"It's life Jim, but not as we know it!"

"When does life become life?"

The current abortion rules dictate that an abortion can be carried out before 24 weeks of pregnancy but ideally before the first 12 week period has passed. Many argue that a pregnancy is simply a biological mechanism in the creation of a baby and as such, the growing child is referred to as a foetus. The point at which the foetus becomes biologically human, with a distinct identity to that of the mother, is a subjective discussion that may never have a definitive answer due to the dependency of the unborn child on the mother’s supply of sustenance through the umbilical cord that joins the two together.

When my wife and I chose to start our family, we were already projecting our dreams and our ambitions for our children, onto our firstborn. When the foetus was growing, moving and making my wife uncomfortable each day, the unborn child was already becoming a human being, even if medically, our children would not be considered to be a baby until it was born. As parents, the life within my wife was our child; for whom its status as a human being was irrefutable.

The depersonalisation of the language I have used to describe the biological gestation of the embryo through its various states prior to it becoming a baby seems designed to place a barrier between the emotions of the prospective parents. The mechanism utilized for the gestation of the baby is purely organic which seemingly has no reference to the spiritual. Even in writing this, I have been careful to describe the prospective baby as 'it' as though, devoid of its humanity, the foetus is no more than the sum of its parts. Does life as we know it, begin at the point when the unborn child’s heart begins to beat independently of the mother?

Is this the point at which the classification of the foetus as a human being is determined, or is life more than a beating heart? In a more significant way, viable vital signs potentially identify the foetus becoming a human being in the womb, rather than simply at birth. However the symbiotic relationship of the mother and foetus would mean that it is not considered to be a human being just yet as medically, the unborn child is still dependent on the mother.

True independence is when the baby is born. When the new-born baby takes their first gulp of oxygen rich air, a new life begins independent of the mother, at least in the sense that the vital nutrients and sustenance needed during the pregnancy are no longer being supplied through the umbilical cord. Even if for a while, the baby requires the protection that the adult provides, parents nurture their children in full knowledge that they will gradually need to let go of their offspring to allow them the freedom to explore the world; walking in their own shoes.

The question to ask really is not about when a foetus becomes a human being but rather, when do we have consciousness? When do we become self-aware? When do we reason beyond instinctive bodily functions: eating, sleeping; creative play... recent studies have shown that babies as young as 5 months gave indications that they can rationalise their surroundings and make conscious decisions (Scientific American, August 2009). If you are not certain of the findings in these reports of early consciousness, then many psychologists and sociologists would put the age of conscious decision making at two to three years.

However, the capacity of babies to develop conscious thinking is known to develop within 24 weeks of the gestation of the foetus, in the cosy environment of the womb: the baby is simply asleep until being born. At birth, our first breath brings our sleeping consciousness into life and we begin to exist at first through stimulus and response, before observing others and learning behaviours from the affection and sustenance we receive; stimulating our growth into healthy adults.

Children and young people are considered to have reached the age of consent or an age of discretion, when they are able to take responsibility for their own actions. In law at present, the minimum age of consent can be between 14 and 16 but I am certain, that a child still understands what makes them happy and what makes them sad. We translate these emotions into responses that help us to shape our known world, building the foundations of our very fragile psychology’s on such transient feelings as hope and despair, bitterness and resentment, jealousy and anger, love… all too often, it is the negative emotions that lead us to employ the strategies that we use each day in our adult lives, to protect ourselves from the insecurities we have harvested in the storms of life’s journey.

Through endurance and perseverance, we learn to suffer all kinds of emotional hurt until we are able to break free from those feelings that have bound us. Children develop a desire for emotional, physical and material sustenance from a variety of experiences that are sometimes beneficial but more often than not, involve an element of risk. When we find barriers to receiving that which we desire, we plot and dream different ways in which we can get what we want. I know this because I have experienced it.

