Joining The Dots - Day 6

Thank you very much, everybody, for coming. It's nice to see you all here again. I hope you all had a good weekend. I pray that we can hear God's words through me. It's really not that I claim this is God's words; it's just for me. It's just a conversation. I love being with real people in a real place where we can just talk and have a conversation. For me, this is an experiment, an exploratory workshop trying to work these things out for myself. There's a lot of work involved in putting together these slides and lectures, trying to join the dots myself and see where it goes. I don't know where the destination is going to be, to be honest. This is like a journey.

Last time, on Friday, we were exploring some issues around sex and gender. I want to go back over that a little bit because it leads into what I'm going to be talking about next. We're looking at the whole scheme of what is the nature of reality, from Pythagoras and his table of opposites, and how I fit into one column or we fit into another column. One column is associated with things that are good, while the other column is associated with things that are bad or evil. One column has to dominate and rule, and as much as possible, eliminate the other column. We'll be looking at how that affects concepts about development and, in a few days' time, how it works in the realm of politics.

Hesiod was the person who came up with this idea. He wrote the story of the cosmogony, and he described the first created woman simply as 'Kalam Takkun kakum', the beautiful evil thing. She's evil because she's beautiful and beautiful because she's evil. This idea suggests that femininity is connected to evil. Aristotle, who was a disciple of Plato and a much better philosopher in my opinion, was basically working out of this kind of typology from Pythagoras. He believed that a male is by nature superior and a female inferior, with the male as the ruler and the female as the subject. By 'subject', it doesn't mean subject in the way we usually use the word; it means subjected. So, out of that, it's very easy to develop a sense of gender stereotypes.

Gender stereotypes of femininity and masculinity arise, suggesting women are like this or supposed to be like that, and men are like this or supposed to be like that. This leads to an imbalance of power, with certain kinds of jobs assumed to fit women and men being pushed into different kinds of jobs. We see classic examples from 1950s America, where a man is enjoying polishing his car while a woman is thrilled to have polished her frying pan. The principle, though, views the nature of reality differently. In the Divine Principle, dual characteristics are complementary, mutually attractive, and both are equally valuable. There is no suggestion that one side or the other is good or evil.

When we look at the nature of reality, we go to science. We know that there are only two sexes: female and male, represented by XX and XY chromosomes. A tiny, very microscopic proportion of people are not XX or XY due to some kind of genetic aberration, which affects physiology as well. The brains can also differ in terms of intelligence. The average intelligence is about the same, but there are more men who are at the higher end of the intellectual spectrum and more women who are at the lower end. The Divine Principle also talks about masculinity and femininity, stating that some people have a feminine nature as the foundation of a man, while women have a masculine aspect that fits with modern psychology and understanding of masculinity and femininity.

In this context, there are girls who exhibit more masculine traits and boys who exhibit more feminine traits. In the case of adolescent females, a girl whose behaviour, personality, and preferences are more masculine might incorrectly conclude that she is really a male born in the wrong body. This can confuse her parents as well, especially if her behaviour differs significantly from that of her peers. In reality, that child simply exists at one end of a behavioural spectrum. Atypical behaviour is part of the natural variation exhibited within and between the sexes. Personality and behaviour do not define one sex in most cases. What is now called gender identity is simply an individual's perception of how their own sex-related and environmentally influenced personality compares to same and opposite-sex people.

This conflation stems from a cultural failure to understand the broad distribution of personalities and preferences within sexes and the overlap between sexes. Because we live in a fallen world, there are many stereotypes, particularly under the influence of fallen stereotypes. Men should be like this, and women should be like that, supported by philosophical views from Pythagoras, which are also embedded in our language. People often get confused by the expectations others have about how they ought to be and their own expectations. Generally speaking, people sort these things out; there are very few who actually get stuck. I'm not an expert on any of this, but I'm trying to figure out what sex and gender I am as a person. Part of it is biology; you're either XX or XY, and that can't be changed.

The expression of that biology is physiology, not just the brain but also the sexual organs, which differ between men and women. There is a very small proportion of people for whom it's not clear whether they are one or the other. A lot of these things are affected by the time in the womb. During fetal development, a baby receives hormones from the mother, and sometimes they get more or less testosterone, which affects how they develop. Additionally, the way a person is treated by their parents makes a difference in how they grow up. For example, pink is for girls and blue is for boys, and the toys they are expected to play with can influence their development. Sometimes, people experience sexual abuse, which can have a very damaging effect on their sexual development and sense of identity.

