Posts Tagged ‘atheism’

Recent tweets/Facebook messages

February 14th, 2013

Message 1

The New Testament really does teach we should be thinking frequently about the End Times. Jesus stressed the Kingdom which is ultimately eschatological. He taught us to pray regularly for his eschatological Kingdom to come (in the Lord’s Prayer). He also said we are to celebrate Communion and so to proclaim his death “until he comes.” Communion looks forward as well as backwards. I counted 118 passages on eschatology in the NT excluding Revelation. This includes 8 major passages plus a whole book – Revelation. For more information on eschatology see http://www.christianteaching.org.uk/blog/

Message 2

Richard Dawkins says religion “peddles false explanations” but he hasn’t a credible clue about what caused the Big Bang and why we are here.
Message 3

Government Minister Lady Warsi says “People who do God, do good.”

Archbishop Welby says the church has the greatest opportunity since 1945 – to fill the void caused by a dwindling welfare state

In the light of eternity it isn’t enough to do good. The church must also major on prayer and proclaiming Jesus as Saviour. It often doesn’t.

Message 4

Could Jesus’ statement that “stars will fall from the sky” before his Return be literal? Is tonight’s near-miss asteroid relevant?

The size of an office block, doing 5 miles a second it will pass nearer than many of our satellites. Will the next one be bigger and hit us?

Astronomers are concerned and scanning the skies, having found 10,000 others which could threaten Earth. No immediate danger but it makes you think. Jesus would say it’s meant to.

Message 5

End Times teaching is a strong motive for holiness and evangelism amongst Christians and thinking seriously about eternity amongst unbelievers

Message 6

Now we’re back from holiday here’s an update on the eschatology (End Times) campaign. It is, of course, early days but things are going well. More people are showing interest and I’m meeting up with some Friends to discuss co-operation. I’m continuing my research and writing, and some interesting ideas are emerging (more on that later). I’ll be circulating material from time to time and hope to arrange conferences and speaking engagements.  Suggestions are welcome.

Message 7

Yesterday I went to the Thanksgiving Service for a Methodist Minister friend who died recently. It was a salutary experience which focused attention on the shortness and purpose of life, and gave opportunity to ask: “How am I doing in terms of living my life for God?” As I’ve said before, thinking about eschatology (which includes death) is a strong encouragement to holiness and mission. How are you doing?

Message 8

On holiday last week we walked on England’s famous Jurassic Coast and I discovered a couple of fossil Ammonites. It is awesome to think they had been lying there for perhaps 190 million years. It spoke to me of the wonder of creation and the greatness of our Creator!

Message 9

I think that what ultimately matters is not when or how God created the universe but THAT he created the universe. To me it would be just as wonderful whether he created the universe 13.7 billion years ago, 6000 years ago or last week and it would be just as wonderful if he created it over billions of years, seven days or instantaneously.

Message 10

The UN has declared March 20th from this year the first International Day of Happiness and is encouraging us to make other people happy. Peter wrote to believers who “suffer grief in all kinds of trials” (1 Peter 1: 6). Yet he speaks of them being “filled with an inexpressible and glorious joy” even though they don’t see Jesus “now” (verse 8). This inexpressible and glorious joy is largely based upon our sure hope of seeing him face to face “then”. The more we think about that, the more we will experience the joy which is vastly greater than mere happiness.

Message 11

Canon Giles Fraser, writing in the Guardian, cynically wrote off the Evangelical emphasis on having a “personal relationship with Jesus.” I know that can be used as a cliché and could, in some people’s minds, turn Jesus simply into an innocuous friend. But to me it is incredibly meaningful. I want to ask Giles: “How can you love God with all your heart and mind and soul and strength without having a personal relationship with him? We might express ourselves in different ways but if we are not at least beginning to be aware of having a personal relationship with God we are not experiencing the real thing as far as Christianity is concerned. The relationship is there for the asking. Jesus is more ready to become a Friend than we are to ask him to be.