I can remember a situation from my childhood when I was left playing with a family friend at his home when I was about six or seven years old. As a child, I really enjoyed playing with Matchbox die-cast toy cars. I had an extensive collection of them at home and felt that the Renault 2CV in red, complete with daisy on the rear door that I was playing with, would be a good addition to my fleet. On my way home, I tucked the car into my jeans pocket. I can remember my mother asking me whether I had taken the car. The fear of being found out compelled me to lie, carefully explaining that I didn't have it and I had no knowledge of the car's location hidden away in my pocket. I was too immature to know that my mum had probably had a conversation with the boys parent and that she for-knew that I might be involved; giving me an opportunity to confess, I chose instead to continue my wrongdoing by telling an untruth.

Did I consciously know that this was wrong? Did I believe the lie to be true? Why is it that I remember the details? 

I would chance an answer, although I am not a psychologist, nor do I have any reading around the topic. I would hazard a guess that this was my first experience of making an ethical or moral choice based on my reasoning. I had reasoned that my need for the little matchbox car was greater than the boy's need or indeed his ownership of it. The fact I did not own the car was not a barrier to my acquisition of the item and I was willing to defend my actions by testing my ability to circumvent the truth. This is potentially the reason why I remember what I did. I saw no harm at first until my conscious thought recognised a sense of guilt in what I had done. And so, I remember the event that day as though I was still a child.

My mother also had a role here in guiding my decisions in making me face-up to the situation I had created. Guilt is a powerful emotion, or is guilt a thought? 

 

Where does the reasoning for what is true or untrue come from? 

 

How is it that we can recognise injustice and want to right wrong? 

How is it that we can recognise when others have suffered and we seem to have a collective morality that transcends culture, ethnicity and race? When do we know when something is an absolute truth? When science has all of the answers to the questions we might ask of life? Will man’s inhumanity to man finally cease when we have found all that there is to know?

“As the needle returns to the start of the song and we’ll all sing along like before… and we’ll all be lonely tonight and lonely tomorrow…”

I believe in objective truth that cannot be questioned by uncertainty. What I mean by this can be represented by many contextual stories we have in the news. In the UK we are still in recession and have austerity measures that have been put in place to pay-off our capital debt. Yet the political leaders are talking about income tax cuts. How are we to pay off this debt if we are to introduce a cut in income tax? One of the measures already in place within England for tenants of social housing, is called bedroom tax. If you are a tenant renting a property from the local council and have more accommodation than you need, i.e. an extra bedroom, you will be ‘taxed’ for having the property provided to you unless you choose a smaller property. So let’s rewind here. Social housing tenants are largely in receipt of income support due to being out of work, have a disability or indeed, work but receive such a low income that they still cannot support themselves financially. Few are in social housing by choice… yet, if you have too many rooms, you will be taxed.

Now this appears wrong. Political leaders will try to convince us that this is a good thing because people claiming benefits cost us too much money; that these people need to contribute to their share of the debt burden; that these people fraudulently apply for benefits and we need to root out those who are a burden… Some may be convinced by the argument but it is still wrong. If enough people are convinced by the argument that it becomes accepted and is normalized into society so that no one is even aware that there is a conflict of interest, it is still wrong. If everyone thinks it is right, it would still be wrong.

This is how objective truth works… it is true when everyone around you says it isn’t. To suggest otherwise, is what is known as subjective truth. On our own we would understand truth because of the context in which we live. However, this truth is subjective to our understanding of all of the information at that moment in time, which can change. I got away with stealing the Matchbox 2CV in my childhood… it didn’t make it ok; just because I got away with it, doesn’t make it right. This brings me back to my question earlier: at what age do we recognise an objective truth about the world we live in to help us determine what is right and true.

