The Questions We Ask AI – The Questions AI Answers

This is my contribution to the April 2024 Fishkill UMC newsletter; it will appear in an upcoming issue of God & Nature.

I am a chemist because of a question I was asked in 1966.  Some questions that I was asked in 1974 and could not answer caused me to evaluate my career path.  (It should be noted that I know the answers to those questions today).  I earned a Ph.D. in science education with an emphasis on chemical education because of some questions I was asking about how students learned chemistry.

I became a lay speaker/servant in the United Methodist Church because, in 1990, I asked myself what the best way was to fulfill the commitment I made in 1965 when I earned the God & Country award.

The path I have walked over these past years was determined, in part, because of the questions I was asked and how I answered them. 

It is perhaps an axiom of research that the answer to one question leads to the development of two new questions.

When chemists were still known as alchemists, they asked the question, “Is there a substance that dissolves everything?”

Can there be a substance that dissolves everything?  If there was, what would you put it in?  Obviously, if this substance dissolves everything, it would dissolve the container you put it in.  It would also dissolve everything which it contacted, creating havoc and destruction.  This leads to two questions.

First, how could we study such a “super solvent’?

Could we use AI systems?  We could provide the AI system with information concerning the nature of solvents, the nature of solutions, information about the nature of materials that make up containers, as well as a discussion of bonding and why containers normally do not react with the materials that are put in them.

AI systems have already been used to “solve” other chemistry questions.  One research group already used an AI system to reconstruct the periodic table from existing data.  However, it was not clear if the results included the noble gases (Stanford AI recreates chemistry’s periodic table of elements | Chemistry – https://chemistry.stanford.edu/news/stanford-ai-recreates-chemistrys-periodic-table-elements).

AI-systems can achieve results that humans may not achieve.  We can set up an AI-system to analyze a series of digital images (such as X-rays, MRI, and CAT scans) to detect the presence of cancer cells at a resolution beyond the capabilities of the human eye.  But to do this, someone must supply the images that have cancer cells so that the system can “learn” what to look for.  If the system does not have this information, it cannot determine what is a cancer cell and what is not.

At the present time, AI systems are not intelligent.  They do not create new information, only copy current information.  It still takes a human to create new information.

While some may use AI systems to write reports, all the system is doing is gathering all the information that can be found on the web that is related to the topic and putting it together in a readable format.  But this system has not created any new information, and, in my opinion, the ability to create new information is one hallmark of intelligence.

Joshua Conrad Jackson, a professor and lead researcher at Chicago Booth, conducted a study about the ability of an AI-system to produce a sermon.  He concluded,

“Our research arrives at a point where automation is pervading every job industry, and it suggests that some professions may not be automated so easily.  Robots may struggle in professions like priests or monks, that require high levels of creativity.” 

see Researchers tried out AI preachers — and it didn’t go so well (zmescience.com)– https://www.zmescience.com/science/news-science/researchers-tried-out-ai-preachers-and-it-didnt-go-so-well/

For all the benefits we might gain, the study of a “super solvent” generates two new questions:

“Why would you want to synthesize such a substance?”

“What value would there be in even designing a substance that might destroy the world?”

AI systems can gather large amounts of data, but it is becoming clear that this process cannot differentiate between good and bad data.  Reports created from this approach contain serious errors, so the veracity of any reports generated may have to be questioned.  A chemistry teacher reported on a Facebook group that their students were using AI-systems to gather information about various chemistry topics, but they were not checking the validity of the information.

AI systems are also being shown to be discriminatory.  Not everyone gains from the use of such systems.  The use of AI systems may only widen the digital divide we see developing today.  In addition, the approach used by AI systems seems to ignore standard privacy protections (granted that even we humans often have this same problem). 

What is to stop AI-systems from being used to develop potentially hazardous materials?

In the end, do the benefits gained from the use of AI systems outweigh the negative values?  Can AI systems be taught to differentiate between good and bad data?  Can AI systems understand the nature of privacy protection and other laws related to the use of personal information?

Notes on AI

I am not opposed to the development of new technologies, such as AI systems, if it will make my work easier to accomplish.  While I tend to prepare the initial drafts of my manuscripts with pen and paper, I do use current technology (personal computer, the Internet, online correspondence, etc.) to share the results of my work.  But the systems that I use only aid in what I do, not do it for me.

In the Star Trek movie “Resurrection”, Sojef, one of the Ba’ku leaders, says to Jean Luc Picard why his group rejected technology.

“We believe that when you create a machine to do the work of a man, you take something away from the man.”

Perhaps the ultimate question that must be asked is “what will the future be?”  Will the future be human driven or technologically driven?  Will it be progressive and positive but will our reliance and possibly subservience lead to the destruction of mankind?

As we move to an even more technologically oriented society, we must not be blinded by the movement.  There must be an active effort to keep humans in the equation and in control, not just part of the solution.

---

Notes

AI and humanity – Lutheran Alliance for Faith, Science and Technology (luthscitech.org)

What Is Artificial Intelligence? How Does It Work? – Sinai and Synapses

A Path of Science and Faith

This is my contribution to the 2024 Religion and Science weekend, sponsored by the Clergy Letter Project, and Boy Scout Sunday. It will also appear in the upcoming February issue of the Fishkill United Methodist Church newsletter.

——————————————————————————————–

I had no idea when I began my journey with Christ back in 1965 where it would lead or what I would do.  It wasn’t until I drove across the plains of north Missouri back in the 1990s that I was reminded that I had entered a covenant with God and that I needed to fulfill my part of the covenant.  I then began exploring ways to become a lay speaker/servant and ultimately a lay minister (A Reminder | Thoughts From The Heart On The Left (wordpress.com) – https://heartontheleft.wordpress.com/2018/02/09/a-reminder/).

Similarly, when I choose to become a chemistry major in 1966, I had no idea what I would do with the degree.  To be honest, on the day I graduated from Truman State University, I thought that I would be going to graduate school at the University of Memphis.  But I received a phone call from a local school district shortly after graduation and, a few hours later, sign a provisional contract to teach chemistry and physical science.  This diversion from graduate school to teaching would provide the impetus for my later graduate studies and the completion of my doctoral studies at the University of Iowa.

In one of my classes at Iowa, we discussed the issues of creationism and intelligent design and the impact these issues would have on science education.  This was not the first time I encountered these issues.   

In 1980, the Missouri state legislature was preparing to pass a bill that would have told biology teachers how to teach biology, by including creationism in the discussion of evolution.  I suppose I could have ignored this because I only taught chemistry, but one must be careful when individuals who do not have any knowledge of the processes of science (“The Processes of Science”) try to tell science teachers what to teach and how to teach it.  I was prepared to resign if the law passed and was surprised to find that my department chairman, a devout Southern Baptist layman and biologist, was also going to resign (No one told me: Thoughts on the relationship of science and faith | Thoughts From The Heart On The Left (wordpress.com) – https://heartontheleft.wordpress.com/2021/07/23/no-one-told-me/). 

