John Polkinghorne Q & A 

.
Freewill and Neurology If we admit that our thoughts are dependent on the neural substrate, then how can we possibly say that they determine what we ultimately do?  How can we say that it is not the random fluctuation of neurons?  Appeals to Quantum indeterminancy to defend free will fall flat, since quantum level behavior really doesn't add up enough to affect higher level actions of neurons - neurons are just too big!  Even if they did work, it's chance, not some independent agent, that determines their behavior. 
  But the same is true for the behavior of neurons!  what is acting on them but other bodily forces?  The problem really comes full circle when we realize that we can't hold insane people responsible for their actions.  We forgive them because neurologically, they didn't have the substrate to enable them to conceive of different alternatives before acting.  Thus, they can't be held responsible. 
  but then can we by extension hold ourselves responsible?  we depend on a neural substrate just as much as they do, but ours, we claim, is "normally functioning".  But normal functioning is just the neural substrate behaving in a different way.  Why would the causal relationship change at this level??? it wouldn't!! Therefore, no free will!
  Of course, what happens to reason then? It falls apart.  Even the atheist can't say that his beliefs were rationally formed, because his reasoning is really nothing but neurons fluttering around in his head. all our arguments, hopes, dreams, loves, are constructed on ideas that were passed on to us throughexperiences.  and so, experience is all that there is left, which is purely random and relative.  so, no truth at all then, i suppose.  the relativists are right.  the materialists are right.  and this is when i start to get depressed. 
  so much for ethics: nobody can be held responsible for anything.  (anarchists will delight in this.  i just get scared)
  so much for the theological excuses for evolution, that the loving god allowed creatures the freedom to choose whether to love god or not.  The excuse just doesn't work if theres not free will, and neuroscience is clearly stating now that there isn't!- though 15 billion years of chance, chaos, and extinction events made this excuse rather weak in the first place!  How COULD there be free will?  if we are dependent at all on physical realities that obey physical laws? 
  Of couse, then what of morality? punishment? maintaining order?  justice then becomes nothing more but a necessity for survival. by extension then, the sociobiologists were really right about morality emerging only because of the survival value of cooperation.  sure, you might say that love FEELS like it is more, but then this is just an exaptive trait of something that was only adaptive at another point, just like playing the violin with my hands only happens because they used to be useful for getting food.
  Free will was really the last hope for me, as it was the linchpin holding together the contemporary systematic theology.  now i think i have to give it up.  and with that, any hope for jesus, the god of theism, life after death, justice, and hope for the future.  The only thing that really might keep people from suicide this point is a kind of Camus appeal to heroism, which is fairly tenuous.
Preliminary Response: the basic point is simple: the world is not clock-like (where things happen mechanistically) but cloud-like (where the behaviour of almost all systems is under-determined by energetic considerations)  Thus the fact that a higher-order system is composed of lower-order systems does not mean that the lower-order systems determine or replace the level of explanation of the higher-order system.
  In clock-like systems (ie "Machines") then in principle it seems that the lower-order explanation makes the higher order explanation obsolete - at least 'in theory' because this is patently untrue in practice (you cannot begin to understand the behaviour of a complex piece of software in terms of holes and electrons in silicon - indeed the detailed behaviour of the silicon is simply irrelevant to the software which will run 'just the same' on a completely different hardware implementation). However if you are dealing with cloud-like systems (ie pretty much any natural system, including certainly the human mind and brain) it is not even possible in principle to fully explain the higher-order system in terms of the lower-order ones.
  The fallacy lies in the words "dependent on".  We can admit that thoughts are dependent on the neural substrate in the sense that, without it (or something equivalent) we presumably cannot think, but this does not mean "dependent on" in the sense of "determined by".
  Certainly, the disciplines of thinking about this kind of causality (what John calls "active information") are very new compared to the reductionist thinking that dominated much of science.  But the fact that something is not scientifically well-understood does not mean that it does not exist.  Superconductivity was an excellent example: dark matter and dark energy are clear contemporary examples.
  And actually it is impossible to construct a valid argument that thought does not determine behaviour at least some of the time - because that is a necessary pre-requisite for there to be any valid arguments.
John adds: A deterministic neuroscience, if it were true, would indeed subvert its own conclusions. Thst in itself justifies the strongest suspicion of such claims. For a concice account of my view, see Ch 3 of Science and Theology

---

Speculation in Science: We see so much speculation in science today with models ranging from our world being a creation of an alien civilisation, to the multiverse. Is this the result of us knowing how the universe began and how something came from nothing ( or so it is claimed), as we have reached an epoch in science, is that why all these speculative theories are coming about?  
By the way Nicholas are you a PhD student of Brother John?
Preliminary Response Well we don’t even know what the Dark Matter and Dark Energy are. I think we have so much speculation partly because there has been so little progress. String/M Theory may be “not even wrong” but where is the better idea?
  I was a student of John’s as an undergraduate, but no PhD.
John adds; Together with many scientists of my generation, I deplore the rather recklessly speculative mood that seems present in much contemporary physics.

---

Disputes within the Anglican Church? Was just wondering what your thoughts were on the current disputes within the Anglican Church?
Preliminary Response; I don’t want to get drawn into controversies like this and I suspect John does not either. I am a great admirer of Tom Wright and I think John is as well. God moves in mysterious ways, and wisdom and truth will prevail in the end – with how much pain and grief remains to be seen, but it probably won’t be worse than Athanasius!
John adds: I too do not want to be drawn into this controversy.  Christians are bound to disagree on some matters.  When they do they have to seek both generosity and integrity in dealing with it.

---

Where are our departed loved ones? Your books have helped me enormously on my faith journey as like you I have been blessed with a revelation of  life after death and have often wondered, that if there is a far better life to come, why did`nt God get it right first time round.  The God of Hope helped a lot with that.   But my question now is, when our  loved ones die ( and I am so sorry to read about your wife) where do suppose they  are right now ? do we have to wait until the Day of resurrection or do you think we can talk to them and pray with them now as time isn`t an issue ?? and do you think they know what`s going on here ? and can we be of any help to them, or they to us ??I`m so sorry if it`s too soon for you to address this question but perhaps it`s clearer than ever to you now.
God bless you and thank you for your wonderful ministry.
Preliminary Response: Just as life in the womb is a necessary prelude to independent life on this earth, it seems that life on this earth is a necessary prelude for us to have the loving union with God that He wants.  This seems to be because we can only love if this love is freely given with real freewill, and this is only possible in the kind of universe (with free processes and with God’s presence veiled) that we inhabit.  
  The relationship between God’s view of time and ours is very unclear to us, and probably will always be so.  Perhaps the least misleading way of putting it is that those who die in Christ are with God (“the souls of the righteous [which means those who are right with God, not of course those who do good works!] are in the hand of God”) but we are all looking forward to the glorious Resurrection at the ‘end of time’.  It may well be that our subjective experience will be that we “asleep in Christ” and then we wake up on that great Day.
  It seems to me that we can pray for the dead and to some extent talk to them, though too much might be unhealthy.  We cannot know in what sense, if any, they can see and hear what we do, though we all I think have strong intuitions sometimes that there is some such knowledge.  They can of course inspire us: we can’t help them in any way except through prayer and of course only God knows how and to what extent this “works”.  We do know that He loves our departed loved-ones even more that we do and did – dying sinless in agony on the Cross so that they may have eternal and loving union with Him.
  I hope this helps a bit and will see what John has to add.
John adds: I’m glad you found The God of Hope helpful. For me the key concept for us in relation to the departed is that they are in Christ in a similar, but distinct, way to that in which we are in Christ, and so in Him we have unity and prayerful contact that is real, but hard to specify in detail.

