The Parallel God - by A.J. Palmer

home page faith core page
The Parallel God
The result of a personal journey reconciling Science and Faith

I became a scientist because in my head science works. Chemistry Physics, Maths, Biology all made sense in a way that history, languages and sport never did. Although I was brought up in a Christian home, it wasn't until after studying at UMIST and just obtaining a chemistry degree, and then starting to work within the chemical dyestuffs industry that I found faith offered something valuable and constructive to life.

I have always been impressed with the fact that ideas like evolution and natural selection just make sense. As I see the world they are intuitively obvious. Equally natural are the ideas that cosmologists have generated about the origin of the universe. A "big bang", or inflation, or a separation of matter and anti-matter in a quantum flux, are exciting science. All are good and developing attempts to understand the universe we live in. Unless the person of faith is willing to accept the genuine fit of such models with reality, then that person lives in denial of the world in which we live. I do recognise that a sense of rightness as I describe is not proof. Such a feeling can only direct you to seek rational argument and relevant "proofs", and give warning to beware of bias.

It has taken many years for me to find a real sense of balance and fit of faith with a genuine scientific understanding of the world. It was just a week or so ago, on holiday in Austria, in the accidental or providential company of some fine people, and with the intention of reading some of a book called "Reason, Science & Faith" ¹ that many parts seemed suddenly to fall into place. I am not saying that I agree with Forster & Marston, but their systematic overview of the areas of science and philosophy was very helpful.

The reductive approach to science of Dennet, Dawkin's, Gribbin, and others offers a very clear understanding of the processes of the universe. To such as myself the description has the same appeal as that of my first encounter with natural selection. "It's obviously right" is the sort of thought I have. Yet it doesn't change the deep feeling that God is here known through the same processes and interactions, as is any person. I think that I have always believed that there is God, to me it is equally intuitive. But all intuition, all wonderful ideas are only useful when they are demonstrated to fit the reality of the world.

I do not see those arguments using as axiomatic the statements of men and women made millennia ago to have any particular weight per se. I am interested in the theology and aspirations of those historic people. I am delighted that some obviously found a faith which helped them to make sense of their lives. I am pleased to learn from their experience. However the bible and other texts, are not scientific texts, they are a record of peoples' faith and experiences. They are important. However just because somebody, about 3000 years ago or since, said "God said do this…" or "this is the way to please God" or "This is how the Gods made the world…" ², and another person wrote it down doesn't mean that it is a statement no longer subject to reason and evaluation.

In the following pages I try to express that reconciliation of science and faith that I have achieved. And I do so with gratitude to those who sometimes unknown to themselves have helped in that journey.
AJP. 4^th August 2002

I play around with clocks and intend to build some in the future. I've learnt a little about the mechanisms. I do know that you can tell quite a bit about the clockmaker from his clocks. He may or may not have signed it, but that would only give you a name and perhaps-other ways of tracing his history. But just as the works of Monet, or Picasso can be identified by the style of painting, similarly the clockmaker from his clock. The clockmaker illustration is helpful. The clockmaker designs and fabricates the clock, and may even initiate its first tick, although some mechanisms are self-starting. That same person (or another) may modify or repair the clock. The mind that initiated and controlled the fabrication and executes repairs exists in parallel to the clock. Considering a clock there is a designer and fabricator, the clock could not have happened by accident, we knew that before the analogy was made. However this part of the argument fails to prove that there is a creator for the universe, that is only true if you believe that the world you see has mechanistic or natural processes that imply a fabricator. What it does tell you is that if there is a creator Mind, you can infer some of the creator's qualities or attributes from his creation.

From the human perspective, when we want to talk about whether there is a mind involved in a creative moment for the universe a different analogy is perhaps more instructive. Suppose I am stood on a beach, and a chunk of rock falls from the cliff above and buries itself in the sand near me. What can I infer about the cause of the rock falling? It may be that I can imagine a hand pushing the rock over the edge, or equally I can imagine the natural processes of erosion, the effect of wind and water and infer that some natural processes brought about this fall. Even a butterfly may have landed on the outward edge and tipped it over. Whichever, from where I am stood on the beach some things are evident.

But in the end, as to why the event happened, or what process caused it, I may never have other than a very good range of theories.