I don’t believe that I have ever had a conflict with my faith and my science background.  I accepted the idea that God created the earth and the heavens, but I never accepted the idea that it was done in six days.  And the more I studied things, the more I began to see the hand of God present in creation.

And as my studies and work in the areas of faith and science began to converge (“The Confluence Between Religion and Science” | Thoughts From The Heart On The Left (wordpress.com) – https://heartontheleft.wordpress.com/2019/02/06/the-confluence-between-religion-and-science/) I began to discover two things.

First, those who argue for a science only or faith only approach to life do so only for their own power.  Each group seeks to impose its view on the people as the only acceptable view.

The second thing I discovered was that many of the individuals that I studied in chemistry and physics were men of God as well as men of science (A Dialogue of Science and Faith | Thoughts From The Heart On The Left (wordpress.com) – https://heartontheleft.wordpress.com/2009/12/31/a-dialogue-of-science-and-faith/).

It is entirely possible that I could or would have come to Christ without having been a Boy Scout but that is clearly a question for another time and place. Besides finding a path to God through the God and Country award, I also began to develop an appreciation for the world around us. I cannot call myself an environmentalist but clearly, having seen the beauty of the Rocky Mountains when camping with my troop and seeing the physical wonders of this country and then seeing the awesome view of galaxies far away, I know that there is a Creator out there. And if there is not a Creator, then how was this all done?  (“Removing the Veil” | Thoughts From The Heart On The Left (wordpress.com) – https://heartontheleft.wordpress.com/2013/02/11/removing-the-veil/)

I did not need to know that Boyle and Priestley were men of God to understand their work and what it meant to me as a chemist.  But knowing that their work helped them better understand how God works is also true for me.

Can I use the skills that God gave me (allowing me to use other words from Genesis that state that you and I were created in His image) and begin to work out the mysteries of the universe, from the moment of the Big Bang to the present day and perhaps far into the future?

The author and activist Stephen Mattson wrote.

Some people mistakenly believe that trusting in God requires them to distrust science, history, art, philosophy, and other forms of education, information, and truth.

But intelligence is a friend of faith, and ignorance is its enemy.  God loves knowledge and truth, and any faith that objects to either is terribly misguided.

Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., wrote,

Science investigates; religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge that is power; religion gives man wisdom that is control. Science deals mainly with facts; religion deals mainly with values. The two are not rivals. They are complementary.

In a world that is fast dividing, it is the joint study of faith and science that will be one means of bringing people together.  For as science brings us knowledge of the physical world, faith brings us an understanding of the spiritual world and together we can bring the world together.

We Are Destroying Our Future.

For those who do not know, I am the son of an Air Force officer and the grandson of an Army officer.  I spent most of my pre-college days living on or near Air Force Bases, many of which were prime targets for Soviet missiles (if there was to be a third World War). 

A friend of mine who was married to an Air Force officer told me once that she had been briefed that, in the event of a nuclear attack by the Soviet Union, the western portion of Missouri (where she lived at the time) would be dead within a few moments (because of the Titan II missiles and SAC bomber bases nearby) and the remainder of Missouri would probably be dead from the radioactive fallout within the week.

After a briefing at the beginning of his presidential term, President John Kennedy was told that our response to a Soviet attack would be a full and complete response with all our nuclear weapons, resulting  in the deaths of countless millions.  As he left the briefing, President Kennedy is supposed to have said to Secretary of State Dean Rusk, “and we call ourselves a civilized nation.”

The only thing that kept the Soviet Union and the United States from going to war during the 60s was the doctrine of mutually assured destruction (appropriately named MAD).  Fortunately, for our generation and the ones that followed, this doctrine kept the world at peace, albeit an uneasy one.

Today, while the destruction of the world using nuclear weapons may not be as real as it seemed in the 1960s, it is still a possibility.

We still see violence as the answer to violence.  But violence begats violence. 

From the beginning of humanity, we have sent our children off to war.  If our children are killed on the battlefield, who will be the future?  Remember what the Greek philosopher Herodotus once wrote,

Nobody is stupid enough to prefer war to peace.  Because in times of peace children bury their parents, whereas, on the contrary, in times of war parents bury their children.

And yet, that is what we do.  How can there be a future when there is no one to live in it?

And what of those who come home wounded, sometime physically, sometimes mentally?  It seems, based on our budget priorities, that we tell those who return from the battlefield to take care of themselves for we, as a society, often do not.

We have a budget where we spend more on the military-industrial complex than we do on education and development.  When you spend more on destruction than construction, there will come a time when we will not be able to rebuild this country. 

There is a feeling in this country that the budget for the military-industrial complex cannot be touched or questioned.  Funding the military-industrial complex is a way for legislators to tout their patriotism and ensure their own power and position.  Are not greed and the seeking of power other ways of destroying the future?

When the Apollo 11 mission was launched, there were those who wanted the money spent on the Apollo program to be spent on other social programs.  But this was at a time when the Viet Nam War was stripping our financial and personnel reserves at a much faster rate.  And when it came down to dollars, the Apollo program was cut because the war was becoming too expensive.

And this continues today – we fund the military-industrial complex and cut the funding for social programs.

It is not just the countless and seemingly endless wars that continue to destroy our future.  A greater threat may be our own ignorance. 

We are neglecting this world in which we live, ignoring the damage we have done to the environment, ignoring the sides of change.

We have ignored the health of this planet, this world in which we live, for too long.  Despite the claims of some, climate change is real and, if we do not act immediately, it will not be nuclear war that destroys our future, but our own ignorance.

In a world where more is spent on destruction than construction, where will get the individuals who will rebuild our country?  Where will the spark of creativity come from when monies for creativity and construction are the first to be cut.

It is my opinion that the rise in pseudo-science, climate change deniers, and anti-vaccination proponents can be attributed to a decrease in the funding for schools.

We are neglecting our youth when it comes to their education.  Our schools no longer focus on creativity and free thought, choosing to or being forced to teach the “answers in the back of the book” and not even considering how to solve problems that have not been discovered.

Perhaps because they fear the future, there are those who would prefer that our children and youth not find out who they are but rather conform to a particular set of rules.  But each person is unique, and we have seen what happens when we try to make people conform to one single set of rules.  Those who push for conformity in society do so to hold onto their power and position.

Conformity to a single set of rules ignores and increases the inequalities of society.  For there to be a future, we must be a society of equality, not inequality.

There is a moral factor involved in all of this.  The church today seems rather silent on the issue of war, education, and equality; in fact, many churches seem to want war, no education and inequality, again because it would increase their power and position.

The numbers tell us that people are moving away from the church because it tends to support the status quo.