---

The guard on the tomb - fabricated? In  Science and Christian Belief (1994) when you discuss St.Matthew's account of the watch set on the tomb you say (Chapter 6, page 117)  "I consider this to be a patently fabricated tale from a Christian source, concocted precisely to rebut the canard that the disciples had been grave-robbing." I'd be interested in hearing from you your reasons for reaching this conclusion.
Response:  "in view of the known demoralisation of the disciples after Jesus's arrest and the privacy with which he had spoken to them beforehand about his trust in God's vindication, I very much doubt whether the authorities would have been worried enough to set a guard. I may be wrong about this of course, and I would not want to impose my view on others.  I did, however, feel that honesty required me to make this point.  Generally speaking I am persuaded that the gospels are substantially historically reliable."
Nicholas adds: for what little it's worth (not much!) I don't find John's argument very persuasive at this point, and in any case what I think he means is "I consider this likely to be a fabricated tale from a Christian source..."

---

Quantum Computing & Physics Disproving Thank you for your website.  I always feel afraid that physics is on the verge of disproving everything I put my faith in, and yet I'm not very math or science-smart and so can't evaluate it for myself.  Sometimes reading about physics (e.g. Brian Greene's Fabric of the Cosmos, which finally helped me understand quantum physics a little, and I do mean a little) puts me more in awe of God, but it also seems to wear away at my sense of his imminence and personhood.  Anyway, I wanted to know if you could say something about quantum computing--I can't make heads or tails of it. If it works, does it really prove the existence of other worlds, since "calculations" would be performed in those other worlds?  And does it really matter if there are other worlds--I mean, even if only a tiny corner of everything is fine-tuned for man, isn't that still pretty extraordinary (like a womb being fine-tuned for a growing human)? 

Preliminary Response: The experiments on Quantum Computing are very encouraging although engineering practical large-scale quantum computers will be difficult. They depend on perfectly normal Quantum Theory and don't change the philosophical issues at all as far as I can see. If you believe in a 'many worlds' interpretation of Quantum Mechanics then you might say that the calculations are taking place in many worlds, but that is a contentious viewpoint that is not at all required by the physics.  

More generally, physics can't "disprove" theology (or vice versa) the domains are too different. Physics can't even disprove biology. This is not to say that there are different truths, there is only "One World" but in order to begin to study a set of phenomena you have to look at them from an appropriate point of view.
To a non-scientist Science seems like a load of answers but to scientists Science is far more a load of questions with some techniques for trying to address them.  The fact that there is no detailed physical (or biological etc..) explanation for something means only that - it does not mean that the phenomenon in question does not occur.  Superconductivity was observed in 1913 and a reasonable explanation was only found in the 1960s. 
I hope this helps a bit and I'll see what John has to add.

John adds: Quantum computing certainly does not have to take place in 'other worlds'; this-world devices will suffice. For quantum ideas you might want to read my Quantum Theory: A very short introduction.

---

I have just started reading "Exploring Reality" and have some questions right off the bat.
1. Hasn't EPR been recently tested and proven experimentally to be in line with QM predictions rather than Einstein's?
2. Didn't Von Neumann prove (although perhaps flawed) that the "hidden variable" theory was not possible?
3. Didn't Bell's work fail to prove the validity of Bohm's "hidden variable" views?
I am interetsed in JCP's views. My own background is that I have a BSc from Xxx University. I have an MA in Philosophy of Science. While I try to keep up with physics I may have missed the latest developments.
Another last question. My impression is that QM WORKS, and that because of this, many phyicists don't worry about the philosophical implications and just use it.
Preliminary Response  1. Yes I believe all the experiments confirm entaglement.
2,3 No I don't think so, I think Bell showed that these views are  possible - though most physicists reject them.
Yes you are right about most physicists.  But of course that doesn't  make the issues unimportant.  The very cutting edge philosophical work is being done by Jeremy Butterfield (now at Cambridge).  I don't necessarily agree with or fully understand Jeremy's work - but he's certainly a world-class thinker in this area.
John adds: John adds:  John Bell showed the error in Von Neumann's work and his celebrated inequalities enabled experimentalists to show that there is no local realist account of quantum physics.

---

Could you please expand on your comments regarding genetic algorithms and randomness?  Genetic Algorithms use (pseudo) random variation and (artificical analogues of) natural selection to optimise some desirable qualities of a complex object.  Although the means is random the end is definitely not.

---

Most compelling argument for God's existence Thank you so much for your website.  I am teaching some issues in  apologetics in my Sunday School class at church - and your site has  been very useful.  My question is: Bertrand Russell was once asked how he would explain his unbelief if  he died and met God.  Russell said he would reply, "you didn't give enough evidence."  Do you think Russell has a case, or do you believe  God has made the evidence for His existence self-evident?  If God is  self-evident, what do you think are the most compelling self-evident arguments for His existence?
Preliminary response: In a word: Jesus.
To amplify a little (but how inadequately!) - there can be no reasonable doubt that Jesus existed and his enormous effect on human history is pretty well inexplicable on a secular reading of His life.  Reading the accounts in the Gospels we are clearly presented with a real person whose character, at the deepest level, speaks out to us today. Truly this is the Son of God.
John adds: I particularly like your one word response (I did the amplification afterwards)

---

How does God interact? I would like to begin by thanking you for this great website, which was the primary reason for my conversion to evolutionary theism and a much richer understanding of God and interpretations of The Bible.
    I have numerous questions, but really two main concerns with which I can't easily find the answers. The first involves the stories in the OT of people living for hundreds of years. How is this supposed to be taken? Is it just a story? Is it meant to be taken literally? Is it biologically possible? It seems quite specific, but it's possible that I'm missing the point. An athiest will believe The Bible is the fabrication of man, but it certainly seems like a strange thing to make up. It's not a major concern, but any light shed would be helpful.
   My second question is a little less black and white and involves God's use of evolution as a creation method. I understand and accept why he would do this, but I don't understand how. Does God act directly through evolution, or simply conceive the process and allow it to happen? Was God aware that it would culminate in human beings and if so, how would this affect the idea of God and limited Omniscience? Or does limited Omniscience only apply to man after  he became self aware and capable of good/evil?
Of course we'll never know the exact ins and outs of how, but I value your input.
     I appreciate if John is not available to respond and many condolences for the loss of his wife. Any answers you could give however would help greatly.
Preliminary response: It's hard to know what to make of these stories of people living to a great age.  In the past the standard line was I think that these ages were more symbolic than literal.  On the other hand we now have a body of research which claims that ageing is not quite the natural inevitable process that we have been led to believe. But these claims may be marketing hype.  At present it still looks as if the numbers are not to be taken literally, but I guess we are less certain than we once were about what is, or is not, "biologically possible"
    Of course we can never know the details of how God interacts with His creation.  What we do know is that He interacts like a loving father, respecting the autonomy of his children but always working for their ultimate good.  It seems probable that His interventions are minimised as far as possible, and are consistent with the underlying faithful laws of nature that He has ordained (which are of course not identical with the laws that we currently think we have discovered, which are only approximations "through a glass, darkly").  We also know that the Deist picture of a God who winds up the clockwork and then goes away is profoundly non-Christian. It is reasonable to guess that He nudges events from time to time, but probably almost always in such a way that the outcomes, however improbable, are not impossible.  It however seems likely that the Resurrection is a genuine phase change where the laws of the New Creation burst in on the old.  However since we don't know what makes up 97% of the Universe, it is important to be humble and realistic about the limits of our understanding!
    I hope this helps a bit and will see what John has to add.
John adds: I think the vast ages attributed to some ancients were the way in which writers of that time expressed wisdom and significance. In other words, here as sometimes elsewhere biblical numbers are, I believe, symbolic rather than just literal.  On evolution, I bleieve God interacts with the unfolding history of creation but also, because of divine love, allows creatures to be themselves and to 'make themselves'. Of course, sometimes God does something radically new, as in the resurrection of Christ, which is the seed event from which the new creation has begun to grow out of the old creation.

