Extended Notes

God, Science, and the Supernatural

 

The following are notes that provide background and additional information for the book. This page may be updated from time to time in answer to questions that arise.

 

Chapter 2 – God and Time

Is there an easy way to understand why time slows down when traveling near the speed of light?  Picture yourself standing still while your twin is on a train traveling near the speed of light. Now imagine that your twin constructs a simple “light clock” by attaching mirrors to the left and right walls inside his train car, with light bouncing back and forth between the mirrors. To us, the light in our twin’s train car is taking a zig-zag motion: as the light leaves the left mirror, the train moves forward before the light hits the right mirror. Therefore, to us the twin’s light-clock has slowed down because the light has farther to travel between hits. The twin sees the light bouncing normally, however: to him there is no zig-zag motion. An experiment done in the early 1900s by Michelson and Morley showed that the speed of light is the same to all observers, even if they are moving. Therefore, the twin will see the light moving at normal speeds, with his light clock keeping time normally. The only explanation of what we are seeing is that time itself has slowed down for our twin: every clock he has is running slowly. He measures slow movements with slow clocks, so, to him everything seems normal within his train car.

 

Chapter 4 – God and Space

Is the word “in” better translated “by” in Acts 17:28? (“In Him we live and move and have our being”)  A few commentaries say this should be translated “By Him…” in order  to steer clear of pantheism (equating God with the universe). While it is true that the Greek word “en” can sometimes be translated “by,” here it is translated “in” in most English translations. Also, the preceding verse says, “though He is not far from each one of us,” indicating that “en” in verse 28 is spatial, not causal. Using “in” in this verse in no way is pantheistic. It is simply saying that God is bigger than the universe, not at all contradicting that He is the highly personal God depicted in Scripture.

 

Is Acts 17:28 talking about being in the “mind of God”?  Since God is so incomprehensible to us as finite beings, I simply don’t know. Scripture does speak about God’s mind (1 Corinthians 2:16, Romans 8:27) as well as His will and emotions, but those are likely similar to, but not the same as, what we experience. So, in this chapter of my book, I use the concept of being in the “mind of God” loosely, analogous to being in Him (and also drawing attention to His thought process), but not trying to delineate His being or specify what part of God we are in.

 

Do you believe the universe is a “simulation”?  I don’t believe the universe is a simulation in the way many have proposed (that the simulation is running on some sort of computer), but I did want to bring up the idea that this may be comparable to what might be going on in the mind of God. However, I ultimately concluded that this is beyond our understanding (although interesting to think about). I do think that God “changing His mind” is a better way to think about the supernatural than to try to figure out how something supernatural happened without violating any physical laws. There are theologians who have explored topics similar to these. For example, see John Piper’s conversation with Tony Reinke: https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/do-we-live-in-the-matrix .

 

Chapter 5 – Walking in God’s Presence

Can God’s presence affect the well-being of the physical universe?  After the fall of man, God said life would be much harder for them. (Genesis 3:17 “To Adam God said, ‘Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life’”). My own view is that partially, at least, God withdrew His sustaining presence, which made it harder to grow plants and live on this planet. Plants, animals, insects, bacteria, viruses, and ecosystems were then able to morph in ways that became difficult or dangerous to humans.

George Otis, in his Transformations video documentaries, records how even the fertility of the soil was seen to change in lands when people who had not known the Lord came to know Him. We are people of God's presence, and this can affect our world in ways that we may not even recognize as supernatural, but they are.

 

Chapter 8 – God, Energy and Motion

What is entropy?  Science has found that the total amount of energy in the universe is constant, but not all energy is useful. Useful energy can do work, but after energy is converted to heat and this heat comes to a point where it is no longer hotter or colder than the temperature of things around it, it no longer can produce any work. The "uselessness" of energy has a name: entropy. One of the laws of physics (the Second Law of Thermodynamics) says that the overall entropy of the universe always increases. In other words, the amount of useful energy is constantly decreasing. This is another piece of evidence that the universe had a beginning.

 

Chapter 9 – Science vs. Christianity

Note: This chapter, in particular, skimmed over a great deal of information, attempting to summarize church history, etc., in a way that, hopefully, captures some of the essence of the era without diverting too far into the details. History is often hard to generalize due to the wide variety of people involved, with each individual having multiple interests and points of view. My objective was not to cast anyone in a negative light, but to just try to represent what happened.

