Comments

Sermon for the Baptism of Christ/First Sunday after the Epiphany 2009 — 4 Comments

  1. Scientific progress is going to continue forever so it’s going to become more and more difficult for an educated person to believe in God. Science has advanced so much already that it’s fair to say a God is no longer necessary for anything. The formation of new stars and planets, the development of the first living cells, the evolution and branching of life into millions of species, all these are natural processes that require no supernatural intervention. Why believe in a God who never did anything? It’s already obsolete, and after a few more centuries of scientific progress there won’t be any educated people left who believe in God. So why not throw the God invention in the garbage now and be done with it?

  2. Maybe we could reframe the discussion.

    How do such qualities as goodness, beauty and truth arise? On what does the truth of mathematics depend? What if God is not supernatural? What if God pervades nature, and what if nature is rooted in God? What if natural processes, from the formation of stars and galaxies to the evolution and diversification of life, is the way that God creates, and continues to create? From whence does the human spirit and the capacity for love spring? Are they built into the structure of space and time?

    Particle physicists recognise the deep structure of matter in the tracks made by ionised particles in cloud chambers. By analogy perhaps we can recognise the tracks of what we name God throughout creation.

    All around I see faint but unmistakeable traces of a God like a loving Father, of a Son that shows people how to relate in love to all about us, and of a Spirit that animates all creation!

  3. I attended a lecture by Dr Brian Cox of the CERN Project (the Large Hadron Collider) last year. He said he was not religious, but had no problem with colleagues believing in God. There seems a division between the physicists and the biologists about the admissibility of religious belief.

    A pervasive God present through all the cosmos appeal to me – otherwise it would not be God at all.

  4. Many scientists believe in God and dont’ see any conflict with their religion. God is a concept that we find hard to tackle so gave ‘him’ a humanesque form and persona. Clearly God is not interventionist so is not this mighty grey haired bloke weilding power over all. I don’t believe in God in the traditional sense, I think it’s more than that, it’s indescribable so we give it a name and a face . . .it’s the wondrous and awful things around us that we can’t explain and the awefull and mysterious things which we have yet to understand.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *