Albert Einstein once remarked that whenever a scientific problem arose the solution that, amongst many possible solutions, was by far the most beautiful, the most elegant, would prove to be the best answer. Recently I read a theological essay by Gerald Heard1. Knowledge, he said, is the basis of all Eastern Religion and faith the starting point of the religions of the West. But faith, he continued, is not blind unsubstantiated belief but the choice of the nobler hypothesis. It is right knowledge. Therefore true faith has a relationship, a correlation, with knowledge.
Newton's second law, F=Ma, (force is equal to mass multiplied by acceleration), is an example of a more general scientific law which holds that the universe is subject to laws in general. Not just that scientists may invent laws which they apply to various aspects of the universe but that, in a real sense, such laws are already 'out there' to be found, even if human-invented scientific laws only approximate objectively existing laws.
Pseudo-scientific arguments for atheism often point to the pivotal role of randomly generated blind chance in the development of, the evolution of, the universe. The suggestion of anything other than blind chance is regarded as an allegation of miraculous theistic intervention in the world. Recently I watched a television program on exobiology, the study of possible extraterrestrial life. In the last few years it has been established that planets which orbit other stars are commonplace throughout the universe. Given the vast number of stars it is now almost completely certain that there is life elsewhere in the universe and that it is probably common. The questions as to exactly where this life is and what form this life might take are still to be answered. The narrator made what struck me as a bizarre claim. While the physical sciences have rigorously defined laws, he claimed, the basis for all biology is the randomly generated. So the range of possible life-forms on other planets would be infinite. This is, in fact, only a small part of the story.
Evolution, as described by Darwin, involves natural and sexual selection of a species for a particular ecosystem. When a pair mate their genes are shuffled in a random manner but these genes are of a finite, if large, quantity and are qualitatively limited as is the gene pool of the whole species. Similarly each ecosystem is a given. There is, of course, a near infinite range of possible, but distinct and separate, ecosystems. And, of course, each individual ecosystem is capable of varying over time. Accordingly the shuffling of genes creates the possibility of a species adapting to a changing environment. Therefore while the possible number of genotypes of a subsequent generation is enormous and the range of possible ecosystems and the possible number of species in any one of these ecosystems is enormous, random chance is only one element in the process. Far more fundamental is that these series of random events are subject to law, such as Darwin's observation of natural and sexual selection for a given habitat and Mendel's laws of inheritance. Law is much more fundamental to the evolutionary process than chance, be it 'blind' or otherwise. The idea, a distortion of genuine science, that the universe is a product of random chance events and is therefore devoid of meaning except that meaning which humans may impose on reality by acts of their will is frequently used as a tactic by the atheistic propaganda lobby. Materialism, a favourite dogma of atheists, has, more or less, been discredited by the physics community. There is no objective material reality independent of an observing mind, at least at that level of reality described by particle physics. Sub-atomic particles can have a finite number of different objectively existing characteristics, depending on how these are measured. This involves a macroscopic measuring device and ultimately the measurement is a function of interaction with the observing mind and, of course, that mind is ultimately responsible for the design of the measurement device. However I have, on more than one occasion, heard rather senior academic philosophers claiming scientific, but of course pseudo-scientific, justification for the belief that each individual is akin to a creator god of his personal universe. The question as to how these different universes interact tends to be fudged.
Beyond Good and Evil is one of Friedrich Nietzsche's more important works. Those who strive for goodness or truth are to be held in contempt by a newly emerging elite. Christianity is to be held in contempt as 'Platonism of the people'. The elite ruling class are to dispense with any need to recognise truth. The will to truth is to be discarded and displaced with the will to power. Facts are to be discarded in favour of the prejudices of the elite and their capacity to ruthlessly act as if these fantasies were in fact true. Now any society or sub-culture may have a sense of loyalty by its members. Professionals, tradesmen or craftsmen may have a sense of pride by virtue of membership of this or that 'club'. And so on to football fan clubs and to the absurdities of undergraduate fraternities and adolescent 'in' groups. However Nietzsche's, largely imaginary, peer group were superior purely because of their capacity to believe themselves to be superior, their belief in their right to and capacity for amorality and such petty absurdities as 'good taste'. This is the nihilism which is rightly attributed to Nietzsche. The idea that truth has pragmatic value is ignored. Truth always has some objective element whereas the range of possible subjective delusional ideas is infinite. The question as to what one might make of the facts is one thing but the belief that we actually invent the facts is quite another. Central to Nietzsche's ideas is his aristocratic pomposity which is, in truth, closely allied to the belief in the creative power of excess wealth and the denial that this factor is in any way involved.
It is, I believe, a law of God and of the universe that God intervenes in His creation. However He does this not by altering the laws of nature but by working within their parameters in ways that may be uncanny, frequently extraordinary, but not miraculous in the usually understood way. An old friend once invented the following parable. "I need £100 badly", said someone. "Please God give me £100 and I will believe in You." An eccentric millionaire then leaped out of the shadows, handed the man £100 and went on his way. "Well God," said the lucky person, "maybe You gave me the money but maybe not. I still don't believe."
I have heard devout Christians questioning the literal truth that Jesus raised his friend Lazarus from the dead. It is such an extraordinary story and yet is recounted only in one Gospel, the Gospel of John. I believe this allegorical tale is allied to the parable of the other Lazarus, the poor man who begged outside the mansion of the rich man. Lazarus died and went to heaven and the rich man died and went to hell. The rich man asked God to allow him to warn his brothers of the possibility of coming to the same sad end as him. God replied that if his brothers did not heed the warnings of the prophets they would ignore even the warnings of the risen dead.
I have experienced the risen dead on several occasions. For example I have an ornamental pipe. A friend frequently admired it and there was a running gag regarding the exaggerated degree to which he coveted it. My friend died some time ago. When I returned home from the funeral I lifted up the pipe. It had a long ornamental stem and a stone bowl. The bowl had fallen out of the stem many, many times before but this time the bowl smashed to pieces when it hit the floor. My friend had stopped by to bring the item with him for his journey, I thought. This was, in a real sense, objectively true but just not obvious to anyone but we who were intimately aware of this aspect of our friends life. To feel the real presence of those who have recently died is not unusual. Many people have spoken to me of such things. Lazarus rose.
In every pre-agricultural tribal social unit there would be one shaman. Miracles are attributed to such people although it is a cliché in many such societies to claim that modern shamans are puny in their power in comparison to the mighty shamans of older times. But perhaps it is just that the stories, the truthful stories, of the old ones seem more extraordinary in their re-telling. Not that they are exaggerated stories but that the limitations of language, the genuine limitations of language, make them seem to defy the laws of nature rather than the laws of probability. God does play dice most physicists hold. Perhaps this is the source of His power and influence. And why we need to be receptive to Him.
Any individual of any species will only experience a sliver of the totality of reality and any capacity to understand this experience is similarly limited. The capacity for religious experience is a distinct feature of the human experience and perhaps was so even amongst the Neanderthals. But the ineffable nature of such experiences is well documented. The validity of such experiences can usually be doubted by the committed cynic. Do these people fail to achieve the fullness of their humanity? I do not know. But the capacity to appreciate the mystery that is implicit in creation is as close as anybody, any sentient being within creation, can get to something akin to an answer.

1. Faith is Right Knowledge… The Choice of the Nobler Hypothesis. From Prayers and Meditations by Gerald Heard, Harper and Row, 1949.

Brendan Burke MA(Phil) Cork 23rd October 2008.
Cork Unitarian Church