Science, Faith and a Big Question

A few years ago, I stumbled upon an online exchange between leading scientists and scholars, hosted by the John Templeton Foundation, attempting to answer a self-described "Big Question: Does the Universe Have a Purpose?" This conversation is captured in a collection of thought-provoking essays that I found both intellectually challenging and stimulating. Reading through these again inspired me to capture my own thoughts on the subject, specifically the question of whether the universe, and life itself, has a purpose.

Picture two men standing one on each side of the issue. The first categorically agrees that the universe, and his life, exist for a reason, and thus have purpose. The second categorically denies that any evidence exists to empirically assert or suggest the possibility of purpose. One on each side of the grand debate, and I submit, both exactly the same. Each takes a stand on the question based on a belief arising out of the context of their human condition, bound by a perspective that cannot transcend that essential barrier that limits their ability to objectively interpret the reality around them. (A complex system cannot be properly observed when the observer himself is part of the system). Can either of them possibly know the truth? One looks at the empirical data without, and draws a conclusion that cannot be definitively proven or disproven, beyond the abstract that scientific reasoning allows. The other also looks at the empirical data without, yet also puzzles over the experiential data within, and too draws a conclusion that cannot be definitively proven or disproven, beyond the abstract that faith allows. One puzzles over the nature of man, the other puzzles over the matter of man in nature. One views religion as an invention created by man to fill some misguided need. The other wonders why he has "need," and wonders why others so easily dismiss that need.

What of logic? Logic is insufficient to explain the workings of the natural world and the laws of physics. Logic is also insufficient to explain the workings of human sentience and emotion. Yet logic is paramount to the constructs of both science and faith. It provides structure to our exploration, and gives voice to our understanding and perception of each.

Faith apart from the reality of nature and nature's laws is but a philosophy - a perspective or way of thinking that is limited to an idea or approach to life that is almost fully contained in the inner being, and thus entirely relativistic and indeterminable. Scientific methods reveal amazing details about the working of nature, its physical laws, and the forces that act upon both animate and inanimate entities in the evolutionary physical environment. Yet the breakdown of the universe into smaller and smaller components, the study of organized systems notwithstanding, fails to fully capture or explain the mechanics of human sentience. It seems that a full representation of the universe supported by a logical framework that includes both faith and science is necessary to properly address the question of purpose.

The drive and passion that inspires our endless thirst for knowledge and understanding of nature and nature's God comes not from physical forces outside us, but from that essential spark of life and need that we find within. Indeed, the pursuit of scientific knowledge is driven by our desire - our inner need - to know. Science alone cannot explain the nature of our own curiosity, our hunger for truth and meaning. The passionate crusade against faith is belied by the fervor with which the argument is pursued. The existential question here is not whether the universe has a purpose that can be revealed by the empirical observations of creation, but rather the nature of an individual's experiences as a sentient being within that universe. One man can look up into a night sky full of brilliant stars, or see images from distant galaxies and become awestruck at the magnitude of this universe. Another man can look at the same stars and same images and see only the chemical compositions, relativistic theory and mathematical algorithms used to create spectrographic visuals. Same stars, same images, but a different experience.

One man's study of science reveals that humanity is but one species on one insignificant planet in a solar system in a remote and unexceptional part of the galaxy in a vast universe of galaxies. One man's study of faith teaches him that the Creator of the universe came to that one insignificant planet and took the form of a man, born in a remote place in an unexceptional part of a lowly country, itself an unexceptional province of the vast Roman Empire. History records the remarkable, transformative events that have literally shaped 2000 years of human civilization. Should the experiences of countless numbers be discounted? Should the lack of experience in countless others be preeminent?

Our understanding of the world, the universe, and our fellow man are directly shaped by our experiences. If experience so strongly impacts and shapes our perspectives, is it right to discount its relevance to our pursuit of understanding and purpose? The empirical data without, and the experiential data within, together may illuminate the majesty and mystery of this creation in which we live. And if on the path of discovery we find and experience revelatory moments with a Creator, does not that answer the question of purpose and meaning?

Duck!