Message 12

HOLY WEEK ESCHATOLOGY 1: Early in Holy Week Jesus prophesied the destruction of the Temple (which was brought about by the Romans 40 years later in AD70). But he also prophesied the End Times and urged his disciples to look out for both early (recurring) and later signs of his Return (see Matthew 24). His prophecies here are typical of biblical prophecy:

  • Prophecy can have an early and a later fulfillment.
  • Prophecy can concertina events widely separated in time to appear close together.

So Jesus speaks of the events of AD70 and of his still future return in the same passage.

Are you looking out for the signs of Jesus’ return? (see “Can we ignore what the New Testament says about the signs of Jesus’ return?” http://www.christianteaching.org.uk/CanWeIgnoreSingsOfJesusReturn.pdf ) .

Message 13

HOLY WEEK ESCHATOLOGY 2: Jesus also told the parable of the Ten Young Women (Virgins) in Holy Week. They were waiting for the bridegroom to come but he “was a long time in coming, and they all became drowsy and fell asleep” (Matthew 25:5). That’s a good picture of the church and of many Christians today. Because the ‘bridegroom’ (Jesus) is a long time in coming (the Second Coming) they have stopped concentrating and don’t think about his Return. However, Jesus’ message is for those who have not made any preparation for his Return, i.e. have not come to faith in him, shown in obedience. Such people, he says, when he returns, will be shut out from his presence – a solemn warning.

Message 14

HOLY WEEK ESCHATOLOGY 3: Jesus’ teaching in Holy Week includes a description of the last judgment (Matthew 25:31-46). When Jesus returns he will judge the people of all nations. The criterion of judgment is people’s attitude towards the followers of Jesus (which, of course, shows their attitude towards him). Only those who show love and kindness towards the followers of Jesus (and so to him) will have eternal life.

Message 15

HOLY WEEK ESCHATOLOGY 4: At the Last Supper, Jesus teaches that Communion not only looks back to his death but forward to when he will drink wine with his disciples in his Father’s kingdom (Matthew 26:29). Paul says Communion proclaims the Lord’s death “until he comes” (1 Cor 11:26). Jesus was referring to a prophecy of Isaiah that God “will prepare a banquet for all the nations of the world—a banquet of the richest food and the finest wine. Here he will suddenly remove the cloud of sorrow that has been hanging over all the nations. … will destroy death forever …. will wipe away the tears from everyone’s eyes” (Isa 25:6-8). Are you looking forward to that?

Message 16

HOLY WEEK ESCHATOLOGY 5: When Jesus was tried by the Sanhedrin (Jewish court) the high priest said: “Tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.” Jesus replied: “‘You have said so ….. ‘But I say to all of you: from now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.’” (Matthew 26:63-64). Jesus looked beyond the horror of the cross to the time (still future) when he returns “on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.” (Matthew 24:30). I strongly recommend that you think of his return daily. How about it?

Message 17

On Good Friday, as I do every day, I checked the TV programme list to see if there was anything worth recording. I didn’t find anything connected with Good Friday (except an old film about Barabbas). I found this sad and yet, somehow, meaningful. I was reminded of the words: “Is it nothing to you, all you who pass by? Look around and see. Is any suffering like my suffering…?”

No comments »

Posted in Apologetics

Tags:

A response to Stephen Hawking’s atheism

December 12th, 2011

I love science, especially astronomy and cosmology, and read it daily. I was aware all of the information contained in the recent TV programme featuring Stephen Hawking “Did God create the universe?”

 

Initially he described the ways the church had opposed scientist such as Galileo. He then described how subatomic particles appear, disappear and reappear at random out of nothing. He went on to say that, similarly, the universe originally was very small – a singularity – hence it too could come into existence out of nothing without violating the known laws of physics. It was originally an infinitesimally small black hole which exploded in the Big Bang ultimately to form the universe as we know it. He asked whether God created the quantum laws governing this and commented that science has a more compelling explanation. His main thesis was that there was no time before the Big Bang so, said Hawking, it doesn’t have a cause. In fact there was no time in which a cause could exist. He concluded that the question “Did God create the universe?” was therefore a question that doesn’t make sense. Then he added that there is probably no heaven and no afterlife.

