One of the basic assumptions of physics is that the laws of physics are the same at all times and places throughout the universe. That constancy is foundational to the scientific method and is the basis for all scientific research. Recent advances are yielding an even stronger case for unchanging physical laws—a development that also supports the claim of ancient biblical texts.

Millennia before scientists established the principle of unchanging laws of physics, the Bible stated that the fundamental physics of the universe has not and does not change. For example, in Jeremiah 33 God declares that he is not like humans who seem to always change their minds. God offers an analogy. As he “established the fixed laws of heaven and earth” (Jeremiah 33:25) so, too, God’s nature and character attributes are fixed.

The constancy of the laws of physics that govern the universe and Earth, if scientifically established, would affirm the Bible’s reliability in describing the natural realm and in accurately predicting future scientific discoveries. It would also refute young-earth creationist models. Young-earth creationists acknowledge that if the laws of physics indeed are fixed throughout Earth’s history, Earth must be several billion years old.¹ Hence, they posit that radical alterations in the laws of physics, by factors of millions or billions of times, occurred either when Adam first sinned or during Noah’s flood, or both.

I have written about the constancy of the laws of physics in previous blogs² and in my book, A Matter of Days, 2nd edition.³ This threefold update on time variation constraints of the electron-to-proton mass ratio, the fine-structure constant, and the gravitational constant is necessarily technical. Not all readers will need the details. Feel free to skim the next three sections and pick up again at “Bible’s Reliability and Predictive Power.”

Constraints on Time Variation of the Electron-to-Proton Mass Ratio
Molecular spectroscopy is the preferred approach physicists have used to measure the stability of the ratio of the electron mass to the proton mass. The reason why is that molecular spectroscopy is model-free and assumption-free, in that it directly measures the stability of the inertial masses of the atomic nuclei.

In 2008, through a study comparing the absorption lines of SF₆ (sulfur hexafluoride) with the hyperfine transition in cesium, a team led by Alexander Shelkovnikov showed that the temporal variation of the electron-to-proton mass ratio cannot be any larger than -3.8 ± 5.6 x 10^-14 per year (a tiny number).⁴ Nine months ago, three Japanese physicists published a much superior test of the constancy of the electron-to-proton mass ratio. They synthesized ultracold (near absolute zero, -273°C or -460°F) potassium rubidium molecules from ultracold potassium and rubidium atoms. They then observed the microwave transition of photodissociated potassium rubidium molecules. By this means, they showed that the temporal variation of the electron-to-proton mass ratio cannot be any larger than 3.0 ± 10.0 (statistical) ± 1.6 (systematic) x 10^-15 per year (smaller than the previous number by an order of magnitude).⁵

The new result establishes a stability for the electron-to-proton mass ratio that is six times more stringent than the previous best laboratory measurement. Furthermore, since the statistical error in their measurement is so much larger than possible systematic errors, the Japanese astronomers recognize an opportunity to develop an even more stringent test. They plan to repeat their experiment where the atoms and molecules are measured at sub-microkelvin temperatures (temperatures less than a millionth of a degree above absolute zero). By so doing, they hope to establish stability limits at the level of 10^-17 to 10^-18 per year (even more minuscule).

Other physicists have measured the stability of the electron-to-proton magnetic moment ratio. Their measures show that it does not vary by more than 2.0 ± 11.0 x 10^-17 per year.⁶

From observations of spectral lines in distant quasars, astronomers can establish limits on the time variation of the electron-to-proton mass ratio, not over just a few years but over 12.9 billion years. A team of six astronomers led by S. A. Levshakov determined that variations in the electron-to-proton mass ratio over the past 12.9 billion years must be less than 1.6 x 10^-17 per year.⁷ This determination currently ranks as the best measure of the constancy of the electron-to-proton mass ratio.

