Easter 2

April 3, 2005

Genesis 1:1-4a In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God swept over the face of the waters.  Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.  And God saw that the light was good.

 

Psalm 19:1-6 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament proclaims his handiwork.  One day to the next conveys that message; one night to the next imparts that knowledge.  There is no speech, nor are there words; no voice is heard.  Yet their report goes forth through all the earth, their message, to the ends of the world. God has pitched there a tent for the sun; it comes forth like a bridegroom from his wedding chamber, and it runs its course joyfully like an athlete.  It rises from one end of the heavens; its course runs to the other end; nothing is hidden from its heat.

 

The sermon this morning begins a series of four sermons on God and science; the series goes this week, and for the next three weeks.  You have the list of topics in the bulletin. 

Is science a threat to faith in God?  Is Christian faith a threat to science?  Do God and science even have anything to do with each other?  Or are they like ships passing in the night?  These are questions I will speak to.

We begin this morning considering the cosmos, and how it all began.  The News Hour with Jim Lehrer this past Monday did a focus segment entitled, “Creation Conflict”; I saw almost the entire segment; I came away saddened by the pervasive antagonism, fear, and anger shown by the program’s spokespersons for science and spokespersons for Christianity.  I hope we can do better.

It is true that for many people there is a tension between science and religion.  It hasn’t always been this way, though.  For the better part of 1600 years, science and theology were thought to be partners.  Major scientific advances within western civilization were made by people of faith; some leading scientists were also priests who passionately pursued both religious truth and scientific truth – because they believed religion and science complemented one another, that scientific discoveries were insights into the marvelous workings of God’s creation. 

But then came the church’s reaction to Galileo.  The dominant world view at the time of Galileo was that the earth is the center of the universe, and the sun revolves around the earth.  Galileo, following Copernicus, began to publish that “No, maybe the sun is at the center and the earth revolves around the sun.” 

Galileo was denounced by virtually everybody – not only by church authorities – scientists launched rebuttals.  Within the church, Christians rejected Galileo’s proposal because, in addition to being contrary to the wisdom of the day, it seemed to challenge the Bible.  The Bible speaks of the sun rising and the sun setting, for example Genesis 15:12: “As the sun was setting, Abram fell into a deep sleep.”  And there are many statements like that in the Bible.  Plus, the fact that at Joshua’s command the sun stood still (Joshua 10:12-13) assumes that the sun moves across the sky.  These Christians reasoned that if Galileo is correct, then the Scriptures would be wrong – and the Scriptures cannot be wrong. 

Charges were brought against Galileo; and eventually he was taken before the Grand Inquisition of the church, and on June 22, 1633, the Grand Inquisitors passed sentence.  Galileo was guilty of the heresy . : .

of having believed and held the doctrine (which is false and contrary to the Holy and Divine Scriptures) that the sun is the center of the world, and that it does not move from east to west, and that the earth does move, and is not the center of the world.

The story is told that when Galileo knelt down and recanted his heresy before the Inquisitors, he finished saying what the court demanded he say, and then he muttered under his breath, “But it still moves.” 

This was not the church at its best, and it appears to have set the stage for conflict between religion and science ever since.  It is pointed to today as proof that Christians want to limit science, that Christians want to tell scientists what they can and cannot teach based on what Christians see in the Bible.  And for the scientist, this limit is unacceptable.  The scientist says, “I have to look for truth wherever that search leads me.” 

Of all the mistakes that the Grand Inquisitors made with Galileo, let me suggest that the crucial mistake was not that they misread the stars and planets – most scientists also made that mistake at the time.  The Inquisition’s crucial mistake is that it misread the Bible – and that is a mistake that haunts the relationship between Christianity and science to this day. 

Christians don’t have Grand Inquisitions anymore that can jail or execute heretics.  But the church still can and sometimes does push thinking people away from Christ by insisting that the Bible intends to teach science where the Bible does not intend to teach science.  And that is a terrible shame, because we lose thinking people who get the impression that science and Christianity are incompatible. 

I’ll come back to interpretation of the Bible.  First, I simply want us to appreciate why some people in science take a dim view of religion.  We on the Christian side of the God and science debate bear a share of responsibility for the tension between religion and science. 