There are also social pressures and expectations from peer groups and schools to conform to certain stereotypes. This can lead to confusion, as people may not feel that they fit into the roles expected of them. Instead of fostering a more accepting and inclusive society, these pressures can create confusion. Out of all this develops an inner sense of self, and there are issues regarding same-sex attraction. I think a lot of that is also connected to these factors. As I mentioned on Friday, when I was growing up, I went to a boys' boarding school and had a very close friend with whom I fell in love, but it never went beyond something in my head. I realised I grew out of that, and for most people, it's just a phase. If one suddenly feels attraction towards someone, it doesn't mean they need to label themselves; it's just part of our natural inner development, which shouldn't be interfered with by others.

Now, I'd like to explore another area, which is kind of difficult and controversial. This is something I put together about seven years ago when there was a lot of conversation about same-sex marriage going through Parliament. I'm not saying this is the absolute truth; it's just a way in which I try to engage with these ideas and concepts. The first thing to think about is, why marriage? Where did the institution of marriage come from? A lot of it is based on anthropology. When a man sees a beautiful young woman, naturally, desires arise. He might start talking to her, trying to develop a relationship, but always at the back of his mind is the idea of a sexual relationship. Meanwhile, the woman is sizing him up, considering his attributes and whether he is suitable.

At some point, the man might suggest having a sexual relationship, but the woman knows that if she engages in that relationship, there is a real possibility of becoming pregnant. She wants to know if he is willing to commit to her and take care of her and their child if she becomes pregnant. The man, on the other hand, doesn't want to take care of another man's child; he wants to ensure that the woman will be monogamous. They come to an agreement: if she becomes pregnant, he will look after her and their child, and she promises not to have sex with other men. This agreement is rooted in the need for commitment and security in the context of potential parenthood.

Women and their children are central to the discussion of marriage. Both men and women desire monogamous relationships for legitimate reasons. This relationship, which encompasses love, sex, and the upbringing of children, is defined as marriage. The institution of marriage has existed since the dawn of time, transcending cultures and societies. Regardless of the form it takes—be it monogamy or polygamy—marriage has always been a union between a man and a woman, primarily benefiting women, which is why traditionally, women are given the marriage certificate.

Marriage is a socially recognised lifelong union between a man and a woman, established for love, sex, and child-rearing. All societies have some form of marriage, and while the specifics may vary, the core purpose remains the same. Religions support marriage, creating rituals and ceremonies to formalise it, allowing couples to receive the community's and God's blessing. These ceremonies are significant events that reinforce the commitment between partners and the community's recognition of that commitment.

Religions invest marriage with theological meaning and establish standards to protect it, including rules against adultery. Such rules are necessary because love and sexuality are incredibly powerful forces. Without these guidelines, relationships can suffer from jealousy and violence, affecting not only the individuals involved but also their families and children. Thus, religions have developed rules regarding sexual relationships and marriage to maintain social order and protect the sanctity of marriage.

The question arises: does the government or the state have the authority to radically change the definition of marriage? Marriage predates government and has traditionally been supported by religious institutions. Over time, the state has formalised these religious ideas into law. However, the legitimacy of the government's authority to alter such a foundational institution is questionable. Laws regarding marriage were historically seen as divinely ordained, not merely created by human will.

Marriage is defined as a socially recognised union between a man and a woman, distinct from other forms of love, such as that between parents and children or siblings. The love shared between a husband and wife is unique and encompasses psychological, mental, spiritual, and physical connections. At the heart of marriage is sexual love; without it, the institution loses its essence. The consummation of marriage, traditionally defined as the union of sexual organs, is crucial for the validity of the marriage. If a couple does not engage in a sexual relationship, the marriage can be annulled, as it is not considered valid.

Marriage also serves as a partnership for companionship, where individuals support and care for one another. It is a space for love, where couples encourage each other and work together to build a life. Furthermore, marriage is fundamentally about procreation, where new life is conceived and nurtured. The upbringing of children within a marriage is vital for passing on traditions, values, and social norms. Statistically, children raised in homes with both a mother and father tend to have better outcomes in various aspects of life, including education.