Constraints on Time Variation of the Fine-Structure Constant
In 2013, a team of five physicists led by Nathan Leefer measured the frequencies of two different transition spectral lines of atomic dysprosium over a two-year period. Their measured comparisons established that the fine-structure constant does not change by any more than 5.8 ± 6.9 x 10^-17 per year.⁸

The astronomers led by Levshakov in their measurements of spectral lines in distant quasars showed that the fine-structure constant has not varied by more than 6.2 x 10^-16 per year over the past 12.9 billion years.⁹ In a follow up paper, Levshakov and colleague M. G. Kozlov unveiled a new spectral line approach that will potentially yield a limit on fine-structure constant variations over the past 11 billion years down to 4.5 x 10^-17 per year.¹⁰

Constraint of Time Variation of Gravitational Constant
One of the most challenging fundamental physics constants for establishing stringent limits on possible variations is Newton’s gravitational constant, G. However, thanks to the Apollo 9 astronauts placing a laser reflector on the Moon, the Lunar Laser Ranging experiment determined that over a 45-year period possible variations in G are limited to no more than 7.1 ± 7.6 x 10^-14 per year.¹¹ Astroseismic observations of the old, low-mass star KIC 7970740, published just six months ago, established that over the past 11 billion years variations of G have been constrained to 1.2 ± 2.9 x 10^-12 per year.¹² Helioseismic observations of the Sun by BiSON (Birmingham Solar Oscillations Network), published just six week ago, showed that over a period of 8,640 days (24 years) variations in G remained less than 5.2 x 10^-14 per year for the most probable solar model and 17 x 10^-14 for all solar models.¹³

Bible’s Reliability and Predictive Power
Observations by astronomers and experiments by physicists have validated, to an amazing degree of accuracy, the biblical statements about the fixed nature of the laws of physics. Bible authors made these statements more than two millennia before scientists had any capacity to affirm or deny their statements. This forecasting of scientific discoveries thousands of years in advance establishes that the One who inspired the Bible authors to write what they did is superhuman and super intelligent, knowing and understanding all things.

Even before astronomers and physicists confirmed that the Bible accurately describes the unchanging nature of the laws of physics, those biblical declarations reassured scientists during the Renaissance that, because of the unchanging nature of the laws of physics, studies of the natural realm could be trusted to reveal truth. It was this confidence in the realm of nature to reveal truth that gave birth to the scientific revolution. It is no coincidence that the birth of the scientific revolution occurred in Reformation Europe when people in all walks of life were encouraged to read the Bible for themselves for truth about God, nature, history, and humanity.

Lunar Laser Reflector placed on the Moon by Apollo Astronauts
Image credit: NASA

I experienced many different cultures and beliefs growing up in Hong Kong, the city where “East meets West.” These experiences included three different religious schools in which I studied Buddhism and Catholicism during my elementary school years and Islam during my high school years.¹ I respected the imams, gurus, priests, and nuns who devoted their lives to education in these religious schools, but what they taught me about God was vague and confused, particularly when it came to having a personal relationship with him. That’s what I needed—a personal relationship—and what I think many science-minded people long for as well.

Religion without Relationship

Where I lived, a high volume of people visited the temples of Eastern religions. However, their religious practice was usually due to obligation and tradition. If people had experienced past blessings or expected blessings in the future, they needed to offer some kind of devotion to God. There were no personal relationships with God other than the teaching, regulations, laws, virtues, and moral standards I was told to follow.

The traditional religion my parents taught me did not help me to know God. My understanding of God at that time was not about a relationship with a divine being or divine beings, but rather was restricted to participation in religious activities and traditions. I tried to communicate with God through memorized prayers, but I didn’t know if anyone was listening. Any healthy relationship needs mutual communication and understanding. Without communication and true knowledge of God, I could not build a personal relationship with him.

Questions about the Universe’s Beginning

Confucian philosophy and Chinese tradition values education highly, so I pursued science to gain wisdom. The scientific knowledge I explored mostly emphasized evolution theory over creation. Thus, I became an atheist and believed that science was the final truth of life. To me, there seemed to be no need to have a relationship with any God. I thought it was superstitious to believe in something intangible that I could not verify scientifically or experience in the real world. I grew to love science and physics. The more knowledge I gained about the laws of physics, the more I worked to advance science and technology. However, tension mounted. There are so many mysteries in this universe that science cannot explain. Was there an intelligent designer that created the wonderful heavens and Earth? If there was a God responsible for these mysteries, how could I communicate and build a relationship with God so that I might know him? I wished that I could understand the beginning of this world through science alone.

Turning Point

I came to the United States in 1981 to study physics, which I hoped would help me understand the mysteries of life. During winter break of that year, I visited my cousin in Toronto, Canada, who had become a Christian since I last saw him. He shared the Christian gospel with me and brought me to his church. I saw that my cousin had changed from a self-centered, uncaring person before he came to Christ to a more caring and sincere person since then. That week with him became the turning point of my journey to a new life. My heart opened, and I wanted to read the Bible. While studying the Scriptures, God seemed to inspire me personally. I met Jesus Christ and knew that he was real, and I accepted him as my Savior and Lord. I found the hope I was missing. It was a life-changing experience.