I personally believe that there is God, a God who exists in parallel to or contains this universe. And I also believe that it was God who initiated the event that brought the universe into existence, but that doesn't change the fact of the event or its generative nature. If that is all that God ever did, that contention might be forever be beyond proof. In terms of the falling rock illustration, God is the butterfly that landed on the outward edge of the rock, or in the Hawking Quantum field, his were the snapped fingers that held apart the separated particles just long enough for inflation to begin. These however are only verbal pictures to assert a simple belief that God is the reason why the event occurred, and are not intended as scientific explanations of how the event occurred.

What follows from the clockmaker argument though is that if there is a God and God is 'the creator' then some of God's qualities should be discernible through this universe. Therefore I must use the best scientific understanding of this universe if I am properly to discern elements of the character of the creator / initiator. To refuse to tackle scientific theory because it appears to deny the existence of God or because scientists deny the existence of God, or because it doesn't fit with "revealed" theology would be to do an injustice to the mind that brought it all into being.

The process, both the "snap of the divine fingers" or the random variation in a quantum field, and all that follows is fully open to reason and understanding. The description of the development of all things includes, such as Hawking quantum fields at the initiation of the universe, as well as evolution and natural selection within the development of life. I know that there are different theories and approaches within the scientific community. The human mind is engaged on a constant quest for a true understanding of existence. To those who believe there is a creator mind, this will disclose something of that mind's nature, to those who don't so believe it will still be a description of the fabulous and amazing universe in which we exist.

After I had begun to write about this concept of the parallel God, not knowing what I was writing, a friend recommended me to look at a book called "Rocks of Ages"⁴. Here Gould argues the principle of distinct and separate areas of teaching for Science and Religion, areas that do not overlap. Science deals with the material world, and Religion with God. He shows how this has been held historically, as well as arguing the case cogently. It is convincing and exciting reading, and is well worth a read by anyone who feels that there is conflict between science and religion. His arguments are clear. The dispute is more likely to be between scientists and theists who wish to pronounce upon each other's area of expertise, rather than truly between science and faith.

However although Gould writes of Science in general (he is a zoologist, concerned with the material world.) Perhaps the true interface between religion and science is likely to be in the field of ethics. This field spreads its net over all the sciences, in the same way the faith will. The reason is that it deals with the very proper field of what we do with knowledge, and how we find out things about the universe and its contents e.g.

Without doubt this serious area is the one that brings not just people of faith, but people of every creed into serious debate, concern and conflict

We have also always to remember that models and descriptions are not the reality they represent. Schroedinger's Wave Equation describes the probability of finding electrons in the space surrounding atomic nuclei. We use them to draw shapes for the "orbitals" but electrons don't really buzz around in these shapes. They exist in some "uncertain" relationship with the nucleus to which they belong which is best described by the complex mathematics of Schroedinger and Maxwell.

We may not understand the complexities of the mathematics but still we will want to know how the model is verified? Well, the question people would normally ask about a theory/model is something like - "does it properly describe the behaviour we observe and predict new ideas which can be subject to experiment and test?" If the answer is yes, and predicted behaviour tests out positively you may find yourself with the best theory / model yet.

The same will always be true of all the theories we produce about the universe. We may refine them, we polish them, and we may reduce them to relationships with other models. But they are only as good as the accuracy with which they describe the reality they model.

This means then that all the theories we produce have somehow to be verifiable and show a fit with the real world. The same holds true for our theories about God (theology). Revelation about God is fine but has to be subject to test and be verifiable. i.e. it has to fit with the world and be able to be shown to work. If people are not willing to test revelation then the result can end up with cults that commit mass suicide. ¹⁵ So, if God initiated the universe, and we can infer attributes of the Maker from the made, do those attributes imply anything that is testable within the world today?

Another question raised by the clockmaker analogy is the possibility of continuing interaction between maker and made. So whatever or whoever God is, is it possible that he can be known by people. Is such a presumption testable? What kinds of evidence would one look for beyond the contention that the universe declares the glory of God ? The other area has to be within human experience and human living.

Religion and Faith differ. Religion is forms of behaviour built on human dogma. Faith is about a relationship, some would say friendship. The distinction is important. Sir Alister Hardy, Linacre Professor of Zoology (1946 - 65) and founder and first director (1969-1976) of The Oxford Religious Experience Research unit in a statistical survey found that 66% of people experience a "benevolent other force" at some time in their lives.⁶ Is this in its own right reasonable evidence in favour of people being able to interact with God and even that there is a God? This offers the beginnings of sociological and experiential arguments for the existence of God.