 

I was both surprised and disappointed that the programme, and Hawking’s thesis, was so superficial. In passing, let me say that yes, the church did maltreat scientists at one time. But he didn’t mention that Protestantism facilitated growth of science and that many scientists have been or are Christians. Nor did he mention that science has perpetrated some evils too. Take Eugenics which was popular in the early 20th century and called for the sterilization of the mentally ill, the blind, the deaf, the disabled, etc., and led to enforced “racial hygiene.” Are we to write science off because of such disgraceful aberrations? Yet Hawking appeared to be implying religion should be written off because of the malpractice mentioned.

 

Hawking described creation ex nihilo (out of nothing), which Christians have always believed, then made a leap of faith to state that there is no divine being behind it. This is as much a statement of faith as saying God is behind it. What evidence does he have to prove there is no God? He said there was no time in which a cause of the Big Bang could exist, ignoring the concept that God is outside of time.

 

And yet theoretical physicists believe in dark matter, dark energy and dark flow without being able to prove they exist. They also hold that there could be many universes (the multiverse theory). These beliefs are purely theoretical because they work and fit in with the maths. I have no problem in principle in believing in these things. They appear to be required because of anomalies in the universe which cannot be explained by normal matter and energy. But they are statements of faith

 

By the same token, Christians argue that a divine creator is also required because that alone can answer the fundamental questions: Why is there anything at all? Granted everything came from nothing but why did that happen? Granted there was no time ‘before’ the Big Bang but why does that exclude an eternal creator?

 

Hawking might argue that there is no scientific evidence for a divine creator. But who ordained that scientific evidence is the only allowable evidence. Can science disprove my religious experience is actually of God. It is part of my evidence for believing in God. It is a quality of experience transcending any other. It is an experience of numinous. Rudolph Otto said the numinous experience has two aspects: mysterium tremendum, a tendency to invoke fear and trembling; and mysterium fascinans, a tendency to attract, fascinate and compel. There is also a sense of being in communion with a wholly other, a sense of supernatural presence. It is a sublime, awe-inspiring experience which is beyond comprehension.

 

Some people have tried to separate the numinous from religion, for example Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens etc. It is clear that, for instance, some astronomers have a sense of awe as they contemplate the universe, and I share that. In so far as that is the same as my religious experience (and that can legitimately be debated) it is evidence that human beings are worshipping creatures. Some may ‘worship’ creation rather than a creator but the sense of worship/numinous is one evidence for God. The idea that such exalted experiences together with love, altruism, personality, art, music, poetry, etc., just emerged out of the Big Bang with no cause and no divine creator is not only a statement that cannot be verified but it stretches credulity. It is far more credible that they are evidences of a divine creator.

 

True, science may be able to describe physiological and psychological aspects of religious experience but how can it prove that those aspects are the only cause of religious experience?

 

Hawking seemed to be implying that religion was caused by human beings being unable in the past to explain fearful experiences such as eclipses. However it seems much more credible that since religion is universal, it caused religious reactions to phenomena like eclipses, rather than the other way round. Why should a religious reaction to some phenomena not be an evidence of the existence of a divine creator?  What evidence does Hawking have that, since seeing an eclipse as the wrath of God is mistaken, that means the concept of God is mistaken? That certainly does not follow.

 

Hawking is one of the many who see scientific proof as the only proof. But, as I asked above, who ordained that the world is only scientific or only scientific questions may be asked. This attitude is narrow-minded, arrogant, scientific fundamentalism.

 

We might add questions about Jesus who, on a careful reading of the NT, claimed to be God. As C S Lewis said: was he mad, bad or God? If Hawking and his atheistic colleagues believe Jesus was mad or bad they are really sticking their necks out (although Hawking did not mention Jesus in this programme).

 

Unfortunately, some scientists who are highly qualified in their field of expertise have a GCSE level of understanding of religion, yet feel qualified to pontificate about it.

 

Hawking and his atheistic colleagues may think, in their rather puerile understanding of Christianity, that religion has had its day. But I have to respond that the demise of religion/spirituality is consistently behind schedule.

No comments »

Posted in Apologetics

Tags:

Has science squeezed God out?

