On Friday, I went to see a film shown by the Graduate Christian Fellowship, "Test of Faith," and followed by a panel of believing scientists: Ian Hutchinson, Linda Griffith, Rosalind Picard., as well as Ruth Bancewicz, the film's project leader.
This post is mostly just a summary; I'm not a scientist and only know about some of these things. I had in fact met Ruth at a Christmas party once and personally know Denis Alexander, who is director of the organisation which produced the film. It was nice to finally learn more about the area where he works. I also enjoyed all of the stories from the history of St. John's College Cambridge, where I studied English. Fred Hoyle and Paul Dirac, who are both mentioned in the film, were researchers at my alma mater. John Polkinghorne, who is featured briefly in the film, would on occasion join our college's graduates for dinner.
Although we only saw the physics section of Test of Faith, the entire film apparently discusses three areas:
The film primarily aims to dispel the belief that science and faith are incompatible, natural enemies. It does that through interviews with eminent scientists who are Christians. Here are some of the issues and questions :
The film argues that debates between science and religion advance human understanding in significant ways. It argues that most people have a patchwork idea of what we think is right and wrong. This debate leads people to ask why they believe and develop better ideas.
The theologian Peter Harrison sets out the historical context of Darwin's work. According to Harrison, Darwin was trying to improve the quality of science by encouraging clergy to back away from making scientific pronouncements and leave it to the professionals.
Earth scientist and palaeontologist Simon Conway-Morris argues that science needs metaphysics.
The physicist and Anglican priest Sir John Polkinghorne poses a fascinating analogy for the relationship between science and faith. He says that when we look at a kettle which is boiling, we are right to ask why it's boiling. One answer is the answer of engineering and physics. The other is to say, "I wanted a cup of tea. Would you like one?" Polkinghorne says that this second question illustrates the role of theology in relating to physics.
Next, the theoretical physicist Ard Louis (who I met once, strangely enough to swap ideas on documentary filmmaking in developing countries) explains that the elegance of the universe leads him to a sense of wonder. He tells the story of Paul Dirac's postulate that antimatter exists-- something which was too crazy to imagine in science or even scifi, and yet which was later proved to exist. Louis says that many physicists point to this to illustrate the mathematical order of the universe. When Louis looks at these things, he sees an elegance which reveals a creator.
The theologian David Wilkinson, a fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society, and who did his PhD on star formation, next considers the question of whether a designer is really required by science. He explain's the influence of Stephen Hawking's book a Brief History of Time on religious scientists.
Astrophysicist Katherine Blundell talks extensively about this idea of "the God of the gaps" -- that Christians can find God in the space of things not answered by science. She argues that this is a bad idea.
John Polkinghorne explains an amazing fact that captivated me when I heard Carl Sagan say it on TV: that our bodies, which are carbon-based are made of stardust. He tells the story of Fred Hoyle, the astronomer who was able to figure out the triple-alpha process which explains the origin of carbon in the universe. According to Polkinghorne, who was Hoyle's contemporary at Cambridge University, Hoyle was so astonished at the improbability of this process that he came to believe in the existence of an intellect behind the properties of the carbon atom.
Polkinghorne then summarises "The Anthropic Principle," the view that the physical laws are calibrated so well that there must be some intellect behind the nature of the universe. At this point, the theologian Alister McGrath adds that these things don't prove the existence of a god. McGrath does argue that the world as we observe it corresponds to what Christians say the world ought to be like
The film then features a cosmologist ( I forget her name) explaining the fascinating idea of a "multiverse." At this point, the film's narrator disparagingly puts this view, proposed by Martin Rees, as: "why can't ours be the universe with a winning ticket for life?" The interviewed cosmologist argues that we should be careful not to have a multiverse of the gaps, just like we don't want to propose a god of the gaps.
The screened section of the film then ends on a positive note, promoting scientific exploration in which science acknowledges its limits and people of faith appreciate the harmony between faith and scientific enquiry.
Panel Discussion
When the film finished, the Graduate Christian Fellowship held a panel of eminent scientists to answer questions: Ian Hutchinson, Linda Griffith, Rosalind Picard, and Ruth Bancewicz. They all started out by reflecting on the film, and all seemed especially struck by Polkinghorne's analogy of the boiling kettle.