Scientists conduct experiments using absolutes. A chemical compound will perform within certain parameters because we have observed it on a number of occasions, perform in the same way and are therefore convinced that the description of it is true. We then combine this compound with another known compound and try to extrapolate from our understanding, what could happen when they are mixed together. A hypothesis or model is then proposed before the experiment is set out. The conclusion to the experiment being that in the observations made, the activity observed met with the hypothesis or model proposed to explain it. It is this type of reasoning that has led some scientists to discount the truth of the claim that God exists… there is no truth for his existence; there is no mind behind our known universe and there is certainly no evidence that he intervenes in the affairs of humanity today.

There are many who take specific interest in de-bunking the myths found within the Bible to reveal the apparent contradiction’s within it. Take the story of Adam and Eve for example. How can an inquisitive mind accept the historical truth of two ancestors for the entire human race? I mean look, we’re all different anthropologically and have a variety of cultural origins that might suggest that there is no common ancestry. The science suggests that one ancestral pair could not produce the genetic diversity necessary for the viability of the human genome. Natural Selection increases the survivability of the species because it allows for a variety of mutations to exist, refining our genetic heritage to incorporate the development of race and ethnicity.

However, modern scientific discoveries investigating the lineage of mitochondrial DNA has revealed that there is an ancestral woman from who we all carry DNA who existed between 120,000 to 156,000 years ago. Indeed there is also a ‘Y’ chromosome male ancestor who lived within the same context as this woman.

“Since the Y chromosome, passed down from father to son, and mitochondrial DNA, passed down from mother to child, (they) are useful in retracing ancestry because they don’t undergo genetic reshuffling as the rest of the genetic instruction book does. Researchers analyze mutations in these parts of the genome to assess when groups split apart. The hypothetical common ancestors of these genetic lineages are sometimes called Y Chromosome Adam and Mitochondrial Eve.

“We’re not saying they’re exact contemporaries or they actually met or all men and women descended from the same couple,” says study coauthor Carlos Bustamante of Stanford University. Y Chromosome Adam and Mitochondrial Eve aren’t the first human male and female but instead represent the common ancestors of the modern Y chromosome and modern mitochondrial DNA.”

 (https://www.sciencenews.org/article/y-chromosome-analysis-moves-adam-closer-eve)

So it would seem that as one group of scientists are pursuing research that aims to discredit people who have faith in God there are others who can unearth evidence to support the biblical record of creation… perhaps even if this was not their intention. This evidence would suggest that there is enough variety within the human genome to support a variety of mutations that enables the survivability of species with distinctive ethnic traits that we see around us today and that this variety could be derived from an ancestral pair.

In my faith life, this type of reporting encourages me to believe in the authority of scriptures as objective. The research reinforces what was recorded through the ancestral account of Adam found in Genesis. The narrative account bolsters the possibility that the Bible account speaks the truth. If truth can be found here, then truth can also be found in the other stories we read, particularly when we find that these events are recorded historically and through the eye witness accounts of those that were there. This is why Christians believe in the infallibility of the Bible as the word of God.

We all seek to understand truth through our own context. It is common today for us to reject the truth of what people say unless we happen to agree. Perhaps, with our rational mind, we may accept the truth of what you say but until that time, we will take your advice under consideration. The sceptic will always question: ‘You have not provided the evidence for what you choose to believe to be true because your original premise was in itself, wrong.’ There is no God; his existence cannot be proven through any scientific premise; and any philosophical argument is mere indulgence against evidential science.

Yet as suggested earlier, science can neither disprove nor prove the existence of God. Neither can science determine with certainty, without hypothesising philosophically about what could be true of the origins of our existence. The universe by its very nature had to have a beginning. Scientists seem to have to resort to philosophy to argue that the known universe is by its nature, eternal or simply that it ‘popped’ into being. Obviously there will be some hypothetical model that would aim to prove the substance of any argument used to support a theoretical position, but it has no more empirical evidence on which to base their conclusions than the theist who argues for the existence of God. At best, the assumptions made are subjective.