But it must be the church which speaks out if we are to build the future, not destroy the future.

If we are to build our future, we must, individually and collectively, speak out against a society that places the military-industrial complex before the needs of the people. 

We must, individually and collectively, speak out against an educational system that does little to prepare our children and youth to solve the problems of the future, the problems that are not in the back of the book.

We must, individually and collectively, speak out against a religious system that moves us further from God’s Kingdom through the encouragement of repression and inequality.

The call to build the future is a call that must come from the church.

“I Made a Mistake.”

Published in the April 2023 issue of the Fishkill UMC newsletter. Will be published in the Spring 2023 issue of “God and Nature.”

————————————————————————————————————————–

In April 1970, I was a junior at Northeast Missouri State College (now Truman State University).  After a rather tumultuous sophomore year and a change in the academic calendar at the beginning of my junior year, I was beginning to feel things were smoothing out.

But I made a mistake.  The first Earth Day was April 22, 1970, and I ignored it.  In retrospect, I probably should have paid more attention. 

When I began writing this piece, my memories told me that nothing happened on campus. 

But thanks to Dan McGurk, one of the reference librarians at Pickler Memorial Library, I discovered that that it was an announced event, that the town of Kirksville had issued a proclamation in support of the day, and there had been a meeting of some 300 students that focused on the topic.

But my mindset was otherwise.  My academic plan was almost back on track, I was in a relationship, and I was involved in a chemical research project.  Things were looking pretty good.  And we still had the Viet Nam war to worry about (the Kent State Massacre would occur twelve days later, on May 4, 1970).

What I did not realize was that the movement that began that day was a continuation of what I had learned and done while in the Boy Scouts.  Now, I do not consider myself an environmentalist but, as anyone associated with Scouting will tell you, you cannot be involved in Scouting and not come away with an appreciation for the environment.

But one does not have to have been a Scout or be currently involved in Scouting to have an appreciation for the environment.  At the beginning of Creation, God charged humankind to take care of the earth and all that was in it (Genesis 1: 26 – 28).

For a long time, humankind held the view that the charge in Genesis to be good stewards of this world meant that we could do anything we wanted.  We dumped our trash in the streams, the rivers, lakes, and oceans, confident that there was always going to be fresh water left over.  We filled the atmosphere with noxious gases, confident that the atmosphere was big enough to diffuse the pollutants.

In our greed and ignorance, in our lack of care for the welfare of this world, we have sown the seeds of our own destruction.

Perhaps it will not be through nuclear war or some other violent process, but we are beginning to see that if we do not change our ways right now, we will destroy this world and ourselves.

The writers of the Old Testament emphasized that this world was God’s creation and that we must answer to Him when it is done. 

In Deuteronomy, God reminds us to look at what He has done for us.  At the end of the Book of Job, God reminds Job (Job 38: 1 -18) that it was He who was responsible for the creation. 

That alone should remind us of the role science has in our daily lives, for it is through science that we find the ways to take care of this world and those with whom we share its resources and space. 

We are beginning to see that what we once thought were unlimited resources are beginning to run out. 

We are also becoming aware that our continued use of fossil fuels and the emission of “greenhouse gases” such as carbon dioxide (CO₂) and methane (CH₄) have an effect not only on the physical world, but on those who live here as well.  Climate change is not just a science problem; it is a social and economic problem as well.  As the climate changes, this forces changes, welcome or not, on the people of this world. 

We have made great strides in reducing air and water pollution, but we still seem to have a cavalier attitude towards the materials we use to maintain the style of life we seem to desire.

There are solutions to the climate change problem.  There are things that one can do, individually and collectively, to counter the effects of climate change (see How Four Churches Flourish by Caring for Creation – Science for the Church – https://scienceforthechurch.org/2022/10/11/how-four-churches-flourish-by-caring-for-creation/?mc_cid=4c1d68fa2f&mc_eid=a90f1704f9) for a discussion on what individual churches have done.

But is our concern for God’s creation limited to just the physical world?  In Matthew 5: 21 – 29, Jesus speaks of the Ten Commandments and our relationship with others.  Our concern for the Earth must include how we care for those with whom we share this planet.

The solutions offered to offset climate change may not be as optimal as one would like.  It does no good to develop a solution that generates its own source of problems.  (When I was teaching introductory college chemistry courses, I would ask my students to consider the pros and cons for various alternative energy resources – see Alternative Energy Resources Reading Assignment | Thoughts From The Heart On The Left (wordpress.com) – https://heartontheleft.wordpress.com/2023/03/23/alternative-energy-resources-reading-assignment/). For example, there is a push to develop electric cars, but the batteries require minerals that must be extracted from the earth.  And the extraction of those minerals will impact those who live on the lands that will be mined.

The future belongs, as it always has, to the next generation.  But it is our generation that must teach them how to see the future.  But we have lost our ability to imagine and envision the future, preferring to live in the present and teach for the moment.

We have become quite good at answering the questions when the answers are in the back of the book. 

The recent report on the state of the climate tells us that we have time to fix the problems but to do so requires other changes as well.

We will not find the solutions to climate change, what it is doing to this world and the people who live here, in the back of the book because that book hasn’t been written yet.  And unless we change our mindset about the present educational process, that book will not be written.

We once taught people how to think analytically and creatively.  And this allowed us to go to the moon and begin to see what we were doing to this world.  We must return to this style of teaching.

Fifty-three years ago, I made a mistake because I wasn’t paying attention.  But I recognized that I had done so and have worked to correct that mistake.

Today, we have heard the voices of the modern prophets warning that we are about to make the same mistake, of ignoring the signs that we have not cared for the world that has been our task since the beginning days of humankind.    Unless we change what we are doing, unless we find new and innovative ways to meet the needs of society without endangering society, we will find that our vision and the vision of the next generation will be dark and society will come to an end.

I trust that we will not make that mistake.

Alternative Energy Resources Reading Assignment

When I was teaching introductory college courses, I would assign a series of reading assignments to be completed during the semester (in the old days, this was called “writing across the curriculum” and sometimes caused ripples because some never thought that one could do so in a chemistry class, let alone a science class.)

This particular assignment was developed about twenty years ago, but I think that it is still viable today.

————————————————————————————————————————–

What are the advantages and disadvantages for each of the following processes with reference to power production? 

1. List the major advantages and disadvantages for nuclear fusion and nuclear fission. Which of the two is currently in use in this country and where is it being used?
2. List the major advantage and disadvantages for using solar energy in power production.
3. Summarize the major advantages and disadvantages of the widespread use of wind power.
4. Identify the major advantages and disadvantages of geothermal energy.
5. What is a fuel cell? What are the advantages of fuel cells in terms of power production?

Based on your study and evaluation of the various alternative energy sources currently available, what are your conclusions about the options available to your generation?