When discussing same-sex marriage, the question arises about how the sexual organs of homosexual couples can be united in the same way as those of heterosexual couples. The introduction of same-sex marriage necessitated a change in the definition of marriage, as it could no longer be strictly tied to sexual relationships and procreation. This shift raises further questions about the validity of marriage as an institution. If marriage can exist without a sexual relationship or the possibility of procreation, why should it be limited to homosexual couples?

The traditional definition of marriage, which includes sexual relations and procreation, has been altered, leading to a situation where the essence of marriage is lost. The state has redefined marriage, but this redefinition raises concerns about the legitimacy of such changes. If marriage is no longer an arbitrary institution created by the state or religion, then the traditional understanding of marriage as a union between a man and a woman is fundamentally challenged. The solution may lie in maintaining marriage as it has traditionally been understood while creating a separate legal institution for same-sex couples, ensuring they receive similar rights and benefits without altering the definition of marriage itself.

Are we going to ban religions from teaching what they believe? Are we going to ban religions from teaching their traditional moral teachings? Or are we going to say, 'Right, you have to change your moral teachings, you have to change your Bible, you have to change the Koran, and edit the Koran, edit the Bible to remove these offensive laws, remove these offensive statements about homosexuality'? It's not the way to go. Maybe religions will be forced to marry homosexuals. If you read any Christian marriage liturgy, it's all about explaining the relationship between a man and a woman, the purpose and meaning of marriage. If churches and other religious institutions are going to be forced by the law, under equalities legislation, to marry homosexuals, it means they have to completely change the marriage service. They have to change their moral teachings and their own religious understanding of the meaning and purpose of marriage.

What are you going to do about teachers? As an RE teacher, one of the things you teach is about marriage and family in different religions. Are you going to ban teachers from teaching the beliefs of religions? It means an RE teacher in an English school will have to say, 'Actually, these different churches and religions teach this,' when they actually don't. How is that going to work? Churches that refuse to marry homosexuals will be accused of discrimination under equality legislation and prosecuted. Where does that end? Are RE teachers going to be arrested, tried, found guilty, and put in prison because they refused to conduct a marriage service for homosexuals? It sounds like that's the way it's going.

In conclusion, this legislation has huge implications for religious freedom. It hasn't arrived yet, but it will have significant consequences when the state starts to impose its morality upon religious institutions, forcing them either to close down or to change their moral teachings. This legislation, by redefining marriage, effectively abolishes marriage as traditionally understood. Gay marriage will lead to the loss of religious freedom. Homosexuals who wish to make a special commitment to each other can do so under the civil partnership legislation, which I think is a good idea. We need to revive marriage and encourage our children to aspire to it because marriage is a beautiful thing, representing conjugal love, commitment to each other, and a place for having children.

Now, let's delve into the realms of philosophy and examine the implications. As I said before, ideas have consequences. It's essential to remember that these are not just ideas; they have powerful consequences in people's lives and in the realms of politics, economics, and everything else. Many of these ideas have deep philosophical roots, which is important to understand. I want to look at the development of these ideas. We didn't appear from nowhere; we haven't always been here. There was a big bang a long time ago, about 13.8 billion years ago, and things developed until finally human beings emerged. This brings us to the thoughts of ancient thinkers, particularly Plato, who was a very influential philosopher.

The Greek view was that there is a pre-existing material world. They believed that matter is eternal; the universe has always existed. From Plato's point of view, and that of Aristotle and other Greek philosophers, there was a pre-existing material world, and they said that this matter is inanimate, meaning it is lifeless. How do you get from lifeless matter to living organisms? If matter is lifeless, how do you explain life? How do you explain all these plants, animals, and trees? Their basic philosophical assumption was that all that exists is matter. So, how do we explain the world we find ourselves in? Obviously, development takes place, and there are living beings and creatures.