 

Did the conflict between science and religion begin in the late 1800’s?  The conflict intensified at that time, but it began developing centuries before when the Age of Enlightenment began. The Enlightenment brought science to the forefront. At that time some in the Catholic Church fought against scientific advancements, such as its conflict in the 1600s over Galileo’s assertion that that the sun was the center the solar system. This particular conflict did not represent the church in the 1800’s, but the memory of it did add to the fervor of some in the scientific community to throw off religion's "chains" upon scientific endeavor or, for some, to dismiss religion altogether.

 

How did the Fundamentalist Movement react to the conflict between science and Christianity?  The Fundamentalist movement came about partly as a reaction to the conflict between science and Christianity, but even more as a reaction to the way the liberals changed their theology (into what is known as Modernism), which dismissed some of Scripture’s claims, especially about the supernatural in the Bible.

Various groups within the Fundamentalist movement spent a great deal of time creating systems of logic around their beliefs. These groups included Dispensationalists, Presbyterians, Baptists, and others. Logic-based theological systems were actually first used in this era by the liberals (particularly by Friedrich Schleiermacher), but the fundamentalists followed suit with their own systems. A somewhat harsh criticism of the fundamentalist mindset was written in a recent New York Times article in by Matthew Avery Sutton, professor of history at Washington State University:  “Although fundamentalists claimed to represent the traditional faith, they were pioneering innovators who remade Christianity for tumultuous times. There was little ‘conservative’ about them. Although fundamentalists made modernist theology one of their primary enemies, they drew on modernist thought and practice just as much as their liberal counterparts. Their dependence on modernism was most obvious in how they read their Bibles. They treated it like an engineering manual. They saw individual verses as pieces of data that they could extract, classify, cross-reference, quantify, place into taxonomies and then reassemble, to form something new. Unlike actual religious conservatives, they had no sense of tradition or community, nor did they care much for the historic creeds. Fundamentalists were highly individualistic and eager to use the latest technology — radio, especially. Christian fundamentalism and theological modernism were two sides of the same coin; both illustrated the all-consuming power of modernist thought.”  https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/25/opinion/the-day-christian-fundamentalism-was-born.html  While I don’t agree completely with this, it captures some of the feelings about the movement. It was important to create a healthy theology, but the way they went about it was not always beneficial and left too many other important things unattended.

People agree that there were five famous fundamentalist doctrines, but its theologians soon directed their attention to far more than these. Denominations drew lines around their own doctrines, which sometimes made them intolerant of others. A great deal of time was spent discussing (and arguing over) various topics, such as dispensationalism, eschatology, and the like.

Eventually the Fundamentalist movement became very inward-focused and developed a hardened disposition, sometimes falling into an “us vs. them” mentality towards those that disagreed with them. The Scopes trial (over teaching evolution in the classroom), and the film about it: “Inherit the Wind,” put Fundamentalists in a very harsh light (partly deserved, which was unfortunate, since the topic of evolution could have been much better handled), resulting in Fundamentalists seeing the media, movie industry, political opponents, and sometimes science itself as enemies. Some of their animosity was even aimed at Billy Graham, who found their attitudes harmful to evangelism, with extreme Fundamentalists such as Bob Jones (of Bob Jones University) labeling Graham as a heretic. The Evangelical movement sought to correct some of Fundamentalism’s flaws and eventually disassociated with it. However, the “us vs. them” mentality is an easy mindset to fall back into (and was really an attribute of the Pharisees, which Jesus warned us to avoid). We must constantly look at Jesus as our model of how to look and think.

 

What do I mean by “Systems of Logic”?  The Fundamentalist groups had in common a great respect for the Word of God. Yet there were divisions among the groups. This is not because some of them disbelieved that certain verses in the Bible were true. The logic they used to tie them together (and interpret them) was what was different. So, I use the term “systems of logic” to speak of the systems of thought that tied verses together, so as to exclude saying who did and who did not esteem the Word itself. If we are not careful, however, we, too, can exalt our system of logic higher than the Word and criticize others for not bowing to it. We actually all have a system of logic; we just have to keep it subservient to the Word.