After countless days buried under drafts of design documentation and assorted mundanity, sometimes you simply have to break out and go with something completely random. Don't ask me how or why this popped into my mind this morning, because I really have no idea.

Fun with a touch of class? Epic fail.

Reading on the Off-The-Wall-Randometer? Off the charts!


We now return to our regularly scheduled program.

Critical Thinking

In the market of ideas, the most coveted lever of control is that which influences public opinion. The art of persuasion creates the conditions that shape, guide and otherwise direct the flow of knowledge and thought. Salesmen from the dawn of time have understood that if you can properly package selective information in a positive light that touches upon some unmet need (real or imaginary), you will likely make the sale. We are increasingly bombarded with messages in every facet of our lives, messages designed to influence our wants, our opinions, our choices and our beliefs. Not unlike intensive radiation, the cumulative side effect wears us down and reduces our resistance. The average person has the ability, however, to resist all but those we choose to trust. Thus the key to influencing public opinion is positioning - positioning yourself or your organization as a reliable, trustworthy source, or at the very least, creating the perception thereof. Once attained, the power to influence individuals in the opinions they hold, or the choices they make, becomes an indispensable asset. If you possess that "trust," then few will question or challenge your judgments. People will believe you, and will even discount their own conscience because if you say it, it must be true. Furthermore, if you are persuasive enough, then those who you've persuaded become your army of persuaders, sent out to convince others within their circles of the rightness of your message. Hence, you have begun to shape and control public opinion. Such power can clearly be of both positive and corruptible impact.

Generally speaking, we have been brought up to trust various entities: we trust scientists because we perceive that they are smarter than we are, and because we have been taught that science is a noble field in search of facts (not truth - truth is a philosophical concept); we trust government because we were brought up to believe in representative democracy, and we get to elect our leaders and hold them accountable; we trust our pastors because we have been taught that they are representatives of God, and we sense it would be unwise to challenge God's "messenger." Yet it goes further than that. We have been told that we can trust Walter Cronkite, CNN, our local news station, our favorite entertainer, and many, many others simply because they have created for themselves a perceived reputation for trust. Again, such power of influence can be both positive and corruptible.

The individual on the receiving end of all this messaging is certainly free to trust whatever sources of information and knowledge they choose. Groups of individuals who place their trust in particular sources can become a movement or a source of inertia, each a tool to be wielded by others. I submit the one who applies critical thinking to both the incoming message and the messenger, however, will have greater success at discerning both facts and truth. Critical thinking, in which we evaluate a subject on the basis of logic, reasoning and personal experience, can open our eyes to see clearly and judge for ourselves the truth of the message and the trustworthiness of the messenger.

Allow me to illustrate this with a personal example. John Rosemond is a well known child psychologist, who has written numerous columns and other works on parenting and children. Recently, he addressed a reader's question regarding the Feingold Diet. This reader had been told categorically by a therapist that nutrition and ADHD are unrelated. I won't belabor the details of what the Feingold methodology is, other than to direct you to the website. You can read the full question and response to Mr. Rosemond here. In his response, he captured very concisely this notion of selective information packaging, and the corruptible potential of those seeking to shape public opinion (emphasis mine):

Some kids improve when put on a restricted diet like Feingold’s, but some kids don’t. (I’m choosing not to go into detail about the so-called Feingold diet, developed by research pediatrician Benjamin Feingold, but the interested reader can find ample description on the Internet.) After eight years spent researching his approach, which involved eliminating artificial food colorings and flavorings as well as chemical preservatives, Feingold presented his impressive findings to the 1973 Annual Conference of the American Medical Association. Shortly thereafter, a group calling itself the Nutrition Foundation published statements claiming that Feingold’s approach lacked valid scientific support. The general public was unaware, however, that the Foundation’s membership included Dow Chemical, Coca Cola, and other companies who made, used, and distributed the additives Feingold was targeting. In their zeal to discredit Feingold and his work, NF subsequently funded several research studies designed to “prove” what it wanted the public to believe—that Feingold’s approach was worthless.