Notes for the alternative energy resources reading assignment.

I first offered the following areas as topics for consideration in the teaching of science in In my blog post “Thoughts on the Nature of Teaching Science in the 21st Century.” 

1. Energy – not only energy production today but energy sources (renewable and non-renewable) for tomorrow
2. Global warming – if there was ever a topic that called for the public to have a knowledge of science and its role in society, it is global warming.  (“Earth’s Dashboard Is Flashing Red—Are Enough People Listening?)
3. Environmental chemistry – how we view recycling and what can go into landfills and what cannot; this would also include acid rain. I might point out that there was an article in The Journal of Chemical Education some years ago in which the instructor posed the question about the cost of recycling. The essence of the problem was “what to do with some Co²⁺ solution that was left after an analytical problem. Should the solution be diluted to a safe level and disposed of by pouring down the drain or shipped off as liquid waste; should it be precipitated and shipped off to a landfill as solid waste; or should it be recycled and used again during the next semester. The calculations for this problem are typical calculations for an introductory chemistry course and one can set up the calculations to be dependent on the size of the class. The only information that an instructor would be need would be the cost of the original raw materials as well the cost of shipping liquid and solid wastes. And, from the numbers of times that I asked my students to do these calculations, it always appears that that recycling is the best solution. (“The Educational Case for Recycling”)
4. The role of chemicals in our environment – I would include the issue of mercury and mercury compounds in the preservation of vaccines and what this may or may not do. I would also include the use of the word “organic” to mean pesticide and insecticide free produce (when all foods are organic in nature).
5. The debate for free thought in the classroom – if I was a biologist, I might have entitled this the creation/evolution debate. But to me, this issue has several impacts besides biology; it goes to the issue of free thought and what our responsibilities as scientists and educators should be. It also speaks to how we, individually, believe.

————————————————————————————————————————–

I will be referencing this page in an upcoming post – “I Made a Mistake.”

“Looking Beyond the Horizon”

2023 Faith and Science weekend

Boy Scout Sunday

6th Sunday after the Epiphany

The following is my contribution to 2023 Faith and Science weekend, sponsored by the Clergy Letter Project.

The lectionary readings for this Sunday are Deuteronomy 30: 15 – 20, 1 Corinthians 3: 1 – 15, and Matthew 5:21-37.

As you know, I am a chemist who chose to teach.  I am also a former lay speaker/minister.  For the better part of my career, I was engaged in both vocations.

Now, there were and are some who suggest that one cannot be both a chemist or scientist and a lay speaker/minister; you can be one but not both.  But such a combination is not unique for I know of two other individuals in the New York/Connecticut Annual Conference who are both chemists and lay speakers or ministers.  (And don’t forget that Pope Francis has a science degree in addition to his theology studies.)

In writing “A Dialogue of Science and Faith” (https://heartontheleft.wordpress.com/2009/12/31/a-dialogue-of-science-and-faith/) I discovered that Robert Boyle, founder of chemistry, Joseph Priestley, co-discoverer of oxygen, and Isaac Newton were men of science and faith who wanted to know more about how God had created this world in which we live.

Hannah Birky noted that,

We as Christians cannot claim that the world belongs to God and at the same time distrust the systematic study of it.  How Science Led Me to A Deeper Faith – Personal Story – BioLogos (https://biologos.org/personal-stories/how-science-led-me-to-a-deeper-faith)

Could we live in this world if it were not for Georges Lemaitre, who first postulated the Big Bang, or Gregor Mendel, who first postulated the mechanisms of genetics? Probably, but our knowledge of this world would be somewhat limited. Both were Catholic priests, yet both were willing to look beyond the written word to see what God had done.  (“Removing the Veil” | Thoughts from The Heart on The Left (wordpress.com) – https://heartontheleft.wordpress.com/2013/02/11/removing-the-veil/)

Yolanda Pierce wrote,

Everything that I learn about science fills me with spiritual wonder at the Creator who set a universe into motion. Everything I learn about the Creator fills me with spiritual longing to know more and to love more. These quests—the sacred and the scientific—are intertwined, not at odds with each other. To be able to peer through the Hubble telescope and to see across time and space is to experience the magnificence of a God who was there at the beginning, is now present with us, and forever more shall be. To think about DNA and the building blocks of life is to be reminded that of one blood we have all been created in God’s image and likeness. To ponder the sun, moon, and stars in their courses above is to be witness to the greatness of God’s faithfulness. Wonders upon wonders.  Believing in the future | The Christian Century – https://www.christiancentury.org/article/voices/believing-future?fbclid=IwAR3GxEbJiwmcvNQKjOZC-JWVAHX0DK2d1r3L1eZZNhrRlJsOrKjfyZMdrtQ

It is entirely possible that I could or would have come to Christ without having been a Boy Scout but that is clearly a question for another time and place. Besides finding a path to God through the God and Country award, I also began to develop an appreciation for the world around us. One cannot help but see the work of God when the foothills of the Rocky Mountains serve as the backdrop for the first worship services you organize.

I concluded early on in my life that there was a Creator and that I should use the skills that God gave me and begin to work out the mysteries of the universe, from the moment of the Big Bang to the present day and perhaps far into the future?  (“Removing the Veil” | Thoughts from The Heart on The Left (wordpress.com) – https://heartontheleft.wordpress.com/2013/02/11/removing-the-veil/).

And how can we sing “for the beauty of the earth” or “when I in awesome wonder consider all the works thy hand is made” if there were not a Creator?

Last month I asked what you saw when you looked at the world around you (“What Do You See?” | Thoughts From The Heart On The Left (wordpress.com) – https://heartontheleft.wordpress.com/2023/01/17/what-do-you-see-4/).

What did you see?

Did you not see the beauty of the world? 

Did you not look in awe and wonder at the beauty and complexity of the stars in pictures from the Hubble and Webb telescopes? 

Do you remember how you felt when you first looked through the lens of a microscope at drops of water taken from a nearby pond or stream?

Do you remember the feeling of watching the trees change color during the fall?

Did you see the hope and possibility of the future? 

Or was your vision of the future clouded by what is happening in the world today?  We see, feel, and hear about the effects of climate change.  We worry about the quality of the air we breathe and the water we drink.  We hear and are taught that all people are equal but see society divided by race, gender, and economic status and see individuals who work against equality.

As we look at the world, surely, we must ask ourselves how God can create a world that is one of beauty and hope and at the same time a world of destruction and despair.  Why would God allow evil to exist in a world of good?

Was your vision the same vision that John the Seer had when he envisioned the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (Pestilence, War, Famine, and Death) and wonder where God might be in all of this?

But as we read in Deuteronomy, what we see is God talking to us.

I call Heaven and Earth to witness against you today: I place before you Life and Death, Blessing and Curse. Choose life so that you and your children will live (Deuteronomy 30: 19).

