My last few sermons have had a common theme. It wasn’t planned that way but sometimes it’s good to go with the flow. The theme comes from St Peter’s first letter:
Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15)
The theme continues in today’s reading There’s no mileage in being a God botherer – if people are not interested in hearing about the faith, we should respect that. On the other hand, don’t assume that people are not interested. Remember the quiet revival – it’s quiet, but it’s real. If people do show an interest don’t be shy, after all:
… how are they to call on one in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in one of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone to proclaim him? … As it is written, ‘How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!’ (Rom 10:14-15)
And who wouldn’t want beautiful feet.
This isn’t Netflix, so I won’t give a recap of the last episode, but we got onto the question: what are the reasons for believing that there is a God? I don’t want to suggest that I think that faith in God some dry intellectual exercise, I do not think that. God said to Abraham, pack your bags and come on journey with me, and I will show you a land. Jesus did not say to the apostles you can follow me, but first you have to do a course at Nazareth Technical College; he said follow me and I will make you fishers of men. When Cleopas and his companion walked to Emmaus the risen Christ walked alongside them and opened their eyes, and when Nathaniel said to Philip ‘can anything good come from Nazareth’ Philip replies ‘come and see’. So ‘come and see’ is the answer to the question ‘why believe?’ Nevertheless, when someone declares ‘there is no evidence’, you should be able to say, ever so politely, ‘oh, yes there is!’. We begin with the creation, for, as Julie Andrews advised: ‘Let's start at the very beginning. A very good place to start’.
The Big Bang theory is the scientific theory that the universe began in a stupendous explosion some 13.8 billion years ago, dubbed ‘the Big Bang’ by cosmologist Fred Hoyle, originally as a joke, but the name stuck. Everything expanded outward from this Big Bang and over time developed into the galaxies, the stars, the planets, the elements out of which everything is made, the sun, the earth and life on earth. This idea was originally proposed by Georges le Maitre, engineer, artillery officer, computing pioneer, mathematician, astrophysicist and, as it happens, Roman Catholic priest. His original paper was published in 1927 but, as it often the case with these things, no one noticed for the first few years. By the 1960s though, the Big Bang was accepted by almost all scientists, as it is to this day. The evidence for it is overwhelming. There was opposition, partly on scientific grounds, but also because to a lot of people the Big Bang looked a bit too much like a creation. Fred Hoyle, for example, dismissed the Big Bang saying that some scientists favoured it for theological rather than scientific reasons:
- “The reason why scientists like the ‘big bang’ is because they are overshadowed by the book of Genesis.”
- “They have a deep‑seated desire to believe in creation.”
The first verse of Bible says: ‘In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth’. God is the one who was there from the beginning from whom all created things come. Hoyle and many others wanted to say that it’s the universe that was always there, not God. But science says otherwise. Now, let not overclaim. The Big Bang does not prove that God created the universe, far from it, as le Maitre himself pointed out to the Pope of the time, Pope Pius XII, when he got a bit over excited about it; but it does make the universe look like a creation. Last time we had pigeons. This time it’s ducks. As they say if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then maybe it’s a duck. If the universe looks like a creation, then perhaps that’s what it is.
But there’s more of course. Starting in the 1950s with, ironically, Fred Hoyle, scientists have discovered what is called cosmological fine tuning. Some people call it the Goldilocks effect. In the story of Goldilocks everything, the chair, the porridge, the bed are all just right. In the same way, in the universe everything is just right, that is the forces of nature are fine-tuned to the precise level they need to be, and there is no scientific reason why they are like that, they just are. If they were not fine-tuned then galaxies, the stars, the planets, the elements out of which everything is made, the sun, the earth and life on earth would not exist. This makes the universe look like it was designed by a creator. Almost all scientists accept that fine tuning is real. Lets not overclaim. This doesn’t prove that the universe was designed by God in order to create life, but it does make look like it. And if it looks like a duck … you know the rest.
Fred Hoyle changed his mind somewhat as he got older. And credit to the man. Many claim that they follow the evidence wherever it leads when they do no such thing. But Fred Hoyle followed the evidence and then said:
A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.
OK, some might say. There might be a creator. But how can we know anything about him. The Christian answer is:
No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father’s heart, who has made him known. (John 1:18)
So, next question: how do we know anything about Jesus. What’s the evidence? In my experience when some people ask this question they mean, ‘apart from the New Testament, what’s the evidence’ which is like asking ‘apart from the evidence, what’s the evidence?’ which is a bit daft. Actually, there’s plenty of evidence outside the NT but when it comes to ‘what did Jesus do?’ and ‘what did he say?’ the best evidence is in the NT books, all collected together into one handy volume. The NT is of course Holy Scripture inspired by God, but is it also historical evidence. If you are talking to an enquirer, telling them that they have to believe the gospels because ‘it’s in the Bible and that’s that’ is probably not going to get you very far. Pointing out that, as well as being holy scripture, the NT is also historical evidence might be a better response to the ‘faith means believing without evidence’ nonsense. Don’t call it nonsense though remember: gentleness and respect.
By the standards of ancient history the evidence for Jesus, what he did and what he said, is pretty good. Now, once again, let’s not overclaim. By the standards of ancient history is not a high bar. In ancient history you are always dealing with limited evidence and Jesus is a not an exception to that; but that does not mean you can’t say anything about ancient history in general or Jesus in particular. You most certainly can.
It’s interesting to compare the documentary evidence for Jesus with the documentary evidence for the Roman Emperor at the time, Tiberius, then the most famous person in the world (reigned AD14-37). There are four main sources for the story of the life of Tiberius, as there are for Jesus. There is one contemporary source Velleius Paterculus; the others, Tacitus, Suetonius and Cassius Dio, come from the 2nd or 3rd century. In contrast, all four gospels were written in the first century. Tiberius is of course mentioned in in plenty of other documents, as is Jesus, most obviously in the other books of the NT, but he is also mentioned by Tacitus certainly, and by Suetonius probably. Josephus, the most important source for the history of Israel around the time of Jesus, also mentions Tiberius; and also Jesus, John the Baptist and his death at the hands of Herod Antipas, and James brother of the Lord and his death as well as other people and events mentioned by Luke. There is archaeological evidence for Tiberius: coins, inscriptions, and monuments and so on. There is no direct archaeological evidence for Jesus, why would there be, but there is for the background information in the NT books. So the NT is inspired scripture, of course it is, but that doesn’t stop it from being historical evidence as well.
Summary.
- The universe has not always existed
- The universe is fine tuned for life
Doesn’t prove anything but makes the universe look created and designed
and if it looks like a duck …
The NT is Holy Scripture but it is also historical evidence.
It’s not proof, but it is evidence.
If you want proof: “Come,” Jesus replied, “and you will see.” (John 1:39)