Helping the Science-Minded

Many people see science and biblical faith as contradictory. However, I have found that this misunderstanding comes from a superficial knowledge of their relationship. The Bible is full of scientific details, such as the creation of the universe and Earth in Genesis, the description of nature and the stars in Job, and many more. At least five biblical writers describe an expanding universe² that are in agreement with the verifiable “big bang theory” regarding the beginning of the universe. Investigating these records through both science and theology led me to strongly believe that science and nature are in harmony with the creation accounts revealed in the Bible.

Scientific advance shows that there is design behind creation, such as the fine-tuning of the universe and DNA in cells, that scientists can explore, discover, and verify. Most scientific discoveries are communicated through words, pictures, and equations to show others the data that science reveals. Similarly, God the Creator made the universe to reflect his glory and wisdom and to communicate it to mankind.³

An Amazing Relationship

The more I study the Bible and science, the more I appreciate the wisdom behind them both. Of course, the most important revelation from the Bible is what it says about its author: his attributes, what he wills, and how people can be reconciled to him. Verses like this one mean so much to me now and I hope to explain why to others: “No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known” (John 1:18).

Human beings desire to build relationships with other people, animals, and things. Whether science-minded people admit it or not, they also yearn for a personal relationship with their Creator. To build a deep relationship that will last, we need the Living Word (Jesus, the Son of God). He is the model, life example, and guide who helps us develop genuine knowledge of God because he is both God and man. The triune God, one God with three members,⁴ exemplifies the closest and most loving relationship possible as the Father, Son, and Spirit. And since this triune God, our Creator, already possesses the attribute of relationship, humans can enjoy a relationship with God. That’s what I hope—and I hope you do too—to share with my scientist friends who yearn for understanding and relationship.

One of the passages that now fascinates and inspires me—as a scientist and a Christian—to build an intimate relationship with God are these Bible verses: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind” (John 1:1-4). May God’s light also shine into your heart so that you can build an eternal relationship with him!

Question of the week: What is the first direct prophecy of the coming of the Messiah in the Bible?

My answer: The first direct prophecy is by Moses in one of his last sermons. It is recorded in Deuteronomy 18:15–19:

The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your fellow Israelites. You must listen to him. For this is what you asked of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly when you said, “Let us not hear the voice of the Lord our God nor see this great fire anymore, or we will die.” The Lord said to me: “What they say is good. I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their fellow Israelites, and I will put my words in his mouth. He will tell them everything I command him. I myself will call to account anyone who does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name.

That God will provide a Redeemer appears hundreds of years earlier in the oldest book in the Bible. Job declares to his three friends:

• “I will wait for my renewal to come. You will call and I will answer you; you will long for the creature your hands have made. Surely then you will count my steps but not keep track of my sin. My offenses will be sealed up in a bag; you will cover over my sin” (Job 14:14–17).
• “Even now my witness is in heaven; my Advocate is on high. My Intercessor is my friend as my eyes pour out tears to God; on behalf of a man he pleads with God as one pleads for a friend” (Job 16:19–21).
• “Give me, O God, the pledge you demand. Who else will put up security for me?” (Job 17:3)
• “I know that my Redeemer lives, and that in the end he will stand on the earth. And after my skin has been destroyed, yet in my flesh I will see God; I myself will see him with my own eyes—I, and not another. How my heart yearns within me!” (Job 19:25–27)

Arguably the first direct prophecy to the coming of the Messiah came from God in the Garden of Eden when he spoke to Satan after Satan tempted Eve: “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel” (Genesis 3:15).

According to Pew Research, if current trends continue then by 2050 there will be nine billion people living on the planet. Approximately three billion will be Christians, three billion will be Muslims, and three billion others will represent various beliefs (both religious and secular).¹

Since Christianity and Islam are the two largest (comprising about 55% of the world’s population²) religions in the world people often wonder where they disagree and how significant the differences are. A brief look at six doctrinal contrasts will help address this question.