November 14th, 2010

Julian Baggini, editor of ‘The Philosophers’ Magazine’ claims that “If science has not actually killed God, it has rendered Him unrecognisable.”  He refers to the Chief Rabbis opinion that science is about the how and religion the why of the universe. But he says that it is not as simple as that.

He accepts that science leaves room for a God who “kick-started the whole universe off in the first place.” But he adds that science “does leave presumed dead in the water anything like the God most people over history have believed in: one who is closely involved in his creation, who intervenes in our lives, and with whom we can have a personal relationship. In short, there is no room in the universe of Hawking or most other scientists for the activist God of the Bible.

He points out that Stephen Hawking said in Channel 4 “You can call the laws of science ‘God’ if you like,” he told Channel 4 earlier this year, “but it wouldn’t be a personal God that you could meet, and ask questions.” Also Antony Flew, a famous, life-long atheist who came to believe in God in his eighties, believed in a Deist God, i.e. one who started the universe then left it, and us, to get on with it without him.

Baggini concludes: “In the scientific universe, God is squeezed until his pips squeak. If he survives, then he can’t do so without changing his form. Only faith makes it possible to look at such a distorted, scientifically respectable deity and claim to recognise the same chap depicted on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. For those without faith, that God is clearly dead, and, yes, science helped to kill him.”

Well, I’m not going to defend the Sistine Chapel ceiling as literal! It illustrates the problem of Christians projecting caricatures of God, including the implication that God is some elderly Santa Claus figure sitting on a literal throne somewhere in a vertical direction from earth. Then there are creationists who claim God created the universe in six days 6000 years ago.  Some Christians have projected a “God of the gaps,” claiming God as the explanation for anything science can’t explain. This god retreats as science fills the gaps in its knowledge.

But I don’t believe for a moment that Baggini has proved his point. He is attacking a caricature of the God of the Bible. He accepts the idea of God initiating the universe. But he then bases his comments on a crude view of God’s sovereignty over and relationship with the world. God’s sovereignty is not human dictatorship and control writ large. It is much more sophisticated and subtle than that.

The New Testament states that the Son of God, incarnate as Jesus, was the one “through whom also he made the universe” (Heb 1:2).  Elsewhere Jesus is called the Word. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.” (John 1:1-3).

The universe was created by God’s command – he spoke it into being through his infinite majesty and sovereignty. Scientifically, that involved the Big Bang and development over the last 13.7 billion years.

It adds: “The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word” (Heb 1:3). St Paul said: “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. ….. he is not far from any one of us. ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ (Acts 17:24-28).  Similarly Paul writes: “The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible …. all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together” (Col 1:15-17).

God sustains all things in existence by his word, otherwise they would be annihilated. He holds everything together in mutually beneficial relationship, otherwise the created order would fall apart.

However, God’s sovereignty is exercised subtly. He works through what we see as natural processes, just as he works out his purposes through the free choices of human beings. Paul writes to the Philippians: “Continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfil his good purpose” (Php 2:12-13). In other words, God acts as people work on the process of “being saved.”

So the God of the Bible is not the caricature god of Baggini. He is not only the God who initiated the universe, but the one who subtly, but with infinite power, sustains everything in existence and holds everything together in mutually beneficial relationship. In addition, as the huge amount of evidence of religious experience indicates, he is a God who is love and who reaches out to individuals in that love, inviting a loving response.

Apparently, Richard Dawkins would like to start an atheist school which would teach children “to ask for evidence, to be sceptical, critical, open-minded”.  He adds: “If children understand that beliefs should be substantiated with evidence, as opposed to tradition, authority, revelation or faith, they will automatically work out for themselves that they are atheists.”  His school would teach about ancient Greek religions and Norse gods. Also he said: “The Bible should be taught, but emphatically not as reality. It is fiction, myth, poetry, anything but reality. As such it needs to be taught because it underlies so much of our literature and our culture.” I have no problem with children being critical and open-minded, but if they are not taught about the awesome concept of God described in the New Testament, the God constantly behind the existence and development of the universe, they will be impoverished, as, sadly, Dawkins is himself.

No comments »

Posted in Apologetics

Tags: