Since stars and even galaxies have a life cycle, what can eternal life mean? Does "the new heavens and earth" mean all the laws of physics are eternally altered?
Eternal life means perfect loving union with God. God has no life cycle.
Showing posts with label God. Show all posts
Showing posts with label God. Show all posts
Sunday, 10 August 2014
God as a sustainer?
I would like to ask what does Prof. Polkinghorne mean by God as a sustainer? Is it something like for example holding a ball with my hand in the air ( God sustaining existence of universe ) and if i left the ball it will collapse to the ground ( universe fall to nothingness ) ? P.S that was an analogy
I little bit. Another analogy might be the way a cinema projector and screen both create and sustain the image.
I little bit. Another analogy might be the way a cinema projector and screen both create and sustain the image.
Sunday, 19 May 2013
Personalities in Heaven
I am a big 'Dr Who' fan and assume two things...
a) there's nothing wrong about liking daleks...they're fictional and I won't exactly 'copy' them.
b) I have made many good friends through my love of the program and share it closely with my brother.
You might think this has hardly anything to do with God and, yes, maybe this IS an unusual question but questions like these have bugged me since I was a kid...
Q. Can I like Daleks in Heaven (or the 'New Creation')? In fact, if a passion of music, art etc. can be 'met' in some ultimate perfection in Heaven...can these enjoyments (even if they are nothing akin to the stereotypical notion of what is 'good'- such things are surely an un-sinful part of our being? Surely huge fans of Dickens won't have to 'give up' enjoying Fagin (if such books exist there, in memory or otherwise) and revert to loving only nice 'sweet' characters like Oliver? I am not a unusually bad man (I hope not) but I always tend to prefer 'baddies' in fiction, though, of course, in 'real life' I am fervently against acts of evil.
Response: No-one on earth knows the details of heaven. All we know is that God is Love, so he wills what is best for us.
Either you will be able to like Daleks (or whatever) in Heaven/the new creation – or there will be something even better and more wonderful.
We can only love, and trust.
a) there's nothing wrong about liking daleks...they're fictional and I won't exactly 'copy' them.
b) I have made many good friends through my love of the program and share it closely with my brother.
You might think this has hardly anything to do with God and, yes, maybe this IS an unusual question but questions like these have bugged me since I was a kid...
Q. Can I like Daleks in Heaven (or the 'New Creation')? In fact, if a passion of music, art etc. can be 'met' in some ultimate perfection in Heaven...can these enjoyments (even if they are nothing akin to the stereotypical notion of what is 'good'- such things are surely an un-sinful part of our being? Surely huge fans of Dickens won't have to 'give up' enjoying Fagin (if such books exist there, in memory or otherwise) and revert to loving only nice 'sweet' characters like Oliver? I am not a unusually bad man (I hope not) but I always tend to prefer 'baddies' in fiction, though, of course, in 'real life' I am fervently against acts of evil.
Response: No-one on earth knows the details of heaven. All we know is that God is Love, so he wills what is best for us.
Either you will be able to like Daleks (or whatever) in Heaven/the new creation – or there will be something even better and more wonderful.
We can only love, and trust.
Tuesday, 1 January 2013
Suffering and the Pathetic Fallacy
Many of the questions I get (and apparently questions John gets based on the web site) about pain, suffering, evil, etc. seem to have a reverse "Pathetic Fallacy" to them. They imply for instance that pain, suffering and evil somehow reflect on the "goodness" of God. Just as we have a term for applying human feelings to inanimate objects, is there some term or phrase for the idea of applying human attributes to God? For example, the old argument "if God can do anything, he can make a box big enough and heavy enough that not even He can lift it." It's a fun thing to ponder but it applies very human traits to God such as being constrained by gravitation. Is there something that captures this idea that humans tend to define God in terms of the human experience even though he's God? Basically any question that starts out "How can a loving God..." falls into this category. They all take the form of "How can a loving God allow <insert human tragedy here>" as if God's love is defined by whether or not we all have a good time while we're here on earth.
Response: I think there is a technical term for what might be called Anthropomorphic projection since it’s a very old problem, but I’m on the plane at present and can’t look it up. It’s quite hard to get the balance right. What “God” says in Job always needs to be borne in mind (I say “God” because it’s clear, at least to me, that Job is essentially a play in which the characters have set speeches. It teaches us many things about profound issues but it is absolutely not intended to be an account of specific real events. Indeed the relationship between God, Satan and humanity shown in the prologue, although highly effective dramatically, is clearly a cartoon and I don’t suppose for a moment that the author(s), who were clearly enormously profound theological thinkers, ever supposed that God and Satan really interacted like that.)
Nevertheless God’s love is not so completely unlike human love that we can quite get away with dismissing the problem of suffering in the way that you suggest. We definitely have to be cautious about the grave limitations of human understanding. But it is neither theologically nor apologetically enough to say that human suffering in this life is irrelevant – after all this would make the sufferings of Jesus irrelevant as well and it’s clear that he really suffered and wanted if possible to avoid it.