 

How did the Fundamentalists reject the supernatural?  Many conservatives at that time found the supernatural too unpredictable, compared to their predictable systems of logic. Roger Olson, Professor of Christian Theology at Truett Seminary at Baylor University, said this is about what he sees today: “You see, there’s a certain unpredictability with the Holy Spirit, and we mainstream evangelicals have come to love predictability. We don’t want any big surprises. We don’t want to open the door to something that will really shock us, because we can’t control it” (The Case for Miracles by Lee Strobel, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2018, p. 218).

Some wrote cessationism (the belief that the supernatural gifts and acts of God ceased at the end of the apostles’ lives) into their theological systems, while others said they were open to supernatural gifts and acts today, but paid little attention to them. Randy Clark looked into the cessationist views of B.B. Warfield, a Princeton theologian in the late 1800s, one of the most prolific Fundamentalist academicians in the writing of theology: “Warfield attempts to ride two incompatible horses. In his fight against Liberalists who rationalize and de-mythologize or allegorize New Testament miracles, Warfield has a faith oriented, super-naturalistic and subjective position. However, he switches 'horses' when it comes to the view towards post-Biblical miracles and takes a common sense, naturalistic, objective and scientific approach. It is evident that the very argument Liberals take against the validity of New Testament miracles, Warfield, a fundamentalist, takes the same Liberal arguments and uses them in his position against post-Biblical era” (from the Wikipedia article “Cessationism versus Continuationism” referencing Randy Clark’s Biblical and Historical Answers to Cessationism DVD).

John Calvin, during the Reformation, held a similar view of post-New Testament supernatural gifts and miracles. He admitted that his views were mostly based on observation, saying that he did not see these gifts and miracles anymore, not that Scripture said they could not exist. History, however, records that such gifts did not stop at the end of the Book of Acts; they are found in the early church and beyond, well into our day. One early church father, Irenaeus (130-200 AD), was indignant as he wrote about a group called the Alogi who claimed that prophecy had ceased (Proof of Apostolic Preaching 99). Justin Martyr (100-165), Origen (185-254) and Gregory of Nyssa (335-395) all pointed to the prophetic activity and miracles of their day as signs that testified to the world the veracity of the Christian faith (Dialog with Trypho 82, Against Celsus 2.8, Commentary on Song of Songs 6). Epiphanius (347-407), a church historian, wrote of the prophetic gift, "But the gift is not inoperative in the holy Church, far from it!" (Panarion 48.1). Many martyrs (for example, Polycarp in 156, John Huss in 1415, George Wishat in 1546) spoke remarkable prophetic words near the times of their martyrdoms. In recent church history, prophetic revelation has been given to many of the people who fathered our current mainline denominations.

Holding onto the supernatural caused a lack of respect within academic communities, due to it’s being considered non-scientific. Feeling that having respect could further their cause, many theologians did not feel that adhering to the supernatural was a battle worth fighting for. (They should have asked themselves, however, did Jesus do the same?) In other eras, too, we see theologians distancing themselves from what they found embarrassing: in our day, from some of the televangelists, and in the Reformation, from the ways the Catholics often spoke of the supernatural.

There was also the issue that, to some theologians, the idea of modern-day supernatural activity seemed too uncontrollable. Some felt that legitimizing such supernatural activity could open the door to revelation besides Scripture (although New Testament prophecy does not have that function). Likely, too, was that the unusual manifestations of the Great Awakenings were fresh in their minds and, even those who felt these manifestations were from God, may have felt they were too out of control for their tastes. Even at a personal level, however, there can be a reluctance for leaders to publicly ask God to do something supernatural, since that usually requires taking the risk of looking foolish if nothing were to happen. So, many stick to the more predictable elements of theology that don’t involve outcomes they cannot control.

 

In what ways should people come out of their defensive positions? The liberal side needs to see that God’s Word really is true, and that His supernatural works within it are indeed real. As for the fundamentalist reaction, those who shelter themselves in a bubble of theology need to come out of that shelter and into the action where God would have us be. Our posture should not be huddling away from the world or making enemies of others; we should be changing the world for the good. There is nothing wrong with good theology—it is a great thing—but it was never meant to be a destination; it is a tool. As for the supernatural, God equips us with all His gifts so that we can do the job He has called us to do; and, as far as I know, that job is not done yet. As Moses led his people forward, God’s presence went with them. And it was then, and is now, natural for the supernatural to follow.