---

Beyond Adam and Eve? Does the Bible offer any explanation about how the human race progressed beyond the sons of Adam and Eve? Who did they in turn marry? Were women were created for them from scratch? How did they procreate, if this is known? Did Adam and Eve have unknown daughters with whom incest occured? If Cain was killed by Abel (or visa/versa), was they progress of the human race left only to one son? You get the idea. Simply, does the bible speak to what happened after Adam and Eve?
Response: It seems pretty clear from the Bible that Adam and Eve were the first truly morally conscious hominids but that there were other males and females around (eg Gen 4:14) from whom Cain's wife and the wives of the descendants of Adam would have come.

---

How many times are we judged to be deemed worthy of admission to heaven? We often believe recently departed individuals are admitted to heaven based on past good lives - or, at least we and their families certainly hope so. Yet we are also encouraged to believe that when Christ returns to earth, He (with perhaps God's help) will determine who gets into heaven. "He will judge the quick and the dead." Does this mean those previously admitted will be judged again for a second admission? Or, does it mean the recently departed are waiting for the second coming to be judged in the future just as anyone else?
Response: We are of course never worthy of eternal life, this is the free gift from God to those who believe and trust in Jesus.  The Biblical picture is not of people "dying and going to heaven" but "dying and being resurrected on the Last Day" God's view of time is not ours

---

If random selection is the driving mechanism of evolution, then how is man special?  Why would G-d endow a being that randomly appeared with religion? Also, if one accepts the thesitic evolutionary account of Haugh, how does one then later account for divine intervention in  man's affair?
Response: as the computer scientists who use genetic algorithms have demonstrated clearly, the use of randomness in an algorithm does not mean that the outcome will be random.

---

Please be clearer Dr. Polkinghorne, before i offer any criticism, please allow me to thank you for your mission and efforts in trying to do something i have wished years for someone to attempt  in an intellectually sound way;  the bringing together of science and religion, and in particular science and christianity. i applaud your efforts, your intelligence and you motives.
   i confess i am am not all that familiar with you or your work, which appears quite vast. i have, in fact only read part of "The God of Hope and the End of the World". The part that I've read, however (only the first third or so, so far) has inspired this response (which i hope makes it's way to your eyes). First, as I said already, thank you. You express thoughts I have had in some form or another for years. I am not a writer, nor a particularly credible source to be writing such things, but I think and see as much as the next person. But two things strike me so far. The first is the density of your writing. This may just be a matter of taste but I believe your style is over-wrought and difficult to follow. It is true that complicated ideas sometimes require complicated language. In this case, however, I believe many of your ideas could be expressed much more simply resulting in a wider accessibility to your ideas by the general public. As a parallel to this, I believe the overly intellectual tone of your writing, while perhaps appealing to the more scientifically minded reader (but not necessarily so - it is a stereotypical thought to believe so) does not do justice to the holistic nature of the God you describe; one who is not only the creator of the universe of galaxies and quarks, but of love as well. Your writing lacks a human touch. I am so sorry to be so blunt, but it is only because I care.
   The other point I would like to make may be a little harder for me to articulate. I'll try. When you talk about systems, you seem surprised at patterns that appear seemingly magically out of your perceived probability of randomness. I dispute that this is remarkable. It is only systems that are not well understood (yet) that seem to produce magical results. A computer would likely seem nothing less than divine to my ancestors, for example. In my own mind, we do not need to search far for what is truly magical - there is the one fact that everyone seems to sidestep - perhaps because there is no clear answer, nothing really to say about it except "yes". The fact that we are all here, the things you describe, this text on the screen the air you are breathing the chemical reactions in your brain as you read this, my mother, your desk... they exist. That is all. It cannot be explained. Everything else, all arguments pointing to something mysterious, something not yet discovered, something science has overlooked or cannot explain may well be explained one day. Your books, and all books on the topic may be regarded as quaint and naive one day. But there will be no answer to the WHY, only to all the billions of HOWs. Science studies how God works.  I would like to reiterate my admiration for your efforts in communicating that to people. However, just as my own thought to you, I wanted to say that in the end, I'm not sure it matters much. As much as I myself give much thought to such things, it will all ultimately come down to a faith of some sort, a faith that won't be won through argument I'm afraid. Only through grace, whatever that may be. One day we might know how God works, we learn more everyday, but I don't know that we can learn on our own - ever - why.
    That's all. I hope you receive my thoughts in the kindest manner.
Preliminary Response Thank you for this.  It is fair to say that God of Hope was written for academics at Princeton and many of John's other books are more accessible.  Also the particular field in which he works - the interaction of Science and Religion - probably needs to be written in a way that will appeal to scientists who are not, sadly, big on references to love in their academic discourse!
   John agrees that the fact that we and anything else exists is in itself remarkable, but in addition it turns out that, if the known laws of physics or their constants were even slightly different no form of life could exist anywhere in the universe, which was quite unexpected and is also remarkable.  Furthermore the ways in which deep order arises apparently spontaneously from chaotic systems is also very surprising - it is becoming understood  a bit better and the idea that John suggests that 'active information' is a causal principle seems to have increasing merit.
John adds: "I write concisely partly becasue that's how scientists write. I try to be accessible but I have to give enough detail to support the intellectual respectability of what I say. Try Quarks, Chaos and Christianity (SPCK) - quite a chatty book"