It takes real faith to continue to believe in God’s love and goodness in the face of grievous suffering. This faith is perfectly rational: after all “I can’t see why a loving God has allowed X” is not the same as “there is no possible reason why a loving God could have allowed X” unless you believe the absurd proposition “If there were a reason why God allowed X I would certainly be able to see it”. In the end it seems to me that either there is a Loving Ultimate Creator or the Universe is meaningless. We have good reasons for believing the former, but they do not amount to a knock-down proof. We have to choose. I choose faith in our loving God even though I know, intellectually, that I might be wrong.
And what I have recently come to understand is that, even if I the evidence against God’s existence were almost overwhelming, I would still choose faith in God. Firstly because the “evidence” might be wrong (even a signed confession by St Paul that he had faked the whole thing – supported by archaeological evidence: this could itself be a fake) but more importantly because it seems to me that it is better to live a life based on faith in Christ, and then die and pass into oblivion, than to live as an atheist and pass into oblivion. This is a kind of modified Pascal’s Wager where the outcomes are {infinity, a, b>0, c>0}* It’s not just that provided a, b and c are < infinity you are always better choosing faith. I think that, on balance, the things we (try to) give up as Christians are harmful for us (even if God doesn’t exist) and the things we aspire to are beneficial. So if b > c then Faith is always the best option, even if a turns out not to be minus infinity (as Pascal supposed).
Best wishes
Nicholas
* What I mean by this is that if you chose Faith and the truth is Loving God then your “payoff” in a game-theoretic sense is infinite, if you chose Atheism and the truth is Loving God then your “payoff” is a etc..
Response: I think there is a technical term for what might be called Anthropomorphic projection since it’s a very old problem, but I’m on the plane at present and can’t look it up. It’s quite hard to get the balance right. What “God” says in Job always needs to be borne in mind (I say “God” because it’s clear, at least to me, that Job is essentially a play in which the characters have set speeches. It teaches us many things about profound issues but it is absolutely not intended to be an account of specific real events. Indeed the relationship between God, Satan and humanity shown in the prologue, although highly effective dramatically, is clearly a cartoon and I don’t suppose for a moment that the author(s), who were clearly enormously profound theological thinkers, ever supposed that God and Satan really interacted like that.)
Nevertheless God’s love is not so completely unlike human love that we can quite get away with dismissing the problem of suffering in the way that you suggest. We definitely have to be cautious about the grave limitations of human understanding. But it is neither theologically nor apologetically enough to say that human suffering in this life is irrelevant – after all this would make the sufferings of Jesus irrelevant as well and it’s clear that he really suffered and wanted if possible to avoid it.
It takes real faith to continue to believe in God’s love and goodness in the face of grievous suffering. This faith is perfectly rational: after all “I can’t see why a loving God has allowed X” is not the same as “there is no possible reason why a loving God could have allowed X” unless you believe the absurd proposition “If there were a reason why God allowed X I would certainly be able to see it”. In the end it seems to me that either there is a Loving Ultimate Creator or the Universe is meaningless. We have good reasons for believing the former, but they do not amount to a knock-down proof. We have to choose. I choose faith in our loving God even though I know, intellectually, that I might be wrong.
And what I have recently come to understand is that, even if I the evidence against God’s existence were almost overwhelming, I would still choose faith in God. Firstly because the “evidence” might be wrong (even a signed confession by St Paul that he had faked the whole thing – supported by archaeological evidence: this could itself be a fake) but more importantly because it seems to me that it is better to live a life based on faith in Christ, and then die and pass into oblivion, than to live as an atheist and pass into oblivion. This is a kind of modified Pascal’s Wager where the outcomes are {infinity, a, b>0, c>0}* It’s not just that provided a, b and c are < infinity you are always better choosing faith. I think that, on balance, the things we (try to) give up as Christians are harmful for us (even if God doesn’t exist) and the things we aspire to are beneficial. So if b > c then Faith is always the best option, even if a turns out not to be minus infinity (as Pascal supposed).
Best wishes
Nicholas
* What I mean by this is that if you chose Faith and the truth is Loving God then your “payoff” in a game-theoretic sense is infinite, if you chose Atheism and the truth is Loving God then your “payoff” is a etc..
Saturday, 17 November 2012
How does God act on us - and it he arbitary?
I'm doing A level philosophy at the moment, and currently we are studying your arguments about miracle being an act of God in the world. I've noticed that you say that God only acts through people, however I do not understand how God is meant to 'act' or influence us if he is a transcendent being, is it through our conscience? And does this not interrupt the supposedly free will of humans?
As well as this, I was curious as to whether this makes God arbitrary? I say this because he only seems to act on individuals and sometimes (arguably) people who do not deserve it, or who deserve it less than others.
Response: I don’t know that John holds that God works only through people – though He seems to work mainly through people.
The idea of free will is not that nothing influences human decisions (which would be absurd) but that our decisions are not completely determined (which is an empirical fact) and that they are in some real sense ours (which is clear but hard to pin down philosophically). There is no reason I can see why God should not influence a person’s free decisions – it is not a problem to say that a parent influences a child’s decisions.
Arbitrary is also a rather slippery word. All free choices are in a certain sense “arbitrary” and God is certainly free. To be arbitrary is not necessarily to be unfair: if I have (say) two necklaces of equal value that each of my daughters would like it will be “arbitrary” which I give to which daughter but not “unfair”. We are of course in no position to judge who is, or is not, worthy of God’s interaction since we cannot possibly have the necessary knowledge. What looks odd to us can well be the actions of a wise and loving father. And if we believe that we have a Loving Ultimate Creator then it is very reasonable for us to suppose that things that seem odd to us probably don’t to God.