First, it is important to note that Islam shares common ground with historic Christianity. For example, both religions are:

• theistic in philosophical orientation
• monotheistic in doctrinal belief
• Middle Eastern in origin
• biblically oriented Abrahamic faiths (they connect to the Hebrew Bible or Old Testament)

However, the differences between the two religions are profound. Since Islam emerged about six centuries after Christianity, we’ll outline how Islam reacts to essential Christian truth claims. As you’ll see, traditional Islam denies the essence of historic Christianity.

Six Systematic Doctrinal Denials

1. Islam denies the Trinity (i.e., tri-unity: One God in three persons). Muslims instead affirm a form of unitarianism where Allah is a single, solitary being (tawhid) with no partners, equals, rivals, or companions. Allah is not begotten nor does he beget; therefore, he has no son.
2. Islam denies the incarnation (i.e., Jesus Christ was God in human flesh: a single person with both a divine and human nature). In contrast, Muslims assert that Jesus was a mere human being. Yet Islam does concur that Jesus was virgin-born, performed miracles, and lived a sinless life.
3. Islam denies the crucifixion (i.e., Jesus’s atoning death on the cross). Muslims instead declare that Jesus either didn’t actually die on the cross (though he may have been impaled) or that someone else took Jesus’s place on the cross. But either way, Islam is not a redemptive religion.
4. Islam denies the imago Dei (i.e., human beings bear God’s image). In contrast, Muslims affirm that such an image would put creatures too close to Allah (the heresy known as “shirk”). Thus in Islamic theology, human beings are not made in Allah’s image.
5. Islam denies original sin (i.e., that human beings are born with a sinful nature and a natural propensity to sin). Instead, Muslims assert that people are born morally good. So Islam rejects the Christian doctrine of the fall.
6. Islam denies salvation by grace (i.e., that human beings are reconciled to God by God’s unmerited favor apart from works). In contrast, Muslims proclaim that personal submission is required to earn paradise. So both paradise (reward) and divine wrath (punishment) are earned.

Both Can’t Be True

While we live in a time that prizes religious pluralism, nevertheless the laws of logic are stubborn things. Given these six systematic doctrinal denials it follows logically that if Islam is true, then Christianity is patently false and vice versa, for Islam denies the very essence of Christian doctrinal truth claims.

Reflections: Your Turn

Why do you think Islam and Christianity are such popular religions? Visit Reflections on WordPress to comment with your response.

Resources

• For a further comparison of Islam and Christianity, see my two books God among Sages: Why Jesus Is Not Just Another Religious Leader (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2017), 159–88; and A World of Difference: Putting Christian Truth-Claims to the Worldview (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2007), chapter 15, 247–63.
• For an introduction to Islam by a Muslim scholar, see Islam: Religion, History, and Civilization by Seyyed Hossein Nasr (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2003).

By Stephen McAndrew

When I was five years old, Postman Pat was my favorite TV show. So, when I misbehaved my punishment included missing the show. I suffered, as only a five-year-old can, knowing that my siblings were watching while I was banished to my room.

Punishment involves suffering, be it big or small. Humans intuitively recognize that it is wrong to inflict suffering on someone, thus it follows that it is wrong to punish someone. So, why would an all-loving, all-good God make someone suffer by punishing them? Why would God send some people to suffer in hell as punishment?

Responsibility and Punishment

To address these questions, we will consider free will and how society rewards or punishes choices people make. In human society, we generally accept that it is morally justified to punish criminal behavior. When society punishes someone for committing a crime, it holds that person responsible for a free choice made. Likewise, when society praises someone for making a commendable choice, it holds that person responsible for praiseworthy behavior.

When society punishes a criminal, they are blaming that person appropriately for freely choosing to commit the crime. None of this is to say that there are not cases in the criminal justice system where we find that someone who committed a criminal act should not be held responsible because they suffer from a cognitive limitation. In these cases, we hold that the individual was not responsible for the act as they did not fully understand their actions.

Are We Humans or Animals?

Nevertheless, respecting free choice treats people as individuals who are rational and capable of exercising moral judgment. Yet some, like philosopher and political activist Bertrand Russell, have argued that we should not punish criminals, but treat their criminal actions as symptoms of a disease.¹ These groups often advocate for what they believe are more “compassionate” treatments. But a world that absolves criminals of responsibility for those crimes would be highly problematic. Christian writer and intellectual C. S. Lewis wrote:

To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level with those who have not yet reached the age of reason…and domestic animals. But to be punished, however severely, because we have deserved it, because we “ought to have known better,” is to be treated as a human person made in God’s image.²

I agree with Lewis. If we don’t punish people for wrong actions they chose to do, then we are really treating them like animals. Animals are not morally responsible for their actions. If my dog relieves himself on the carpet, I work to train my dog not to do that in the future. However, if a person commits a crime, we do not merely train them not to do it again. They cannot be trained, like an animal, not to do certain things; rather they must freely choose not to do those things in the future. We cannot override their free will through training. And most people have a deep sense that it is inappropriate to treat a person in the same way we would treat an animal.