I don't necessarily presume malicious intent on the part of those who dispute the validity of Feingold's methodology. But it serves to demonstrate that even our most trusted sources of information may have an agenda or a conflict of interest. Since people or organizations of any sort are prone to act according to self-interest, we should therefore anticipate such motives from the messengers we hear. This is not to say that we should never trust. Rather, we should subject the message and the messenger to a certain level of scrutiny, evaluating the information against our own knowledge and experience. Whenever someone categorically asserts or denies something (e.g., "the science is settled") - it is a telltale signal that the messenger is speaking out of either vested interest or their own belief, as opposed to fact. To this example, there is simply not enough scientific evidence at this point to definitively and causally connect diet and conditions like ADHD. Likewise, there is also no scientific evidence to conclusively say the converse. In the absence of a definitive answer, we must then rely on our own logic, understanding and experience. Artificial ingredients do not appear to affect me. But my own personal experience - demonstrable experience - has shown me that my children are significantly impacted by such ingredients. In this instance, I choose to trust my own eyes and experiences to arrive at the facts of the matter: Artificial elements in our food most certainly affects SOME children, and the removal of those elements from a diet can result in a reduction of ADHD symptoms in THOSE children. As Mr. Rosemond concludes (emphasis mine):

Perhaps the most convincing evidence in favor of Feingold’s approach are the testimonies from tens of thousands of parents who claim that what is now called the Feingold Program brought about dramatic improvements in their ADHD children’s behavior; in many cases, improvements that were far better and longer-lasting than those resulting from medication. Although these parent reports are dismissed as non-scientific by what I term the ADHD Establishment, the issue boils down to one fundamental question: Why would these parents say their kids’ behavior improved if it didn’t?

Again, it is certainly permissible to trust. But we should also be wise, and not discount our own ability to reason - because even people or organizations we trust are fallible. Having that awareness will help insulate us from the negative aspects of persuasive power. Think it through, and let your opinions, understanding and beliefs be shaped by your own reason and experience, and not merely by the selective packaging of information and messaging, whatever the topic may be.

Too Beat to Blog

It has been a week since my last post. While I'd prefer to write every few days, last week was a bust, and this week may very well be sparse too. However, now that I'm actively writing a post about not having much time to post, a little eye candy from NASA's Solar TErrestrial RElations Observatory (STEREO). The mission of STEREO is to study the sun. There's more on the mission at the preceding link. The image below was captured April 12-13th. There is video and a description of what they call an eruptive prominence here. Neat stuff. Click the picture below to enlarge.


TTFN

Bridging Over

Last night was a big night for my oldest son, in that he "bridged over" from Cub Scouts to Boy Scouts in a brief ceremony during the Pack's year-end banquet. Having joined Scouts in the 2nd grade, my son completed four years of Wolf, Bear and Webelos work to set the stage for his achievement.

We got him started in Scouts for a couple of reasons. First, because a friend from church was the cubmaster for a local pack. Second, we felt that it would be a good opportunity for him to develop new friendships with other boys, and to provide a good environment to pick up some important values. Finally, it gave me a chance to create some common ground and shared experiences with my son. We will have memories of camping, derby cars, projects, and character teaching moments to treasure.


This year, the Boy Scouts are celebrating 100 years as an organization. In today's society, there are some who tend to think that the program is passé, but frankly, I find that it resonates with me. And thus, anything that helps me reinforce such values in my children is a good thing. From the Values:

Scouting is a values-based program with its own code of conduct. The Scout Oath and Law help instill the values of good conduct, respect for others, and honesty. Scouts learn skills that will last a lifetime, including basic outdoor skills, first aid, citizenship skills, leadership skills, and how to get along with others. For almost a century, Scouting has instilled in young men the values and knowledge that they will need to become leaders in their communities and country.

The Scout Law calls on boys and young men to be Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean and Reverent. The Oath calls upon these Scouts to do their best, serve God and Country, to obey the Scout Law, help others, and to stay physically strong, mentally awake and morally straight. These are the values that I myself should aspire to, and the kinds of values I hope my sons will aspire to as they pursue their own paths in this life. Most certainly, I cannot by any means force such values upon my children, but by exposing them to these ideals, it becomes my hope and prayer that they will adopt them for themselves.