 

In talking about the laws of the universe as being “tuned,” how many fundamental constants are there to tune?  It is hard to know if some of the fundamental constants are linked to others by some scientific law. For example, some think that the Higgs Boson, which was recently discovered, somehow determines the masses of other particles. If so, instead of those other particle masses being constants that are tuned, the mass of the Higgs boson, plus whatever constants that are involved in the laws that govern it, are now what are tuned. In any case, something is still left to be tuned. As far as the expansion rate of the universe having to be correct to one part in a hundred trillion, some are proposing a theory (which they call inflation) that would dictate the amount of expansion. If this were true (which may or may not be), the onus of the “tuning” would now fall on whatever created that law plus any new constants that are involved with that law. New discoveries often just push the mysteries (and constants) back a level.

 

In talking about whether humans are more than physical beings, what about near-death experiences?  What I was referring to in this section of the book were experiences that could not be explained if humans are purely material, such as seeing things on the hospital roof that could later be verified. I debated whether to mention these at all, since they are a favorite topic of New Age proponents. However, I found that Christian apologists find them quite compelling to use against materialist ideas. Dr. Gary Habermas, Distinguished Professor and Chairman of the Department of Philosophy and Theology at Liberty University, has over a hundred documented cases of near-death experiences where someone reported seeing something that they could not have known in the natural. This, he feels, is persuasive evidence that there is something about us that exceeds the physical realm. (J. Steve Miller is another apologist saying something similar.)

As for reports of experiences where people encountered spiritual beings who said things that don't make sense theologically, Habermas said that even if the realm which a person visited was real, there is no way of knowing whether a being in that realm is saying something correct, any more than, in our realm, knowing what a neighbor says is correct. For things like that, he insists, you must corroborate them with Scripture. See an interview with Gary Habermas in https://www.biola.edu/blogs/think-biblically/2018/near-death-experiences  We must always test everything against the message and heart of Scripture.

John Burke, author and pastor of Gateway Church in Houston, has carefully studied (with a very Scriptural point of view) a vast number of near-death experiences of people visiting heaven. He has found that a far greater number of these experiences agree with Scripture than other people had previously acknowledged. He also gives sensible explanations to accounts that do not agree with Christianity (such as those that seem to promote universalism), saying that often these come from only glimpses of heaven’s realm, and the person who had the experience still needs to know that the only way to get there is through Jesus. (To get them to seek Jesus may well be why the experience was given to them in the first place.) For more on this, see John Burke’s remarkable book: Imagine the God of Heaven © 2023 Tyndale House.

 

What modern-day philosophies are in conflict with Christianity?  We need to face things that are in conflict with Christianity for the well-being of our people. But in doing so, we must not make people so defensive that they neglect to move forward in their own mission. I could mention a variety of “isms” that have conflicted with Christianity over the years; however, I will just mention two that affect particularly the youth of our day.

In our age, people’s identities are under attack, sometimes making people (particularly teens) so depressed that suicide becomes thinkable. Social media has made this all the easier to occur, making young people feel assaulted by the opinions of others. The identity God gives us, however, is far, far superior to anything that comes from the world, and this needs to be stressed. It can provide a foundation for our people to build upon, impervious to attack.

Another philosophy rampant today is relativism, which comes against the idea that there is absolute truth (everything is relative). (This has nothing to do with relativity theory, by the way!) In both science and mathematics, you would get nowhere without absolute truths—you cannot choose to disbelieve that gravity exists, or that two plus two equals four—it is not your option to disagree. According to relativism, everything is your choice, including who God is, and you are considered to be closed-minded if you disagree. But reality (as we said of math and science) simply does not work that way. And God is real, not something that is subject our own opinion. Maybe that is the underlying issue here…is God real or is He of your own making?

 

What is the scientific method?  Science should follow the scientific method, which starts with a hypothesis: an educated guess. Whether this hypothesis turns out to be right or wrong is not an indication of good or bad science; it is simply the nature of the scientific process. Good science requires humility to acknowledge that your hypothesis may prove to be either right or wrong. After a hypothesis is made, real-world evidence is sought to support or deny it. Once this happens, the evidence is reviewed by peers, and then other independent scientists seek to reproduce whatever experiments or data collection was made. If this is done well and with integrity, the science is good. (Some scientific theories may not be testable, but still must pass the test of sound logic, mathematical correctness, and a lack of conflict with data. If they are not testable, they are classified as hypothetical theories or ideas, as opposed to proven ones.) Good science is never a threat to the truth or to who God is…God created it all.