---

Atheist's objections I counter some of your ideas as written on your website concerning the CH4 documentary by Richard Dorking. (sic.)
You say... "By far the biggest examples of intolerance, violence and destruction in human history are those wrought by the militant atheism, underpinned by bogus science, of the type that Dawkins espouses. Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot."
   You seems to have invented a new movement called "millitant atheism" to make his point. Yet, Mao, Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot have little in common, except they were murderous dictators. If you are suggesting that their horrific activities were somehow inspired about by their lack of belief in a God, why not suggest they were also motivated by all the other things they didn't believe in, like Father Christmas or faries?
By that logic, if only Hitler had believed in faries, there would have been no Holocaust. Absurd.
   You seem to be suggesting that atheism is some kind of idealogical belief which would inspire people to act in its name. In fact, it is merely not    believing something.
   Mao, Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot were inspired people to crueltly by inspiring belief not lack of belief. In Hitler's case, his belief was that the Germanic peoples belonged to a race which was superior to other races. He also saw himself as the God-figure of his people, leading them to glory and mastery of the planet.
   You ask... "Does he [Stephen Weinberg] think all the Nazis who rounded up his relatives in concentration camps were religious?"
Nazism was a religious-like ideology, based on a fantasy the Nazis wanted to believe about themselves, just like Christians and Christianity. They may not have believed in a God in exactly the way Christians do, but they certainly viewed Hitler as a mythical, God-like figure-head of their ideology.
   You claim... "Atheism turns people into animals, and the results are clear from the rivers of blood of the 20th Century."
What a sweeping statement, backed up by no evidence whatsoever. As I said, atheism is a lack of belief in a God or afterlife. I doubt you'll find many historians (if any) who will place the blame for either world war on a lack of belief. Those conflicts were created by complicated political and idealogical reasons, which you might learn by picking up a history book. Also, are you suggesting the First World War was conducted by atheists? This is clearly flase. Britain, France, Russia, Austria and Germany were at that time Christian states, yet they led their people into one of the most inhumane, sickening, brutal and bloody conflicts of all time.
   I am an atheist. I am also a pacifist. My family are all atheists. But there are no "rivers of blood" at my house. We love and care for each other deeply. Your claims that non-believers are animals would be insulting if your ideas weren't so flimsy.
   Care to comment?
Preliminary Response   Firstly, at an empirical level, these 4 regimes must represent a good 85% of the atheist regimes (weighted by number of citizens) in recorded history (the atheist phase of the French Revolution may well account for another 2-3% which was about as bloodthirsty).  Atheist regimes are actually quite rare, representing say 20% of the regimes (weighted by citizens) in recorded history. The only theist regime I can think of which practised/allowed mass murder of its citizens on a comparable relative scale was in Rwanda (representing say 0.1% of regimes).  So at an empirical level, the association between atheist regimes and mass murder is very strong - far worse than smoking and cancer.  Of course your argument about Father Christmas is bogus, because no regime, whether atheist or not, has been led by people who believe in Father Christmas.
   But what is the mechanism?  Well Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot all claimed to be Marxists and Marxism  "the science of history" was the essential underpinning ideology that allowed them to perpetrate their massive crimes.  The essence of Marxism is dialectical materialism and a denial of the existence of God - indeed Marxism was specifically developed as an anti-Christian philosophy.  Hitler's Nazi-ism was admittedly far more confused than Marxism, a sort of anti-Marxism  which was based on the popularised Darwinism of Haekel (the Dawkins of his day) and picked up the widely-held German view that "survival of the fittest" was a scientific and moral principle (and that, of course, the Germans were the fittest!).  But more fundamentally, if you don't believe in God it is very hard to believe in a morality that will constrain you when you have an enormous amount of power.  Christian leaders, however powerful, know that they are "under God" and that they do not have ultimate power, but are themselves under judgement.  Atheists, manifestly, do not.  An absence of constraints on the abuse of power leads, understandably, to an abuse of power.
   Incidentally, these 'darwinian' views were very common in German intellectual an military circles in the early 1900s, and very widely held by the German General Staff.  It was this that shocked  Vernon Kellogg, a Stanford professor who was posted to the headquarters of the German general staff During the period of American neutrality in World War I and was shocked to find German military leaders, sometimes with the Kaiser present, supporting the war with an "evolutionary rationale." They did so with "a particularly crude form of natural selection, defined as inexorable, bloody battle." - his subsequent book Headquarters Nights helped bring the US into the war.
   I obviously don't suggest that all atheists are immoral - many smokers do not die of cancer.  But atheism and power is an exceptionally dangerous mixture.
   I'm glad to learn that you don't consider humans to be animals - most atheists do.  And that view does lead to the rivers of blood of the 20th C - not in all cases but in enough to cause massive concern, and over 100M deaths.
John adds: Of course there are ethical atheists.  I certainly respect them and wish to work with them where it's appropriate.  However false ideologies do not only correspond to erroneous beliefs.  They can also lead to terrible actions. The Church has not been free from this kind of error (crusades, inquisition), but the twentieth century atheist regimes are truly frightful examples. I would not express myself quite as uninhibitedly as Nicholas does, but the point remains one that has to be taken into honest consideration.

---

Evolutionary Just-so Stories I have been looking through the science sections of a few major book stores with the hope of finding some actual science. Instead I find a multitude of books on Darwin and the scientific explanation of religion and why we believe. I had to look at the sign above the section to see if I accidentally wandered into the philosophy section instead. I was looking through a few books on the evolution of religion and basically they say that we are religious because of our genes and evolution. Religion helped us survive (helped us not be nervous in certain situations and made us stay away from dangerous places). Basically we believe religion because the molecules in our head tell us to...but only if we have the genes to code for them of course. What about this idea that science can explain religion through genetics/evolution (which means that god and morals evolved to serve our survival puropses)? It seems like they are using the idea that there is no god to figure out what questions to ask and what arguments to use...but how does that work exactly? Can the assumptions you use to base an argument or hypothesis on be used as the conclusion? Can you use arguments that assume that God doesn't exist to show that God doesn't exist? An example would be God doesn't exist so therefore the only explanation we have for religion is that religion evolved because it has some kind of survival value. Therefore since religion evolved (and we made up God) for our survival, that means that God doesn't exist. Is this logical? My final question is how much of this is really science and how much is really a personal philosophy that has made its way into science? What are the arguments against the idea that God is a creation of evolution?
Thanks for your website and your great work!
Preliminary Response Thank you for your question.
There are two problems with these kind of evolutionary "explanations"

1. They tend to be 'just so stories'.  If something happens biologically then it must, by defintion, have some survival value, so you can say it happend because of the survival value.  But if the opposite happens, you just say the opposite had survival value too. Historically atheists have claimed that religion was bad for you, but now in order to explain it they have to say it is good for you!
2. They obviously don't "explain away" something like religion.  This is most obviously true because the very belief in evolutionary explanations must by hypothesis have a survival value, so if evolutionary "explanations" of beliefs rendered them invalid then by that "argument" the belief in evolutionary explanations must itself be invalid.

Now when you are comparing worldviews (such as Christianity vs Evolutionary Naturalism - henceforth C vs EN) you can't usually make deductions between them, but what you can do is take some observed features of the world and ask how likely each is under C or EN.  Some facts about the world (such as anthropic fine-tuning) are very awkward for EN, and others, such as the levels of evil and suffering, are awkward for C. A fact that is mildly awkward for EN is widespread religious belief and it has to be explained in the way you suggest, but this is not proof of EN merely proof that EN is not, in this respect, inconsistent.  My own view is that the evidence for C is "almost overwhelming" in the sense that it is not irrational to deny C and hold EN, just as it is not irrational to believe that a coin which alternates strictly between Heads and Tales for several hundred tosses is 'random' - it's logically possible just very unilkely.  And indeed since it is an essential feature of C that God leaves us with a choice on whether to believe in Him or not, that is exactly what we would expect.
   I think one really serious challenge for EN is that there is a lot of evidence that C has biological survival value compared to EN, and it is very hard to see how human minds, which according to EN are purely the product of evolution and therefore cannot have faculties unless these faculties confer selective advantage, can have the faculty to disbelieve something which gives selective advantage to believe (call this "Disadvantageous Disbelief" or DD). It is hard to see how DD can have survival value, yet this is what holders of EN claim to have in rejecting C.
  Deep waters - I hope this helps.
John adds: There may be evolutionary and social factors that have contributed to the immense success of modern science, but the principal reason is that it has achieved contact with the reality of the physical world. I think that a similar kind of possibility must be accorded to religion: that it arises from actual contact with the sacred reality of God.  What's sauce for the scientific goose should be sauce for the religious gander.