My son's transition to Boy Scouts marks the beginning of his coming of age. Whereas with Cub Scouts, the adult partner or parent plays an active role in helping the Cub Scout reach achievement, the Boy Scout takes responsibility for himself. The recognition and advancement he pursues now must come on his own initiative and effort. I can be nearby, but eventually he needs to take ownership of his progress. It is up to him how far he wishes to go in this program. Indeed, the decision to continue in scouting has always been his. As a proud father, I will support him.

As marked by the ceremony, the bridging over has consequences for me as well. As I watched my son cross the bridge and exchange his Webelos insignia for that of the Boy Scout, as the parent I was made to stay on the other side. In a way, it may be that this marks the beginning of my own coming of age - in that slowly but surely, I need to start letting go. A few weeks ago, my son and I joined other Webelos in a 7.5 mile hike in near the southern reaches of the Cumberland. On the trail, I purposefully lagged behind, to allow my son the freedom to go his own pace. There were several times during that 6 hour trek that he was out of eyesight. The trail at times was only 1.5-2 feet wide at best, with a sharp drop-off to a rocky, rushing creek. I confess to having some anxious moments crossing over those treacherous spots on the path, sometimes even scanning the rocks below, knowing that somewhere up ahead my son had already passed by.


Nevertheless, my son outpaced me the entire hike, and he did just fine. Indeed, he seemed exhilarated. Occasionally, he would stop and wait for me so that we could walk together. But more often than not, he yearned to go ahead, and I let him. I will have to get used to this, to be sure. I need to figure out how to remain an active part of his life while at the same time backing far enough away to allow him the freedom to explore and chart his own path. He is still young, of course, so there is more parenting for me to do along the way. But without a doubt, he is ready to be allowed some room to grow.


I can only do what I can, but I also need to learn when not to do some things. I can only hope and pray that he will grow into the person God wants him to be, and that he will find joy in the journey.

Meanwhile, my younger son is just getting started, having completed his first year in Cub Scouts. With him, I still have some more time. Time for creating common ground and shared experiences, and character-teaching moments. Moments not just for him, but for me as well.


What a Boy Needs:

Ten Needs of a Boy

1. To climb a mountain and look afar.
2. To sit around a campfire with good friends.
3. To test his strength and his skills on his very own.
4. To be alone with his own thoughts and with his God.
5. To be ready to reach out and find the hand of an understanding man ready and willing to help.
6. To have a code to live by – easily understood and fair.
7. A chance to play hard just for the fun of it – And to work hard for the thrill of it.
8. To have a chance to fail – and know why.
9. To have and to be a good friend and a chance to prove both.
10. To have a hero – and a vision to measure him by.

After the tenth need is said, the following could be said:
In Cub Scouting these needs are not always filled for each boy. What Cub Scouting does is to put each boy on a path where he can travel the world in his backyard and fulfill his needs with confidence in himself and others.

The Constitution and Football

Yesterday, I came across an interesting analogy about the role of government in our lives. Interesting, because the analogy spoke of government and the Constitution in the context of a game of football. I invite you to go and read the whole thing at Doctor Zero. A few excerpts below:

There are other choices besides anarchy, or a regulatory State that directly controls over half of our economy. Far from opposing all regulation, I maintain that clearly written, honestly enforced, minimally intrusive laws are both just and essential for wealth creation. A nation’s wealth lies in transactions between its citizens, and the pace of those transactions would be greatly reduced if consumers had no confidence in providers. Shopping malls would be considerably less active, if the shoppers had to assume every food product was potentially poisonous, every piece of consumer electronics could explode, and all of the merchants were thieves.