Today we stand at the crossroads (Jeremiah 6: 16) and must decide which path to take.  And this is a most difficult task, for we cannot see beyond the horizon.  Until we choose, the future is unknown.

Kallistos (Ware) of Diokleia, author of The Orthodox Way, wrote,

. . . it is not the task of Christianity to provide easy answers to every question, but to make us progressively aware of a mystery.  God is not so much the object of our knowledge as is the cause of our wonder –

Ard Louis theoretical physicist and associate of the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion, noted that,

…science — as powerful, as beautiful, as amazing as it is — cannot tell me most of the answers to most of the important questions of life…

In his letter to the Corinthians, Paul wrote,

Or, to put it another way, you are God’s house. Using the gift God gave me as a good architect, I designed blueprints; Apollos is putting up the walls. Let each carpenter who comes on the job take care to build on the foundation! Remember, there is only one foundation, the one already laid: Jesus Christ. Take particular care in picking out your building materials. Eventually there is going to be an inspection. If you use cheap or inferior materials, you’ll be found out. The inspection will be thorough and rigorous. You won’t get by with a thing. If your work passes inspection, fine; if it doesn’t, your part of the building will be torn out and started over. But you won’t be torn out; you’ll survive—but just barely. (1 Corinthians 3: 9 – 15)

We can choose to do nothing but then, as Paul writes, we will barely survive.  If we are not willing to give our best, then that will be the outcome.  Or we can choose the other path, to use the skills and abilities that God, Our Creator, has given us to make this a better world.

In his speech at American University on June 10, 1963 (affiliated, by the way, with the United Methodist Church), President John Kennedy noted that,

“Our problems are manmade–therefore, they can be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man’s reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable–and we believe they can do it again.”

Science developed when we began to look at the world around us, the world that God created, and began to wonder.  And in our wonder, we began to ask “why?” and “how?”  And as we found the answers to these problems, we began to better understand ourselves.

In his speech to the Irish Parliament on June 28, 1963, President John Kennedy said,

George Bernard Shaw, speaking as an Irishman, summed up an approach to life: Other people, he said, “see things and . . . say ‘Why?’ . . . But I dream things that never were– and I say: ‘Why not?'”

We see the world of today for we cannot see beyond the horizon.  We look at the world today and see God’s creation.  Shall we do nothing and leave desolation and destruction in its many forms as our legacy for the future?

Or shall we use the sense of wonder and awe, shall we seek to find answers to the questions that we are asking to leave a brighter future and a greater legacy for those who follow us on the path we have chosen?

---

Clergy Letter Project Resources – Mystery and Awe – https://mysteryandawe.com/clergy-letter-project-resources/

Can science answer all of life’s questions? • Sharon Dirckx • OCCA (theocca.org) – https://www.theocca.org/resources/can-science-answer-all-of-lifes-questions/

The 20 big questions in science | Science | The Guardian – https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/sep/01/20-big-questions-in-science

“What Do You See?”

This was my contribution for the January issue of the Fishkill UMC newsletter.

What do you see when you look at the stars?  The rising of Sirius, “the dog star”, in the spring told the ancient Egyptians that the annual flooding of the Nile would occur soon.

Each society and culture have their own stories about the stars and the constellations.  Do you see the people and animals that other people and cultures saw so many years ago?  Do you see the stories those first astronomers saw?  Do you see the Scorpion chasing the Hunter across the sky during the year?

The first “constellations” that you probably learned when you first looked to the skies were the “Big Dipper” and its companion, the “Little Dipper”.  It should be noted that the “Big Dipper” is an asterism, a collection of stars within a constellation.  In the case of the “Big Dipper”, it is part of the constellation Ursa Major.  (And my thanks to Jane Rausch for reminding me of this distinction.) But some cultures see the “Big Dipper” as a separate constellation.  It is also known in some cultures as the “drinking gourd” (or variations on that idea).

You learned that the two stars in the bowl of the “Big Dipper” pointed to Polaris, the star at the end of the handle of the “Little Dipper.”  (see the accompanying diagram)

It is a tradition that those escaping slavery in the time before the Civil War were told to “follow the drinking gourd.”  But the song, “Follow the Drinking Gourd”, that told of the path to walk towards freedom was not written until after the war, so the validity of the story behind the song is questionable.  Still, those who sought their freedom by traveling north looked to the stars of the “Big Dipper”, i.e, “the drinking gourd”, for a path to freedom.

When the Magi looked at the stars, they were looking for signs of the future.  We know now that they were looking deep into the past, but that’s a story for another time.

The Magi and their colleagues opened our eyes to the wonders of the universe and their efforts are recorded in the names of many of the stars we see today (a look at the diagram of the “Little Dipper”, “Big Dipper” and Boötes shows that several of the stars have Arabic names.)

There is still a debate as to what the Magi saw that lead them to travel to Jerusalem and Bethlehem.  But whatever they saw, they interpreted it as something important and that was enough for them to make the journey. Others saw the same signes but they either ignored the signs or decided they were not important.

In one sense, the Magi did see the future, but it was when they met the Christ Child that they had a glimpse of the future.  The announcement of Jesus’s birth was not given in the hallways of the rich, mighty, and powerful but among the people.  Jesus’ birth changed the future and gave hope to the people when it did not seem that hope was possible. 

“Systems are designed for the results they are getting. If you want different results, you will have to redesign the system.”

Jones, Quest for Quality in the Church: A New Paradigm

Joseph Henry, one of America’s first great physicists, once remarked that “the seeds of great discoveries are constantly flowing around us, but they only take root in minds well prepared to receive them.” 

Louis Pasteur once said that “Luck favors the prepared mind.”

X-rays, penicillin, Teflon, and pulsars are examples of events where the experimenter saw something that others considered superfluous or an experimental error.

Wilhelm Roentgen saw what others had seen and determined that a new ray, which he called X-rays, caused the “fogging” of the photographic plates in his laboratory. Others had seen this same fogging but ignored it or blamed it on faulty equipment. Roentgen went beyond the simple explanations and made the discovery.

In 1962, Neil Bartlett synthesized xenon tetrafluoride. The uniqueness of this synthesis was that, according to the chemistry textbooks of the time (and this includes the textbooks I used as a student from 1966 – 1968 and as an instructor from 1971 from 1980), it impossible to do. Xenon is known as a Noble Gas, so named because it seems to be chemically inert and thus would not form chemical compounds. Dr. Bartlett looked at the properties of xenon and determined that, in fact, such compounds could be made.

Jocelyn Bell Burnell was a graduate student in 1967 when she saw what she described as “bits of scruff” on the printout of the output of a radio telescope.  Her professor insisted that the signal was simply interference and manmade.  Dr. Bell Burnell insisted that the signal was real and futher study provided the evidence for pulsars.