---

Atheists and Hell Sorry to bother you again. I have a two part question that is rather vexing for me. The first one has to do with The Garden of Eden and The Fall. Atheists often argue that we fell due to God's alleged incompetence/irresponsibility. For example, I saw this on a message board earlier:
"The idea that a god could send one of his children to hell for not believing in him certainly places anger in the lap of the religious folks who buy into such a doctrine, IMO. As I've stated numerous times before, I find the belief that a god would place a burden of sin on the entrie population because two people in a garden were fooled by an entity who was created by said god with the intention of fooling those people simply ludicrous. Keep Snake Boy out of the garden, and don't let him fool those simple-minded folks in the first place, and you have no problem, and no 'sin' that you need to place on the rest of the kids from there on out. How come I can figure out such an easy plan, but the god of the Bible can't? While we're at it, don't put that tree in there with them, either. If I had something that I didn't want my kids touching, I wouldn't lock it in the room my kids are staying in, and then put a trickster in there to talk them into playing with it. It's called parenting skills, something I think this god is lacking."
   To be honest, I don't know how to answer this. I mean, I know this is not what went on - like yourselves I don't take the creation story in Genesis as being meant to be more of an "abridged" narrative of early human history rather than a literal account so a lot of this stuff is symbolism (but this is getting irrelevant) - but I don't really know how to word it. It seems as if this atheist would have a point (God forgive me) but...I don't know could you please help me?
   The second part of my question has to do with Hell. Most atheists have the "frying pan torture chamber" image of Hell which is easily dispelled so I don't really need help there. Basically, it's the equally common charge that it's unfair for God to send people to Hell just because they find belief in Him to be illogical/irrational/intellectually deficient in some way and are, thus, unable to do so. Part of the response to the "injustice of Hell" argument is what C.S. Lewis formulated in The Problem of Pain and The Great Divorce, mainly that God doesn't "send" anyone to Hell. People send themselves there, as the Catholic philosopher Peter Kreeft says, the theme-song of Hell is the Frank Sinatra song "I Did It My Way." I really believe that, and this seems to be the biblical answer as well. The problem is, you really can't say this to an atheist and come away unscathed (perhaps in some cases quite literally). They will become quite irrate and rant about ad hominems, genetic fallacies, etc. and say atheists can't reject Someone they don't believe in in the first place. At which time they'll proceed to call you their favorite new curse words "judgmental fundamentalist" because you accuse them of knowing God exists but rejecting Him anyway. Something I think is entirely true but...again could you help me out in formulating some kind of response to their "can't reject Someone you don't believe in in the first place" rebuttal?
Preliminary Response Well this 'Eden' business is a ludicrous misrepresentation, as you know.  The snake is symbolic - of the deep reality that if people have freewill then they can choose between good and evil, and will in fact choose evil.  If God did not allow us freewill, we would be incapable of love.  Parents precisely allow children to grow and make mistakes so that they can learn.
As for the Hell business, it seems to me that this is one thing Atheists and Christians could agree on. Ask an Atheist whether (s)he believes that (s)he will live eternally in perfect loving union with God, Father Son and Holy Spirit (which is what is meant by Eternal Life) and (s)he will presumably say no.  So what are they complaining about :-).  Hell is simply the opposite of Eternal Life. We do not have a right to Eternal Life, it is a gift from God only available to those who want to and are able to receive it.  To those who do not, it would indeed be torment. Love is the positive, non-Love/rejection is the negative. If Atheists cannot love, then they have 'rejected' by default, it is not an act but a non-act
Does this help at all?
Supplementary Question I worded some of my comments wrong in my initial message looking back on it. I meant to say, "Like yourselves I'm a theistic evolutionist so I don't take Genesis literally, I classify it as a 'myth' (though not in the popular sense of that word)..." Anyway, onto the main point.
   I know this person was putting the worst possible spin on the Genesis story (no surprises when dealing with internet atheists) and your comments were very helpful. It's just that, I'm something of a "new convert" to theistic evolution and I'm trying to develope a complete and satisfying interpretation of Genesis in light of evolution. This is something that has proven to be more difficult than I originally thought it would be. Does evolution render things like Eden and the Fall as unhistorical? I know this has to do with the original question I asked you but this is somewhat different. One of Christianity's central tenets is that we are fallen and marred creatures in need of redemption (of course you know this) so how do we maintain this doctrine in light of this "allegorical" interpretation of Genesis?
   Regarding the Hell bit. I see what you're saying. It's just that, whenever the question of Hell comes up in atheist-Christian debate/argument, the dialogue goes something like this:
ATHEIST: Hell is unjust because of...XYZ.
CHRISTIAN: A. Hell is not literally fire & worms, etc. B. People only end up in Hell because they'd rather be their own gods rather than repent, accept God's forgiveness, and follow His will. In other words, they choose it.
ATHEIST: That's ridiculous, atheists dont reject God they just don't think He exists! You make it seem like atheists really know God exists but reject Him because they'd rather party their whole life and spend eternity in Hell!
CHRISTIAN: ?
    I'm just trying to figure out what a good response to that last atheist objection would be. Since, in the case of anti-Christian atheists, that is the truth (as you know)! The problem is we can't really say this without incurring the atheist's scorn and allowing him to dismiss you as "fanatical" and ending the dialogue. Does that help clarify where I'm coming from?
Preliminary Response to Supplementary  I think the honest answer is that almost all atheists, at least in the US and the UK, are atheists because they actively choose to reject  the almost overwhelming evidence for God and Christ.  If we just take four main lines of argument:
a. The existence of the Universe
b. Anthropic fine-tuning
c. The existence of objective morality
d. The life and witness of Christ and His Resurrection
   In each case choosing to disbelieve them is an act of will and faith, whereby the atheist chooses not to believe a hypothesis which explains all the facts well, merely hoping that there might be another explanation or saying that there is none - which is manifestly not the case, but the atheist just chooses not to accept it. (Some atheists try to deny (c) but this leads them into a major intellectual and moral mess.)  So the truth is that the atheists you are talking to have indeed deliberately rejected God.
   Whether it is always wise to say this pastorally is another matter.
   Tempted to make up a parable of a man whose long-lost great uncle Sam leaves him $1M in his will, but the man refuses to believe in the great uncle, whom he has never met (family could have been deceiving him, documents could be forged, attorney could be bogus, everyone knows that Uncle Sam is a figure of speech) and therefore refuses to go to the Attorney's office to sign for the gift, and it is given to others.  Hardly unfair I think.
John adds: In creation God holds in being a word in which the divine love has given to creatures the freedom to be themselves. The Adam and Eve story is a powerful myth {John, like you, is not using 'myth' in the popular meaning of the word as meaning 'untrue story'} expressing the insight that humanity has abused the gift by turning away from the Creator who is the one true ground of all human flourishing.  The tragedy of Hell is that its inhabitants have chosen to be there - the gates are locked on the inside to keep God out, rather than on the outside to keep them in.

---

More about fine tuning I have an urgent question from myself and a friend after reading John's book "beyond science"
Many say that the universe is finely tuned, it is based upon precise constants, such that if it was to change by a "certain amount" then the universe won't exist, but some argue that this is subjective, they say that this is proof that the universe is based upon random constants, this is because it is NOT the case that the if the universe changes by "ANY" amount that the universe will not exist, only by a certain amount, but again, not any change,
Hence they say that this is a sign to say that the universe was an accident, in your book "beyond science" you do detail how there are lesser constants then the cosmological one, whereby if it was to change by a certain amount things would not exist but again, not any amount.
Am I right in thinking that it may be the case that you scientists will find the universe more precisely tuned then previously thought of ? such that if the constants where changed by any amount the universe with life would not exist?
It seems as though the universe is not finely tuned according to those arguments. I'm really shocked by this recent thought,
Preliminary Response Sorry it has taken ages to respond to this - I was away and then very busy.
Like all the arguments for the existence of God (and indeed most arguments for the existence of anything) the Fine Tuning Argument is persuasive rather than analytic - in other words it is not impossible that life and the universe is some unexplained accident, it just seems very improbable.
No-one knows the correct theory of quantum gravity (many people think that some version of 'Brane' theory, which is a generalisation of string theory, may do the trick but no-one knows) but on the basis of what is currently understood there are a number of apparently fundamental constants (such as the amount of matter/energy in the universe, the ratio of the mass of the electron to the mass of the proton etc.. - Prof Martin Rees's book about this is called 'Just Six Numbers') which as far as anyone knows could in principle take almost any value except that if the values were even slightly different from what they are at present, there are strong reasons to believe that intelligent life could not exist in the universe (ie be 'Anthropic')
There are essentially only four possibilities:

1. This Fine Tuning is highly unlikely in a random possible universe, but God has ensured in His loving wisdom that it is so, so that we can come into being.
2. This Fine Tuning is highly unlikely in a random possible universe, but luckily the one that exists is Anthropic
3. This Fine Tuning is highly unlikely in a random possible universe, but there are such a vast number of other Universes that it is not unlikely that at least one of them is Anthropic.
4. There are as yet undiscovered reasons why this Fine Tuning is not highly unlikely in a random possible universe.