From this lifeless matter, Plato argued that order must be imposed. This idea goes back to Pythagoras, who spoke of order and chaos. Order has to be imposed on chaos. Pythagoras was doing geometry, so for him, order had to be imposed upon the limitless. This is similar to how a piece of metal is stamped to create coins; every coin looks the same because it has the same stamp. In this way, matter is stamped with a form by a Demiurge, much like how a craftsman shapes metal. Both Platonic and Aristotelian philosophies attempted to explain the world based on the principle of Anaxagoras, who stated that all things were in chaos until reason came to arrange them. This myth was translated into philosophy, where everything that was chaotic was ordered by reason.

Plato wrote a book called Timaeus, where he presents an account of the formation of the universe. He was deeply impressed with the order and beauty observed in the universe. His project was to explain that order and beauty. In this dialogue, he describes the universe as a product of rational purpose and good agency, the handiwork of a divine craftsman who imitates an unchanging and eternal model. This craftsman imposes mathematical order on pre-existing chaos to generate the ordered universe. The chief explanatory principle is teleological, meaning it is purpose-driven. The universe, as a whole and in its various parts, is arranged to produce a vast array of good effects. This arrangement is not by chance; it is the outcome of deliberate intent and intellect.

William Paley, an English priest and theologian, wrote a book called Natural Theology, where he argued that nature contains every manifestation of design. Design must have a designer, and that designer must be a person, which he identified as God. He used the metaphor of finding a watch on a heath. If you found a stone, you would not be surprised, as it could be a product of random natural forces. However, if you found a watch, you would be surprised because it is obviously the work of a designer. This argument for design was very popular for hundreds of years. Contemporary Christian theologian and philosopher Alister McGrath stated that the same complexity and utility evident in the design of a watch can also be seen in the natural world. Each feature of a biological organism shows evidence of being designed to adapt to its environment, leading to the conclusion that they were designed and constructed by God.

This argument is often illustrated with the complexity of the human eye, which is so intricate that it could not have come about by random mutation and natural selection. Therefore, it must have been designed. Isaac Newton, a great astronomer, with his laws of gravitation, was able to predict the movements of planets around the Sun. He argued that such a beautiful system could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent power. He suggested that God intervenes when things do not fit as they should, leading to the 'God of the gaps' argument, where God fills in the gaps where science cannot explain things. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a Protestant Christian who opposed Nazism, cautioned against using God as a stopgap for the incompleteness of our knowledge, as the frontiers of knowledge continue to expand.

We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know. As science develops, many of these gaps in understanding are being closed, leading to the notion that God is in retreat. Francis Collins, a former atheist who became a Christian and is the leader of the Human Genome Project and director of the National Institutes of Health in the United States, made a similar argument. He stated that faith placing God in the gaps of current understanding about the natural world may be headed for crisis if advances in science fill those gaps. Believers should be cautious about invoking the divine in areas of current mystery, lest they build a theological argument that is doomed to destruction. Many people argue that since science cannot explain something, we must invoke God to fill that gap, only to find that science can later explain it, leaving God out of the equation.

Charles Colson, a Christian professor of mathematics at Oxford University and a theologian, argued that either God is in the whole of nature with no gaps, or He is not there at all. This perspective suggests that having God only in the gaps is not a sound theological position. William Paley's argument from design posited that if we cannot explain something, it must have been designed. This notion has evolved into a contemporary version known as intelligent design. The theory of intelligent design, as outlined by the Discovery Institute, seeks to empirically detect whether apparent design in nature is genuine design, the product of an intelligent cause, or simply the result of undirected processes such as natural selection acting on random variations.

The intelligent design proponents argue that some features in the universe and living things exhibit irreducible complexity, which they claim cannot arise from natural processes alone. They assert that certain biological structures, like the flagellum of E. coli, are so complex that they must have been designed. However, this perspective assumes that natural selection is an undirected process, which is a significant assumption. They argue that intelligent design is the best explanation for the information in DNA, but this overlooks the possibility of natural explanations for complexity. The idea that complexity must imply design is a flawed assumption, as it ignores the potential for natural processes to produce intricate systems over time.

Jonathan Wells, a scholar associated with the Discovery Institute, has argued against the traditional argument from design. He posits that if God exists, then human beings must be designed, and he asserts that the existence of a natural explanation for the human body would prove that God does not exist. This argument rests on the assumption that the human body is designed. However, many critiques highlight that the human body exhibits signs of poor design. For instance, the structure of the human back is not optimal for bipedalism, leading to common issues like lower back pain. Similarly, the design of the birth canal and the arrangement of blood vessels in the eye raise questions about the notion of an intelligent designer.