How we see the signs around us tell a lot about who we are and who we desire to be?

Marilyn Ferguson wrote in the Aquarian Conspiracy, “We find our individual freedom by choosing not a destination but a direction.”

In Alice in Wonderland, Alice was told that “if you don’t know where you are going, any road will take you there.” (a paraphrase of the dialogue between Alice and the Cheshire Cat in Alice in Wonderland)

Slaves saw the “drinking gourd” as the direction to freedom.  The Magi saw the signs of a new future when they found the Christ Child.  Their lives were no doubt changed by this encounter and I am sure that they told others, their friends, and their neighbors, just as the shepherds did, what they saw when they returned home.

The religious and political establishment saw Jesus as a threat to their positions of power.  When they crucified Jesus and had Him put into the Tomb, they thought that was the end of the story.

What do you see now that Christmas is over, and the shepherds and Magi have come and gone?  Do you see a new world or is it the same world that was there before we celebrated Christmas?  How do you see the lost, the persecuted, the sick and forgotten?  Are they mistakes in society to be forgotten or is humanity to be found in how they are treated?

What do you see?

Notes

Leading The Way | Thoughts From The Heart On The Left (wordpress.com)

A Matter of Faith | Thoughts From The Heart On The Left (wordpress.com)

And When You Least Expect It | Thoughts From The Heart On The Left (wordpress.com)

Three Words

This will be in the September 2022 newsletter for Fishkill United Methodist Church.  Services are at 10:15 am on Sundays and you are welcome to come in person or watch on YouTube.

To be published in the Fall 2022 issue of God & Nature (https://godandnature.asa3.org/) and mentioned in the August issue of “The Clergy Letter Project”.

————————————————————————————————————————–

In 1922 Howard Carter discovered the tomb of Tutankhamen.  As he peered through an opening into the tomb, his sponsor, Lord Carnarvon, asked, “What do you see?”  And Carter responded, “wonderful things.”

That there was anything at all in Tutankhamen’s tomb was a testimony to those who built the tomb and buried the boy king in it. Each Pharoah was always buried with enormous quantities of treasures but were certainly looted shortly after the burial.  Tutankhamen’s tomb remained undiscovered until Carter figured out where it was in 1922.

I do not know about you but the images that came from the Hubble Space telescope after it was repaired, and the images of the James Webb Space Telescope fall into that category of “wonderful things”.

————————————————————————————————————

First Images from the James Webb Space Telescope | NASA (https://www.nasa.gov/webbfirstimages).

—————————————————————————————————————-

And those images have been waiting to be seen for over 13 billion years.  In these images, we are seeing some of the oldest objects in space.  These objects (stars, nebulae, and galaxies were created at the beginning of creation).  But how and why did this happen?

It is perhaps because of our own human frailties that we have a challenging time understanding this.  While we may intuitively know that there is a beginning, we want to know how things began and when they began.

I can imagine a scene many (many) years ago, at the end of the day, and everyone in the clan was seated by the fire.  The youngest ones in the group would ask the elders, “Where did we come from?” and the elders would begin their answer with, “In the beginning”.

For some, these words are sufficient.  But we are a curious people (or we should be) and we like to know how things happened. And did not Jesus tell those who wondered if He was the Messiah to go and see what had been done?

The answer to any question will always (or should) generate more questions and out of this never-ending curiosity lie the roots of science.

The authors of Genesis gave no hints as to how it was done or when it occurred.

In 1650, Archbishop James Ussher of Armagh (the Church of Ireland) sought to answer the question of when the universe was created.  He calculated the date of the Creation to be at sunset on the evening of October 22, 4004 BC which would make October 23^rd the First Day.  This calculation was just one of a series of calculations by others, including Isaac Newton (whose calculation gave a date of 3998 BC) and Johannes Kepler (who calculated that the universe was created on April 27, 4977 B.C.).  Others, including James Lightfoot and Joseph Justus Scaliger, also published research on the date of creation.

Lightfoot, a rabbinical scholar and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Cambridge, determined that the date of Creation was 3929 BC.  Scaliger was a contemporary of Ussher and his studies of the Biblical chronology and other ancient literature showed that the Egyptian dynasties and Babylonian kingdoms existed before the accepted date of the Flood, approximately 2300 BC.  This led chronologists to realize that there were other sources of information that must be considered.

Even today, many individuals, known as Young Earth Creationists (YEC), use these early dates as the beginning of the universe.  But to achieve that date, these individuals, must either ignore the evidence that has accumulated or somehow find a way to make the data fit the theory. 

As Sherlock Holmes once told Dr. Watson, “It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has the data.”  And the Fourth Doctor Who reminds us,

The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common.  Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views. . . which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering.

“The Face of Evil”, Dr. Who, Episode 4, Season 14 (1976)

Before we dismiss these efforts, we must understand that these calculations were products of serious and concerted research, based upon the available information, including ancient records from various cultures as well as the Bible’s genealogies.  As more information became available, so too did the date of creation change.

Stephen Jay Gould, while disagreeing with Ussher’s chronology noted,

I shall be defending Ussher’s chronology as an honorable effort for its time and arguing that our usual ridicule only records a lamentable small-mindedness based on mistaken use of present criteria to judge a distant and different past.

Ussher represented the best of scholarship in his time. He was part of a substantial research tradition, a large community of intellectuals working toward a common goal under an accepted methodology.

Stephen J. Gould, “Fall in the House of Ussher, Natural History, page 100, November 1991

In 1924 Edwin Hubble (for whom the Hubble Space Telescope is named) made a series of astronomical observations that allowed him to conclude in a paper published a few years later that the universe was expanding.  His observations confirmed the theoretical work of Georges Lemaitre.

Georges Lemaitre, a mathematician, physicist, and Catholic priest used Albert Einstein’s equations for general relativity to predict that the universe was expanding.

At the time of Hubble’s work, most physicists, including Albert Einstein, felt that the universe was static.  Einstein told Lemaitre that “your calculations are correct, but your physics is atrocious”.

Einstein would add what he called a “cosmological factor” to his relativity equations to keep the universe static.  He, Einstein, would later say this was his biggest mistake.

In April 1948, Robert Alpher and George Gamow (along with Hans Bethe) would present a series of calculations that confirmed Hubble’s observations and Lemaitre’s calculations.  Observations by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson in 1965 also confirmed that the beginning of creation was approximately 13 billion years ago.  This moment in time was named, somewhat derisively, the “Big Bang” by British mathematician and physicist Fred Hoyle.

Hoyle was a committed atheist and he felt that such a moment was a bit too much like the words of Genesis.  Despite the evidence given by Hubble and later observations, Hoyle and others attempted to prove that the universe was static and without a beginning. 

Interesting enough, some of Hoyle’s work required the very beginning that he didn’t believe in.