As well as this, I was curious as to whether this makes God arbitrary? I say this because he only seems to act on individuals and sometimes (arguably) people who do not deserve it, or who deserve it less than others.
Response: I don’t know that John holds that God works only through people – though He seems to work mainly through people.
The idea of free will is not that nothing influences human decisions (which would be absurd) but that our decisions are not completely determined (which is an empirical fact) and that they are in some real sense ours (which is clear but hard to pin down philosophically). There is no reason I can see why God should not influence a person’s free decisions – it is not a problem to say that a parent influences a child’s decisions.
Arbitrary is also a rather slippery word. All free choices are in a certain sense “arbitrary” and God is certainly free. To be arbitrary is not necessarily to be unfair: if I have (say) two necklaces of equal value that each of my daughters would like it will be “arbitrary” which I give to which daughter but not “unfair”. We are of course in no position to judge who is, or is not, worthy of God’s interaction since we cannot possibly have the necessary knowledge. What looks odd to us can well be the actions of a wise and loving father. And if we believe that we have a Loving Ultimate Creator then it is very reasonable for us to suppose that things that seem odd to us probably don’t to God.
Sunday, 4 November 2012
Black holes and the future of the universe
I once read that from the inside of a black hole the entire future of the universe can be observed.
Dr. Polkinghorne has mentioned that he does not think that God knows what is going to happen in the future (as God has a dipolar nature and is partially restricted by time). My question is as follows: If from a black hole's point of view the entire future can be seen, is it not also possible that God can see (and hence know) the future?
Response: No-one knows what happens inside a black hole.
And we don’t think “God is restricted by time” but that God chooses what He does and does not know.
To use a simple analogy, it’s as though Superman, with “X-ray vision” superpowers, can see through Lois Lane’s clothes, but (being a super-gentleman) chooses not to.
And indeed one thing the quantum world clearly shows is that observing something isn’t the completely passive action that “common sense” supposes.
Dr. Polkinghorne has mentioned that he does not think that God knows what is going to happen in the future (as God has a dipolar nature and is partially restricted by time). My question is as follows: If from a black hole's point of view the entire future can be seen, is it not also possible that God can see (and hence know) the future?
Response: No-one knows what happens inside a black hole.
And we don’t think “God is restricted by time” but that God chooses what He does and does not know.
To use a simple analogy, it’s as though Superman, with “X-ray vision” superpowers, can see through Lois Lane’s clothes, but (being a super-gentleman) chooses not to.
And indeed one thing the quantum world clearly shows is that observing something isn’t the completely passive action that “common sense” supposes.
Sunday, 21 October 2012
Why is God important? How can I hear God?
I desperately need someone who is scientist to describe why God is
important? And how I can
"hear" this God?
Response: God is (by definition) the Ultimate Creator and we
have good reason to believe that God is the Loving Ultimate Creator.
If the Loving Ultimate Creator is not
"important" it's hard to know what could be "important" -
especially since God's love extends to you and me and those that we love and
care about.
Hearing God is not straightforward. After all even
"hearing" the Big Bang requires highly sophisticated equipment and
deep theoretical reflection. Prayer, reading the Bible (not as an encyclopaedia
but as something more like a spiritual "laboratory notebook"),
listening to others and silence are all important.
We wish you well in your quest.
Seek and you will find.
What exactly do you mean by God?
What exactly do you mean by God? (There are many god concepts, and many are ill defined. This is an honest question since I'd have to know what the proposition is before being able to believe it. Specifically, there is a vast difference between a deist god and any particular theist god.)
Response: Philosophically “God” means “the ultimate Creator”.
There can only be 0 or 1 “ultimate Creator”s and deism, theism etc.. are theories about God not descriptions of different Gods.
Follow-on: On what basis do you evaluate these different theories about God? In other words, how is Christianity more plausible than other options?
Response: There is, and can be, no algorithm.
You just have to use your judgement and decide.
One not unreasonable heuristic: if God exists then God is presumably not incompetent so one of the major universal theistic religions is likely to be broadly true.
Narrows it down to Christianity or Islam, and for me at least this is an easy choice!
Response: Philosophically “God” means “the ultimate Creator”.
There can only be 0 or 1 “ultimate Creator”s and deism, theism etc.. are theories about God not descriptions of different Gods.
Follow-on: On what basis do you evaluate these different theories about God? In other words, how is Christianity more plausible than other options?
Response: There is, and can be, no algorithm.
You just have to use your judgement and decide.
One not unreasonable heuristic: if God exists then God is presumably not incompetent so one of the major universal theistic religions is likely to be broadly true.
Narrows it down to Christianity or Islam, and for me at least this is an easy choice!
Sunday, 27 February 2011
Commandments of genocide in the Old Testament
I have been pondering God's commandments of genocide in the Old Testament. How do you wrap your mind around these issues, and what would you say to people who say "I could never worship a God who told the Israelites to kill innocent people"?
All scripture is to be read in the light of Christ. Therefore whatever the passages that show God as commanding extirpation may mean they certainly don’t endorse it.