If the universe has a beginning, it must have been caused by something else. If the universe was caused by something else, then the cause by definition must be eternal and un-caused, therefore the cause is God. The scientists will disagree that the cause is God, preferring their theoretical model, as it more rational to believe in the concept that the universe is infinite so as to avoid the issue. However, if the universe is infinite, it would have run out of energy by now. God exists out of time and space, is infinitely powerful, is morally perfect and by nature, is eternal. This is the alternative model to the scientific theory that tries to avoid the obvious, in search of increasingly complex models.

The theist would argue at a metaphysical level, that God is the answer to those aspects of knowledge that are not physically or mathematically contextualised. The ontological argument is used by theists to determine the existence of an omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent God in the absence of any rational explanations that make scientific sense. In logically deducting that God is real, we can then apply our knowledge of God to developing our understanding of our known world, and indeed the universe.

As much that we know that the foetus is the result of conception and gestation in the womb, we are also aware as sentient beings, that we are able to consciously think through our experiences of life to derive meaning. We are not just a computational device with a limited range of programming that allows us to adapt to our environment. We demand more from our interactions with the world, seeking comfort and fulfilment from our identity and the reassurance that we belong to a community that has a sense of purpose.

Without this, life would have no meaning. The acquisition of great wealth mean’s nothing in reality as we cannot take it with us. Our youthful beauty quickly fades and could be evaded if we have the money for cosmetic surgery but in the end, we all return to the dust from which we emerged. Unless of course, if this is not all that there is… When our children take their first breath, they become more than the sum of their genetic material: they gain a soul. Our children’s conscious thinking begins the moment that they take their first breath and open their eyes to view the world. We read in Genesis 2:7, that God breathed his presence into the man that he formed from the dust of the earth. I am certain that as we take our breath of air, we are birthed with our soul.

The Bible says that we are fearfully and wonderfully made:

Thank you for making me so wonderfully complex!
    Your workmanship is marvellous—how well I know it.

(Psalm 139:14, NLT)

The Bible says that God draws us out for special favour and offers his protection:

 But now, O Jacob, listen to the Lord who created you.

O Israel, the one who formed you says;
“Do not be afraid, for I have ransomed you.

I have called you by name; you are mine.

When you go through deep waters, I will be with you.
When you go through rivers of difficulty, you will not drown.
When you walk through the fire of oppression, 

you will not be burned up; the flames will not consume you.

For I am the Lord, your God, the Holy One of Israel, your Saviour.

(Isaiah 43:1-3, NLT)

Each of us is seeking that experience of life that brings us meaning. You may not appreciate the quote from Isaiah 43 if you are not a Jewish descendent, but like the nation of Israel, we need reminding of the rich heritage and the provision of God. Jacob is the son of Isaac, whose descendants form the twelve tribes of Israel. They were chosen as the people of God. Jacob’s father Isaac can trace his ancestry back to Abraham and through Abraham to Noah.

This genealogy is important because of the promise that God made to Noah that he wouldn’t purge the earth of the wickedness of men through the flood that wiped out the ancient civilisations of the earth. God felt grieved by what he had created. What he witnessed was unrighteous living that discredited him as creator… the command to go and fill the earth with the glory of God had become corrupted by the actions of men. It was inevitable that God would have to intervene in the chaos of civilisation to bring order to his world for the good of all.

Only one man, his sons and their wives, were rescued from the ensuing devastation of the flood. Only one man honoured God through the life that he lived in the cradle of life – Noah. The symbolism of the flood reveals Gods desire to wash us all clean through Baptism. Instead of civilisation being punished for its misdeeds, God reveals in the remainder of Isaiah 43, how he knows of the trouble that is stacked up against them and he will fight for them and protect them but the people need to be aware that they too have a responsibility to account for their lives.

What we understand today of Isaiah’s writing, is that he is calling people into a right relationship with God so that he can honour them for their obedience to his will. He also provides clear instruction for the future of the people through God’s provision of a saviour, who would put right what is wrong and draw all people to himself through his son Jesus.
 