The theory of evolution provides a framework for understanding the changes in heritable traits over time. It is a fact that biological organisms evolve, and the theory explains the mechanisms behind these changes. Evidence for evolution includes homology, where common features arise from shared ancestry. For example, various vertebrates, including humans, share a common skeletal structure, such as five fingers, which suggests a common evolutionary origin. This raises the question of why a designer would choose to create such a uniform structure across diverse species if they were not connected through evolution.

All known life is based on DNA, indicating a single origin for all living organisms. This unity suggests that everything alive is related in some way. If there were a designer, one might question why only one molecule, DNA, was used as the basis for life. The fossil record also provides evidence of evolution, showing the emergence of new species and a trend towards increased complexity over time. Some species have disappeared, while others, like crocodiles, have remained relatively unchanged for millions of years. This raises questions about whether earlier species were merely experimental prototypes replaced by more complex forms.

The human eye is often cited as a complex structure that could not have arisen through random mutation and natural selection, according to creationists. However, biologists argue that there is a plausible evolutionary pathway for the development of the eye, with various forms of light-sensitive cells evolving over time into more complex structures. Modifications that confer advantages are selected for, leading to the gradual evolution of the eye. While some may argue that the eye is poorly designed, the evolutionary perspective provides a framework for understanding its complexity and functionality.

This is the mechanism for evolution that biologists support. They talk about natural selection, arguing that random variations occur. This is an assumption; these variations are considered random, but it is quite possible they are not. Nevertheless, they assert that these random variations lead to many differences between individuals. When we look at people, we see numerous differences among human beings. Some of these differences make it easier for a person to prosper and survive in life, while others make it much more difficult and less likely for that person to survive and pass on their genes to the next generation. This brings us to the concept of the struggle for survival, which is an interesting use of language. It harkens back to Platonic and Pythagorean ideas of progress through conflict. One could use different language to describe this, but this is the language used by Darwinian biologists.

Only a minority of offspring survive and reproduce; those that do are the ones best adapted to their local ecology. As the ecology develops and changes, creatures adapt, and we can see the survival of the fittest. Advantageous adaptations are passed on to the next generation. This is the general argument, but there are many unsolved problems. Darwinism is a research programme with numerous unresolved issues. Darwin wrote his book, 'The Origin of Species', about 150 years ago, and while the broad outlines are still supported by most biologists, it is an old book. If someone were to write a new book today, they would obviously update it. Critics can point out flaws in Darwin's theory, just as they can with Newton's laws. However, we do not discard Newton's theories entirely because they have been superseded by Einstein's work.

Darwin himself was incredibly critical of his own book and work, recognising that there were many gaps and unsolved problems. He expected that over time, more scientists and biologists would come along to fill in these gaps. One significant question is the source of variations and improvements. The general assumption is that these are random mutations, but it may be something else. Recently, a field called epigenetics has emerged, suggesting that DNA is not fixed. Depending on how people think, behave, and the experiences they have, their DNA can become modified. These modifications can potentially be passed on to the next generation, indicating that they are not necessarily random. There is an interaction between the environment and a person that affects them, and this interaction can influence the gametes, switching certain genes on or off, which can then be inherited.

Another major question is how speciation occurs. While it is relatively easy to see how things evolve and change within a species, the emergence of new species remains an unsolved problem. Additionally, there is a lack of intermediaries in the fossil record; it often appears that one species disappears while another appears almost out of nowhere. How do we explain that? Furthermore, how did DNA itself first appear? All life is descended from DNA, which is the most complex molecule we know of in the universe. Currently, DNA can only be multiplied with the help of RNA, but RNA itself is created from DNA, creating a chicken-and-egg situation. Again, we do not know how DNA appeared, and scientists are trying to figure this out. I see no reason why many of these questions won't be resolved in the next hundred years.