At this stage I simply contend that God can be known in a relationship. Much theology, biblical and other eventually obscures that simple relationship. However if mind relates to mind, Human mind to other human minds and to animal minds, then why not human mind to divine mind. There is of course, the possibility of projection. Human beings do project responsive relationships onto machines and organisms, even if those organisms are inanimate or unthinking. That possibility has to be dealt with. However my reading of Jesus in the gospels shows me a man who experienced a relationship with God that brought wholeness, purpose, a sense of integration, and peace to his life. Whatever that relationship was, to it he attributed the power to bring good into people's lives through healing. He had a strong sense of God's presence in his life, and prayer played an important part in his relationship with God. I think Jesus understanding was of God who was best described in terms of love ( agape (Gk.) = unconditional and self giving love.) I see Jesus life as a "demonstration" of the nature of God and a demonstration of the effect of a relationship with God upon living, and a demonstration of the power of divine love to radically improve life.

I think that with Teilhard de Chardin I would want to affirm "Someday, after mastering the winds, the waves, the tides and gravity, we shall harness for God the energies of love, and then for the second time in the history of the world, we will have discovered fire." ¹⁶

Man has an ethical or moral nature. (Marc Bekoff suggests most primates also show ethical behaviour which is consequent upon natural selection. ⁷) I think I would see that as inherent in creation, but also one of the means God uses to make us aware of himself and his willingness to be part of our living.

We need here to distinguish between the capacity for ethical behaviour, and the actual rules used in relationships. Our origins - i.e. our DNA may include the recipe ⁸ for the capacity for ethical behaviour, but not necessarily the rules to be used. Evolution and natural selection may predispose us to behaviour that ensures our own, our partners and our offspring's survival in some kind of priority order. It may therefore be that the recipe for man includes in its ethical bits a degree of what might be seen as "altruism". Twin studies and other studies could give an indication of how much and what part of ethics comes from our genetic inheritance. But wouldn't necessarily explain everything about the different kinds of moral codes that exist, or why they exist in the first place. Morality, ethical behaviour and theology have a history of being interwoven. The word God and good in the English language have the same root, so that the phrase "God is good" is almost tautological. Certain kinds of behaviour are seen as good, and godly. How we behave is therefore somehow intrinsically linked to the idea that there might be absolute standards for behaviour (God given perhaps). That is, a standard that is independent of our upbringing. If there is such an independent standard, was it written into our genetic makeup, or did it just evolve, or was the universe so designed that when we evolved, we evolved this way. Or maybe it exists for us simply to take hold of as an act of free will? Can we really choose to be good or evil?

If in this area theologians and ethicists find themselves treading similar ground. Should there be common rules for dealing with the issues. Is it acceptable for one group to say "The bible says…" or "On a mountain God said…?" I think not. The theologian equally needs to use the rules of logic and enquiry. If the theologian's definition of the nature of God is adequate and "true" then his derivations about acceptable, moral behaviour will be equally true. The ethicist or sociologist who argues from the principles founded on human social relationships should find that he and the theologian agree if both have derived their work accurately from their sources. If they differ, then both are testable, because both should be dealing with the practicalities of relationships and behaviour. Here perhaps more than ever the suggestion of God existing in parallel to the world described by scientists can be seen more clearly. Behavioural scientists could also develop a consistent ethics from the root of survival of the fittest. Once survival is seen to include the possibility of helping others to ensure one's own survival, then altruistic behaviour has a root with evolutionary theory which leads to ethical behaviour. What sort of "protecting others" behaviour properly coincides with survival of the fittest, and is it testable that this is genetically "encouraged" or "facilitated" (i.e. how much of that altruistic behaviour is genetically predisposed? see the section "Evolution, Natural Selection and Human Behaviour")

I think that theology should have a practical benefit. Just as scientists theorise and attempt to describe or model reality and therefore offer not just a description but also testable predictions about the world, so theology should do more than sail theories that cannot be proved. It should offer a coherent approach to life lived in relationship with God, and be testable. Propositions that cannot be tested may be pretty but are also valueless.

top
Prayer
What is the value of a prayer relationship with God who exists in parallel to this world?