 

Is science being misused today?  Yes…like anything else, we can cast doubt on true scientific data, or we can inject untested opinions that fit our liking and say that it is scientific. The crux of the matter is that we need to have a trustworthy source. This misuse of scientific data, however, is just the tip of a much larger iceberg.

Today, especially in political arenas, placing a value on truth is at a low. In the past, this often took the form of “spinning” statistics that looked the most favorable, or highlighting news events that agreed with one’s views (and ignoring those that disagreed). Today, however, outright falsehoods, false accusations, and half-truths are commonplace. On both sides of the political aisle, some people care more about how words sway people than what is really true. The internet makes it all the easier to get information from sources that agrees with an individual’s point of view, but that are not always committed to journalistic integrity and pursuing the facts. In the recent past, as society became more divided, people tended to choose the ”truth” that best suited them rather than what is real. And foreign adversaries took full advantage of this, knowing it would divide and weaken our nation. When you think about it, this disregard for what is real is relativism. Even those who decry relativism in one part of society are participating in it in another part. Eventually the price will have to be paid: The truth will indeed set you free, but being loose with the truth can carry an enormous price tag.

 

Does curiosity make us more susceptible to being led astray?  Social media has algorithms that take advantage of people’s interests, producing links which can progressively lead them towards extreme and sometimes false points of view. Artificial intelligence can create effective, sensational articles which do the same. While curiosity can make us more susceptible to exploring such stories, this does not make curiosity bad. What is needed is better discernment to know when we are being manipulated or are reading something untrue. If the story is attempting to sway us through anger, fear, distrust, exclusivity, or superiority, we need to be careful. If it is causing us to deviate from the viewpoint of many thoughtful people, we should be very sure that whatever we are reading is fact-based. We need to ask ourselves whether the people writing this material are humble and willing to test what they are saying. If they belittle their detractors, they probably are not. We also need to watch for “confirmation bias,” which leads us to ideas that we are already prone to believe, thinking that we are gathering a complete amount of research into the veracity of ideas but are not actually seeing a complete picture. Without discernment, society can become divided into camps, each having their own sources of truth and being without a willingness to really listen to those in other camps. Therefore, this is no longer true curiosity, just a desire to go deeper into one’s own camp.

 

Why don’t more scientists believe in God?  Surveys have shown that about the same percentage of scientists believe in God as in the general population. Given the new scientific information available, you might expect more scientists would move in the direction of God. This has happened to some, but one might ask why that is not happening to more. Perhaps there is an underlying desire to “fit in” to the scientific community and follow suit in what other scientists say they believe. I think it is a more a matter of what people choose to believe, however, for a variety of reasons. If you really don’t want to believe in God, then you stick with improbable explanations to the miraculous such as random chance, or just don’t think much about it. I would hope that books like Lee Strobel’s The Case for a Creator would compel all to at least give God a chance. Perhaps the best thing students of science can do is release the idea that there is no reality beyond the material universe and consider all options. But, as in my own case, being confronted with God Himself through His Word, presence, and people, is what got me to reconsider where I stood…and I’m so glad that I did.

 

Chapter 11 – What is Most Important to God

What is a good theology of how often God heals?  Jesus seemed to heal all who needed it (Acts 10:38), so how do we reconcile this with the times we prayed for someone who was not healed? Some feel that they must have a theology that completely predicts what God is going to do, and having seen some people not get healed, it must be that God does not heal anymore like He did in Jesus’ day. However, Jesus’ words to His followers do not indicate a diminution in healings—just the opposite (see, for example, John 14:14 and James 5:15). Theologically, I don’t think it is right to lower the bar just to agree with our experiences. It is more honest to keep the bar where Jesus set it and keep going after it, even though we may encounter circumstances that don't seem to meet our expectations along the way. My desire is to keep aiming for the seemingly impossible when God says it is possible. Already, we've seen things that some would say could never happen. My expectation is to see them in increasing numbers again and again! So press on!