At the same time, however, those who speak for the science side of the debate also bear a share of the responsibility, too.  Science is the study of observable facts, phenomena, and proximate causes; and science forms hypotheses that can be tested and verified by observation, experimentation, and analysis.  Science describes the physical properties of things and tells us how they work; it unlocks potential new uses of the elements of our world.  This is, of course, valuable knowledge.

But sometimes a scientist will assume that because he knows the physical properties of the universe, he knows with equal certainty other truths about it – that he knows, for example, the history of the universe back before we have any evidence of anything.

So a scientist may say, “Here are the laws of physics, but they came from nowhere – they came from no one.  Everything that is, is here by chance.”  Some scientists even go so far as to say, “This physical world that we explore is all there really is.  To imagine that there is a God or that there is some other unseen reality is a fantasy.”  When scientists make such claims, they are making claims that go beyond the competence of their science.  The claim, for example, that the physical world is all that there is is a theological claim, or at least a philosophical claim; it is outside the realm of science; it presumes to say more than science can legitimately say.

Scientists emphasize that the scientific method excludes God as a factor in its experiments and theories.  Properly understood, that is an honest statement about a limit to science.  It is not a statement about the superiority of science over religion; it is an admission of a limit to science – an acknowledgment that God is outside of science’s realm, beyond science’s ability to reach.  There is a world of difference between saying, “God is not a factor in the origin of the universe” and saying “God is not a factor that can be tested.”  The two statements should not be collapsed together. 

It is like music.  Science can describe in detail the physical processes of music when a master violinist plays a Bach sonata; science describes it something like this:

The bow movement causes the violin string to vibrate, which sets off sound waves.  Some of those sound waves enter the ear canal.  These sound waves cause the tympanic membrane (eardrum) to vibrate.  The three bones in the ear (malleus, incus, and stapes) pass these vibrations on to the cochlea.  Cilia (little hairs) are located on the basilar membrane of the cochlea.  The cilia make contact with the tectorial membrane.  The vibrating cilia generate impulses in the auditory nerve.  These impulses go to the brain.  And the brain processes them.

And that explains a Bach sonata.  Right?  Completely?  Of course not.  As sound – if you will pardon the pun – as this description of what happens when a violin is played is, it is only partial.  The physics of sound cannot say anything about the beauty, meaning, purpose, or effect of a Bach violin sonata – not without knowing about Bach sonatas beforehand.  Denying God based on the mechanics of the universe is no more reasonable than denying the sonata based on the mechanics of sound. 

What does science teach us about the history our universe?  About a hundred years ago, the consensus view of scientists was that the universe exists in a “steady state.”  That is, the universe always was as it is, and always will be as it is; (the universe is) infinite in time and space; it has no beginning and it will have no end – is unchanging and eternal. 

Then, in 1922, the Russian physicist Alexander Friedman, working off Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, produced computations showing that the structure of the universe is not static, but expanding or contracting Based on these computations, Belgian priest and astronomer Georges Lemaitre proposed that the universe had a beginning and that it was expanding as a result of something that had triggered it. 

Friedman and Lemaitre did not attract much attention until American astronomer Edwin Hubble provided supporting evidence with his 1929 discovery that the light of distant galaxies was shifting toward the red end of the spectrum, meaning that the galaxies are moving away from each other.  Hubble concluded as well that the universe is indeed expanding. 

If the universe is getting bigger as time advances, it follows that the universe was smaller earlier – and smaller and smaller the farther back you go in time.  And if you go back far enough, everything shrinks down to one single point – you go back to a point where time equaled zero – where all the matter of the universe was compacted into a single point.  And then – boom – something exploded the universe into motion.  The Big Bang theory was born (though the name “Big Bang” actually came from a scientist opposed to the idea).

The Big Bang idea has prompted physicists to note how remarkable it is that life exists at all.  The odds of everything happening as precisely as it would have had to in order for there to be human life on a planet in a solar system – starting at the moment of the Big Bang – are infinitesimally small. 

For carbon-based life forms to exist – and that is what we are – the Big Bang had to explode with just the right expansion rate.  What I’ve read is that when the universe was less than a millionth of a second old, the expansion rate as a ratio between energy and density had to vary by less than 1 part in 10 to the 60th power – that is one part in the number that is a 1 with 60 zeros after it.  In other words, the odds are in the neighborhood 1 in 1060 against our existence on the basis of pure chance.  It is because of scientific analysis such as this that so committed an atheist as Anthony Flew now admits that it does seem more reasonable that there is some intelligent design behind the origin of the universe than that it all happened by accident. 