John adds: Israel was only able to receive its understanding of God slowly over time. First it realised that there is only one true God but it took longer to see that this did not mean that those who did not agree were to be slaughtered.
All scripture is to be read in the light of Christ. Therefore whatever the passages that show God as commanding extirpation may mean they certainly don’t endorse it.
John adds: Israel was only able to receive its understanding of God slowly over time. First it realised that there is only one true God but it took longer to see that this did not mean that those who did not agree were to be slaughtered.
The Evil God Challenge
God is usually defined as a perfect being. One of God's perfections is considered to be benevolence, ie. God is perfectly good. Is it not the case, however, that one of God's perfections could just as easily be malevolence, ie. God could be perfectly evil. People do not normally think of evil as a perfection but it can be seen as such. Eg. a cheetah is a perfect killing machine. From the point of view of a gazelle, a cheetah could be seen as perfectly evil.
Every argument for the traditional benevolent God can also be used as an argument for an evil God. The argument from design, eg, can be used to show that the Universe is perfectly designed to produce beings who are capable of evil.
Conversely, the argument normally used against God, ie the problem of evil, could, in its reverse form, be used against an evil God. This argument would be the problem of good. Why would an evil God create a world with goodness in it? Again the defence against the the argument would be the same. In order for the world to have true evil, people must be given free will so that they can choose evil. If they have free will then there is the risk that they will choose good instead.
It seems that the possibilities of an evil God and a benevolent God are completely symmetrical. Neither one is more probable than the other and if God exists it must considered just as likely that He is evil as that He is good.
I would be interested to hear your thoughts.
This is the “Evil God Challenge” of Stephen Law.
My reply to him was:
It seems to me that the most fundamental [problem of this view] can be seen if we consider the following statement:
A(LUC): Belief in a Loving Ultimate Creator is a worldview that is deeply satisfying for its hundreds of millions of adherents, provides richly articulated explanations of many fundamental aspects of their experience, and helps them lead happier, more satisfying and evolutionary successful lives.
Now first of all, whether or not you think that A(LUC) ought to be true in a rational world, it seems clear to me that it is true in this world and encapsulates many of the reasons why people believe in God. It also offers some explanation of why militant atheism is ultimately futile: any worldview of which A is true is likely to prosper. Of course A does not say anything directly about whether or in what sense this worldview is true. But I think it is plausible to argue that if there were a LUC then it is likely that the universe would be such that A(LUC) were true.
However for the present purposes what is notable about A is that every aspect of it is false if made into A(EUC): “Belief in an Evil Ultimate Creator is...”. Not only does the EUC idea have zero adherents, it isn’t a worldview, is in no sense “richly articulated”, offers only parodies of explanations of some aspects of our existence, and it is pretty clear that if anyone really believed it their lives would be miserable, unsatisfying and highly unlikely to encourage the successful raising of children. (Much the same applies to the silly Flying Spaghetti Monster)
Of course I'm not arguing that all ideas with zero adherents must be false or that something must be true because it has so many adherents or such a lot of literature. But I think this does rather squarely meet your challenge, and certainly shows the falsehood of the “symmetry thesis”
Every argument for the traditional benevolent God can also be used as an argument for an evil God. The argument from design, eg, can be used to show that the Universe is perfectly designed to produce beings who are capable of evil.
Conversely, the argument normally used against God, ie the problem of evil, could, in its reverse form, be used against an evil God. This argument would be the problem of good. Why would an evil God create a world with goodness in it? Again the defence against the the argument would be the same. In order for the world to have true evil, people must be given free will so that they can choose evil. If they have free will then there is the risk that they will choose good instead.
It seems that the possibilities of an evil God and a benevolent God are completely symmetrical. Neither one is more probable than the other and if God exists it must considered just as likely that He is evil as that He is good.
I would be interested to hear your thoughts.
This is the “Evil God Challenge” of Stephen Law.
My reply to him was:
It seems to me that the most fundamental [problem of this view] can be seen if we consider the following statement:
A(LUC): Belief in a Loving Ultimate Creator is a worldview that is deeply satisfying for its hundreds of millions of adherents, provides richly articulated explanations of many fundamental aspects of their experience, and helps them lead happier, more satisfying and evolutionary successful lives.
Now first of all, whether or not you think that A(LUC) ought to be true in a rational world, it seems clear to me that it is true in this world and encapsulates many of the reasons why people believe in God. It also offers some explanation of why militant atheism is ultimately futile: any worldview of which A is true is likely to prosper. Of course A does not say anything directly about whether or in what sense this worldview is true. But I think it is plausible to argue that if there were a LUC then it is likely that the universe would be such that A(LUC) were true.