Ruth expanded on this. She described her life as a venn diagram, in which faith is the largest circle, and scientific research is one of many smaller circles. She explained that it's perfectly sensible to set aside part of her knowledge and beliefs while doing science, "When I'm in the lab, I don't think if my bacteria love each other." She explained that "the background of my life is still there" even if "I exclude some things from my scientific explanations." She said that "it can be tempting since scientific data is so cool, to try and expand that scientific circle so it fits the whole of life" but that it's important to leave the lab sometimes too.
The panel then moved to questions and answers.
Questions and Answers (notes on the Q&A are paraphrases)
Question: Is the deity a personality and can science answer that?
Ian: No. In Romans 1:21, it says that the eternal nature of God is know. But he talks about God's eternal power and deity, not about God as a person. Science can't do that because science is impersonal.
Rosalind: Even psychologists don't disagree on our personalities. They can't agree on what kind of personality you or I have. We can't prove that humans exist
Ruth: Book by Martin Rees "Just Six Numbers" proposed the multiverse as a way to explain around the anthropic principle.
Ian: One is still stuck with the question of "how did this universe of multiverses end up tuned that way as well."
Question: Understanding that God exists, why do we worship him? The sun exists, but I don't worship it.
Ian: This is a theological question. Science can't tell us we ought to worship. I'm particularly interested in the question: do *we* need worship? I think so.
Question: We know that Christians can be scientists. But can scientists be good Christians? The film didn't mention the Bible, and the Bible is at the heart of Christianity.
Ruth: We didn't include discussion of the Bible because wanted it to be accessible to anyone, whether they knew much about science or Christianity.
Linda: We have a lot of different ways to take language. For example, I asked in an email when the event was, and that was taken as acceptance that I would speak. When I read the Bible, it resonates with me. And I can't think of anything that's inconsistent with the Bible. Lots of times in science people use shorthand terminology which is inaccurate, and then over time you get two groups who evolve different approaches and yet who think they're doing the same thing.
Ian: Some things in science contradict what's found in the scriptures. Christians used to think that the universe was quite young. We now know different, that the universe is now old. I don't think changing that view has fundamentally changed Christian theology.
Rosalind: When I read the Bible for inspiration and teaching, I see incredible wisdom and advice that is so true today as we learn things about human nature. Advice like doing good to others and loving your enemies-- the best way to get rid of your enemies is to love them and make them your friends-- to the extent that we follow them, the world becomes a better place.
Ruth: Interpreting the Bible is a matter of doing good theological work, often digging into historical and scientific evidence after studying the text closely. I feel released as a Christian to take both nature and the Bible without them crashing, and if they clash, we're interpreting one of them badly.
Question: What are the rational explanations that your atheist colleagues give when they explain why they are atheists?
Ian: I don't think that these philosophical arguments convince someone to be Christian or Atheist. I find that my
Rosalind: As a former atheist I'm trying to remember the arguments. It wasn't intellectual arguments that convinced me in the end. It had more to do with something intangible. The intellectual is important, but ultimately, you can have all the intellectual stuff in place, and that decision is still a free decision. There may be compelling evidence, but you're not compelled to believe.
Question: How can evolution and creation coexist? Evolution is based on destruction; how can God look on that and say it is good?
Linda: Have you read the Old Testament? God destroyed a lot of stuff in the Old Testament.
Ian: You phrased your question very well, and it's a theological one: how can a good God allow suffering in our world? Perhaps referring to evolution makes this seem like a special scientific challenge for Christianity, but that's a question that Christians have struggled with throughout its history. This is a big theological question, but Christians believe that there is a greater plan.
Question: Why is the "why" simply not another gap that social sciences and psychology will eventually learn to answer?
Linda: I wanted to have a baby, and couldn't have a baby, and my husband couldn't understand why that was so hard for me. Science can help me understand why the breast cancer I suffered from wasn't treatable in certain ways, but it can't help my husband understand my loss.
Ros: The Bible says that we are fully known by God, which suggests that full knowledge may be possible? Maybe science will fill some of these gaps?
Audience member (an Orthodox Priest in a beautiful, grey ornamental robe): There are things we can't answer about the theory of numbers, as Godel showed us. Mathematics sometimes proves that there are areas of knowledge which we cannot know.
Question: If I transplant a Christian brain to an Atheist body, is the person a Christian or an Atheist.