Recognizing the potential for intelligent design in constructing the conditions that made for our world is as far as physics can go.  But even allowing for some form of intelligence – a mind of some sort – behind our universe is still a long way away from our Christian concept of a God who created us, loves us, redeemed us, and sanctifies us.  So I am not saying that modern science now leads to Christianity.  Of course, the field of physics is constantly developing, and of course, my very brief summary is vastly oversimplified.  I know.  But still, Christian conviction and science appear increasingly to complement one another here. 

Prior to Einstein, Friedman, Lemaitre, and Hubble, it was easier for scientists to rationalize God out of the conversation.  When the universe was thought to exist as a steady state – infinite and unchanging – physicists could reason that no matter how small the odds of just the right conditions coming together to begin and sustain life might be, if you have an infinite amount of time for a chance at those conditions, the odds don’t matter.  But if the universe had a beginning in time, it is more difficult to dismiss the odds and more difficult to dismiss interest in the question “Is there something – or someone – behind all of this?” 

When Christians want insight into who is behind it all, we turn to the Bible.  This is where Genesis comes in.  Let me highlight two points about biblical interpretation that we have to keep in mind if we are to read, interpret, and apply the Bible accurately. 

§         #1 The Bible was written so that it would be understandable to the people for whom it was first written.  So the biblical writings would naturally reflect the scientific understandings of the people living back when they were written.

Last year a confirmation student asked me, “Why doesn’t Genesis talk about dinosaurs?”  The reason is simple.  Dinosaurs had long been extinct, and the fossil record of dinosaurs had not yet been uncovered and analyzed.  If Genesis had talked about dinosaurs, that would have made no sense to the people for whom Genesis was first written. 

Take another example.  Genesis speaks of a solid vault – a firmament – up above the earth, holding back water like a huge Hoover Dam above us, with windows in it that open up to give us rain.  Why?  Because that is how people in those days thought the world looked.  Surely God knew that some day human beings would discover that rain is a product of the water cycle: evaporation, condensation, precipitation, runoff.  But in Genesis, God communicated within the scientific understanding of that day. 

So, #1, inspired biblical writers wrote what would be understandable to their first hearers. 

§         #2 The Bible was written in a variety of genres, that is, in a variety of literary forms.  Some portions of the Bible were originally written to convey historical events literally.  But other portions of the Bible were intended to be figurative, symbolic, or poetic – that is, intended to be non-literal.  The word “legend”, for example, is not a bad word when applied to some parts of the Bible, if we recognize that God is free to use any form of literature that God chooses to use, including legend. 

When we remember that Genesis was God’s Word to ancient people before it was God’s Word to us here, then we can appreciate that God would have inspired Genesis in literary forms and images from their time, not from our time. 

A footnote here about conversation among Christians: If you and I disagree over the meaning of Genesis chapters 1 and 2, it is probably a disagreement about the interpretation of this Scripture and not a disagreement about the authority of this Scripture.  It is quite possible to disagree about an interpretation of Scripture and still share respect for the authority of Scripture.  In fact, it is our commitment to the authority of the Bible that drives our passion to interpret it correctly.

If we look to Genesis for a scientific description of creation, we quickly get tangled up in issues that do not have to do with what God is trying to teach.  Ancient Israelites learned the great truths of life from legendary stories.  These stories answered their questions about Who is God?  What is God’s claim upon our lives? and What does it mean to be human? 

Meaning absolutely no disrespect to scientists exploring the history of the universe, I can get along quite well in life and in community without having a clue about the expansion rate of the universe, or about the age of our galaxy.  But I can’t get along well in life or in community without a framework for why this world exists and how I fit into it.  That framework doesn’t come from physics.  For that, I turn to Genesis. 

“Now the earth was a formless void, and darkness covered the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God moved over the face of the waters.  And God said: ‘Let there be light.’  And there was light.  God called the light day and the darkness night, and there was evening and morning, the first day.”  God created order out of chaos.  The first day will be followed by another day, and in orderly fashion each day will follow the previous day.  God established a predictable progression from darkness to light, from evening to morning.  This simple fact of life – that after every midnight there will be a dawn – gives order and stability to our physical and our spiritual existence.