Philosopher Herbert Morris pointed out further problems with no-punishment treatments. He argued that a world that treats criminals as suffering from a disease would permit preventive detention before any offense is committed, if someone is believed to have dangerous tendencies. He wrote:

In the punishment system, because we are dealing with deprivations, it is understandable that we should forbear from imposing them until we are quite sure of guilt. In the therapy system, dealing as it does with benefits, there is less reason for forbearance from treatment at an early stage.³

It would also not allow offenders to pay back their debt to society. If you did not earn a punishment, then how can you earn back the respect of society? Morris wrote:

Infliction of the prescribed punishment carries the implication…that one has “paid one’s debt” to society, for the punishment is the taking from the person of something commonly recognized as valuable…What is clear is that the conceptions of “paying a debt” or “having a debt forgiven” or pardoning have no place in a system of therapy.⁴

Respect and Mercy

Punishment respects our free choices and respects us as persons capable of making moral decisions. If God holds us responsible for our moral actions, then he treats us like rational people who are responsible for our choices. In punishing those who do wrong God is not being unfair or mean, but is treating us with respect. This is the same way the criminal justice system, when properly applied, respects offenders as persons by punishing them rather than treating their offenses as something they had no control over.

The good news is that God extends mercy—even though we deserve divine punishment due to our free choices to do moral wrongs. This is not to say that God takes our moral wrongs lightly and dismisses them easily. Rather, Jesus took the punishment that we deserved by suffering and dying in our place. His righteousness (moral goodness) is imputed to us if we choose to follow and obey Him. Moreover, as Morris and Lewis pointed out, mercy only makes sense if someone deserves to be punished and punishment is not carried out. Lewis wrote: “If crime is only a disease which needs cure, not sin which deserves punishment, it cannot be pardoned. How can you pardon a man for having a humboil or a club foot?^”5 Therefore, in order to be merciful, God must hold us responsible, and mercy is clearly an exercise of a loving God.⁶

With everyone’s life disrupted, I find I am having many conversations with worried colleagues, friends, and family. One friend even got me to do a video interview with her to share with her coworkers and friends. She said she felt selfish having access to a SARS virologist amid a full-blown pandemic.

I want to share some reflections that I hope will encourage you and that you’ll pass on to your friends and coworkers, too.

Here’s my COVID-19 advice for daily life: Love boldly. Serve wisely. Think clearly. Pray always. Let’s work our way through these, backwards.

Pray

It’s always good to start with prayer, which includes gratitude. I have heard and read many good things for which I’m thankful: many health care professionals, reporters, scientists, and civic and religious leaders are focused on our current public health needs and are taking positive action. Join me in giving thanks for these women and men, and let’s pray daily for those who:

• Serve others
• Treat the sick, and
• Work to mitigate the risk

Let’s also pray for God’s healing for the sick, comfort for the fearful, strength for caregivers and pastors, and mercy for the dying. Let’s pray that the pandemic would be abated as quickly as possible, even miraculously so, and that all of us will do what we can.

Think

We can all be proactive, adding to our prayers, actions in compliance with public health guidelines at local, state, and national levels. Precautionary behavior will help mitigate the risk and spread. It will alleviate burden on the health care system and stress on health care workers. We must think of how our choices impact the lives of our health care workers.

We can also choose to fight a culture of fear, uncertainty, selfishness, and any temptation to assign blame. All of these are easy to find in the public dialogue. As Christians, we can bring a message of compassion, hope, and mercy that will resonate deeply in contrast to the negative voices. We can look to Scripture and the lives of other Christians who have faced great adversity to find comfort as this disease crosses our homelands. Such a tact will help alleviate fear, especially when the disease is fueled by endless COVID-19 information and misinformation.