   It's fair to say that pretty well all atheists with a scientific background who have seriously considered the matter are driven to (3), explicitly to avoid (1) and with very little other scientific motivation. (2) is just too much of a cop-out and even if the laws of physics turn out to have different fundamental constants it seems very likely to most people that the same kind of anthropic fine-tuning will apply.  If the string/brane theorists are on the right lines, and we are in a 12-or-more-dimensional space-time and not a 4-dimensional one, the chances are that there will be extra constants that are mysteriously fine-tuned, not fewer.
John adds: Fine-tuning is an undisputed scientific fact of our universe (The most exact number relates to the cosmological constant - a kind of anti-gravity - which is, and has to be, less than 10^-120 of what would otherwise be its expected value)  I think Nicholas's four points put clearly and accurately what are the possible metascientific responses to these remarkable facts.

---

Problems from a Libertarian Atheist  An atheist on a discussion board I sometimes frequent posted a 'Challenge to Christian Apologists' and I'm wondering if you can help me refute this guy's argument. It's not all that long and it's available here.

---

Dawkins' Channel 4 Programmes  I recently watched two by one-hour programmes on BBC TV entitled "The Root of All Evil" by Richard Dorking which I found very interesting.   Not being a well educated man myself I would have liked very much to hear someone like JCP giving his views on these programmes and perhaps having a similar programme himself where we could hear his side of the argument.  I have downloaded a ten page document from the web site of Dr. Victor Zammit (never heard of him before) that is highly critical of Dr. Dorking's views but I have known of Dr. Blenkinghorne for many years now and indeed have read some of his books.   I would therefore welcome his views on Richard Dorking and his TV programme.  {signed by X X "an octogenerian"  I have not changed what he sent although of course it was a Channel 4, Dawkins, Polkinghorne.  Someone born before 1925 using the Internet to such good effect is to be admired}
Preliminary Response: Thank you for your email.  You might want to put this to Channel 4 
   I didn't see Dawkins's programme but we are familiar with his views.  The fact is that although most scientists don't believe in God at present a significant minority do and almost all scientist accept that science alone cannot settle the question.  There are only about 3 media scientists, none of the first rank, who peddle the "Science proves atheism" view, of which Dawkins is the most prominent. Going by the summary

1. He says that "Science... must continuously test its own concepts and claims. Faith, by definition, defies evidence: it is untested and unshakeable, and is therefore in direct contradiction with science."  But, as Prof McGrath has pointed out in his brilliant demolition of Dawkin's 3rd rate philosophy Dawkins' God, the 'definition' of Faith that Dawkins uses is one which no mainstream Christian theologian holds.  If Dawkins were a scientist he would test his claim that "Faith, by definition, defies evidence"  He does not - his is wrong, and actually deliberately misleads since he knows from McGrath book that he is wrong.
2. He says "religions preach morality, peace and hope, in fact... they bring intolerance, violence and destruction"  By far the biggest examples of intolerance, violence and destruction in human history are those wrought by the militant atheism, underpinned by bogus science, of the type that Dawkins espouses. Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot.  Religions might not bring perfection, but Atheisms have 100 times worse track record.  Interesting that when Dawkins wants to smear christians he says that he feels that a Christian gathering resembles a Nurenberg rally ... ie evolutionary atheism!
3. The Lourdes thing is grossly misleading!  There have been 'only' 33 certifiably miraculous cures that have no medical or scientific explanation. But millions feel better and indeed the evidence that religious faith improves health, enhances lifespan and reproductive success (ie more grandchildren) is overwhelming and incontrovertable.
4. Dawkins says region is 'poisonous' but scientifically it is good for people's survival.  This poses a serious philosophical problem for Dawkins who claims that all our mental faculties are the result of evolution.  He says it is a 'virus' but gives no evidence, only selective anecdotes, that it is harmful. He seems to think that Judaism is a particularly bad virus - a view which is intellectual ancestors in Germany and Russia shared, and acted upon! And if there are movies in the US which 'demonise' abortion and homosexuality there are many many more that enthusiastically promote such practices. Are these 'viruses' too?
5. How an otherwise intellgent man like Stephen Weinberg can say that without religion, 'you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion.' is beyond me.  Does he think all the Nazis who rounded up his relatives in concentration camps were religious??
6. "kindness and generosity are innate in human beings, as they are in other social animals."  True, so are the capacities for murder, rape, and extreme cruelty. Look at the way chimanzees behave, killing eachother and each others babies.  Religion, especially Christianity, provides a basis for millions to live and work together in love, forgiveness, honesty and cooperation.  Atheism turns people into animals, and the results are clear from the rivers of blood of the 20th Century.

---

Stenger's missionary atheism In researching for a book I am writing (from a Christian viewpoint) of certain esoteric practices, I have noted a worrying increase in activity from zealous “missionary” atheists of eminent scientific standing. Among their ranks is physicist and astronomer Professor Victor J. Stenger. http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/ ...who has a number of forthcoming publications:
- The Comprehensible Cosmos (forthcoming July 2006)
- God: The Failed Hypothesis (forthcoming 2007)
  I am not a scientist, though I have read a great deal ...including most of John Polkinghorne’s books about the interface of science and religion.  As a ‘partially informed’ non-scientist it seems to me though that the conclusions postulated by Prof. Stenger (in advance of publication) do not follow from the offered scientific arguments. His general standing will no doubt, though, carry weight.
  Amongst other things, Prof. Stenger seems to discount entirely the philosophical rationale for belief offered by Prof. Richard Swinburne (whom he quotes) and takes a very particularist view of certain aspects of science. He even shoots at his erstwhile co-conspirator Antony Flew for modifying (albeit weakly) his viewpoints about the existence of a creator.
  I appreciate that Professor Polkinghorne cannot take upon himself the weight of all arguments for God-centred science - but his standing is such to offer a better chance than others ...who could only counter with unhelpful yah-boo arguments likely to polarise opinion - as with (e.g.) opponents of Richard Dawkins. Shouting from the extremities of opinion with inadequately supported arguments cannot help either God or humanity.
  I beg, please pass this to John Polkinghorne or in default anyone else able to offer rational scientific weight to counter any mis-information.
Preliminary Response  Thanks for your email. I've glanced at Prof Stenger's presentation which summarises his book and I must say it looks pitiful.  For example he says, correctly, that "if God exists he should be the source of our morals and values".  He then claims that:

• "These principles should be original and clearly not of natural origin"  There is no reason at all why this should be so - all mainstream Christian thinkers I know would hold that God has been guiding people towards Him through their consciences since the dawn of history.
• "Believers should be observed to live by these principles and not decide right and wrong for themselves"  He then interprets the former to mean that all believers should invariably live by these principles. Well that might be nice, but it is certainly the opposite of Christian doctrine on this point, and there is no reason to suppose that it should be true. Of course in general the worst crimes against humanity have been committed by Atheists, who have no solid basis for their morality, contrary to his statement that "atheists are just as moral as believers" - well some may be but on aggregate not. And as for taking obsolete commandments from the OT, Chistianity has never held that these are binding on Christians.  So his 'argument' might apply to certain extreme Jewish sects - I don't know - but it certainly not a refutation of any mainstream Christianity I know.