Now, mind you, the above is stated in the context of notions about capitalism. I'm not necessarily big on "wealth creation" as a motive. But I do desire the freedom to earn wages, and then to spend, save or invest those wages as I choose. I do want the government to ensure that I can continue to enjoy that freedom, and that predatory business practices are appropriately constrained. The author goes on to illustrate his analogy, in which the government plays the role of referee in the game. But as the parable progresses, the referee starts to take a more controversial, active role in the game: picking sides, changing the rules, and profiting from the results. His point is that for the many facets of the economy to function correctly, we need government to play the role of honest referee: ensure that rules are followed, but otherwise stay out of the game itself. He continues (emphasis mine):

By its very nature, government has access to power and resources which no private enterprise can equal. It can’t work any other way. We can’t treat the military as a business enterprise, to be shut down if it doesn’t rake in sufficient profits. We must have government resources to address disasters, and most citizens would insist the government be provided with funds to care for the desperately poor and sick. Those who enforce the law must have a measure of power beyond the law: sky marshals carry guns onto airplanes, soldiers have access to heavy weapons and high explosives, government auditors can demand access to information a business would never share with its competition.

To be trusted with such power and resources, the State must practice strict adherence to a basic set of laws which constrain its behavior, and which it cannot easily disregard or change. The rulebook for the American game is her Constitution. Fidelity to those rules would produce a small State with less influence to satisfy the appetite of hyper-competitive players who wish to cheat at the game… or its own appetite for purchasing votes and imposing its ideas of “fairness.” Disdain for the Constitution has led us to the present spectacle of referees who outnumber the players, unemployed players sitting dejectedly on the sidelines, and a dwindling number of investors willing to bet on a rigged game that will be decided by the whims of the officials.

Again, go read the whole thing. It's an interesting analogy that has a ring of truth to it. Although I wonder where the notion of "instant replay" comes in.

(h/t: HotAir)

The M-Word: Part 4

In previous posts, I have spent a little time talking about a period of self-evaluation, with respect to ministry. The prologue introduced the four key questions: 1) What is your ministry?; 2) Where are you right now?; 3) Is it where you expected to be?; 4) Is it better/worse/different than before? Questions 1 and 2 were addressed here and here. Last time, I answered the third. Today, I will draw this personal, meandering thread to a close by attempting to respond to question four.

This question arguably requires a subjective comparison that is very much based in the moment. A year from now, I might have a completely different response than I do today. So, realizing that to compare yesterday to today is very much anchored in the circumstances of the moment, allow me to turn the calendar back some 17 years or so.

When I was in college, I was active in campus ministry. I taught Bible studies, served on mission teams, and provided leadership at times both in the spotlight and behind the scenes (my behind the scenes experiences were much more fulfilling). True, I was in school for my degree, but my life was wrapped up in the fellowship of the Wesley Foundation. For that period of my life, I was very much where God wanted me to be. And in that environment, I was being trained and equipped for what was to come.

Years later, I found myself active in a new church plant, and as part of that body, I labored in teaching, ministry and leadership as the church grew out of its rental storefront onto 28 acres and a new building. And although significantly different than a college campus ministry environment, with different challenges and joys, it was nevertheless the place where God wanted me to be. In that environment, I was further refined, trained and equipped for what was to come. Was this period of my life better, worse or different than the college environment? In a word, yes. In many ways, it was better, because it was new and it had purpose. It was worse, though, in that life after college requires a different set of priorities. By this I mean my schedule was largely determined by my job and the needs of my family. In college, my daily schedule was much more flexible to accommodate what I wanted to do. After college, that goes away. Understand, I'm not saying that employment and family made things worse - rather, I'm simply acknowledging a new set of priorities that often reduces our ability to be fully immersed in fellowship ministry to the same degree we were when we were younger. Because the reality is, life after college is different. The campus ministry is a unique environment for a unique time of life. The local church moves much more slowly (if it moves at all), and as the burdens of life accumulate, understandably some of the excitement wears off. But the joy comes in knowing that despite the transition into "grown-up" life (job, marriage, kids, mortgage, etc), I was where God wanted me to be.