Another significant issue is the explanation of consciousness, which remains a huge mystery for scientists and biologists. If everything is merely matter, how do we explain consciousness? Consciousness feeds back through epigenetics and affects DNA. Where does consciousness come from? This is yet another question that scientists are attempting to answer. It is a research programme in itself. Now, is Darwinism compatible with belief in God? Many people argue that it is not, but let's examine this further. Darwin, as a young man, believed in traditional Christian theology, including the creation of Adam and Eve and the concept of the Fall. He was studying to be a priest but lost his faith in traditional Christian doctrine during his journey on the Beagle.

Darwin's loss of faith stemmed from his inability to reconcile the existence of a loving and all-powerful God with the design of parasitic wasps that feed on the living bodies of caterpillars. He could not believe that a benevolent God would create such suffering. This conflict with traditional Christian doctrine, which posits that everything is designed by God, led him to question the nature of God. He also experienced a personal tragedy when his daughter died, which further shook his faith. He could not accept the idea that God predestined some people for salvation and others for damnation, nor could he accept the notion that the Fall was part of God's plan. He stated that he had never denied the existence of God; rather, it was the Christian doctrines he found problematic.

Darwin believed that the theory of evolution is fully compatible with faith in God. He argued that the greatest evidence for God's existence is the impossibility of demonstrating that the immense universe and humanity are the result of chance. He could not accept that everything was merely a product of chance. At the end of 'The Origin of Species', he expressed a sense of grandeur in the view of life, suggesting that it was originally breathed into existence by the Creator. He argued against the idea that God individually designed every creature, including mosquitoes and parasites, which cause suffering. Instead, he posited that evolution could be a process through which God works.

Interestingly, Darwin's ideas were received quite differently in the 19th century than one might expect. While we often think of a significant conflict between science and religion, many leading Christian thinkers in Great Britain and America came to terms with Darwinism and evolution. They did not see it as incompatible with their faith. For example, Reverend Charles Kingsley suggested that it is just as noble to believe that God created primal forms capable of self-development as it is to believe that He required fresh acts of intervention. For ordinary Christians in England and America, Darwinism was not regarded as a problem.

However, the issue has become more contentious in recent times, particularly with the rise of fundamentalism. Fundamentalists, who interpret the Bible as the inerrant word of God, developed in America in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. They sought certainty in their beliefs, insisting that everything in the Bible is literally true. When confronted with the fossil record, some argue that God placed these fossils there to test faith. Alternatively, one can read the Bible contextually, recognising that the meaning of the text depends on its context. This traditional approach has been advocated by figures like John Paul II, who emphasised that the Bible is not meant to provide a scientific treatise but to express the relationship between humanity and God.

John Paul II stated that new findings lead us to recognise evolution as more than a hypothesis. He noted that the theory has gained greater influence over the last 150 years due to discoveries in various scholarly disciplines. The convergence of results from independent studies constitutes a significant argument in favour of the theory. Pope Benedict, the last Pope, remarked that all living organisms on Earth are genetically related and that it is virtually certain they have descended from a common ancestor. While the controversy continues regarding the pace and mechanisms of evolution, the fact that things have evolved is widely accepted. John Paul II also asserted that materialistic theories of evolution are incompatible with the truths about humanity, as humans possess a soul and consciousness that cannot be reduced to mere matter.

Theories which are entirely materialistic are rejected because they do not actually fit the facts. They cannot explain the spiritual dimension of a human being or indeed other animals. Benedict states that the theory of evolution does not invalidate faith, nor does it contradict it any more than Newton's theory of gravity. While Newton's laws explain how things fall, they do not invalidate Christian belief. However, they do challenge the faith to understand itself more profoundly. This challenge helps humanity to understand itself and to become increasingly what it is meant to be, bowing to God in eternity.

This challenge means we need to delve more deeply into our philosophy and theology to understand our faith more profoundly, not to reject it but to explore it further. The question then arises: is there any room for God? Yes, there is, but I will discuss that tomorrow. I hope I haven't offended too many people. I often find myself in trouble when discussing the theory of evolution, but I have called upon various Popes who support the idea that it is quite acceptable to recognise the theory of evolution while still believing in God.

We will examine how this principle relates to our discussions in a day or two. It has been great seeing you all. It is now two minutes past eight, and I do not want to detain you any longer. I appreciate your engagement, and I hope you found today's session insightful. We have had a lot of food for thought, and I am grateful for that. We can reflect on this over the next day and be ready to receive more tomorrow.