Russell Stannard: "Reconciling" Science and Religion
Modern people feel that the Bible was written by people who lived long before
the discoveries of science and therefore espouses a primitive and superstitious
worldview. A worldview is a particular philosophy of life or conception of the
world. Is the Bible really in conflict with science?
Russell Stannard is one of the best sources of current Christian thinking on how
to reconcile the Christian religion and science. Is he right that they are
compatible?
Let’s examine the seeming problems between science and the Bible pertaining to
the “big issues”:
1 Creation
2 Evolution
3 Miracles
The Christian physicist Russell Stannard reports the doctrines of modern science
accurately and tries to reconcile them with biblical Christianity. We will look
at the alleged conflict in the light of his work.
Stannard & Creation
The Book of Genesis in the Bible says that in the beginning God made the heavens
and the earth. Christians assume that this is referring to the big bang, the
explosion that resulted in the universe, space and time.
“There is a close connection between space and time - to the extent that that
the three dimensions of space and the one dimension of time are to be regarded
as indissolubly welded together to form a four-dimensional continuum called
space-time. The link is so close that we cannot have space without time, or time
without space….if the big bang marked the coming into existence of space, it
must also have marked the coming into existence of time. There was no time
before the big bang” (page 55) and argues “where the big bang was concerned,
there was no before. Although the question, ‘What caused the big bang?’ strikes
us as a perfectly reasonable thing to ask, it is not. Our line of argument
appears to lead to the conclusion that the question is meaningless” (page 56).
The Biblical response to this is that the fool says there is no God and by
implication the agnostic is just as foolish. And Stannard’s reasoning denies
that we have any real reason to believe in God. He rejects the question,
"Why is there something rather than nothing?".
That is the core question for those who are trying to find proofs for God's
existence. His view that there is no real reason to believe in God leads to
atheism. He argues that creation can be explained without God but as God is not
subject to scientific examination we can still believe. But that is not belief -
that is only assuming God exists. It is using the God idea to plug a gap or
hole.
The “God of the Gaps” line of argument is quite unpopular today. In the past,
Christians noticed how science not make life in the laboratory and concluded,
“There only God could have done that!” That’s an example of the line of
argument. Stannard says that the argument suffers from the problem that “the
gaps have a nasty habit of getting filled up, leaving an intervening God with
less to do” (page 28). It is important that we grasp that this completely
repudiates the Bible’s claim that God’s existence can be clearly seen from
nature.
Using God to plug holes is a denial that God is by definition the perfect being
and that we should do good just for him. It is only using God instead of serving
him.
It is not true that "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is the most
important question for believers in God. The question, "Why is there a God
rather than nothing?" is the most important question. If God originated the
universe then he is more important than it. It is so unimportant in comparison
that he didn't even have to make it. It follows the question about the why of
God is what matters and the question about the why of the universe takes second
place. Why is there a God rather than nothing? The believers just reply that God
is there and that is that. That is not an answer. If that is not an answer then
it follows that "Why is there something rather than nothing?" cannot be answered
either. If you believe in a creator God, then you cannot ask why the universe
exists when it might not have done unless you tie it in with the question, "Why
is there a God rather than nothing?"
"Why is there something rather than nothing?" is unanswerable if you assume the
existence of God because the why of God's existence cannot be understood or
answered.
If "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is unanswerable for the atheist
God only makes it worse. It follows then that it would make more sense to be
atheist than a believer.
If the question is unanswerable that is not the same as saying the existence of
the universe is purposeless. It only makes purposelessness a possibility.
If the question is unanswerable then the atheist can answer or guess that there
is no purpose. There being no purpose is a legitimate answer. There does not
have to be a purpose for everything.
It is foolish to ask, "Why the universe?" and not also "Why God?". The two
questions cannot be separated. Religious manipulators have us looking at the
universe and asking, "Why is there something - meaning all this - when there
might have been nothing? There must be a reason." The question is deliberately
put like that in the hope of nudging people towards thinking that the universe's
existence must be down to a magical God. The manipulators know that this is less
likely to happen if it is phrased as it should be, "Why is there a God and
universe when there might have been nothing?"
Some feel that space and time being made in addition to the universe at the big
bang makes the God hypothesis more necessary than ever. The reason they give is
that it leaves the existence of space and time in need of explanation as well as
the universe's existence. This would mean that if there was time but no space or
no universe we would need God to explain time's existence. It also implies that
if there is nothing but a single grain of dirt then that needs the God
hypothesis as much as an infinite number of universes bigger than ours would. We
can sense that there is something badly wrong in this logic. When it is put that
way, the problem shows that the God answer is not the great answer it is made
out to be.
Stannard and how Chance Made All Things
Believers say that whether the universe and ourselves were made the way the
Bible says or by chance as science would say we still need God as an
explanation. But the chance theory has less need for God no matter what they
say. He may still be needed. Stannard accepts that science is correct in saying
that chance made all things and evolution produced us.
The Theory of Evolution clearly claims that it was chance that made all life the
way it is. Some Christians say that God used chance to make us. Stannard
correctly points out how if it were really chance then God had no idea what he
was going to end up with. He says that the answer is that God has foreknowledge
- he sees how things will turn out. But it is Christian belief that God sees and
can foretell the future without making a mistake. The view that God knows
exactly what would happen in the world if Princess Diana had never died makes no
sense. He cannot see a future that will never be. God cannot then make decisions
in the present because of what he sees in the future. He makes decisions now and
sees what the outcome will be. The future does not have an effect on the past.
Stannard is watching too many episodes of Dr Who in which the future affects and
changes the past. That is as illogical as a time machine going into the past and
allowing you to murder your father before he met your mother.