The following chart tries to put alongside each other different approaches to origins.

faith	science	atheism
Faith Origin A snap of the divine fingers	Origin of Universe A fluctuation in the quantum field, or…, or…., See John Gribbin's explanation in "In search of the big bang"⁹ or "God the Big Bang, and Stephen Hawking" ¹⁰ page 85, and the surrounding book.	Scientific Atheism Origin An accidental separation of quantum particles / energy / field
Origin of life Self-replicating proteins are either a (favoured) possibility of the existing universe, Or another snap of the divine fingers (although I wouldn't have put it here), Or a natural consequence of the balance of the universe by the above.	Origin of life Develops from the occurrence of self-replicating proteins.	Scientific Atheism Origin of life An accidental event leading to evolution.
Origin of man "One of" or "the" most versatile members of the animal kingdom. The replication of DNA by the survival of the fittest implies that there must be some elements of behaviour that are directed to ensuring others survive (with whom to procreate) and that the species survives. (So that "I" as a part of all may have a chance to procreate). "Good" is therefore behaviour that enables others and myself to survive. Man is the first animal to see that there is something greater than is own standards.	Origin of man Develops within the animal kingdom by a process of evolution driven by natural selection (survival of the fittest). Some behaviour is driven by inheritance and other is controlled by "memes" ? What makes a meme acceptable to the brain? e.g. self-survival memes need at their level of "intent" to match with the inherited need to survive. Equally so they need to address the social of man.	Scientific Atheism Origin of man Is an animal "red in tooth and claw", brighter, more flexible, and more vicious than the rest? A better survivor with the ability to manipulate material things. The development of memes, ideas that replicate through the communicative ability of man, includes social, ethical and scientific memes, which encourage and proliferate specific behaviours. Memes "fight" for survival in a process of natural selection. Man becomes man by learning to talk.
Religion in man Religion / faith is the best meme for the survival of the individual and the species. Testing could show that e.g. the Christian faith would give the best survival option for both individual, society and species. The meme includes a relationship with the creator. This allows constant monitoring and development of the meme to personal circumstance. Faith is about living creatively in an open relationship with God, whereas religion can be about appeasing a wrathful God or dangerous spirits.	Religion in man The place of religion and faith cause much debate. Is God separate from and above the creeds of individual religions, and if so what is the truth about knowing God.	Religion in man Another of many memes, but one about a being/mind/God, or whatever, that doesn't exist.

I am fascinated by the theories of the beginnings of the universe. And I see no reason to repeat the work of other competent writers in this area by reviewing the full field of different theories and approaches to the beginning of everything. If you want detail of the science and theories of how the world / universe came into existence I recommend other reading.^{9, 10}

The audacity of Stephen Hawkings is thrilling. Can there really be one theory that explains everything - I would want to wholeheartedly agree. Some say we live in a post modernist age, which rejects all embracing explanations of the world. However the idea of a grand explanation, a theory which gives expression to the integrity and integration of the world in which we live is a very appealing idea. In some ways I think that every-one at some level works with their own explanation of how the world works. For some it may be very limited, but without an explanation at some level you cannot function effectively within the world. Some live comfortably with unanswered questions, others when faced with questions cannot rest until some kind of answer is produced.

I could never be satisfied with being told that there are some questions the scientist / theologian / philosopher / human being could not explore and work at because they are the domain and preserve of God. Human beings have inquisitive minds, questioning is part of our very nature. We may not like the answers we get. They might threaten cherished beliefs both scientific and theological. But for me it would be blasphemy not to enquire and research and theorise about every aspect of the world we live in. In doing so we will discover many wonderful things.

For me fundamentally science and faith ask different questions. Material sciences are about the structure and interaction of the universe and its parts. It asks the question "how did this come about"? Faith looks at the world and asks, "why did it come about", and "what is it for?"

Physics has its various debated theories about the big bang, inflation, and quantum origins. Chemistry explores the grosser physical nature of material interactions. Biology with all its departments explains the nature of living things, the effect of DNA and there are moves to create a "genetic tree of life" which is very exciting. All of these and the many other areas of scientific enquiry deal with the "how" of the universe in which we live. David Wilkinson says that Stephen Hawkings made this point clearly.

"… it is possible to affirm with Hawkings the origin of the universe being a fluctuation in a quantum field, but at the same time hold a complementary affirmation that the universe owes its existence to the sovereign will of God. … In fact it seems that Hawkings himself sees such a point. … he rounds on philosophers who spend their time on linguistic analysis rather than addressing the question 'why should there be a universe at all?'" ¹¹

While on holiday (Austria, July 2002), as a consequence of discussion and through reading books an idea occurred which was confirmed by an article in the New Scientist which I read when I came home.

I was exploring the question "what is good in human society?" I was looking at it particularly from the point of view of evolution and natural selection. Why should an animal that is working only to survive, be nice to his neighbours, or to any other animal for that matter?