However for the present purposes what is notable about A is that every aspect of it is false if made into A(EUC): “Belief in an Evil Ultimate Creator is...”. Not only does the EUC idea have zero adherents, it isn’t a worldview, is in no sense “richly articulated”, offers only parodies of explanations of some aspects of our existence, and it is pretty clear that if anyone really believed it their lives would be miserable, unsatisfying and highly unlikely to encourage the successful raising of children. (Much the same applies to the silly Flying Spaghetti Monster)
Of course I'm not arguing that all ideas with zero adherents must be false or that something must be true because it has so many adherents or such a lot of literature. But I think this does rather squarely meet your challenge, and certainly shows the falsehood of the “symmetry thesis”
God's omnipresence
I have begun reading through your books as they become available in our public library and would like to thank you for the many profound sighs of relief I have felt for your invaluable insights and answers to questions and doubts concerning traditional Christian beliefs, which have plagued me for many years. As a committed, life-long member of a small Christian church, it has been a prolonged source of distress to me that I could not accept many of the beliefs that I grew up with and continue to be surrounded by within my church today. As a result of my rejection of simplistic anthropomorphic representations of God with nothing substantial to replace it, I had been struggling to maintain my faith that God exists at all, and if he does, that he intervenes in the lives of men; all this while continuing to act and raise my family as if this were true until such time as I once again can truly believe it to be so.
My first question concerns the nature of prayer, though I suppose it is ultimately concerned with the nature of God. I have enjoyed what I have read so far about the nature and existence of God, and have greater hope than ever before that I am on a path that will lead me back to faith through a clearer vision of God. However, I think I could benefit from your insights on prayer, since it seems that prayer itself could be a means to understand, through experience, the presence, if not the nature, of God. I reach a stumbling block here, though, since I do not have enough faith in the process of prayer itself: I have failed to benefit from it in the past, despite years of daily attempts to pray. Perhaps the idea of prayer which I learnt is insufficient and I need to understand what prayer actually is. If you have written on the nature of prayer, please direct me to your book. If not, I hope you will be able to shed light on this for me today.
I have read, in Prayer as Healing, Questions of Truth, and (I believe) Science and the Trinity, what you have said about the importance of prayer and its benefits. What I would like to know more about is the nature of prayer, how you believe it works. In other words, is this something that needs to travel through time and space to “reach” God? I noted that you mentioned that you have looked back over your life and have seen the hand of God leading in hindsight, but you have not heard a “voice” speaking to you in prayer, leading you through these experiences. I, similarly, have never heard a voice In prayer, but beyond this, I have not experienced a sense of communion (at least not to my knowledge). Nevertheless, I was – and hope to become again – convinced that God’s hand was leading in my life and would ensure what was best for me in his terms.
My greatest doubt is that prayer could be just wishful thinking, self-reflection or meditation, and, as such, may be useful, even good, without God necessarily existing. Or, if he does exist in a non-communicative form, that the answers we feel we get from him could simply be a result of our own conclusions determined by consistent reflection on the subject. In other words, if we consistently think about what we really want and need, about what is good, about what we should do in concordance with God’s word, about being grateful and content, we will be acting in accordance with this, and it is very likely that our lives will lineup with what is “best”, whatever we consider that to be given our understanding of God’s word. We will also accept our tribulations with greater patience, and find and pursue the good in every experience if we believe God is giving us answers or guidance in prayer. We can then take every experience, good or bad, as confirmation of God answering our prayers, because we believe that it is from God or will be resolved by God. It seems to me that all this good can happen whether God exists on the other end of prayer or not, as long as we believe God is speaking in prayer and controlling our lives. I once asked my father, who has prayed all his long life, how God speaks to him in prayer. He said that God puts thoughts in his mind that were not there before. How could we prove this? Aren’t there many people who live good, thoughtful lives without believing in the Christian—or any -- God? Who meditate or reflect on what should be without praying to any particular entity, reach entirely satisfactory conclusions (to themselves at least), and think new thoughts and come up with new innovations on their own?
Perhaps I still believe communication and/or communion must include a physical means of transmission, as it does between organisms (via sound/sight) , so that prayer, as a means of communication to something/someone that “really” exists over and above myself, but which occurs within my head, without sound, without the movement of energy/particles etc. through space, remains baffling.
There is a whole chapter on prayer (ch 6) in Science and Providence.
Since God is omnipresent communications to Him do not have to travel through time and space. And it is perfectly clear, scientifically, that thoughts are “real” – consider fMRI and brain-computer interaction.
My first question concerns the nature of prayer, though I suppose it is ultimately concerned with the nature of God. I have enjoyed what I have read so far about the nature and existence of God, and have greater hope than ever before that I am on a path that will lead me back to faith through a clearer vision of God. However, I think I could benefit from your insights on prayer, since it seems that prayer itself could be a means to understand, through experience, the presence, if not the nature, of God. I reach a stumbling block here, though, since I do not have enough faith in the process of prayer itself: I have failed to benefit from it in the past, despite years of daily attempts to pray. Perhaps the idea of prayer which I learnt is insufficient and I need to understand what prayer actually is. If you have written on the nature of prayer, please direct me to your book. If not, I hope you will be able to shed light on this for me today.
I have read, in Prayer as Healing, Questions of Truth, and (I believe) Science and the Trinity, what you have said about the importance of prayer and its benefits. What I would like to know more about is the nature of prayer, how you believe it works. In other words, is this something that needs to travel through time and space to “reach” God? I noted that you mentioned that you have looked back over your life and have seen the hand of God leading in hindsight, but you have not heard a “voice” speaking to you in prayer, leading you through these experiences. I, similarly, have never heard a voice In prayer, but beyond this, I have not experienced a sense of communion (at least not to my knowledge). Nevertheless, I was – and hope to become again – convinced that God’s hand was leading in my life and would ensure what was best for me in his terms.
