Nature, Human Nature, and God
Ian Barbour, SPCK, 2002
Making Sense of God
A recurring theme of science fiction, now well past its postwar
glory, is the reactions of those who are brought from the past
into the present, or from the present into the future.
What would Julius Caesar have thought and felt about modern
democracy? How would the Renaissance trader from Venice have reacted to
the London or New York stock exchanges?
Some science fiction has reversed the process, wondering how a modern
human would fare if he or she were catapulted into the past. How would
you or I cope with the bloodthirsty Roman circus - particularly if we
were gladiators? Would I have survived the stench and disease of
Victorian London?
Ian Barbour's book is, in a sense, theological science fiction. That
is, it is a striking example of a man who is attempting to comprehend orthodox
theology in the light of science. He
tries to flip from nature to God, and from experience to speculation
while still making sense of both sides of the coin.
Some think of science as humanity's attempt to make sense of the
universe. Madness is the failure to properly order the blooming, buzzing
confusion which is our world. We must impose some sort
of order on the universe if we are to remain human.
The type of order which scientists impose on the world has proved a
powerful force. It uses a particular way of thinking to test whether or
not our interpretations of nature relate to something objective. Or if
not objective, then "really there" in the sense that others
can duplicate the results of the tests of reality we call "experiments".
The point is, however, that it is radically different from the
ancient understanding of nature, human nature and God.
Barbour attempts to work from our contemporary knowledge of nature to a
contemporary knowledge
of God. The question is, does he succeed in matching the two?
The light of science
Having raised a doubt, I must say that this is a highly resourceful
book. For a reader with limited awareness of modern bridge-building between science and theology, the coverage is as thorough as 140-odd pages can
manage. His summaries of complex arguments and subjects are lucid and
quite easy to read.
If I were to question anything, it would be that Barbour has not
taken seriously enough the difficulties of time travel. It is almost
certainly not as easy as he thinks to get into the shoes of an ancient
Hebrew or a person of first-century Palestine. Science and analytical
thinking has quite literally transformed the human mind. If that
transformation is at present largely confined to the West, I'm certain
that it will eventually spread to a majority worldwide.
Barbour is attracted by the Process Theology of A N Whitehead. It has
the merit of having attempted to construe the world through modern eyes.
Barbour refers to it frequently and has clearly taken trouble to follow up
subsequent process thinkers such as Charles Hartshorne. But a book as
short as this can only do so much. Barbour can't be blamed for
leaving out other philosophies which
are currently battling for air-time.
Nor can Barbour be criticised for a poor understanding of Christian
theology. His grasp is good and his knowledge appears extensive. If his
selection of the essentials of theology at first glance seems limited, it is only that
he has compressed much into a small space.
He poses a central question:
Can we reformulate aspects of the traditional understanding of God,
nature and human nature in the light of science while preserving the
central message of the gospel?
If we are to do this, he suggests, we have to face up to five challenges:
Is evolution compatible with a personal God? For example, the
vast majority of life-forms over time have been ruthlessly
eliminated. Humanity is unlikely to avoid the same fate. How can
Christians then contend that God relates to and cares for each of us
as a father cares for his children? Can the Christian view of human nature be maintained in the
light of genetics? Genes are the mechanism by which natural
selection is transmitted at the individual level. If genes and
enculturation make each of us what we are, can we talk of human
freedom? For without a degree of freedom we can't sin, because we
must choose to sin. Can the traditional idea of a human soul be
sustained in the light of science? The Church has adopted a dualist
version of reality. Does this match either the biblical or the
scientific versions, both of which appear to present unified rather than
fragmented perceptions. Traditional doctrines of God entail insurmountable problems. A God who is
thought of as all-powerful, all-knowing and unchanging doesn't
harmonise with the nature of the universe as we know it today. Can
this incongruity be overcome? How does our understanding of God affect and modify human ethics?
For example, some say that Christian theology has contributed
greatly to the exploitation and possible destruction of the natural
world. Is it possible to re-fashion our ethics if they are cast in
concrete by Church authorities?
I found Barbour's presentation of these questions
interesting and at times gripping. In particular, it struck me how
almost totally unaware most people in the pew are of the issues which
press upon Christians in the 21st century.
Unless the
ordinary preacher in the ordinary pulpit (though preferably out of it)
starts tackling them, the nurturing waters of human history will one day
leave
the Church high and dry. Caveats
The main merit of this book is that it
raises questions rather than presenting canned answers. Having said
that, it's important to note that the publishers could have
given a more space to two nagging questions which are only alluded to by
Barbour.
The author moves as far as possible towards sustaining the idea of
a personal God. But is theism a valid response to the nature
of nature as we know it?
For example, Barbour gives some weight to the suggestion that God might
manipulate events at a mini-micro level (the "quantum
level"). It is apparently possible to conceive of a process by
which this can be done without contradicting the First Law of
Thermodynamics ("conservation of energy"). That is, God could act at the quantum level
in a way which did not alter the energy balance of the universe.
But at an even more basic level, the universe operates as a closed
system. Barbour does not explore the theory of systems, which fits the
scientific facts about our world like a glove. Like all other
models, this one may eventually be superceded. But for the moment it
is impossible to conceive of the universe as a system which changes through external
intervention and also maintains its integrity.
Nor does Barbour explore the impact of an interventionist God on how
we do history.
We depend upon the analytical discipline we call "history" for our knowledge of Jesus and
the Church. But unless history is a seamless whole of cause
and effect, we can say only what happened and never why
it happened. We can describe an event but never ascribe a cause to
it.
So if God intervenes in the universe, we can only know "what
really happened" by knowing exactly how and
when God stuck his finger into the historical pie. And if God intervenes secretly at the quantum level,
without an injection of anything at all, we might as well
do away with the idea of God's grace since we cannot know anything
about it or even that it happens. - Science has changed the way we perceive the natural world.
Anyone who has internalised a scientific or semi-scientific way of
thinking can't easily, if at all, think of an objective reality other than the
universe. This has lead a majority of thinkers to conclude that the
concept "God" refers to "that which is
unknowable" or "that which is absolute".
It follows that when we use "God" we necessarily put our
own meaning into what is otherwise an empty word. Barbour does not
deal with the implications of this radical change from times past,
when God was a real person out there. Instead, I got the impression that he wishes
to objectify God as an observable, experiential entity in our world,
despite the emerging consensus that all God-speak is metaphorical.
Barbour does not deal with the implications of this position. For if
we make metaphors about God, then the
universe is the only possible source from which we can derive
content for the word "God".
To sum up: This book is a worthy read. Indeed, it or something like
it is essential for the person who is trying to comprehend the movement
of the Spirit over the face of 21st century waters. Barbour has done us
the service of not reducing either science or religion to mere fiction.
[Home] [Back]
|
