Harvard Divinity School

In Dialogue at HDS,

In all honesty I really cannot believe that people can seriously believe that the universe could manufacture itself by chance! When I was young, to prove the possibility of evolution someone would say, "If you take a million monkeys and had them type away on a million typewriters for a million years, one of them would type War and Peace."

This sounded plausible until I began to look into it. There are 26 letters in the English alphabet. [Tolstoy wrote the book in old Russian, which had more than 26.] There are 44 letters in the first sentence in this paragraph. That means the chances of typing this one sentence at random (or any other sentence of the same length) is one in 44 to the 26th power. At one time I worked out a similar problem on the computer and found out that this number was more than the estimated number of atoms in the universe.

A basic problem seems to be one of perspective. Many people of a scientific bent seem to think that scientific problems like global warming and AIDS are the primary threats to humankind, and while these are serious threats, the problem is that they seem to minimize human or social problems such as war, divorce, child abuse, alcoholism, drug abuse, murder, poverty, and injustice that do not respond to the scientific method. I do not expect God to solve the problems of the universe for us, but I do believe that God makes the problems solvable and helps us when we try.

Does God intervene to adjust the laws of nature to help God's people? I don't think so, but people through faith have done some remarkable things. But on the other hand when I ask God for courage and wisdom, I usually receive them. Does God change hearts and minds? My experience says, Yes, and many others agree. Forgiveness is a form of intervention, and most people do not want others and God to hold their errors against them.

If scientists with 20/20 hindsight are able to reverse engineer the mysteries of the universe that is fine. But just because I think that I understand E = mc² doesn't make me Einstein nor does that equation make him equal to God. When people like Dennett and Dawkins take God out of the universe they leave a materialistic world without inherent purpose and meaning. Is it rational to live rationally in an irrational universe? Is it reasonable to love others in a "survival of the fittest" world?

To me believing in God means that there is Meaning, Purpose, and Hope for me and the world. It doesn't mean that I totally understand that Meaning, or that I embody that Purpose, or that Hope is only for me or people like me. Honestly I do not think that this is wrong or stupid or foolish.

Roger A. Sawtelle, MDiv '67
relates7@earthlink.net

Posted May 14, 2007

Dear Harvard Divinity School,

The scientific worldview termed "naturalism" by Professor Clayton teaches that the big bang was 14 billion years ago, which started nucleosynthesis of chemical elements (matter) necessary for evolution. Evolution, starting a few billion years ago, employed natural selection, accidents and long times on matter to develop ever more complex beings, culminating in consciousness and the dissemination of culture and knowledge on earth, including knowledge of scientific laws that govern matter. Interestingly, the laws allow for chance to steer the future, as well as for conscious beings to steer things to a limited extent.

Anthropologically, with the development of consciousness, has occurred a seeking of deity found outside of matter. A dialogue developed with deity, recorded in sacred texts. In this way, conscious beings were and are able to transcend matter by use of thought, language, music, and art to depict and communicate regarding deity and with deity.

Deity, not being found in matter, should not be expected to enter the material universe because this would violate the scientific laws that govern matter. Death, catastrophes, illness, anxiety are imperfections that exist because the material universe is not deity but something less, namely, a structure hierarchically created below the deity that dialogues with the deity and longs for perfection found in the deity.

Religion provides tools for searching for that perfection and for providence associated with it. While scientific laws do not extend outside of the material world, conscious beings can nevertheless use scientific understanding and tools to marvel at the fine tuning of the material aspects of creation that makes the world and the universe possible and open to a future with many possibilities.

Thomas Schneck
San Jose, California

Posted April 10, 2007

Dear Harvard Divinity School,

Thank you for Professor Clayton's "Naturalizing Theism—How Far Can One Go?" As a former student of Clayton's, it is interesting to see how he is still wrestling with the religion vs. science issue. Clayton makes some good points, and essentially leaves it up to the reader to form their own opinions. It is also important to remember the bias of the writer, which is Clayton's panentheism.

I recently read an interesting study done as a doctoral dissertation by Greg Graffin (who happens to be in the punk band Bad Religion) in which Graffin surveyed evolutionary biologists worldwide about their religious (or lack thereof) beliefs. Comparing data with a previous similar study, he concludes that religious faith is on the wane and that religion is a "declining belief"—at least among scientists (not surprisingly). It seems that as scientific knowledge grows (and will only continue to do so), science overshadows religion's explanatory allure.

I think Clayton hits upon something profound (perhaps unintentionally) when he calls for an understanding of God "understood in a sufficiently broad sense." Science contains its own "broad" terms—for what exactly is "evolution" or "nature"?

It seems the "mediating options" Clayton discusses lead to a kind of agnosticism, which, though seeming like an indecisive or weak position, may just be the most honest and human "answer" to these ongoing questions and issues.

Best,

Matthew Pamatmat
Cotati, California

Posted April 2, 2007