   His idea that mystical or religious experiences should lead to empirically testable knowledge is again rather laughable.  That is not what religious revelations are about - and no-one claims they are. There are excellent reasons to do with freewill why God does not do this.
  He also has a big non-argument that "If humanity is so special, why so much wasted matter in the universe"?  Since it takes about 12bn yrs for humanity to evolve the Universe has to be c12bn light years in size, and to achieve the critical densities that are necessary you need about the matter that we have. He completely fails to engage with the anthropic fine tuning that even impresses atheist astronomers like Martin Rees - most cosmologists accept that the only reasonable alternative to Anthropic Fine Tuning is a vast plethora of multiverses: he seems to be stuck badly in the past and unwilling to engage with the facts.
   He then suggests that the Bible makes scientific claims like "the earth is flat".  (Well, Ps 93v2 says in the Prayer Book "He has made the round world, so sure that it cannot be moved" - but sadly this seems to be a mistranslation, and modern translations don't say "round"!)  The fact is that the Bible is not a scientific treatise, and it says nothing about whether the world is flat or round.  In OT times people probably assumed it was flat, by NT times it was known to be round. (Erastothenes (276-194 BC) famously made a reasonable estimate of its circumference.)
   His assertion that there is no evidence for the life and death of Jesus is absurd, and to say that "physical and historical evidence" "rules it out" is again pitiful.  I'm not an expert on the 1st Temple but I very much doubt his assertions about this: as for archeological evidence of Exodus this is a moot point, but the fact is that Archeology can rarely prove a negative - the fact that you can't find something doesn't mean it doesn't exist!
   Again his "argument" "Evil exists, therefore God does not exist" is pitiful.  Thedoicy is non-trivial but he needs at least to engage with it.  No mainstream religion has ever claimed that Evil does not exist.
   Finally the idea that the laws of nature arose from nothing is plain silly - only by a gross abuse of language can a "quantum fluctuation" be considered nothing - and it can only exist because of pre-existing physical laws!
   The fact is that there are philosophical difficulies for both Christian theism and Atheism, it is a balance of probablities and anyone who can say that it is proven beyond reasonable doubt is simply ignorant or deceitful.
   Hope this helps a bit.
John adds I do not know of Stenger's writings, but it seems to me that he makes a naive account of religion into a straw man to be demolished by appeal to (actually limited) scientific authority.  Serious atheists must have the honesty to engage with the serious arguments of religious believers.  As Nick says, the assertion that there is no evidence for the life and death of Jesus is just ridiculous.

---

The Bible & Divine Intervention I agree with John Polkinghorne about the nature of the creation stories in Genesis: surely, these narratives disclose foundational truths in the manner of, say, poetry, or song. My question, however, concerns the dividing line biblical apologists draw between the first eleven chapters of Genesis and the supposedly historical accounts from Abraham onwards, including the Gospel traditions regarding Jesus. Many of the Biblical stories are replete with delightful puns and allusions, yet they are embedded in texts that purport to be chronicles of Israel’s history. Or they have the character of folk-tales – I am thinking specifically of the episode that occurs in the opening chapter of 2Kings, in which God twice dispatches the enemies of the prophet Elijah with heaven-sent fires (it makes me think of the ‘third time lucky’ motif one finds in so many fairytales). If we do not have to take this story literally, why should we attach any more credence to Elijah’s appearance in the stories of Jesus’ Transfiguration? Again, if we convert the Transfiguration into some kind of elaborate metaphor, why should we not feel compelled to do the same to the Resurrection? Where, in relation to the Bible, does story end and history begin, and how can we tell the difference? Christian theology might demand that God intervene in history but that’s not the same thing as saying that He did.
Preliminary Response It's not as simple as this. You have to ask, of each part of the Bible, what kind of writing this is and what is God trying to tell us through it. This is not a matter of 'poetry' vs 'literal truth': we use notational conventions in science as well, for example, when I write f=ma I don't mean to imply that the word "fry" means the same as the word "mary", and talk about the 'big bang' does not imply cymbals and sound waves!
  We cannot dismiss the first 11 Chapters of Genesis as myths even though many of the exact details are not the point, as is clear from the fact that there are two creation stories in Genesis which differ as to the details - God is saying "don't be hung up on the details, these are not important, understand what I am trying to tell you about the fundamental truths about the relationships between God, Humanity and Creation" This incidentially is why Darwin's theories were never rejected by the mainstream churches on theolgical grounds - indeed he was buired in Westminster Abbey and the Archbishops of Canterbury and York were on the committee for his funeral memorial.
  Equally Kings and Chronicles present somewhat different perspectives on the events they cover, and although they represent remarkable historiography for their time, we need to read the scriptures in the light of Christ. I suppose it is not inconceivable scientifically that something happened to the first 2 companies but theologically it seems mightily implausible. And these books were written hundreds of years after the events they describe.
  However, when we come to the Gospels we are dealing with serious attempts by eye-witnesses or people with direct access to them to tell the truth as it happened. The idea of the Resurrection as an elaborate metaphor, for example, arose in the 19th Century with people like Hegel and Strauss. But it's a nonsense: Jesus died and yet the tomb was empty (otherwise the Jewish and Roman authorities could have produced the body and nailed all this subversive talk of resurrection stone dead). So perhaps the disciples stole the body and fabricated the resurrection stories? Why would anyone give their lives for something they knew to be a lie?
  It's not just Christian theology that implies that God can, and does, intervene in history. If God, a Loving Ultimate Creator, exists at all then He must interact with the creatures He loves from time to time. Of course, if you assume a-priori that God does not exist, then it follows that God does not intervene in history - but there are very serious difficulties for Atheism as a world-view which is why it has always been rather marginal and seems to be decining heavily after its brief and disasterous flowering in the 20th Century led to the worst regimes and human disasters in the whole of recorded history.
John adds: The Bible is not a book but a library, with many different kinds of writing, interweaving story and history.  Myth is a word easily misunderstood. It does not mean a fairy story, but truth so deep that only story can convey it.  See my  Science and the Trinity Ch 2 for more on scripture.

---

Genetic Determinism and Evolution I have no problem accepting evolution as an explanation of how we as creatures came to be (i.e. how we 'got our bodies') but if you accept that, do things like genetic determinism necessarily follow? What do you make of the Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson who writes:  Preliminary Response: No, 'genetic determinism' is a nonsense.  Even Dawkins accepts that genes only act statistically - ie they don't "program" you in any real sense.   It's worth remembering that evolution is like gravity - it's a pervasive organising principle but not the whole story.
   Wilson is entitled to his opinion, but to the extent that "purpose" is meant in a metaphysical, philosophical, or theological sense he is making a statement which is not susceptible to scientific investigation, and is beyond his competence.  As for his predictions of the triumph of scientific materialism, people have been saying such things since at least the 1790s.  But over 200 years of experience of secuar triumphalism shows is:

1. Secular triumphalist regimes have been the biggest disasters and mass-murderers is history (Mao, Stalin, Hitler etc.. Hitler's was built on scientific evolutionary notions taken directly from Wilson & Dawkin's predecessors Spencer and Haeckel - disowned by Darwin himself)
2. The demise of religion never seems to happen.  Even in the UK, which has a very secular culture in the commentariat, 72% of people in the Census said they were Christian.
3. In biological and evolutionary terms, religion (esp. Christianity) is good for you.  Compared with secularists, Christians are happier, healthier and have more grandchildren. All over the world, secular societies are committing demographic suicide. 