As I face a constant cascade of COVID-19 information, I’m posting frequently to Facebook and Twitter. (It’s faster and easier than blogging.) In one of my own favorite tweets, I addressed prayer and action, tweeting: “Let’s all be Lutherans this year,” and included a link to my former professor’s blog. He shared Martin Luther’s advice, made during the time of the bubonic plague:

I shall ask God mercifully to protect us. Then I shall fumigate, help purify the air, administer medicine and take it. I shall avoid places and persons where my presence is not needed in order not to become contaminated and thus perchance inflict and pollute others and so cause their death as a result of my negligence. If God should wish to take me, he will surely find me and I have done what he has expected of me and so I am not responsible for either my own death or the death of others. If my neighbor needs me however I shall not avoid place or person but will go freely as stated above. See this is such a God-fearing faith because it is neither brash nor foolhardy and does not tempt God.¹

Serve

Other helpful advice comes from a Christian pastor, advisor, and friend. He and his wife sent a letter to each of their neighbors offering to help if they found they couldn’t get out for trips to the grocery store or to pick up prescriptions. They offered to be available for outdoor, physically distanced conversations, especially if their respective experiences in pastoral care and as a nurse practitioner could be helpful. They also extended an invitation to neighbors by offering the trails on their country property for leisurely walks anytime someone found themselves going stir crazy. These are simple, practical gestures that demonstrate care and open up possibilities for future relationships. This couple provided their email and physical addresses along with contact phone numbers. They’ve already seen some neighbors respond!

We can also serve by doing particularly practical things. Consider these three:

• Contribute to food banks which may be depleted due to scarcity of goods in some stores.
• Contribute to blood banks which are always in need of donations, and even more so when many who are sick can’t donate.
• Don’t spread misinformation.

I would strongly encourage us to make the most of the days ahead for the sake of the kingdom and our neighbors’ and friends’ deepest welfare. As I’ve encouraged others to listen to and follow public health policy guidelines, I’m sometimes left with the unexpressed impression that others are thinking, “Okay, maybe . . . but I’ve never had to follow public health advice before. Maybe others should. I’ve been fine.” Well, maybe we have been fine even when disregarding public health advice before, but none of us has ever been in a pandemic before. And we all are now. We’re all in this together.

Maybe you’ve heard (or repeated) some things that aren’t true or won’t work at this point in time:

• We know who’s most vulnerable; just isolate them and we’ll all be fine.
• The very young and young, healthy adults are not at risk.
• I don’t feel sick, so I’m good to go.

We know now that none of these are true. We can’t always tell if someone falls into the vulnerable category of comorbidity (having underlying disease). Many young people have become seriously ill, required ventilation, and have even died. A handful of infants have died too. Estimates of asymptomatic cases range from 50–80% and are one reason widespread serological testing is needed and should be welcomed when available. We can’t rely on misinformation to guide our actions and choices.

One other item of misinformation that I tackled on social media and in private messaging this past week involves the conspiracy theories that unfortunately always arise. One rumor claims that SARS-CoV-2 is a human construct or a lab accident gone awry. It’s not true. Others have published data to discount these theories. I couldn’t agree more with one fellow virologist, Tom Gallagher’s comment:

Suggesting that SARS-CoV-2 is a purposely manipulated laboratory virus or a product of an accidental laboratory release would be utterly defenseless, truly unhelpful, and extremely inappropriate.²

Love

Last week I finished watching Picard, the new CBS Star Trek series. It is quintessential storytelling with a strong transhumanist message in the final episode. Part of that message includes Picard’s ultimate wisdom that he shares with Soji, an advanced synthetic life-form (a la Data, the famous, self-aware android from Star Trek’s Next Generation series). Picard says that life’s purpose is that we are to save one another. It’s a deeply human message in the midst of the current pandemic, even if it reflects bad theology when left to itself. Nevertheless, your actions can save others’ lives, physically, in the days ahead. And your actions, prayers, and witness can also point others to the ultimate meaning and purpose in life: reconciliation with God, redemption and new life in Jesus, and eternal life—a transhumanist spin with flair!

Final Thoughts

A favorite meme making the rounds on social media shows an empty church and these words, “The church is not empty. The church is deployed.” In light of that, may I echo the words of one preacher from First Baptist Church in Dallas, interviewed on the news this past week. Now’s the time for Christians to act; to the church deployed: “be fearless, not stupid.”

#LoveBoldy #ServeWisely #ThinkClearly #PrayAlways

Resources

• For more on transhumanism, see Fazale Rana with Kenneth Samples, Humans 2.0: Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Perspectives on Transhumanism