Auszug. © Genehmigter Nachdruck. Alle Rechte vorbehalten.

A Shotgun Wedding

iUniverse, Inc.

Contents

Introduction...........................................................viiBook 1 A Primer on Reformed Christianity...............................1Book 2 A Scientific Baseline...........................................7Book 3 The Dialectic Nature of Our Existence...........................17Book 4 The Randomness of Our Existence.................................29Book 5 Illustrations of Free Will in Our Existence.....................35Book 6 God's Creation..................................................43Book 7 Who Is My God?..................................................50Book 8 God Is the Answer...............................................57Book 9 Faith of Our Fathers............................................63Book 10 Agnosticism and Atheism........................................68Book 11 A Layman's View................................................76Book 12 A New View of the Evidence.....................................80Book 13 Epilogue: There Is a God.......................................83Bibliography...........................................................89

Chapter One

A Primer on Reformed Christianity

I support the school that considers the Bible to be a living text, one that was inspired by God and written, miraculously, by men of limited sophistication, scientific learning, or historical perspective. Nevertheless, they captured divine truth in the scriptures that was relevant not only to their time and culture but also to all times and cultures, including ours today.

The tradition of apostolic succession, which is part of Roman Catholic and Anglican doctrine, limits interpretation of biblical text to those who have been trained and certified as priests. As head of these respective churches, the pope or archbishop speaks with ultimate theological authority regarding the interpretation of the scriptures. Over the millennia, papal authority has significantly affected our definition of the scriptures with consequences for both Protestants and Catholics. For example, under the authority of the pope, Saint Jerome determined which books would be included within the Bible and which books would be regarded as heretical. The translation of the Holy Library known as the Bible has changed from time to time and within different religious denominations. Saint Jerome set the standard for considering content that has become the generally accepted or traditional composition of the Bible and its division into the Old Testament, New Testament, and Inter-Testament books. The Catholic tradition provides the priesthood with a job description that includes interpreting the scriptures to and for the faithful. This distinction is a root cause for differences today in ritual and practice between Protestants and Catholics, including those related to celibacy, birth control, and confession.

In the sixteenth century, while trying to institute reforms in the Roman Catholic Church, Martin Luther initiated or at least focused on a totally new tradition of scriptural interpretation that ultimately led to a doctrine identified as the priesthood of man. Under this new doctrine, we are each able to generate our own interpretation of the scripture; God speaks to us individually, without the intercession of someone else. Of course, even denominations pursuing the reformed tradition have modified this doctrine to one of corporate interpretation under the guidance of clergy or a synod or general assembly.

These differences in doctrine, ritual, and observation often diminish the credibility of believers, particularly when viewed from outside and have strengthened the position of critics of religion, who attack its relevancy in today's more sophisticated, materialistic, and technologically advanced society. Often the attack arises from the scientific community. In some cases the attack stems from the different systems the scientific and philosophical communities employ when trying to discern truth. Some of the challenges to the credibility of religious belief seem to arise from the supposed advantage science methodology has in distinguishing between proven or repeatable fact and a theory or hypothesis. When scientists discover new phenomena, which in turn may lead to the development of a new or revolutionary hypothesis, they scrupulously avoid making claims about ultimate truth until the phenomena can be repeated within observable laboratory conditions. Thus a current debate in the scientific community about infinitely simultaneous dimensionality under quantum mechanics, while exposing differences among schools of physicists, does not negate the validity of quantum mechanics as a tool in the development of solid-state electronics. It seems that in science we are able to deal with things that we can prove and also deal with and even apply that which we can only hypothesize, without rejecting different hypothesis or different conclusions from similar hypothesis. From a historical perspective, we have to recognize that "scientific truth" in the early twenty-first century has a very different definition than it did in the late twentieth century. That marks a scant fifty-year time span on a planet that is some 4.7 billion years old. At times, it seems humanity expects "spiritual truth" to be timeless as well, even as our knowledge about the environment is continuously changing. In The Case for God, Karen Armstrong does an admirable job of pointing out how we adapt what we accept to be spiritual truth while humanity's knowledge and sophistication increases with the expansion of written communication. Her observations move from the beginning of recorded history through the growth of monotheism to Christianity.

Perhaps this difference in expectation arises from a single source: the Creator has known us and our environment from the beginning of time. We, however, learn about and come to appreciate Him only over a period of time. Even so, the existence of the God of Abraham is ultimately a binary condition: either there is a single Creator or there is not. If there is one, then quite possibly we can fully appreciate His characteristics and plan only over time as our knowledge of His creation grows. If there is not a single Creator, then our purposeless existence becomes a series of exercises to justify whatever it is we collectively do.

