On earth as in the heavens

It seems a reasonable question and of course the answer is yes, there is a chance we could do something about this. The same technology that helps power Philae is readily available here on earth. Nearly every time I go into B&Q or my local garden centre there is a stack of solar powered lights in the discount section being offered at knock down prices, you can't give them away. The issue is not can we do something about the problem but will we do something about it? Are we prepared to invest the same commitment and resources that delivered Philae to 67P to addressing some of the basic needs in our world? Needs like clean water, basic sanitation, health care and renewable energy. Let's face it, it's not rocket science (or rocket surgery as one of the muppets on The Apprentice last night blurted out). 

Here's the link to Solar Aid. 

Comet Watch

This afternoon a little spacecraft called Rosetta delivered probe Philae onto the surface of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko. It is an extraordinary scientific endeavour and given the comet is some 300 million miles from earth the precision of the operation is astonishing. Even more astonishing is the fact that all this was accomplished without the presence of Professor Brian Cox telling us how amazing it all is.

However, news has begun to filter through that the two harpoons which were to be fired into the comet on landing in order to secure Philae to its surface haven't deployed. No doubt the boffins are hard at work trying to diagnose the problem and come up with a solution. I have a couple of suggestions.

First of all check that Big Bang Theory's Howard Wolowitz wasn't showing off to an undergraduate somewhere in the space centre. Howard has previous on this score with the Mars Exploration Rover.

Secondly, it may be that Philae detected on landing that 67P isn't really a comet but a Star Whale, hence the reluctance to fire the harpoons. In which case this is a job for Dr Who and let's face it he needs something decent to get his teeth into at the moment.

Anyway, I'm sure the geniuses at the European Space Agency will get things sorted given the brilliant job they've done so far. Now I wait for Nigel Farage to pop up on the BBC to explain how it would all have been so much better and cheaper if we'd done it without the rest of those pesky Europeans.

optional ethics

Over the summer various ethical issues hit the headlines and became matters of public debate. One subject that particularly caught my attention was surrogacy following the case of baby Gammy, the child with Down's Syndrome born to a Thai surrogate mother and apparently rejected by his commissioning parents. I've been interested in surrogacy since I first researched it for a dissertation while studying in Oxford. My work was actually about The Warnock Report on Human Fertilization and Embryology and I used the topic of surrogacy to explore the underlying ethical assumptions behind the report.

What struck me about the recent discussions on surrogacy in the media, both mainstream and social, was the lack of ethical considerations in so much of the argument. For several days I heard and read interviews with those involved in surrogacy including: surrogates, clients, facilitators, doctors and lawyers. The practical, financial, legal and physiological aspects of surrogacy were explored in some depth. What I didn't hear was anything more than a cursory acknowledgement of the ethical questions raised by these matters. In the case of baby Gammy the issues were sharpened by the apparent rejection of the child by his potential parents because of his condition, though the full facts of that case are still to be clarified.

I listened in vain to BBC Radio 4 Today over several days while on holiday for one person to address the question of whether surrogacy was right or wrong; whether surrogacy was something we should be engaged in at all. I heard powerful emotional and unchallenged testimonies from surrogate parents and those who had become parents through surrogacy but the obvious questions were never addressed. Does surrogacy treat children as a commodity? What happens when the child acquired through surrogacy doesn't turn out the way the client parents hoped? What is the psychological impact on a surrogate child? Do we as a society view children as a gift or a right?...

My daughter took her GCSEs this summer and had to consider her A Level options. Her stronger subjects were in science along with philosophy and ethics and she had hoped to study philosophy as well as the sciences in the sixth form. However, due to timetabling issues it was impossible for her to study philosophy and physics together, much to her and our dismay. It seems crazy to me that a school would not consider philosophy an appropriate subject to study in combination with the sciences. If you want to know what happens when you separate scientific endeavour from considered philosophical and ethical reflection then you need look no further than Richard Dawkins twitter timeline.

Have we as a society lost the ability to reflect ethically on the issues confronting us today or are we simply reluctant to do so? Do we take seriously the challenge of educating our children not only to develop their knowledge and understanding of the world, but also to develop a moral framework within which that knowledge and understanding might be considered and used?

Hawking heaven

I am always bemused at the seriousness with which certain people’s words are taken when they are talking about subjects outside their own particular discipline. Richard Dawkins opens his mouth about religion and the media goes into a frenzy, unable or unwilling to spot the weaknesses and at times blatant ignorance beneath the froth of the headline quotes.  Another media favourite is the eminent cosmologist Stephen Hawking. A couple of days ago The Guardian reported an interview with Hawking covering a wide range of issues. The quote that got the headlines was when Hawking declared that heaven is just ‘a fairy story for people afraid of the dark’. Here is the full quote:

"I have lived with the prospect of an early death for the last 49 years. I'm not afraid of death, but I'm in no hurry to die. I have so much I want to do first," he said.