Christians are uncomfortable with the notion of a God who uses such a cruel
process as evolution to produce us and the other creatures we share the planet
with. Evolution is based on survival not love. It is based on power not mercy.
The entity that survives has the best survival mechanism and love does to come
into it. Scripture says that God is love, 1 John 4:8. Contrast that with
Stannard’s science which argues that God lovingly set up the evolution system
and its cruelty is not that bad for animals do not suffer much - page 31. It
would be dangerous to assume that harming anything is fine as long as it is not
fully aware that it is being injured. It would refute morality. It would be a
very cold attitude to take. And what for? For the sake of religion?
Stannard then tries another way to reconcile the cruel plan of evolution with
the love of God. It is ingenious and Christians who believe in evolution seem to
have no choice but to adopt it. Given that God “was the sole creator, [he needed
a way to] endow his creatures with a measure of independence from him in order
that he might genuinely win them over. His answer? Chance. God would not specify
all the details of our construction. He set in motion the broad principles of
evolution and then let nature take its course. In a sense, we made ourselves”
page 32.
You would be forgiven for saying that we gradually make ourselves good and since
God continually creates us we might as well do without the process. If our genes
influencing us to do good is the reason why we do good then why didn’t God give
us genes that help us become even better people?
If God is in control of the process, we did not make ourselves in any real
sense. Scripture speaks of our absolute dependence on God. God is the master and
sustainer of all that he has made Ps 147:8,9 He covers the sky with clouds; he
supplies the earth with rain and makes grass grow on the hills. He provides
food for the cattle and for the young ravens when they call.
God is almighty and therefore in control. So chance cannot truly exist.
Stannard’s God is not the God of Christianity but the Supreme Being of the
Deists. Also, his God after making us in such a cruel fashion does not have
almighty power so can we be confident that he can eradicate evil and give us
eternal happiness? In addition to the cruel way we were made, we also have to
endure this uncertainty. What a position that God has put us in! Stannard
contradicts the biblical doctrine of creation.
Stannard may believe that his Jesus was conceived by the power of the Holy
Spirit - Matthew 1:20. But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord
appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to
take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy
Spirit".
Stannard’s argument that we have to make ourselves would imply that Jesus was
only partly the product of evolution and therefore had less free will and
personal responsibility than the rest of us. This idea is contradicting the
Bible doctrine of Jesus' full humanity. See Heb 2:17. Jesus had to be made like
them, fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and
faithful high priest.
Stannard's answer to the question about how we know this God of evolution loves
us, is that God became man, Jesus, and suffered and died with us for “There was
no other way for him to confirm the nature of his relationship with us" page 33.
The Bible indeed does teach that God did that and proved his love. This proof
is so powerful and strong that the apostle proclaimed that the gospel is simply
the death and resurrection of Jesus 1 Cor 15:3-4, For what I received I passed
on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the
Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according
to the Scriptures. But evolution undermines the strength of that
proof. Because, according to Christianity, God loves us he gives us free will
so that we can love him back. Real love is not forced. Only a person with the
power to do evil and rebel against God can love him. Evolution implies that
until the human ancestor developed an adequate degree of consciousness there was
no free will. Evolution demolishes the biblical explanation for why evil exists
ie: it’s not God’s fault but our own for he made all things good - Gen 1:31 it
was very good.
Stannard argues that you say chance made all things we need an explanation for
why chance exists and why it has produced such greatness and wonder in the
universe. But you don't assume a why for chance! Chance is to be seen as a brute
fact. You do not need to ask the why. You just accept that chance has been at
work and leave it at that. If you win the lottery you do not start investigating
why you won! That would be strange.
Stannard then claims that “it is simply not true that to say that random chance
that lies at the basis of the evolutionary process makes the outcome wholly
unpredictable” page 29. He goes on to argue that though random, chance has a
role, a system will develop and “characteristics conducive to survival will
emerge” - page 29. For example the entities that are produced by evolution will
develop the power to see. This would happen if we were able to start off
evolution on another planet from scratch. Suppose such a system is there, lots
of things are not part of it. For example, there are still entities that do not
see and which are helpless. They are alive not because they have survived but
because luckily there are no predators about. The Bible however says we are not
mere survivors but children of God. 1 John 3:1, See what great love the Father
has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! And that is what
we are! The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know him.
Stannard's thinking unacceptable to Christians for scripture says that God looks
after all his creatures even the lowliest - Matthew 10:29. Are not two sparrows
sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your
Father’s care.. He is saying that our evolution and our existence are down to
purely natural causes - an example of how some Christians are agreeing with the
atheists! It is only luck that causes evolution to form a system that procures
entities that can survive.
Conclusion
Stannard is only undermining his own scientific knowledge and credibility by
wasting time writing a book on Science and Religion. He is taking advantage of
the fact that society is too prejudiced to get upset by this. If it were
somebody trying to show how Alice in Wonderland/the Vedas/the Mormon Book of
Abraham compliments science his credibility would be in tatters. And especially
if he chose the Bible of Scientology Dianetics. The loyalty to science in a
person who idolises a book that does not even mention evolution is quite low.
Period.
Bibliography
Atkins, P. On Being (Oxford, New York) 2011
Griffiths, R. Ed. Hitchens vs Blair, Is Religion a Force for Good in the World?
(Black Swan, 2011)
McGrath, A. Bridge-Building (Inter-Varsity Press, 1954)
Newman, R. Questioning Evangelism (Kregel Publications, 2007)
Reid, A. Apologetics (Moore Theological College, 1996)
Stannard, R. Science & Belief, The Big Issues (Lion, 2012)
Vernon, M. The Big Questions, God (Quercus, 2012)
Warfield, B B, On the Antiquity and the Unity of the Human Race (The Princeton
Theological Review, 1911)