I believe science is a vehicle that demonstrates that our existence was planned and has a purpose, which is the case for any other intelligent life forms within the universe. The primary purpose of science is to help us discover God's purpose for humanity as a whole as well as His purpose for each of us individually. Thus, ironically, if my thesis is correct, the purpose of biologist Richard Dawkins is to lead humanity to a better understanding of our Creator.

In my thesis, I am addressing my fellow Christians who sit in church with me on Sunday morning and make their way in the current world of expanding scientific knowledge. Their daily lives may be affected directly or indirectly by some of this new technology. Most of us only come to appreciate the collective impact of scientific change over time. I want my fellow Christians to appreciate the view that greater knowledge of our physical universe enhances our faith in our Creator. However, new worldviews can require new interpretation of ancient texts, thus expanding our appreciation of the presence of God in our lives.

I accept that there is some degree of chaos and uncertainty in God's design of the universe. The presence of randomness, dialectic conflict, and free will indicate that specific events can occur within a well-thought-out system without specific prior knowledge of the all-knowing God who designed it. I do not find this a conflict. I realize that many will find an acceptance of randomness or other uncontrolled events within God's plan as a heresy that denies His omniscience and omnipotence. I do not accept that a God of all creation, who is aware of each element down to subatomic particles, is primarily an accountant who keeps records on each action and event. I do believe God has established a design, tries to help His creatures follow that design, and even sends emissaries, such as His Son, to redeem us and guide us to reach the potential that exists within all of us.

I recently heard a sermon by my associate pastor, Harold McKeethen, who discussed "sky-opening events." He described how the concept came to him while he was watching July 4th fireworks from the bluffs of the York River, near the birthplace of independence, where General Washington defeated General Cornwallis. At the height of the display, a large cloud from the southeast discharged a huge vertical lightning bolt that diminished the effect of the considerable display of pyrotechnics. It made Harold recall several descriptions of sky-opening events in the Bible: the separation of light and dark in Genesis; the lightning that occurred when God carved the law onto the tablets on top of Mount Sinai; the light of the star that guided the magi to Bethlehem; the lightning during the earthquake and tearing of the temple shroud that divided the sacred from the common areas of the temple; and the description of the events surrounding Jesus's resurrection and ascension. Harold's point was that our current political, economic, and daily conditions are important; God is aware of them and tries to provide guidance and assistance. However, He does not produce sky-opening events casually or frequently. Instead, he works with and through us individually to help us follow His plan and be true to His purpose.

In the chapters that follow I will explain why I believe science has brought us closer to the understanding that creation was planned in anticipation of our arrival. Further, our awareness of history, a subject that we discuss with each other, reveals clues about our purpose within creation. I am troubled that Holy Scripture is sometimes looked upon as both the first rendition of the basis of our Christian faith and the last attempt God made to communicate with His creatures. We still have individual communication with our Creator, and we still have sky-opening events, like when the Hubble telescope recently looked into a dark area of the sky and instead of empty space discovered an estimated fifty billion previously unheard-of galaxies. We are intelligent life forms who are aware of our own existence and have some appreciation for the immensity of creation and the probability that there are other intelligent life forms on what must be billions of billions of planets circling billions of billions of stars. Therefore, we can appreciate that the divine Creator has a job description we cannot comprehend, appreciate, or define. We must be continually aware of new sky-opening events and additional revelations of the Good News.

God has already miraculously provided our earth and our individual existence as gifts of inestimable value, even for those of us who believe we occupy a position of low social consideration or regard. Our task as believers is to use circumstances of grief, pain, and suffering as well as those of affluence, power, and strength to develop the faith to cope with our human existence. If there is redemption and everlasting life in some form, that is a divine bonus, not necessarily a fundamental condition of belief. The Bible states that God made His first covenant with the Hebrews as His chosen people, and the New Testament promises a new covenant with all people and justice in our eternal life. I believe Jesus redeemed all of us with His sacrifice, and He promised a mansion with many rooms as our eternal home. However, I believe one can accept the Creator and a divine purpose without accepting the promise of eternal fairness in an afterlife.

Karen Armstrong is a theologian with an impressive background of social and religious accomplishment. She has posited that science is an endeavor that is limited to defining and controlling our physical world while religion and faith give us the intellectual and emotional resources to deal with nonphysical components, such as pain, grief, and suffering. Her approach is typically theological; she provides a comprehensive analysis of the role of belief from a historical and multicultural perspective, illustrating the role religion and religious belief have played in man's survival as an intelligent and aware creature of God. I believe that the faithful who attend church with me on Sunday morning need to appreciate that religion and science represent different emphases in the effort to understand our world. We have to learn to deal with our total world and continue to discover new truth and reality. Karen Armstrong's books, Francis Collins's Language of God, and Paul Davies's Mind of God are examples of the modern expansion of the scripture. These books and others represent man's continuing effort to understand our role in the universe given to us by God. Religion and scripture are not static, historic events that happened to our ancestors; they are dynamic realities that keep pace with our expanding awareness of the universe and its potential.

