Darwin's God Discussion 4: Chapters 8-9

To round out the book, Miller uses the final 2 chapters to discuss how he reconciles his scientific understanding of the material universe with his understanding of God according to the traditional view held by the great western monotheistic religions, a God that created us, loves us, and intervenes in our lives. He first points to the definitive limits to our capacity to understand the universe using science, there is no way we will ever be capable of knowing anything about the universe prior to the moment of it's conception at the Big Bang (pg. 225). So, God may be the generator behind such an event. He then points to the fact that the constants that exist in the universe (such as gravity) are set at just the right values to allow for the existence and evolution of life (pg. 228), giving the appearance that they've been chosen with intention for such a purpose. He also reminds us of the indeterminate behavior of matter itself which ultimately allows room for a God to work in subtle ways that are undetectable to us (pg. 233). He discusses how miracles, by definition are beyond scientific understanting. For believers, miracles (i.e., resurrection, virgin birth) point to a spiritual reality that makes sense religiously but not scientifically. Thus, a loving God who intervenes in the affairs of the world could do so without us being capable of understanding His means for doing so. This conception of God not only allows for Miller's understanding of the scientific data, but it also affirms his belief that God has endowed us with free will to choose our own attitudes and behaviors.

Miller asserts that true knowledge comes only from a combination of faith and reason. Through reason we can scientifically understand God's creation to a great extent, but science is incapable of assigning meaning and purpose to the universe it explores. Additionally, while evolution can explain our basic drives and desires, we look to our faith to understand the proper way to act in response to our drives and desires. In saying all of this, he is simply repeating the theme that he has been asserting throughout the whole book; acceptance of evolution is not incompatible with deep and meaningful faith in a personal and loving God. If a person's reason leads them to accept the evidence supporting evolution, they need not abandon their faith, and their faith may even be affirmed by their understanding of natural history.

Miller's integration of his faith and scientific understanding provide a concrete point at which we can now discuss whether or not his conception of God is satisfying to our sensibilities. I also think that generally speaking I'd be interested to discuss our thoughts about the book; did it provide any great insights? Does the book make any assertions that we fundamentally disagree with? As always, I'll put my actual 'discussion' thoughts in the comments section for this post, please do the same with your own.