Mr. Particular,
You say we have to think “in minute particulars” about a new language for talking about God in the world of modern science. Could not agree more. In fact I’ve thought for a long time that someone should write a book interpreting the discoveries of science in theological terms. So I wrote one! It’s called Light of the Mind, Light of the World, and what do you know: it’s conveniently available for pre-order.
One of the things that surprised and delighted me as I wrote this book was how easy it was. Not the research—that part felt like soaking my brain in wet cement. But once I had a basic handle on how the natural world appears to scientists these days, it all started to look screamingly theological. If you’re not already mired in the assumptions of materialism or the preset jargon of religion, practically every major discovery of the last hundred years seems burstingly pregnant with visions of God.
By the time you get to the point where quantum physicists are sitting around saying, “you know Niels, it looks as if the universe had a beginning in time as a very small point,” and “golly Georges, that would mean to develop from its initial state of indeterminacy, it might need some kind of...prime observer...” you want to wave your arms around and shout, “uh, guys?! you mean someone to look upon creation and call it good?!” The very stones like, um, cry out, you know?
But hardly anyone thinks to say stuff like that. At multiple points in learning about the history of science I had the sensation of walking into a richly furnished mansion, glitteringly beautiful and masterfully designed, with no one there to turn on the lights. The scientists associate religious language with childish myth-making, and the priests are scared to meddle in the scientists’ business. You end up unable to bridge the gap between the sonorous antiquities of faith and the cutting-edge but soullessly clinical terminology of science.
So we go around making up stories about multiverses and simulations which, forgive me, are just painfully stupid and only end up re-inventing various primitive forms of pagan theology mixed with new-age philosophy. All because woo-woo and science fiction feel less embarrassingly clunky and uncool than that Old Time Religion which—again, forgive me—seriously needs a plausible reskin for the modern age.
Einstein remembered being absolutely riveted by the Bible as a boy until he found out about dinosaur skeletons. Then he concluded that scripture must be false because it didn’t describe the world in materially scientific terms. I’m sure that’s exactly how the two alternatives were presented to him, in which case who can fault the choice he made? At a practical level that’s why we so desperately need the new language you speak of: so that physical fact as we understand it can be clothed in spiritual truth as we know it. So yeah, buy the book, ya mooks.
Love,
Spencer
Image: Domenico Tintoretto, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons
Pre-ordered in June. Can't wait to get it next month!
In regards to Science and religion, I remember when Chaos theory and fractals became huge in the 80s (or 90s maybe?). Looking at the mathematics and modeling of the natural world, I thought how could anyone see this order and not believe in God?