Fast forward to the present. My church is nearly 3 years past a difficult transition, and today has a different chemistry than it did before. Having provided leadership during that critical time, I've since burned out and stepped away from active ministry. Yet I still attend, and I still care about the future of the local church. Is today better, worse or different than before? Again, the answer is yes. Perhaps this seems contradictory, and it may very well be so. But consider this: Life doesn't stand still. How we choose to respond to each set of changing circumstances and environments affects our ability to adapt to what next comes our way. I can look back on good times and bad, and see how God has used each to prepare me for what would come later. Sometimes things seem better, sometimes they seem worse; but they are almost always different - sometimes a little, sometimes a lot. What matters then, is how we respond to the moment. Do we seek God? Do we exemplify His grace and wisdom in those moments, so that we can fulfill our purpose in the place He calls us to be?

What is my ministry? To serve Christ, to grow in knowledge, and to speak the Truth. This occurs whether I am teaching, leading, or simply and quietly serving. Where am I right now? Recovering from burnout, and unsure of what lies ahead. Is this where I expected to be in my ministry? No, yet even this down time seems to have a specific purpose that will reveal benefits later. Where I am today is both better, worse and different than yesterday. Why? Because life is designed for growth, for new experiences and challenges, to an end: wisdom. No, not wisdom in my own eyes, but the kind of wisdom that God grants to those who have eyes to see.

Today, I "feel" stagnant in some ways, but I also sense a clarity I didn't have before. The battles I have fought for the cause of unity have worn me down, but the return to writing and reading has replenished me somewhat. Tomorrow's ministry may be different than yesterday's. And while there are some who wish me to return to the roles I've provided in the past, I suspect that God is going to take me in a new direction. To that end, I must rededicate myself to seeking first His Kingdom, and Him.

For that is where joy will be found.

Happy Easter

"Was, I, Paul crucified for you? Were any of you baptized in the name of Paul? ... For Christ didn't send me to baptize, but to preach the Good News--and not with clever speeches and high-sounding ideas, for fear that the cross of Christ would lose its power." (1 Corinthians 1:13-17, NLT)

For days I had prayed and searched through my Bible, trying to find out what the Lord would have me write for Easter. The celebration of the Resurrection will soon be over, and life will quickly drift back into routine. Yes, days I had prayed, but still no answer. The words to an old song by Don Francisco that had been going through my head since Sunday filled my mind again. Pushing it aside, again I prayed, "Father, please, show me what to do. Tell me what you want me to share." Then, in a moment of intense stillness, I heard, "I already have." I sat up with a start, and picked up the Bible I had laid aside. It was open to the chapter I had been reading in 1 Corinthians. Key words jumped out at me: "Preach the good news ... not with clever and high-sounding ideas ... the cross of Christ ... power." My prayer had been answered, and has been answered as you read:

"He's alive!
He's alive!
He's alive, and I'm forgiven
Heaven's gates are open wide!
He's alive!"

--Don Francisco

Praise be to God, He's alive! Do you want to discover and maintain the joy of the risen Savior? Say it out loud, over and over again, "He's alive!"



"Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here; he has risen!" (Luke 24:5-6, NIV)

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! By his great mercy we have been born anew to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and to an inheritance
which is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you!" (1 Peter 1:3-4, RSV)

"That if you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." (Romans 10:9, NIV)

The joy of Easter never ends! He's Alive!!

Originally published April 2nd, 1997
The Encounters Ministry, Copyright © James A Chase

Death Star?

Wait a minute. I thought Luke Skywalker destroyed this thing long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away. What is it doing in orbit around Saturn?


So, no, it is not that famed battle station. It is in fact Mimas, one of Saturn's 62 known moons. The photo above was taken by NASA's Cassini orbiter, currently tasked to study Saturn and its satellites. Cosmic Log has more.

Other interesting space-related articles:

Zombie Star absorbing other star families. Okay, in reality, this is about a collapsed star that went nova eons ago, but whose dusty remains are floating through other systems. The article shows a composite view created by combining images from the Chandra X-Ray Observatory and the Spitzer Space Telescope. (h/t: John)

Mars. Needs. Women. No, this isn't about the late 60's sci-fi movie, nor is it that great Meat Beat Manifesto techno-beat hit from 1988. But six men are preparing to spend 1.5 years inside a new Mars Mission Simulator to research effects of long term confinement associated with a 520-day mission to Mars. Pretty cool stuff. But 1.5 years in tight confined space? Not this claustrophobic!