My greatest doubt is that prayer could be just wishful thinking, self-reflection or meditation, and, as such, may be useful, even good, without God necessarily existing. Or, if he does exist in a non-communicative form, that the answers we feel we get from him could simply be a result of our own conclusions determined by consistent reflection on the subject. In other words, if we consistently think about what we really want and need, about what is good, about what we should do in concordance with God’s word, about being grateful and content, we will be acting in accordance with this, and it is very likely that our lives will lineup with what is “best”, whatever we consider that to be given our understanding of God’s word. We will also accept our tribulations with greater patience, and find and pursue the good in every experience if we believe God is giving us answers or guidance in prayer. We can then take every experience, good or bad, as confirmation of God answering our prayers, because we believe that it is from God or will be resolved by God. It seems to me that all this good can happen whether God exists on the other end of prayer or not, as long as we believe God is speaking in prayer and controlling our lives. I once asked my father, who has prayed all his long life, how God speaks to him in prayer. He said that God puts thoughts in his mind that were not there before. How could we prove this? Aren’t there many people who live good, thoughtful lives without believing in the Christian—or any -- God? Who meditate or reflect on what should be without praying to any particular entity, reach entirely satisfactory conclusions (to themselves at least), and think new thoughts and come up with new innovations on their own?
Perhaps I still believe communication and/or communion must include a physical means of transmission, as it does between organisms (via sound/sight) , so that prayer, as a means of communication to something/someone that “really” exists over and above myself, but which occurs within my head, without sound, without the movement of energy/particles etc. through space, remains baffling.
There is a whole chapter on prayer (ch 6) in Science and Providence.
Since God is omnipresent communications to Him do not have to travel through time and space. And it is perfectly clear, scientifically, that thoughts are “real” – consider fMRI and brain-computer interaction.
Can God intervene and help me in a future situation?
I am a little confused on your idea of God’s omniscience, which I think is a very good view, but I am a little confused by it. Does God know or have some idea what I am going to do in the future or does he not know at all? If I ask God to intervene and help me in a future situation, can he do this?
I think God chooses what He wants to know. Suppose for example that all my daughter's emails were on a Server to which I had free access, and I could easily read her emails. I am in a sense omniscient about any email she has received or sent. Nevertheless as a loving father it would only be in wholly exceptional circumstances that I would exercise that power. It's clear to me that, unless God can choose what He knows, He is not Omnipotent, and thus His Omniscience is voluntary rather than "compulsory"
I think God chooses what He wants to know. Suppose for example that all my daughter's emails were on a Server to which I had free access, and I could easily read her emails. I am in a sense omniscient about any email she has received or sent. Nevertheless as a loving father it would only be in wholly exceptional circumstances that I would exercise that power. It's clear to me that, unless God can choose what He knows, He is not Omnipotent, and thus His Omniscience is voluntary rather than "compulsory"
Does God have a special plan for every individual life?
Does God have a special plan for every individual life? Does God have a specific plan for my life that is specific to me and the gifts he has blessed me with?
God is a loving father to each of us. Do I have a special plan for my children? Not exactly. I love them in a way that is specific for their lives and the gifts God has blessed them with. I want the very best for them. But even if I knew the best answer to a problem that was confronting them about the future course of their lives, unless the alternative was very harmful I would want them to decide. And God loves them even more than I do.
God is a loving father to each of us. Do I have a special plan for my children? Not exactly. I love them in a way that is specific for their lives and the gifts God has blessed them with. I want the very best for them. But even if I knew the best answer to a problem that was confronting them about the future course of their lives, unless the alternative was very harmful I would want them to decide. And God loves them even more than I do.
Stephen Hawking on God
what your opinions were on Stephen Hawking's recent personal conclusion that "God did not create the universe". My understanding of basic logic and my very basic understanding of physics tells me that the universe couldn't possibly be self created. It seems intrinsically false and self contradicting. Also it was my understanding that when such a claim is made it stops being science and starts being metaphysics. I would very much appreciate your insight and perhaps clarification of Hawking's claims.
Lots of publicity for Hawking's latest book, with journalists (and possibly Hawking and his co-author) making the elementary fallacies of:
1.If it is not logically necessary for God to exist then God does not exit.
2.If something is an inevitable consequence of the laws of Nature then it does not have a cause.
Clearly you can always transform a pair [L,C] of Laws and Initial Conditions into a set of laws L1 where the initial conditions are built in. But this always leaves open the question, why are these laws the way they are (see eg my paper in Journal of Cosmology)? The theist will answer that God made them this way, the atheist that they are "brute fact".
The Chief Rabbi is very good on this. He points out that "Science takes things apart to see how they work. Religion puts things together to see what they mean." and that "Hawking II, the good scientist, has brilliantly refuted Hawking I, the poor theologian" concluding "Given a choice between a single intelligent creator and an infinity of self-creating universes, the former wins hands down...But there is more to wisdom than science. It cannot tell us why we are here or how we should live. Science masquerading as religion is as unseemly as religion masquerading as science. I will continue to believe that God who created one or an infinity of universes in love and forgiveness continues to ask us to create, to love and to forgive."