"I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark," he added.

An excellent response to Hawking was offered by Michael Wenham, a fellow sufferer of motor neurone disease, again published in The Guardian. Wenham challenged Hawking’s comment about the brain as a computer:

It's unarguably true that there's no heaven for broken down computers, as I have found to my cost when I poured fruit juice over my laptop. The brain may be nothing but a most remarkable computer, yet there's something generically different from a computer in a brain which, when it starts to malfunction as happens in MND, can begin to love Wagner's music and "enjoy life more". That, I would say, is irrational, but not uncommon. Human beings, it would appear, are something more than machines. Maybe science will one day describe what the difference is.

And with regard to Hawking’s remarks about heaven Wenham comments:

Finally, Stephen Hawking's headlined observation about death, that an after-life "is a fairy-story for people afraid of the dark" is both sad and misinformed. Openness to the theoretical possibility of there being 11 dimensions and fundamental particles "as yet undiscovered" shows an intellectual humility strangely at odds with writing off the possibility of other dimensions of existence.

For someone "facing the prospect of an early death", with probably an unpleasant prelude, the idea of extinction holds no more fear than sleep. It really is insulting to accuse me of believing there might be life after death because I'm afraid of the dark. On the contrary, sad though I shall be to leave behind those I love, I suspect the end of life, whatever happens, will be a relief. And, like Pascal making his wager, if it is dark, I really won't mind, because, of course, there won't be a me to mind.

Wenham’s response continued with an affirmation of his own faith, founded on his belief in the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ, before concluding:

As for the idea that belief in an afterlife is a consolation, it is not just about heaven. Most faiths in fact have a notion of judgment, which is hardly comfortable for anyone, although it does focus the motivation not to waste one's life. Moreover in our situation Professor Hawking surely knows better than that some notion in your head, whatever that notion might be, makes the frustrations and pains of a terminal illness somehow more bearable. That's the nonsense of those who have not been there. I can't prove it of course, but on good grounds I'd stake my life on it, that beyond death will be another great adventure; but first I have to get finish this one.

Another response to Hawking’s views about heaven and the afterlife was offered today by Tom Wright in the Washington Post.

It’s depressing to see Stephen Hawking, one of the most brilliant minds in his field, trying to speak as an expert on things he sadly seems to know rather less about than many averagely intelligent Christians. Of course there are people who think of ‘heaven’ as a kind of pie-in-the-sky dream of an afterlife to make the thought of dying less awful. No doubt that’s a problem as old as the human race. But in the Bible ‘heaven’ isn’t ‘the place where people go when they die.’ In the Bible heaven is God’s space while earth (or, if you like, ‘the cosmos’ or ‘creation’) is our space. And the Bible makes it clear that the two overlap and interlock. For the ancient Jews, the place where this happened was the temple; for the Christians, the place where this happened was Jesus himself, and then, astonishingly, the persons of Christians because they, too, were ‘temples’ of God’s own spirit.

Hawking is working with a very low-grade and sub-biblical view of ‘going to heaven.’ Of course, if faced with the fully Christian two-stage view of what happens after death -- first, a time ‘with Christ’ in ‘heaven’ or ‘paradise,’and then, when God renews the whole creation, bodily resurrection -- he would no doubt dismiss that as incredible. But I wonder if he has ever even stopped to look properly, with his high-octane intellect, at the evidence for Jesus and the resurrection? I doubt it -- most people in England haven’t. Until he has, his opinion about all this is worth about the same as mine on nuclear physics, i.e. not much.

Wright goes on to a more general critique of Hawking and others who share his worldview:

As for the creation being self-caused: I wonder if he realises that he is simply repeating a version of ancient Epicureanism? i.e. the gods are out of the picture, a long way away, so the world/human life/etc has to get on under its own steam. This is hardly a ‘conclusion’ from his study of the evidence; it’s simply a well known worldview shared by most post-Enlightenment westerners…

The depressing thing is that Hawking doesn’t seem to realize this and so hasn’t even stopped to think that there might be quite sophisticated critiques of Epicureanism, ancient and modern, which he should work through. Not least the Christian one, which again focuses on Jesus.

My own comment is this: I do wish that those who clearly have a brain (computer or not) would use it to think through what they say about faith with the same measure of rigour that they apply to their own areas of expertise.