I believe all Christians are called to be evangelists and provide witness to the Good News. I do not use evangelical as a term of practice that eliminates those faithful believers who do not emphasize a born-again experience as part of their declaration of faith. I also hesitate to differentiate between liberal and conservative theology since, in current usage, liberal often includes "new age" interpretation that waters down traditional Christian belief in the redeeming resurrection of the Son of God as the salvation of humanity. The term conservative, on the other hand, is often so constrained that it does not allow for any allegorical reference. The current conservative or fundamentalist school of religion depends on the literal acceptance of each word of biblical text as God's own language, unfettered by human interpretation or translation. If my interpretation of Holy Scripture is correct, it is incumbent on all Christians who witness the Good News to have an understanding of the realities of the world in which God works.

Chapter Two

A Scientific Baseline

I cannot define every scientific understanding existent in our world today. I can, however, itemize some fundamental elements that I believe are generally accepted as factual statements in today's scientific communities. I do this so readers can evaluate our faith in light of the "challenges" presented by contemporary scientific knowledge.

Let us begin with cosmology and astronomy. The Hubble telescope has enabled us to discover that a red shift can be observed in the spectral signature of light that is emitted from other galaxies. This demonstrates that those galaxies are moving away from us at a specific velocity, which we can use to mathematically extrapolate the instant before the big bang occurred. This calculation is further confirmed by the signature of radio frequencies, observed as static from outer space, that are moving away at a velocity consistent with the creation of our universe some fourteen billion years ago. The addition of some fifty billion galaxies that have only recently been observed might affect the estimated age of the universe, since presumably it would take a longer time or a greater speed to travel the distance needed to make us aware of them. We have found rock samples on the moon where absence of an atmosphere does not alter the composition of meteors that hit the surface from time to time. These rocks are older than any samples on earth. Their dates of origin as well as other measures indicate that our planet is four and a half billion years old. In any event, we have two significant date estimates that seem to reinforce each other in the evidence that the universe and the earth had beginnings and therefore probably will have endings.

We have also observed three general shapes in the galaxies that are visible to us: a discus shape, a capsule shape, and a diffuse, less defined, and almost amorphous shape. Our Milky Way galaxy is shaped, more or less, like a discus. Earth is positioned in one of its swirling arms, which spiral out to form the thin edge of the discus. This places us at a distance from the spherical center with its radiation-emitting black hole. Our sun's distance from the black hole's life-preventing radiation is uncommon in our galaxy but not unique. However, we have not yet observed any planets orbiting other stars in the Milky Way in the more or less circular pattern that is required to provide the relatively stable temperatures that enable life.

Capsule-shaped galaxies appear to have black holes as a primary component. In this circumstance, there seems to be insufficient distance to isolate potential planetary homes required for the development of complex intelligent life. The radiation present at the black hole event horizon and extending to the edges of the shape dominate the entire galaxy.

The diffuse galaxies seem to be dominated by unstable novas and supernovas in which galactic components take shape in a chaotic environment that is unsuitable for the formation of life. Most galaxies that have been observed, maybe as much as 90 percent, are either diffuse or capsular. Thus, statistically, the earth exists in a galactic form that is a small minority of other possibilities. In addition, the earth rotates in an orbiting pattern with other planets in a way that has not been observed elsewhere. It is only statistical reality of huge numbers that encourages us to recognize that we probably are not unique. Life has billions upon billions of potential homes, so it is probable that intelligent life forms are somewhere out there. However, it does not appear to be likely that our universe is teeming with intelligent life. As a matter of fact, intelligent life is rare, if not unique, based on all current evidence.

In the biological sciences, including forensic anthropology and microbiology among others, the scope of knowledge has exploded to encompass new evidence and hypotheses that were not previously imagined. Parsing the individual cell to its constituent DNA is probably the most dramatic expansion. We now know that the human has about six billion combinations of the four constituents of DNA in different sequences with combinations that are unique to each individual. Half of the six billion pairs come from each parent, but about sixty pairs are not found in the combination of parental sequences. So an extremely slow and intricate genetic trend does produce different tendencies in a species, but only over an extended period of time.

(Continues...)

Excerpted from A Shotgun Weddingby PhiliP S. Radcliffe Copyright © 2012 by Philip S. Radcliffe. Excerpted by permission of iUniverse, Inc.. All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.