Lots of publicity for Hawking's latest book, with journalists (and possibly Hawking and his co-author) making the elementary fallacies of:
1.If it is not logically necessary for God to exist then God does not exit.
2.If something is an inevitable consequence of the laws of Nature then it does not have a cause.
Clearly you can always transform a pair [L,C] of Laws and Initial Conditions into a set of laws L1 where the initial conditions are built in. But this always leaves open the question, why are these laws the way they are (see eg my paper in Journal of Cosmology)? The theist will answer that God made them this way, the atheist that they are "brute fact".
The Chief Rabbi is very good on this. He points out that "Science takes things apart to see how they work. Religion puts things together to see what they mean." and that "Hawking II, the good scientist, has brilliantly refuted Hawking I, the poor theologian" concluding "Given a choice between a single intelligent creator and an infinity of self-creating universes, the former wins hands down...But there is more to wisdom than science. It cannot tell us why we are here or how we should live. Science masquerading as religion is as unseemly as religion masquerading as science. I will continue to believe that God who created one or an infinity of universes in love and forgiveness continues to ask us to create, to love and to forgive."
Does God know the future?
Q: First off I'd like to say that I have read many of Dr. Polkinghorne's books and enjoy them immensely. However, not too long ago I was perusing one of them again. and came across an idea that I had had some problems with before. And that was the thought that God does not know the future, and that this does not contradict the idea of his omniscience, since the future would not be there to know as yet.
The problem is, that it would very definitely put a limit on his knowledge and power! While the future is not obvious to beings living within time, for one outside of time, with no limitations on him, the past, present and future would be known. Otherwise, there would be a limiting reality stronger than God! To reiterate, according to most all theological speculations, God is entirely and completely without limits of any kind. I would be interested in your further thoughts on this question.
NB Response: We think God knows everything He chooses to know. He chooses to keep the future undetermined to allow people real freewill. If God could not choose not to know something this would be a limit on God’s Omnipotence.
The problem is, that it would very definitely put a limit on his knowledge and power! While the future is not obvious to beings living within time, for one outside of time, with no limitations on him, the past, present and future would be known. Otherwise, there would be a limiting reality stronger than God! To reiterate, according to most all theological speculations, God is entirely and completely without limits of any kind. I would be interested in your further thoughts on this question.
NB Response: We think God knows everything He chooses to know. He chooses to keep the future undetermined to allow people real freewill. If God could not choose not to know something this would be a limit on God’s Omnipotence.
Defintion of "God"
Before one can debate the existence of the divine ie. god, one must understand the definition of "god". I understand the word "god" to be an abstract like "love" ,"justice" ,etc, therefore, the definition eludes universal clarity and acceptance. With so many people having many definitions of "god", how can anyone come to a universal agreement as to what god is, much less debate whether or not he exists? How is "God" in your understanding defined? and how can it be considered valid, with so much disagreement over what is meant by the word "God"
NB Response: I think the simplest philosophical “definition” of God is The Ultimate Creator.
Christians, and I think almost all theists, believe that anything that exists or has existed and is logically capable of having been caused was created directly or indirectly by God. (as the Bible puts it “through him all things were made, and without him was not anything made that was made”)
It is perfectly obvious that either there is no Ultimate Creator or there is exactly one, and that the question “who created God” is meaningless. Equally God is not an “abstract noun” but the creative ground of our entire being, and that God can hardly be less than a person, though may of course be more than a person. He is certainly not an “abstract noun”!
NB Response: I think the simplest philosophical “definition” of God is The Ultimate Creator.
Christians, and I think almost all theists, believe that anything that exists or has existed and is logically capable of having been caused was created directly or indirectly by God. (as the Bible puts it “through him all things were made, and without him was not anything made that was made”)
It is perfectly obvious that either there is no Ultimate Creator or there is exactly one, and that the question “who created God” is meaningless. Equally God is not an “abstract noun” but the creative ground of our entire being, and that God can hardly be less than a person, though may of course be more than a person. He is certainly not an “abstract noun”!
God as arificer not Creator
There are those who would argue that Genesis (and other creation narratives in the bible) support the view that God is actually something like an artificer, who organizes and forms the world from pre-existing material. How would you respond to this? I repeat: for me creation means the radical causing of existence of whatever exists and as such creation does not refer to how the world was formed but the fact that there is anything at all rather than nothing. Therefore, my question is really about biblical hermeneutics.
However, I should also like to know what Mr Polkinghorne things about the 'artificer' God from a scientific point of view and particularly the notion of pre-existing matter? It seems to me that this notion confuses the types of questions that science and religion address (the how and the why) and so it is making a category mistake. But what grounds do we have to suppose that in some sense matter did not always exist and God merely invented laws that would organize this material into a self-making universe? Hmmm. Again, I cannot agree with this view, but I am not sure how to respond convincingly to my Mormon friends with respect to this notion of God the creator.
NB Response Philosophically God is the Ultimate Creator: a mere “artificer” would not be God. The Bible is pretty clear about this, and scientifically it makes no sense that I can see to talk about pre-existing matter and God.