So Wilson is peddling his wishful thinking, unsupported by any real evidence - indeed the evidence seems to point the other way.
John adds: The distinct personalities of identical twins show that absolute gentic determinism is untrue. The intricate structure of the individual brain is not completely genetically specified, but develops in response to experience.

---

 LISA Satellite and Multiverses The LISA satellite will be sent into space.  It is said that it will either prove or disprove the multiverse theory, the satallite will even take pictures of the creation event?! ( or its claimed)....as I heard from a documentary by michio kaku
   1. Even IF we do get some indication from that satellite that other universes exist, OR something outside "our" universe exists, that it will still bring us no closer to knowing what that universe is like i.e wether those universes contain life like ours, or wether those universes have different laws, or wether there is a finite amount or infinite amount of those universes etc?
   2. Could it be that the multiverse is genuinely untestable? I ask this because michio kaku says that the creation event will be seen
Preliminary Response First of all, don't forget that LISA is only in concept phase, and that launch is slated for 2014. So it's premature to say much with confidence about the results of the LISA experiment at this stage!
   IF our current understanding of gravity is approximately correct then LISA ought to be able to detect rather strong gravitational waves such as those from (the hypothesised) Massive Black Holes as well as some of the binary star systems.  LISA should also give us more insights into the mysterious 'Dark Matter' and 'Dark Energy' that are thought to make up over 90% of the observable universe.  However LISA will still fall short (by many orders of magnitude) of detecting the so-called "holy grail'" of cosmology, the stochastic background of gravitational waves produced during the hypothesised inflation of the early universe.
   Some of the multiverse theories offer testable predictions about the distribution of matter and gravity in this universe, and the LISA observations might therefore 'falsify' some of these and strengthen others.  But people who want to believe in multiverses will probably be able to tweak their models to be consistent with almost any set of observations - and it is also pretty certain that anyone who wants to believe in 'Fine Tuning' will be able to fine-tune their models accordingly.  As far as I can see, the basic problem in cosmology is that theories are at present very much under-determined by observation: cosmologists are notoriously 'often in error but seldom in doubt'.
   Given any particular multiverse theory we can, of course, say something about the other universes that would exist under this theory, since by definition they will also be obeying the (hypothesised) 'laws of physics'  But anything we say will have to be treated with caution, since we cannot know whether these laws are correct or merely useful  approximations (like Newton's Laws)
   Kaku - like many cosmologists, is very excited about M-Theory which is an 11 (or 12) dimensional generalisation of string theory.  The string theory community has been 'on the verge of a breakthrough' for about 20 years but, although I don't understand the details at all, it all feels rather contrived. All that can be said with certainty is that it might lead to a better physical theory, it might not, and until the dust settles any philosophical conclusions based on it are highly speculative.  Hype to sell books and get grants may be pragmatically useful, but it isn't real science - real science deals in un-certainties at the cutting edge.
   There are certainly some multiverse theories that yeild some predicions that are testable in principle. But remember that this really only allows for falsification not verification.
John adds: like many physicists of my generation, I am very sceptical about multiple universes. Arguments from superstrings depend on believing that theorists can correctly second guess nature 16 orders of magnitude beyond anything we know experimentally.

---

More on Adam and Eve First of all I would like to thank you for putting together such a wonderful and informative sight and John for all of his remarkable work in science and theology. I haven't actually read any of John's books but after visiting this sight I immediately placed Belief in God in an Age of Science on my Amazon.com Wish List and hope to read it very soon. It was, in fact, this website which really helped assuage my fears of biological evolution and eased me into it in such a tranquil manner that I cannot thank you enough.

   My question, finally, has been asked several times on your Q&A section but, surely out of my own failure to understand what was said, I haven't really been satisfied by the answers and I have become a little confused. It has to do with the whole Adam & Eve/Original Sin problem and how to integrate that with evolutionary theory. I guess what I'm confused about is regarding what that first questioner brought up about original sin being genetic and your response that original sin is largely societal. Isn't it that every individual person has become corrupted through their own choices? I'm with you in that I don't believe that we're responsible for Adam & Eve's sin, we're responsible for our own, but their sin or Original Sin is what let sin into the world and everyone after them has become corrupted by it through their own free choice. Am I right in this?

   Secondly, regarding the second poster who had trouble with St. Augustine's view of original sin and making room for Adam & Eve in the historical timeline of human beings. Through no fault of your own I just didn't understand your response. Do you agree with me when I say that Adam & Eve be the first actual human beings (or symbols of a group of the first ones as John interprets it - a rather fascinating idea and I'd like to know more about this as well, perhaps another time though) who possessed all the cognitive and moral/spiritual faculties necessary for knowing God, who evolved as you say 100,000 or so years ago and lived in harmony with God in the beatific Garden of Eden for an unknown amount of time and, through their own free will, rejected God for the idolization of the self resulting in the catastrophic Fall? I guess I'm asking if what I'm going to call 'pre-Fall man' was in a higher spiritual/moral and maybe even ontological 'state' I guess than we currently are? Also, would I be right in responding to this questioners assertions that what we always thought was 'sin-nature' is really just 'animal-nature' left over from evolution and that is what we need saving from with what I remember reading from one of C.S. Lewis' books (though I'm sure he was quoting someone else), mainly that we are not merely imperfect people who need growth but we are rebels who need to lay down our arms? Isn't that what we need saving from? We were once in harmony with God but have since thrown it away and have become marred in corrupted in the process, and this is what Christ came to redeem us from and to restore that harmony with God that we once had.

   Please forgive me for all my questions and please don't take them as criticisms, I really do appreciate your sight and all of the good work John has done in both his scientific and theological career. Thank you for your time. God bless you.
Preliminary Response It seems clear to me at a scientific/logical level that the first time we sin we become corrupted by our own sin - not by the sin of any of our ancestors.  However at a metaphysical level it is all one sin, and at a psychological level it is much easier to sin if other people are doing it.
    It's worth remembering that adam in Hebrew means 'man' and is not really a proper name. Ish is another Hebrew word for 'man' (used for the 1st time in Gen 2:23) and isha means woman, thus the stories about Adam and Eve are meant to be somewhat generic.  Adam is clearly the first true man, not biologically (there were clearly others of the same species) but spritiually ie capable of being in communion with God and rejecting His commands.
    I don't think pre-Fall Man is in a higher state than we are because what Jesus has done is more than restoring us to a pre-fall condition: He has made it possible for us to become adopted sons of God. However pre-Fall Man is in a higher state than un-redeemed Man - so is a little child, as Jesus makes clear.
Supplementary Thank you very much for your response. I understand much clearer now and I thank you. However, I just have one more question if you don't mind. In regards to the Fall of Man, how do we answer the whole, "It's not our fault for falling since God created us fatally flawed from the start so it's really His fault for making us so imperfect" charge that atheists commonly make?
Response If God had made us so we were incapable of sin. He would have made us without freewill, but then we would have been incapable of love.  He creates, amazingly, a universe in which we are free to choose to love - that inevitably means that we are free to choose to sin.  He deals with the sin, on the cross, and the potential for love is infinite.
Further Supplementary  Thank you for your response but perhaps I should rephrase my question. Sometimes atheists will level a dilemma (most definitely a false dilemma, I'm just wondering how to answer it) regarding the Fall that goes something like this: