Up until this point, Keith Ward has been arguing that the findings of modern science can point to, even if not demonstrably prove, the existince of an infinite mind that underlies and upholds the physical world in existence. But this is a far cry from what most of us mean when we talk about God. At least, the heart of many religious believers’ understanding of God has more to do with God’s relation to and purposes for people than with the kind of metaphysical and cosmological speculations Ward has been examining thus far.
In part three Ward seeks to bridge the gap somewhat between what he calls, echoing Pascal, the “God of the scientists” and the “God of religion.” He discusses what a scientifically-informed theistic worldview might say about such topics as God’s action in the universe, interactions between finite minds and God, and whether miracles are possible. This last one has never seemed to me a very vexing question. I’ve always thought it obvious that whatever we say about the “laws of nature,” surely the creator of the universe could override them if he wished. Or that the laws of nature hold other things being equal. “Miracles as not totally inexplicable; they are just not eplicable by known scientific laws. They are not irreproducible, but since only God can reproduce them, they are beyond the powers of science to reproduce” (p. 224). Ward also has a helpful discussion of David Hume’s argument against the rationality of ever believing the report of a miraculous event (see pp. 228-230).
In chapter 16 Ward surveys some recent speculations from physicists on a kind of immortal life that might be possible in this physical universe. These range from a subjective eternity experienced by finite minds as the universe grinds to a slow halt, to the existence of vast information-processing “clouds” of photons and gravitons. None of these speculations, Ward admits, come close to reflecting what many religious believers mean by eternal life. But, he says, if sciece has enabled us to imagine multiple universes existing parallel to one another, it may not be such a stretch to imagine that God could, if he wished, translate the consciousnesses and personalities of humans into to some other universe at death. Or perhaps “resurrect” us by creating new beings who share our memories, personality traits, etc. I have my doubts about whether such duplication would actually be the resurrection of the very same people, though.
In any event, if the Newtonian cosmology demolished the old “three storey” universe with heaven above us and hell below, more recent cosmology at least allows us to imagine how a “new heaven and a new earth” might be brought into existence. But, as Ward points out, endless personal existence does not exhaust, nor is it even the most important feature, of what many faiths mean by “eteral life.” Rather, it has always meant living in the presence of God himself, or the “beatific vision” as Catholic theology has traditionally referred to it.
Ward offers the speculation that, instead of trying to find immortality within this cosmos (or the “nearest convenient parallel dimension” to quote Dr. Ray Stantz) we might see the purpose of the cosmos to be giving rise to finite minds who are able to reflect and ultimately share in the divine life. This would entail transcending the physical cosmos and being translated to an entirely different kind of existence.
It seems quite possible that, just as some scientists think that a future intelligence could replicate human persons to live again within the far future cosmos, so the eternal intelligence of God could bring persons to live again in other realms beyond the physical confines of this cosmos. We might expect that a perfect eternal intelligence would be as concerned for every sentient being throughout the history of the cosmos as for any life-form that exists at its end. It may then seem fitting that all such sentient beings that have a sense of their own continuous existence can share in the mind of God, and find there an appropriate sort of fulfillment for what remained incomplete, and a transformation of experience of all that caused pain and suffering, in their cosmic lives. (p. 257)
I suspect some readers may have grown impatient with Ward at this point. Why resort to such far-flung speculations rather than drawing on religious revelaton? It’s common in these postmodern days to see each tradition as having its own internal logic and rationale and to cast aspersions on those who would seek to employ a deracinated reason to search the mysteries of God.
First of all, Ward does have positive things to say about revelation. He acknowledges that science and philosophy can only take us so far, and that if we are to enter into some kind of personal relationship with God, or if God is to reveal his purposes to us, it will be through the medium of some kind of revelation or religious tradition. He also notes that our decision to commit ourselves to a religious tradition will not be definitively determined by publicly observable evidence, but will also draw on personal experience, value judgments, and other more “subjective” factors. That is to say, different people with different life experiences may be justified in adhereing to different religious traditions, even if they both can’t be right.
Secondly, even though I don’t agree with everything Ward says, I think the task of examining our faith in the light of science is an important one. It’s ture that theology shouldn’t hitch its wagon to the latest scientific finding, which may be overturned tomorrow. But it’s also important to show how the tenets of faith are consistent with what modern science, at least in broad outlines, has told us about the universe. Augustine made a similar point in his Literal Commentary on Genesis:
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men…. Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by these who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. (Source)
Theologians often seem hesitant to engage directly with science, partly, no doubt, because of the daunting task of familiarizing theselves with the latest findings in biology, cosmology, and physics and trying to speak intelligently about it. But it seems to me an indispensible task for the church, certainly as important as grappling with the latest trendy philosopher or social theorist. In that spirit, I think Ward has made a valuable contribution.
(I should also note that Ward has interesting things to say on a variety of subjects that I haven’t covered, including the mind-body problem, God’s relation to time, and whether human culture can be given a purely naturalistic explanation. I’d recommend the book to anyone looking for an accessible introduction to these issues.)
A Thinking Reed 