While it may seem that a discussion of the creation of the universe is a relatively modern construct, it was an item of discussion in the early church (The Early Church and Genesis | Thoughts From The Heart On The Left (wordpress.com) – https://heartontheleft.wordpress.com/2018/08/20/the-early-church-and-genesis/). 

Origen, the 3^rd century philosopher/theologian, opposed the idea that the opening verses of Genesis were a historical and literal account of how God created this world and universe. Later scholars, such as Thomas Aquinas, and religious figures, such as John Wesley, made similar arguments.

Wesley would say that the Scriptures were not written to satisfy our curiosity but to lead us to God (adapted from “How was the Genesis account of creation interpreted before Darwin?” – http://biologos.org/questions/early-interpretations-of-genesis )

While God may not have told us when He created the universe, He did give us a mind and the capability to think and ask questions.  And he gave us the evidence to look at. So, we ask questions, and when we find the answer to those questions, we get two new questions to be answered.

And while we may get closer to understanding when the universe was created and how it was done, what we discover will never tell us why it was done. To answer why it was done and all the other questions that come from the answer to that question are done on our faith journey.

So, as we view the images provided by the James Webb Space Telescope and we think of the opening verses of Genesis, we need to see it as the beginning of a journey, a journey of exploration and understanding of both the world we live in and our relationship with God.

Two Questions

Notes on Evolution Weekend

This will be my contribution for the 2022 Evolution Weekend (11-13 February 2022).

Evolution Weekend is a celebration of Charles Darwin’s birthday and is sponsored by the Clergy Letter Project (https://www.theclergyletterproject.org/).  I have been a participant in the project since 2006.

As stated on its website, “The Clergy Letter Project is an endeavor designed to demonstrate that religion and science can be compatible and to elevate the quality of the debate of this issue.”

Evolution Weekend is an opportunity for serious discussion and reflection on the relationship between religion and science. The ongoing goal has been to elevate the quality of the discussion on this critical topic, and to show that religion and science are not adversaries. Rather, they look at the natural world from quite different perspectives and ask, and answer, different questions.

The theme for the 2022 Weekend is “The Pandemic, Climate Change and Evolution:  How Religion and Science, Working Together, Can Advance Our Understanding.”

Notes on Boy Scout Sunday

The 2^nd Sunday in February is also Boy Scout Sunday and marks the anniversary in 1965 of my becoming a member of the 1^st Evangelical United Brethren Church (now the United Methodist Church).  That year, I would complete my studies for the “God and Country Award.”  In addition to being my contribution to the Clergy Letter Project, this also represents my continuance of the journey with Christ that I began that Sunday in 1965.

Lectionary Readings for the Sixth Sunday after the Epiphany (Year C), 13 February 2022

Jeremiah 17: 5 – 10

1 Corinthians 15:12-20

Luke 6: 17 – 26

Two Questions

Two Questions, Part 1

We are, by nature, curious creatures.  We continually search for a better understanding of who we are, the world on which we live, and the universe through which we travel.  We look around and wonder “why?”  And then we ask “how?”

For many years, we had one answer to both questions.  But the more we searched for the answers to these questions, the more we discovered that when we understood “why”, we did not know “how”.  And we found that knowing “how” could not tell us “why”.

Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) believed that there were three levels of living in the world: The physical, the intellectual, and the spiritual. He called them the realms of the body, mind, and heart.

We began calling the process of asking “how” science and the process of finding out “why” faith and/or religion. 

We discovered that science and faith were open systems.  It seemed as if the more we discovered, the more there was to discover.

At first, we tried to use the one to explain the other, but this didn’t always seem to work.  It began to seem as if the answer for each question conflicted with each other.  But these conflicts were not conflicts of knowledge or understanding what knowledge was true and what knowledge was not.  Rather, this was a conflict of power, with each side declaring that their understanding was true and the other heretical or false.

But, as expressed in the Old Testament reading for this Sunday (Jeremiah 17: 5 – 10), we need both science and faith to completely understand the world around us.  Note that in verse 10, the author of Jeremiah wrote “I, God, search the heart and examine the mind.

Albert Einstein offered the view that “Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind” (“Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium”, 1941).

In a 1959 sermon, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said,

“There may be a conflict between softminded religionists and toughminded scientists,” he said. “But not between science and religion. Their respective worlds are different, and their methods are dissimilar. Science investigates; religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge which is power; religion gives man wisdom which is control. Science deals mainly with facts; religion deals mainly with values. The two are not rivals. They are complementary.”

“A tough mind and a tender heart”

Dr. King would add,

“Science keeps religion from sinking into the valley of crippling irrationalism and paralyzing obscurantism,” he said. “Religion prevents science from falling into the marsh of obsolete materialism and moral nihilism.” 

Martin Luther King, Jr. On Science And Religion (forbes.com)

Ian Barbour, 1999 Templeton Prize winner, suggested that the relationship between science and religion was one of four possibilities:

1. That they fundamentally conflict,
2. That they are separate domains,
3. That the complexity of science affirms divine guidance, and
4. Finally — the approach he preferred — that science and religion should be viewed as being engaged in a constructive dialogue with each other.

Barbour would later write,

“This requires humility on both sides. Scientists have to acknowledge that science does not have all the answers, and theologians have to recognize the changing historical contexts of theological reflection”

Obituary of Ian Barbour, New York Times, January 13, 2014

We must realize that science and faith use language in different ways.  The language of faith and its use of images, parables, and paradoxes is more that of poetry than of science.  The language of faith should be seen as complimentary to the language of science (from Nobel-Winning Physicist Niels Bohr on Subjective vs. Objective Reality and the Uses of Religion in a Secular World – The Marginalian).

In his sermon entitled “Keep Moving From This Mountain,” King embraced this idea even further.

“Through our scientific genius we made of the world a neighborhood, but we failed through moral commitment to make of it a brotherhood, and so we’ve ended up with guided missiles and misguided men,” he said. “And the great challenge is to move out of the mountain of practical materialism and move on to another and higher mountain which recognizes somehow that we must live by and toward the basic ends of life. We must move on to that mountain which says in substance, ‘What doth it profit a man to gain the whole world of means — airplanes, televisions, electric lights — and lose the end: the soul?'”

That the views of science and faith ae complimentary views of the world should return us to the beginning when Adam was tasked with the care of God’s creation.

The name “Adam” has several meanings; it is the name of one individual but within the context of Genesis, it meant to represent the whole of humankind, in other words, our ancestors.

Two Questions, Part 2

What is God’s creation?  Is it just this world on which we are temporary inhabitants?  Or is it how we relate to those with whom we share this space?

Today, in 2022, we are in the 2^nd year of a pandemic, we are seeing the effects of climate change, and battles in the classroom over the teaching of climate change and evolution.  We have discovered that these are not merely academic topics but ones that affect all layers of society.