Arrogance and ignorance

Martin Rees, theoretical astrophysicist and Master of Trinity College Cambridge, has been awarded this year’s Templeton Prize. The award has caused something of a stir in certain sections of the scientific community because the Templeton Prize describes itself in these terms:

The Templeton Prize honors a living person who has made an exceptional contribution to affirming life’s spiritual dimension, whether through insight, discovery, or practical works. Established in 1972 by the late Sir John Templeton, the Prize aims, in his words, to identify “entrepreneurs of the spirit”—outstanding individuals who have devoted their talents to expanding our vision of human purpose and ultimate reality. The Prize celebrates no particular faith tradition or notion of God, but rather the quest for progress in humanity’s efforts to comprehend the many and diverse manifestations of the Divine.

In other words, in the eyes of some, the prize is tainted by faith and religion. Martin Rees is clear that he holds no religious beliefs and yet he has been happy to accept the prize and is quoted in The Independent as saying:

‘I would see no reason to be concerned because they (Templeton Prize) support a variety of interesting and worthwhile research projects in Cambridge University and many other places,". "The fact they have given this award to me, someone who has no religious beliefs at all, shows they are not too narrow in their sympathies. I feel very surprised because I really thought that I didn't have the credentials, but obviously I'm extremely pleased because I'm joining a roll call of distinguished previous winners, including six members of the Royal Society."

Others do not share Rees’s view and the usual suspects have lined up to express their dismay at his willingness to receive the award. Richard Dawkins declared:

‘That will look great on Templeton's CV. Not so good on Martin's’.

Others have been even more scathing. Harry Kroto, a British Nobel laureate at Florida State University in Tallahassee, is quoted as saying:

‘There's a distinct feeling in the research community that Templeton just gives the award to the most senior scientists they can find who's willing to say something nice about religion.’

Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago, said the Templeton Foundation is "sneakier than the creationists" by introducing the idea of faith into a discipline where faith is anathema.

‘Religion is based on dogma and belief, whereas science is based on doubt and questioning. In religion, faith is a virtue. In science, faith is a vice.’

I never cease to be amazed at the arrogance and ignorance displayed by some supposedly intelligent people. Coyne is clearly ignorant if he thinks that doubt and questioning do not play a part in religion. Does he know anything about Theology? If I dismissed the work of these men and the disciplines they study with the same banal generalities that they bandy around about faith and religion I would rightly be criticised or probably ignored.

There is something else I’ve noticed about these men, I say men because the people quoted are usually men; they seem to have a very narrow view of who makes up the scientific community. For them there is no place for the scientist who has a religious faith and so they dismiss a great tradition of scientists who were not only people of faith but inspired in their scientific endeavours by their faith. Even more damning is their dismissal of contemporaries around the world who are scientists and hold religious beliefs.

Maggi Dawn has mentioned a meeting with Martin Rees on her blog and it is well worth a look. There was one thing that made me uneasy and reinforced my concern about the blinkered views expressed by some scientists. Maggi quotes from an interview given by Rees in The Guardian today where he says this:

IS: Do you see an importance in trying to diffuse some of the conflict that sometimes gets stoked up between science and religion?
MR: I think they can co-exist. They are very different activities. Obviously one opposes Creationism and such-like, but it’s fairly clear that there are some scientists for whom religion is important and most of us for whom it isn’t, but again I think they can be co-existent.

‘Most of us for whom it isn’t’. Who is the most of us? The world wide scientific community? Is Rees saying that when one looks around the world the large majority of scientists do not regard religion as being important? I would like to see the evidence for this, but I suspect that Rees falls into the all too common trap of generalising from his own particular experience. I would be interested to know what the proportion of scientists with religious convictions is in, for example, Asia or the Middle East.

It is predictable and depressing to see the bitchiness of some of the comments that have greeted the news of Rees’s award. I have no problem with people who do not believe in God expressing their views. When the views expressed are founded on arrogance and ignorance then they deserve to be challenged as robustly as they would challenge the views of those who believe in God.

What time is it?

Lots of people getting excited about the Super Moon this weekend. If you don’t know what this is about, basically the moon is going to look bigger in the sky for all sorts of scientific reasons. For a more erudite explanation check out the Beaker Folk, though personally I find this explanation from Bruce Almighty more convincing.

My blog isn’t particularly known for its scientific content, however, I have been taking a close interest in the question of time and relativity. My interest has been aroused by my close observations of an extraordinary and empirically verifiable phenomena known as Fergie Time. FT refers to the way in which Sir Alex Ferguson, manager of Manchester United, is able to bend time with the use of his watch.

