity of the cell requires proteins to appear without natural selection. Evolution does not work….it takes a lot of faith to not believe in a God of Creation.
Ditto – a scientist who is no longer a Christian, and now an avid reader of history, I feel a loss of the moral societal framework that Christianity has provided over the millennia, albeit not always for the best. I still practice my life according to the same essential framework, and watch my eldest (23, born a girl, but now part of the trans mass movement that has taken over her very being) struggle with life after Christianity.
“With that science came the steady withdrawal of God from His creation…”
No doubt that assertion is correct overall, but as someone who spent the first part of his career as a chemist/biochemist I never found any contradiction between science and faith. The longer I studied the working of biological systems (even such “simple” systems as a single cell) the less I understood how they worked. Each successive wave of technology (PCR, gene chips, chromatography-mass spectrometry) revealed a greater layer of complexity until even a single cell became an improbable Rube Goldberg machine, too complicated to function–but somehow it did function. I can readily believe there is a unifying force underlying life that will never be explained by science and can better be explained by religious faith.
I am no longer an observant Christian, but deep down I retain a certain form of faith. I’m pleased that the Unherd comments section, although an unlikely forum, is a place where I can say “Happy Easter” and many people will not be offended by that remark.
Beautiful.
The whole Christian story is that God brings Resurrection out of Crucifixion, Easter out of Good Friday, life out of death.
As the old Black preacher said,
“It’s Friday–but Sunday’s coming!”
Easter was a pagan ritual, nature based on the solstice co-opted by Christianity. It was the spring solstice when animals gave birth – a renewal of life. Christmas was the winter solstice with soulful carols like “the holly and the Ivy’ and “in the deep mid winter”. I can relate to that.
In the deep midwinter … in Jerusalem and the Mediterranean communities in which Christianity was born and took root for hundreds of years?
My point is that the pagan, nature based rituals that were around before Christianity co-opted them, had lovely winter solstice carols like “In the deep midwinter, frosty winds made moan” rather than “hark the herald angels sing”. A belief in the supernatural is not required to be spiritual rather than Christian, and that’s my preference.
My point is that the pagan, nature based rituals that were around before Christianity co-opted them, had lovely winter solstice carols like “In the deep midwinter, frosty winds made moan” rather than “hark the herald angels sing”. A belief in the supernatural is not required to be spiritual rather than Christian, and that’s my preference.
In the deep midwinter … in Jerusalem and the Mediterranean communities in which Christianity was born and took root for hundreds of years?
I also believe there are unicorns and elephants are pink…
Exactly, Danielle. And the thing about having a belief is that one is constantly having to defend it against fact.
Exactly, Danielle. And the thing about having a belief is that one is constantly having to defend it against fact.
Excellent and heart-felt post. May you have a blessed Easter!
Easter was a pagan ritual, nature based on the solstice co-opted by Christianity. It was the spring solstice when animals gave birth – a renewal of life. Christmas was the winter solstice with soulful carols like “the holly and the Ivy’ and “in the deep mid winter”. I can relate to that.
I also believe there are unicorns and elephants are pink…
Excellent and heart-felt post. May you have a blessed Easter!
Beautiful.
The whole Christian story is that God brings Resurrection out of Crucifixion, Easter out of Good Friday, life out of death.
As the old Black preacher said,
“It’s Friday–but Sunday’s coming!”
Have a look at the Guardian cartoon today – a caricature figure of the present King squirming before the figure of Christ on the cross (well, his feet anyway), and a moronic caption aimed at equating the pair of them as ‘nepo children’.
The editorial decision to knock this one up for publication on Good Friday seems rather unpleasant; and of course immediately makes one wonder if we Guardianisti would be chortling quite so comfortably if the joke had been aimed at an Islamic target. Or even the poor bloody Druids.
It’s a marker perhaps of how low on the public scale the few remaining Christians whose offendability is guaranteed are now placed.
So brave. I look forward to a similarly insulting image of Mo to mark the occasion of Eid. The editor of the Guardian is married to Adrian Chiles, who I believe is a practising Catholic. Might he have a word with her?
I look forward to the depiction of MLK as a sex offender
Why, were any of his affairs with underage or unwilling partners?
Try this https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/martin-luther-king-rape-fbi-tapes-video-mlk-laugh-files-a8932206.html
Try this https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/martin-luther-king-rape-fbi-tapes-video-mlk-laugh-files-a8932206.html
Why, were any of his affairs with underage or unwilling partners?
I look forward to the depiction of MLK as a sex offender
Surprised to read that you’re a Guardianista. You seem to lack the necessary superciliousness.
I must try harder. Ten minutes with the Guardian online each morning is my personal attempt to achieve a balanced outlook – the occasional reward of a laugh-out-loud moment – eg a comment today on a couple of hours’ travel chaos at St Pancras last Friday as ‘like the last train out of Saigon’ – is an incidental bonus.
I must try harder. Ten minutes with the Guardian online each morning is my personal attempt to achieve a balanced outlook – the occasional reward of a laugh-out-loud moment – eg a comment today on a couple of hours’ travel chaos at St Pancras last Friday as ‘like the last train out of Saigon’ – is an incidental bonus.
They’d never mawk Mohammad that way out of fear of getting shot up. Christians have become soft targets – part of Mary’s point, I think.
The Guardian is a disgusting rag. I wouldn’t dignify it with the title of “newspaper”!