And then, Genesis establishes the first connection between creation and joy with the words, “God saw that it was good.”  People who believe that the universe is an unplanned accident and that life, particularly human life, is merely a quirk of probability face an uphill struggle to connect truth with joy.  In a litany of joy, Genesis affirms the goodness of creation after almost every day.  God makes dry land appear.  And Genesis says, “God saw that it was good.”  God tells the earth to produce vegetation.  And when it does, God sees that it is good.  And on it goes. 

What of the good sun, moon, and stars?  In the religions of the people around the Israelites, the sun was a god; the moon was a god; rivers were gods; lots of things were gods, and all of these were worshiped.  And here comes the Word of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob saying that all of these things other people worship are simply parts of God’s good creation.  There is one God, who is the maker of all those things.  The stars, the sun, and the moon – they don’t control your destiny; they don’t influence your life.  (Horoscopes are hooey.)  They are mere creations of God.  Don’t worship them – don’t worship the creation; worship the Creator.  This is truth – God’s Word – we need to hear.

But I am not down on physics; I am fascinated with it.  Exciting things are happening in physics – developments that are challenging scientists to open their minds to thinking in complex ways that mirror aspects of Christian thinking.  This year is the 100th anniversary of a paper written by Albert Einstein on the properties of light.  National Public Radio is doing a series of reports on “Einstein’s Miraculous Year: 1905”.  In 1905, all physicists knew what light is.  No matter what its source – the sun, a light bulb, a candle – light is a wave.  Challenging that seeming certainty in science, Einstein’s big idea was that light acts also as a particle – that is, light particles bounce off of each other and off of other objects like billiard balls that bounce off each other and off the cushions of the pool table. 

Einstein’s proposal rocked the scientific world.  Waves have no substance and particles are by definition something of substance.  “It’s not possible,” scientists responded.  “Light has to consist either of waves or of particles; it can’t be both.”  Quoting from Richard Harris’s NPR report, “One of the great scientists of all time, the French philosopher, mathematician, and physicist Henri Becquerel thought that the idea that something could be both a particle and a wave was so contradictory that it threatened the very idea of science.”  The notion that something can be two things at once defies scientific sense.  And yet, light is wave and particle.

Don’t we say something like that about God?  Maybe the physics of light can help us with the idea that Jesus is both fully God and fully human – a bedrock Christian paradox.  And maybe the theology of Jesus’ divine and human natures can help us with the idea that light is both a wave and a particle. 

If you resist the idea of God, if you are skeptical about the existence of God, I would ask you at least to consider – and I don’t mean this in an arrogant or accusing way – at least to consider whether it is your commitment to science that is causing your resistance, or is it something else.  I’m asking you to consider, “Might my resistance, at least in part, actually be because I would prefer that there be no God?”  If there is a God, then my lifestyle would be subject to God’s scrutiny, and maybe I don’t want my lifestyle challenged.  Or, might my resistance to God actually be a way to avoid harder questions?  If there is a God, that throws open the question of how to understand God rightly.  How do I decide between Christianity, and Judaism, and Islam, and Mormonism, and Hinduism, and Buddhism, and Wicca, and so on?  It is easier to opt out, dismiss them all, and it is socially acceptable to contend that all religions are superstition. 

Please hear me here.  I am not trying to push hard; I am only asking that you consider whether there might be something besides science standing in the way.  I am not trying to beat up on people who do not believe, but to encourage people who might like to believe, though they are reluctant. 

Let me wrap this up.  I have proposed that we can look at all that physics has to offer us, and we can admire it, learn from it, let it challenge our mind and expand our thinking.  At the same time, I would insist that there is more to the universe than what science is capable of telling us.  God has revealed himself in the Scriptures, not to close our mind to any aspect of truth, but to extend our grasp of truth. 

And Genesis is only the tip of the iceberg of God’s truth.  Ultimately God’s Word directs us to Jesus Christ, who is the truth – and the way, and the life.  God’s interest in us goes beyond creation – beyond the galaxy; God’s interest in us extends to eternity – to resurrected life with our resurrected Lord.  Amen.