Briefly, if Man Utd are in need of extra time in order to score a goal then by tapping his watch and pointing at the referee SAF is able to cause time to stand still. When the requisite goal is scored normal time resumes. FT also works the other way round. If Man Utd are holding on and under pressure towards the end of a game then SAF taps his watch and points at the referee and the final whistle is blown. Scientific opinion is divided on whether SAF’s habits of mastication also affect the passage of time; it is certainly an observable fact that he chews his gum more frantically when deploying Fergie Time. The other aspect of FT is the fact that it works more effectively at Old Trafford Man Utd’s stadium.

In order to develop my understanding of Time I have turned to a rising star in the firmament of television scientists. This man manages to make even the most complicated aspects of cosmology accessible to the average viewer and he combines his intellectual prowess with a sharp dress sense and a cool haircut. Rather than say any more I’ll let you judge for yourself. Oh, in case you are interested the other guy is Professor Brian Cox.

Gracious debating

The day after William Windsor and Kate Middleton announced the news that they are to marry, I happened to be in a coffee shop reading The Times (free copy). Tucked away amongst the mountain of waffle about the royal wedding was a fascinating interview with Professor John Lennox about his latest book God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?. I hadn’t read much of Lennox’s work nor seen him in action, so I did a bit of digging around and the more I’ve read and heard the more impressed I’ve become.

John Lennox is Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford and Fellow in Mathematics and Philosophy of Science, and Pastoral Advisor at Green Templeton College. He’s developing a sideline in debating the New Atheists including Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. Lennox has also turned his sights on Stephen Hawking following Hawking’s claim that the laws of physics, not the will of God, provide the real explanation as to how life on Earth came into being. The Big Bang, Hawking argues, was the inevitable consequence of these laws 'because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.' You can read more of Lennox’s response to Hawking in this article.

However, the point I want to make is not so much about Lennox’s arguments, but about the manner of the way in which he engages in debate and approaches his task. Lennox is both reasonable and reasoned. No frothing at the mouth. No raging against the dying of the light. Rather, Lennox has a commitment to get to know and understand his opponents and to engage in friendly debate. He has confidence in the truth, doesn’t believe it can be imposed on any one and has a real desire to set his beliefs out in the public square for consideration. Underlying his approach is the conviction that as Christians we are called to love the Lord our God with our minds as well as with everything else.

If I was to sum up John Lennox’s approach to Christian apologetics it would be to describe it as a confident humility. To me that seems to be a good approach to take, as opposed to some of the defensiveness and special pleading from other quarters. Judge for yourself…

is faith a sign of dementia?

I’m lecturing on Theology and Experience in a couple of weeks time and so a recent article in the New York Times caught my attention. The piece is about Dr Francis Collins the new Director of the National Institutes of Health in the United States. Collins is no mug; he was in charge of the Human Genome Project, but his appointment seems to have caused some concern because as well as being a prominent scientist he is also a committed Christian. This has led to some questioning in the scientific community as to whether Collins is an appropriate choice for director. Gardiner Harris writing in the NYT comments:

First, there is the God issue. Dr. Collins believes in him. Passionately. And he preaches about his belief in churches and a best-selling book. For some presidential appointees, that might not be a problem, but many scientists view such outspoken religious commitment as a sign of mild dementia.

Collins describes his journey to faith in his book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. In the book Collins relates how he was challenged by a patient who asked what he believed and he found himself flushed and stammering in response to the question. This incident caused Collins to explore the possible existence of God and he concluded that He does exist. Some critics have dismissed the experience as an easily explained medical condition, a hormonal rush, suggesting that Collins’s failure to recognise this and willingness to give it a higher significance was cause for concern. Others have been worried that there might be a conflict between Collins’s faith and, for example, developments in therapeutic cloning which will fall under his remit. Collins has assured colleagues that he is committed to therapeutic cloning and sees no conflict with his religious beliefs.

The story is reminiscent of Michael Reiss who was forced to resign as director of science education at the Royal Society earlier this year. Dr Reiss is a priest and some Fellows of the Royal Society claimed his faith was incompatible with his role. One notable critic was Richard Dawkins who described Reiss’s appointment as a Monty Python sketch. The accusation against Reiss was that he was a Creationist and, even though he denied this, there were some in the scientific community who just couldn’t understand how his faith was not in conflict with his commitment to evolutionary biology.

When I hear of these incidents I find myself asking a question; who are the real fundamentalists? Who are the people so locked into their world view, their belief system, that they can’t allow for any experience or understanding of that experience outside their framework? On the evidence of these stories the real fundamentalists are not the Christians.