“I used to think that top environmental problems were biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and climate change. I thought that thirty years of good science could address these problems. I was wrong. The top environmental problems are selfishness, greed and apathy, and to deal with these we need a cultural and spiritual transformation and we scientists don’t know how to do that…”

Gus Speth, US Advisor on climate change and Yale professor (“Shared Planet: Religion and Nature, BBC Radio 4 (1 October 2013) https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/b03bqws7)

How do we respond?  My first response, as a former United Methodist lay speaker/pastor, is to say that we must radically reorient our priorities.  For too long, we, as nations, societies, and as humans, have spent more on destruction than construction.  We have taken Adam’s task to take care of God’s creation to mean that we could do whatever we wanted.  It does no good to speak of the future if we are dedicated to the destruction of the present.

As a chemist and science educator, I would argue that we must have education systems in place that allow the development of new ideas.  This will also be radical departure from the present system that teaches that all the problems have been solved and the answers are in the back of the book.  We must realize that book of answers hasn’t been written yet.

In the end, the world which we see with two views is still one world.

The poet T. S. Elliott wrote,

We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time

T.S. Eliot, from “Little Gidding,” Four Quartets (Gardners Books; Main edition, April 30, 2001) Originally published 1943.”

Two Questions, Part 3

When I began this manuscript, the two questions were “how?” and “why?”.  Now, at the completion of this manuscript the two questions must be (with respects to Rabbi Hillel “if not now, when?” and “if not me, who?”,

What Gifts Did You Received? What Will You Do with Them? Thoughts for the Epiphany of the Lord

Let me begin by asking two questions.  First, how many “wise men” or Magi visited the Baby Jesus?  And second, why were the gifts that they brought gold, frankincense, and myrrh?

We tend to think that there were three because three gifts were given.  But in most translations of Matthew’s Gospel, there is no mention of how many came.  In Eastern tradition, the number is set at 12.  And, in the manner of the time, there is no mention if there were any women or children in the entourage.

Who were the Magi?  Again, we have no records to tell us who they were, and it is only in legend that three of the Magi are named.

And why were the gifts given gold, frankincense, and myrrh?  Some suggest that the gold was used to finance the family’s escape from Herod into Egypt and the frankincense and myrrh represented the preparation of Jesus’ body when he died.

But Herod’s wrath that would lead to Joseph, Mary, and the Baby Jesus fleeing to Egypt did not occur until after the Magi left.  And no matter how wise the Magi would have been, I don’t think they would have given materials used for the preparation of a body for burial as a birthday gift.  In addition, because of their shelf life, I don’t think that the frankincense and myrrh would have lasted for thirty-some years.

It was convenient for Matthew to write his Gospel with those events in mind because he was writing some seventy years after the birth of Jesus.  But many traditions, just like myths, have an element of truth in them.

Gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh were gifts present to a newborn king, whom the Magi had sought out.  And after the Magi had left, Joseph could have sold the frankincense and myrrh to fund the trip to Egypt and the gold would have probably provided enough funds to allow them to settle in while Joseph found work until it was safe for the family to return to Nazareth.  (In modern day terms, the Magi started a “GoFundMe’ account for the family.)

In giving Jesus their gifts, they ensured that we would have a future.  I am sure that someone will point out that if the Magi had not been there, God would have seen to it that someone was there.  But it was the Magi who saw the signs of Jesus’ birth and it was the Magi that sought out the newborn baby.  It was their gifts that enabled the future to be what it became.

As we look into the mists of tomorrow, what future do we see?  What we can see does not bode well. 

The issues we face today are more than those that arise from our lack of concern for the environment.  The pandemic has exposed our lack of concern for those with whom we share this planet.  And it is evident that the lives of everyone on this planet are tied to the condition of this world.

We are reminded that as descendants of Adam and Eve, we have inherited the task of caring for God’s Creation.  And quite honestly, it would seem we haven’t done a good job in that regard. 

In 1974, the writer Ursula Le Guin wrote,

My world, my Earth is a ruin. A planet spoiled by the human species. We multiplied and fought and gobbled until there was nothing left, and then we died. We controlled neither appetite nor violence; we did not adapt. We destroyed ourselves. But we destroyed the world first.

Ursula K. Le Guin, The Dispossessed (1974) (from Verse & Voice, 9/17/21)

We have seen the consequences of not caring for this world.  What was the Hudson River like some twenty years ago?  What was the quality of air in New York City?  Even today, we are still dealing with the consequences of our thoughts that we can bury our waste or throw it into the rivers or oceans.

And we do not need the myriad reports telling us that climate change is real, for all we must do is reflect on the changes we have seen in the past few years. 

Despite the claims of some, climate change is real and the result of what we, the inhabitants of this planet, have done. 

Human-induced climate change is already affecting many weather and climate extremes in every region across the globe.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (August 2021)

The scientific consensus on climate change is genuine, credible, and robust. It is no wonder that those who have ideological and pecuniary motives for denying the existence of anthropogenic climate change are eager to deny the existence, extent, and legitimacy of the scientific consensus, and that these denials threaten the integrity of public science education. Likewise, it is no wonder that the integrity of public science education both demands and benefits from a vigorous assertion, explanation, and defense of the scientific consensus on climate change.

Glenn Branch, Deputy Director, National Center for Science Education, Inc. in “Teaching Climate Change by Leveraging Scientific Consensus to Dispel Social Controversy”, California Journal of Science Education (https://journal.cascience.org)

What are we doing to alleviate the conditions that lead to poverty and injustice?  Do we find ways to put into practice the tasks that Jesus laid before the people that day some 2000 years ago in the Nazareth synagogue? (Luke 4: 18)

I do not know what gifts you received for Christmas, but I do know what gifts you received when you opened your heart, soul, and mind to Christ.  Some received the gift of teaching; others received the gift of prophesy.  Some will use their gifts to heal others or find ways to encourage others.  Some will use their gifts to help others through counseling and understanding.  Each person will find a way to use the gifts that they received when they accepted the Presence of the Lord in our lives.

We stand at the crossroads of time.  One path leads to a future of destruction and despair; the other path leads to a future of hope, renewal, and promise.  How we use our gifts will decide what path we take.

Borrowing a thought from fifty years ago and with acknowledgement to Reinhold Niebuhr (I first posted this on Facebook on 18 August 2019),

Are we so deaf that we cannot hear the cries of the people, no matter who they are?

Are we so blind that we cannot see the damage we are doing to this planet, our home?

Are we so dumb that we will never learn that what we do changes the future, in ways we cannot understand?

Today, I pray that we will open our ears and hear the cries of the people. I pray that we will respond.

Today, I pray that we will open our eyes and see new ways, new roads to the future.

Today, I pray that we will open our minds and let the power of the Holy Spirit empower us to use our gifts of mind and heart to make sure that we can walk the new roads to the future.