However, I should also like to know what Mr Polkinghorne things about the 'artificer' God from a scientific point of view and particularly the notion of pre-existing matter? It seems to me that this notion confuses the types of questions that science and religion address (the how and the why) and so it is making a category mistake. But what grounds do we have to suppose that in some sense matter did not always exist and God merely invented laws that would organize this material into a self-making universe? Hmmm. Again, I cannot agree with this view, but I am not sure how to respond convincingly to my Mormon friends with respect to this notion of God the creator.
NB Response Philosophically God is the Ultimate Creator: a mere “artificer” would not be God. The Bible is pretty clear about this, and scientifically it makes no sense that I can see to talk about pre-existing matter and God.
Why should I believe in a loving god?
Q: Given observable fact is there a reason to seek a relationship with god?
What is wrong with the notion of a god that is purely mechanical in nature, that brings the universe in to being but has no other function. I believe that the movement of the watch hands are driven by a mechanism, even though I don't see it. The fact that it is there, and may be wondrous, does not mean that I need to seek a relationship with it.
Before me I do not see a world of beauty, but rather one of extraordinary ugliness, punctuated with glimpses of beauty, that we as humans tend to remember because we are naturally attracted to beauty.
Even if you do not hold the same view as me you must agree that there is ugliness, pain, sin, injustice and despair in this world. So while I don't have a problem with the notion of god (in fact I view god as rather necessary to a coherent understanding of a world with structure) why should anything lead me to believe that it is a loving god that I should try to have a relationship with.
Pain is observable fact. The usual defence to the problem of pain is free choice. Why should we believe that an omnipotent God needs to create a choice between the availability of free choice and lack of sin. We as simple humans may have difficulty in conceiving a world where the existence of choice means the existence of a choice to do bad things, but that is only because we are simple humans and live in a world where bad things are possible. Even we as simple humans can conceive of situations where there are multiple good choices and few bad ones, if god is omnipotent why did he not create a world where we had free choice, but that all the choices available to us were all manifestly good, loving, kind and graceful.
In short, why should I believe that god is loving, and that I should seek a relationship with it? What is wrong with the notion of a god that merely brings the universe in to existence is entirely impersonal, and has no other aspect to it. I would argue that observable fact points the the later impersonal god more than the former.
Response from NB: There can never be any real evidence that "the whole world is just a mechanism" - it's just an assumption. As we say in computing, GIGO.
The only coherent alternative is that the world is ultimately based on Love, not mechanism/matter/energy. If Love is the basis of the universe, then of course we should seek a relationship with the Loving Ultimate Creator.
Pain and love are both observable facts. Pain is clearly necessary to existence. We cannot possibly know what a reasonable level of pain in the universe is. John and I think that Love transcends pain, and that (even though my father and John's wife died of cancer quite young) Love is of infinite value and pain is finite and transitory.
In the end we have to choose. Pure logic cannot get us everywhere (as Godel proved). I believe that the logic points us to a loving God. I know that I would rather live in a loving relationship with God in Christ (and suffer logical possibility that I may be wrong, and that at death there is no Resurrection) than live a futile life in a "machine universe".
What is wrong with the notion of a god that is purely mechanical in nature, that brings the universe in to being but has no other function. I believe that the movement of the watch hands are driven by a mechanism, even though I don't see it. The fact that it is there, and may be wondrous, does not mean that I need to seek a relationship with it.
Before me I do not see a world of beauty, but rather one of extraordinary ugliness, punctuated with glimpses of beauty, that we as humans tend to remember because we are naturally attracted to beauty.
Even if you do not hold the same view as me you must agree that there is ugliness, pain, sin, injustice and despair in this world. So while I don't have a problem with the notion of god (in fact I view god as rather necessary to a coherent understanding of a world with structure) why should anything lead me to believe that it is a loving god that I should try to have a relationship with.
Pain is observable fact. The usual defence to the problem of pain is free choice. Why should we believe that an omnipotent God needs to create a choice between the availability of free choice and lack of sin. We as simple humans may have difficulty in conceiving a world where the existence of choice means the existence of a choice to do bad things, but that is only because we are simple humans and live in a world where bad things are possible. Even we as simple humans can conceive of situations where there are multiple good choices and few bad ones, if god is omnipotent why did he not create a world where we had free choice, but that all the choices available to us were all manifestly good, loving, kind and graceful.
In short, why should I believe that god is loving, and that I should seek a relationship with it? What is wrong with the notion of a god that merely brings the universe in to existence is entirely impersonal, and has no other aspect to it. I would argue that observable fact points the the later impersonal god more than the former.
Response from NB: There can never be any real evidence that "the whole world is just a mechanism" - it's just an assumption. As we say in computing, GIGO.
The only coherent alternative is that the world is ultimately based on Love, not mechanism/matter/energy. If Love is the basis of the universe, then of course we should seek a relationship with the Loving Ultimate Creator.
Pain and love are both observable facts. Pain is clearly necessary to existence. We cannot possibly know what a reasonable level of pain in the universe is. John and I think that Love transcends pain, and that (even though my father and John's wife died of cancer quite young) Love is of infinite value and pain is finite and transitory.
In the end we have to choose. Pure logic cannot get us everywhere (as Godel proved). I believe that the logic points us to a loving God. I know that I would rather live in a loving relationship with God in Christ (and suffer logical possibility that I may be wrong, and that at death there is no Resurrection) than live a futile life in a "machine universe".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)