So brave. I look forward to a similarly insulting image of Mo to mark the occasion of Eid. The editor of the Guardian is married to Adrian Chiles, who I believe is a practising Catholic. Might he have a word with her?
Surprised to read that you’re a Guardianista. You seem to lack the necessary superciliousness.
They’d never mawk Mohammad that way out of fear of getting shot up. Christians have become soft targets – part of Mary’s point, I think.
The Guardian is a disgusting rag. I wouldn’t dignify it with the title of “newspaper”!
Have a look at the Guardian cartoon today – a caricature figure of the present King squirming before the figure of Christ on the cross (well, his feet anyway), and a moronic caption aimed at equating the pair of them as ‘nepo children’.
The editorial decision to knock this one up for publication on Good Friday seems rather unpleasant; and of course immediately makes one wonder if we Guardianisti would be chortling quite so comfortably if the joke had been aimed at an Islamic target. Or even the poor bloody Druids.
It’s a marker perhaps of how low on the public scale the few remaining Christians whose offendability is guaranteed are now placed.
“we live under a newly-ascendant post-Christian moral regime, that sanctifies God’s abandonment of His creation and bans those who dissent from political office.”
Thank you for this thoughtful article, Mary Harrington. I have long felt that I live in a souless land, that is an Australia whose mainstream life ignores the fact that for millennia human life on this continent has depended on respect for and co-operation with spiritual reality. Sad that much of the rest of the human world has become similarly adrift.
I’m sure the Aboriginal peoples would agree with you. However, they were displaced from their homelands, where they’d existed for millennia with geocentric belief systems, by “god-fearing” folk
Hello Steve:
I am not sure I understand your point. Can you please clarify?
The aboriginal.peoples were forcibly removed from their ancestral lands in Australia, where their religious beliefs were embedded in the earth and nature around them. Their art, expressed on local rock faces which reflects those beliefs, is among the oldest ever found.
The displacement took place by European settlers whose primary religion was Christianity. Similarly, the native indian tribes of North America.
Bless your heart, Steve! This is sort of PKD (Performative Knowledge Display) is straight out of the Leftist Fundamentalist 101 playbook.
Look for a heartfelt post or comment.
Bring up something historical that implies the poster is at least ignorant, at worst a hypocrite.
You know who lives on land that was “stolen” from some previous inhabitant? Literally everyone, Steve – including you. This is not to say it was fair by modern standards, it just is and is done, and there’s no going back.
Try to engage with the actual subject matter rather than just doing passive-aggressive drive-by. Or don’t comment.
Please.
“Performative Knowledge Display” – Lovely! Tribes have been shoving other tribes aside from the beginning of tribes. The effort to force us back into warring tribes is the basis of PKD.
Nevertheless it’s true.
Nevertheless it’s true.
Rubbish. I’m most clearly not of the left, as anyone who reads my {frequent) comments would attest.
Bless my heart? The level of trite condescension in those words is beyond measure.
If you were able to refute what i posted, i’d have some respect for you. As it is, your lack of insight and understanding does the human brain and soul an injustice.
I’m with you Steve, and what’s wrong with being “left”? Perhaps it means you’re compassionate.
I’m with you Steve, and what’s wrong with being “left”? Perhaps it means you’re compassionate.
Screw you, David. Have you no better defense except the old “what about?”
We can comment as we choose. Diversity is interesting.
Homogeneity is interesting as well
Homogeneity is interesting as well
“Performative Knowledge Display” – Lovely! Tribes have been shoving other tribes aside from the beginning of tribes. The effort to force us back into warring tribes is the basis of PKD.
Rubbish. I’m most clearly not of the left, as anyone who reads my {frequent) comments would attest.
Bless my heart? The level of trite condescension in those words is beyond measure.
If you were able to refute what i posted, i’d have some respect for you. As it is, your lack of insight and understanding does the human brain and soul an injustice.
Screw you, David. Have you no better defense except the old “what about?”
We can comment as we choose. Diversity is interesting.
Is it their faith that drove them or possibly an eager for profit and welth no matter the cost on others..?
Or perhaps they used their faith to justify their greed, it seems to work that way alot, just look at the Catholic church in Rome and many other churches in America. So many sins done in the name of god.
Or perhaps they used their faith to justify their greed, it seems to work that way alot, just look at the Catholic church in Rome and many other churches in America. So many sins done in the name of god.
There is nothing in Christian doctrine or belief systems that advocates the removal of people from their homeland. Humans of all stripes are hypocrites, including Christians. Please stop trying to pin all of the world’s ills on Christianity. It is extremely offensive.
The Doctrine of Discovery . . .
It’s not just Christiianity. Where there is “god”, which is a believe in the supernatural, it lends itself to abuse. The old “fear of god” thing.What the hell is “god” anyway!! If you know something for a fact you don’t need to believe.
The Doctrine of Discovery . . .
It’s not just Christiianity. Where there is “god”, which is a believe in the supernatural, it lends itself to abuse. The old “fear of god” thing.What the hell is “god” anyway!! If you know something for a fact you don’t need to believe.
Stone age cultures do not deserve, nor can they keep a continent to themselves. Westerners cannot keep invaders, illegal immigrants or now, migrants, out of their countries and so will be replaced by more fecund and less demoralized cultures. If the Chinese wanted Australia and there were only aborigines there, then China would take it over and use the aborigines for target practice.
What’s your point? Man’s inhumanity to man?