It cannot be that "survival of the fittest" excludes social behaviour. In fact it must include some priority for behaviour directed to the survival of others.

It was therefore very encouraging to read "Virtuous Nature", a feature article from the New Scientist of 13 July 2002. In the article, Marc Bekoff who teaches biology at the University of Colorado recounts evidence suggesting that many animals have a sense of right and wrong. He believes that "species that live in groups often have a sense of fair play built on moral codes of conduct that help cement their social relationships."

He goes on to demonstrate that such moral codes are built and explored through the play activities of the young with each other and their elders.

Studies that showed that hungry rhesus monkeys and rats would not take food if it meant that another animal would receive and electric shock support the presence of such codes of relational behaviour.¹² In another study a by Hal Markowitz from San Francisco University (ca 1982), they observed another monkey helping an old female who couldn't figure out how to use counters to get food. Using the counters for her, and letting her take the food. I'm sure that there are many such events that are never seen by the observer, however in the world of science observed and recorded facts are the best basis for argument and theories that are testable give a way forward. Bekoff quotes examples from his own fieldwork, e.g.

"I've found that coyote pups who don't play are less tightly bonded to other members of their group and are more likely to strike out on their own. … I found that about 60% of the yearlings who drifted away from their social group died, whereas fewer than 20% of their stay-at-home peers did."

Bekoff also suggests that there is evidence in primates other than man, for the use of punishment and apology to help reinforce the rules of social engagement.

Bekoff says that he isn't arguing for a gene for fair or moral behaviour - he thinks, and I agree, that "the underlying genetics is bound to be complex."

Clearly then, Bekoff's work and presumably that of others lends credence to the idea that treating one's fellow human beings with decency and kindness has a strong place in the survival, not just of the individual but also of the social and racial groups. The intense preoccupation of some nations / national leadership with the creation of biological weapons of mass destruction threatens the survival of all, and is roundly condemned by the majority of thinking people.

Whereas social behaviour at all levels, personal, family, society, national, international has a defined good that is related to individual survival.

It seems that ethical and social behaviour - virtuous behaviour if you like - is intrinsic to the nature of man.

While we can see this then as natural we may still want to ask if religion or faith has any place in refining, and developing such behaviour. We may also want to ask, "Is there such a thing as an absolute moral standard?" and if so "Where does it come from?" We might suggest that moral rules are perhaps part of the laws of nature.

The division between religion and science has been an interesting piece of work. And certainly Stephen Jay Gould's¹⁴ work on this is excellent. It explores the tension and the division in a clear way. Much of what he says I wholeheartedly agree with. There is no battle, no fight, and should never have been. If there has been it has come about because of the people wanting to proclaim where they have done no research or study in areas relevant to their proclamation and belief.

However as you follow through the concept of NOMA and the separation of magisteria (divisions of scholarship) there is a small problem that arises for me. While NOMA requires a proper separation of certain areas of research the classic definition of miracle which requires to allow God to work in the world breaking the laws of nature is scrapped. This has to be logical - if the universe is not observable and repeatable then there are no laws of nature, and there is no science - and everything scientific becomes mere speculation because everything depends upon the whim of God.

So whatever miracle is, it is not God breaking the rules of his creation. After all. man manages to work within the world without breaking the laws of nature. He initiates events and gets things done. So why can't God operate in the same way. The important questions are, "What are the parameters of an event that is purpose driven by God?", and "How is such an event recognised as God's action?"

It is very clear that human mind interacts with matter. My thoughts may propose actions and I may carry out those actions and thus alter the world in which I live. How then does the mind of God (if there is such a mind) interact with the world, which he has created? It is very clear that some the detailed examination of the processes of nerve cells in the brain show what happens when the associated mind has a thought. But is the thought and the firing of the nerve cell the same thing. I think not. But since there is a relationship between the two even if it true nature is still unclear - does the thought fire the neurone or vice versa. This is important because it is about free will. If I choose to remember a whole a range of events do I really have free will? Have I chosen and is that the control, or has the neurone fired randomly and am I acting from the illusion of self control. Arising from this area is another question?

Whose domain is it to explore how the divine mind interacts with the material world? Clearly neither pure material scientists, nor theologians on their own are competent to pronounce upon this area? How is such an inter-discipline set-up and who should study it?

Andrew J. Palmer September 2002
(minor corrections and references added August 2008)

This is a page from www.genefaith.org created by A. J. Palmer.
If you have not visited the main site please do so.