“I — yes, I alone — will blot out your sins for my own sake and will never think of them again. Let us review the situation together, and you can present your case to prove your innocence. From the very beginning, your first ancestor sinned against me; all your leaders broke my laws. (Isaiah 43:25-27, NLT)

God’s solution was to send Jesus into the world so that there was an end to the pattern of sin and a reconciliation of the creator with the creation that he loves. Jesus was both fully God and fully man. He had his mother Mary’s DNA, qualifying his physical nature as being human. Therefore, Jesus had to be educated as we are and learned to reason as we do. Jesus was also fully divine. He came down from heaven and placed his spirit into the embryo in Mary’s womb. Jesus was involved in creation and so life was something he was able to instigate.

Jesus was tempted to do wrong just as we are, yet his divine nature was obedient to the father. Jesus often commented that he and the father were one; he said that if you had seen him, you had seen the father; he revealed that if you love Jesus and place your faith in him, you are also placing your faith in the father in heaven who sent him. Just as we know the father because Jesus was with him in creation, Jesus also knows our life story. The psalmist is psalm 139 reveals the plans God has for us:

O Lord, you have examined my heart and know everything about me. You know when I sit down or stand up. You know my thoughts even when I’m far away. You see me when I travel and when I rest at home. You know everything I do. You know what I am going to say even before I say it, Lord. You go before me and follow me. You place your hand of blessing on my head. Such knowledge is too wonderful for me, too great for me to understand! (Psalm 139:1-6, NLT)

You made all the delicate, inner parts of my body and knit me together in my mother’s womb. Thank you for making me so wonderfully complex! Your workmanship is marvellous—how well I know it. You watched me as I was being formed in utter seclusion, as I was woven together in the dark of the womb. You saw me before I was born. Every day of my life was recorded in your book. Every moment was laid out before a single day had passed. (Psalm 139:13-16, NLT)

Search me, O God, and know my heart; test me and know my anxious thoughts. Point out anything in me that offends you, and lead me along the path of everlasting life (Psalm 139:23-24, NLT)

Jesus reveals to each one of us how we have strayed from the path that God has laid out for us. The woman at the well in Samaria, marvelled at Jesus because he told her everything she ever did.

“The woman left her water jar beside the well and ran back to the village, telling everyone, “Come and see a man who told me everything I ever did! Could he possibly be the Messiah?” (John 4:28-29, NLT)

Jesus wants to reveal through our life experiences, where we have forsaken what God would ask of us, in favour of our own path. In this story, the fact that Jesus had befriended a lone woman caused a scene, let alone ask her to draw water from Jacob’s well… you can see a connection to Isaiah 43 here. Remember that in the passage, God wanted to sit down with the children of Israel and review the situation. So Jesus sits on Jacob’s well and reviews the woman life. Another revelation for me is in the woman’s perception of who Jesus could be. She has an understanding of scripture that puts Jesus’ offer of living water into context and she knows of a coming Messiah. Yet in spite of this, she continued to lead a sinful life.

The disciples were still confused by Jesus’ actions and yet here was this outsider, a Samaritan who were shunned by the Jews and considered to be second class citizens, seeing Jesus for who he was. Jesus says that those who seek will find and this nameless woman was certainly in the right place at the right time and receptive of what Jesus offered. Jesus sat and interviewed the woman before revealing his true nature. Whatever you think about human life and the creation of the universe, it is a mathematical impossibility that life could have begun in a vacuum and develop to such a degree that we have the intricacies of life as we know it.

There is however, plenty of evidence of a mind behind creation, bringing order to the universe and giving each of us purpose and meaning. Take time to explore who Jesus is and what he sought for those he came to save. I am certain, like the woman at the well that you will meet with one who can tell you anything you ever did. Jesus came to give life… grasp it with both hands and be ‘born again, with the living water that he offers all who seek him.