Questions and AnswersQ. In discussion recently I was told by a minister that

when we arrive in eternity we will remember all theterrible experiences that we have seen or gone through inthis old wicked world. This fact, he said, would keep usfrom ever sinning again. I can't believe that a loving Godwould do this to us. Am I wrong?

A. I understand your difficulty. And certainly you areright-there will be no sadness in the new world tocome.

The marginal reading of Isaiah 25:17 is that the formerthings will not "come upon the heart." The sting and painwill no longer be there. We will see the wounds in ourLord's hands and side, but we will sorrow no more. Wewill remember our loved ones on earth but the tragedieswill not any more be terrible to us because in that newworld we will for the first time see everything in trueperspective. The proper relationship between the eventsof life will then be apparent.

Down here we are easily overwhelmed by sorrowbecause it is hard to believe that good can come out ofill. Thus our Lord's promise "You do not realize now whatI am doing, but later you will understand" (In. 13:7). Allour preplexities will be explained.

So you are right-there will be no sorrows there. Itseems to me that we will have awareness of our formerrelationships, but we will see them differently. I may bewrong, but that's the way I see it in light of the NewTestament idea that in the new earth we will know andrecognize our former loved ones. -Desmond Ford

Q. I am amazed that you people go one believing inGod and religion in spite of the findings of modernscience.

A. It seems that after several centuries of research,modern science has not yet settled on one particularview of the origin of the universe. At this moment thereare advocates for (1) the Big-bang theory, (2) the Steady-state theory and (3) the Pulsating-universe theory.

It will never be possible for scientists to be absolutelydogmatic about the origin and destiny of the universe orabout the nature of reality. Dr. Thomas Gold of CornellUniversity suggests that our earth may have been visitedin the distant past by extraterrestrial passersby. Findingconditions inhospitable, they journeyed on, leaving theirpicnic trash behind. In a billion years or so, life-formsfrom this debris had evolved to the point where we callthem homo sapiens. I doubt whether too many scientistswill take this possibility seriously. However, such a theorydoes indicate how uncertain scientists are about theorigin of the universe!

Years ago Fred Hoyle wrote:"Here we are in this wholly fantastic universe withscarcely a clue as to whether our existence has anyreal significance. No wonder then that many peoplefeel the need for some belief that gives them asense of security, and no wonder that they becomevery angry with people like me who say that thissecurity is illusory. But I do not like the situationany better than they do. The difference is that Icannot see how the smallest advantage is to begained from deceiving myself."

10 But in 1981, Fred Hoyle co-authored the book Evolution

From Space, in which he states that "the existence of acreator can be established by mathematics, with aprobability greater than 1040 [1 followed by 40 zeroes] toI" (p. 131).

If a scientist like Fred Hoyle can make such dramaticchanges in belief how can you be so sure that believingin God and religion are incompatible with modernscience?

Even if we did understand all there is to know aboutthe universe in its current state, the question of Leibniz,"Why is there something here rather than nothing?" issufficient to keep us wondering for eternity. Carl Saganput the same question a little differently in The ViolentUniverse when, after asserting the possibility that all thatwas needed to get the universe going was a little bit ofhydrogen gas, he stated that we are still left with thebeguiling problem: Where did the original hydrogencome from?

Modern discoveries in astronomy have revived oncemore a profound sense of mystery. As one writer hassaid, it is not the mystery of the unknown that constitutesthe problem to be solved, but rather the mysteriousquality of the known.

As scientists ponder more reflectively the problem ofbeginnings, it is interesting to see how many becomeopen to the possibility of a "God" who is behind it all. Tothe name of Fred Hoyle might be added Robert Jastrow,God and the Astronomers and Paul Davies, God and theNew Physics. Even Einstein, whose formulae and philoso-phy underlies so much of modern cosmology andcosmogony (the study of how the universe came into

existence) could say, "I want to know how God createdthis world."

In recent years even scientists have not all been soquick to set science in opposition to God. It is simplyuntrue to claim that science inevitably discredits ordisproves Christianity.

It may be that our finite minds are simply not capableof piecing together all the bits of the cosmic puzzle, toformulate a coherent world view. Because of ourincapacity we may be forced to pay a little more respectto old biblical stories of creation. Rightly understood andinterpreted they may be the only way our little minds cangrasp the complexity of reality. -Noel Mason

Q. How can you believe in God when there is so muchevil in the world?

A. The reply could be: "How can you believe that thereis no God, when there is so much good in the world?"

We would not know evil but for the existence of good.It stands out like a sore thumb because it is contrary tothe overwhelming amount of good in our experience. Ifthis were not the case, the majority, instead of theminority, would commit suicide.

The Christian creed has an explanation for evil, but theatheistic creed has no explanation for good. Christiansbelieve that the possibility of evil exists wherever theparticipants are given free will. -Desmond Ford

Q. I do not feel I can trust God. So often I have beendisappointed in life. How can I believe?

A. Are there not some friends you feel you can trust?Have you not met people who are kind, thoughtful, true

to principle, etc? If so, how do you account for them?Their very existence implies that all their virtues are buta faint reflection from the fount of their origin. Everymicroscopic evidence of good points to the Source of allas goodness Incarnate. As light streams from the sun, asrain falls from the heavens, so all the good of lifeproceeds from a heavenly source. Personality is thehighest phase of existence and predicates that such asource must be personal, which is exactly what isclaimed by the Christian Guidebook.

However, there is a better way to assurance of Godthan the way of argument. Jesus said, "If any man thirst,let him come to me, and drink." "Whosoever drinketh ofthe water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but thewater that I shall give him shall be in him a well of waterspringing up into everlasting life" (John 7:3.1; 4:14). FiI.1.your heart and mind with the truths of Scnpture, for It ISwritten that "faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by theword of God" (Rom. 10:17). -Desmond Ford

11