Assertions from the last post:
1. General Relativity uses the physics of the known universe to construct a model of the past.
2. The observable predictions of relativity have shown to be accurate.
3. Among these observable predictions are the expansion of the universe and cosmic radiation.
4. These observables corroborate the claim that time, space, energy, and matter began.
5. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that time, space, energy, and matter began.
6. Science based on the physics of our modern universe has correctly predicted what should be seen from the events of over 13 billion years ago.
7. As such, there is no reason to believe physical laws have changed.
8. According to physical law, every event has had a cause.
9. So, it is reasonable to believe that events in the early universe had a cause.
10. The inception of the universe was a universal event.
11. So, it is reasonable to believe that this event had a cause.
12. Because time began with the universe, the cause of the universe must exist outside of time.
13. The definition of existing outside of time is "eternal".
14. So, claiming that an eternal catalyst caused the universe is simply a restatement of point 12.
Is it possible that time had no beginning?
Yes, but nearly-universally accepted theory states otherwise and observation validates this theory.
Is it possible that the universe just came to be without an eternal catalyst?
Yes, but we have zero cause to think that all aspects of the universe were subject to cause and effect except when it was in its infancy.
Might the universal catalyst have existed in some other form of "time"?
What does that even mean? Doesn't "eternal" encompass this "other time"?
The assertions above are not the ramblings of an obstinate Christian; rather, they are a progression of reason based on grounded theory and observation. In the Comments section of the last post, we discussed the potential "different physics" of the pre-universe. If this "physics" differs/differed from our own physics, or some "other time" differs from our time, why would "eternal" not be an appropriate label? The catalyst would exist outside of physical law and outside of time as we know it. The "eternal" label simply describes the incomprehensible nature of that which exists/existed outside of the universe.
I don't mean to be dismissive of unsubstantiated theory. The atom was theorized centuries before we were able to observe it and the Greeks are looking pretty smart right now. Still, when we look at unsubstantiated theory versus that which has been corroborated time and time again, the smart money is on the latter… hmmm, should I use a gambling analogy on a Christian blog?
THE WATCHMAKER
There is an unquestionable elegance about the universe. Without even looking skyward, it is easy to marvel at the earth. When we look at the stars, it is difficult not to be amazed by the sheer size and intricacy of the universe. For some, the awesomeness of the universe is proof enough of an intelligent design. If you are among this group, I can’t fault you… it is a rather amazing display.
Still others tout the incredible amount of variables that exist to allow our earth to remain habitable for mankind:
The oxygen level is just so.
The tilt of the axis is the perfect amount.
The distance between the stars allows orbits to be maintained.
Jupiter is around to pull in all of the threatening asteroids.
The earth is the perfect distance from the sun.
The magnetic field is exactly what is needed to shield us from radiation.
The thickness of the crust is such that we’re not running from lava all the time.
…etc
I have never been a big subscriber to the earth-is-ideally-suited-for-man theory, though I cannot say it is without merit. I tend to agree that you could just as easily argue that man was made/evolved to fit the earth. When, however, you speak to the formation of matter itself, the argument begins to pique my interest.
Inflation Theory is now a standard accompaniment to the Big Bang Theory. All matter and energy is susceptible to quantum (very tiny) fluctuations inherent to matter and energy. On a macroscopic (large) scale, we don’t see these fluctuations because they tend to even one another out. But, what if all that existed was microscopic (as was the case in the early universe)? Then, these very tiny fluctuations would be comparatively huge! That is the basic idea of the inflation theory. As the universe began to expand, it experienced a quantum “hiccup” that caused fluctuations in the energy of different parts of the universe. Where the energy was dense, the universe developed matter and it was this matter that allowed galaxies to form.
The theory tries to explain how mass (specifically galaxies) came to be distributed. The quantum hiccup was perfect for galaxy formation. If the universe’s mass came together in denser clumps, the gravitational pull would have been so intense that the mass would have collapsed almost as quickly as it formed. If the mass would have been distributed more sparsely, the pull would be such that the galaxies would not have formed. The density of mass that led to our current universe is known as the “critical density”. The inflation theory, however, doesn’t explain everything…
From the American Institute of Physics:
"The problem is that the mass density of the universe at its creation was amazingly close to the critical density. Otherwise, we would not now exist. Had the initial density of the universe differed from its actual value by as little as one part in 10 to the 60th power, all matter would long ago have been crushed beyond recognition in the big crunch, or torn apart beyond recognition in the expansion of the big chill. There would have been no time for planets to form and living creatures to evolve. So there would be no intelligent life to contemplate the fact that the density is precisely what is needed to escape from oblivion."
Basically, the odds of ending up with the universe we have are somewhere in the neighborhood of the desert winds eroding the landscape into a Rolex. The assertion by the American Institute of Physics would lead us to only two possible conclusions:
Intelligent Design or Multiple Universe Theory.
The “odds” of our universe’s inception is not proof unto itself, but it is fun to talk about. I opted to post a short one this week becuase I spent a ton of time in the Comments section this week, so I didn’t want to churn out a poorly-written, last-minute, 10-page thesis and I am ready to move on to bigger things than the universe.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Thursday, January 22, 2009
The "Untimely" Cause (Week 4)
Let’s recap what I have asserted thus far:
Truth is absolute
Reason is our greatest tool for understanding truth.
Our universe (that which is composed of matter, energy, space, and time) had a beginning.
THE LAND BEFORE TIME
The beginning of our universe has been corroborated again and again by physical law (entropy), theory (Big Bang, General Relativity), and observation (universal expansion, cosmic background radiation, etc). Outside of an intense want for an eternal universe, there is little reason to doubt such a beginning. So, we’re left with the seemingly unanswerable question: “what was before the universe”? My question to you is: Does such a question have any meaning?
The physical state of the universe is, at best, counterintuitive. I would imagine that when I assert that the universe is expanding, the vast majority would interpret it as “the universe is expanding into space”. Physics tells us, however, that this is not the case. The universe does not exist in space; rather, space exists within the universe. This notion is further confirmed when we observe the far reaches of the universe. The expansion is accelerating because space itself is expanding. Moreover, time exists within the universe. Time itself is interrelated with space. It fits into relativity. Its very definition is dependent upon it being an aspect of our universe. We have no scientific reason to believe that time exists outside of our universe and if some sequential time-like thing did exist outside of our universe, we would be forced to give it a different name altogether since we have defined “time” as a quantity tied to the universe.
(Big breath)
What would it mean for something to exist “before” the universe if time is of the universe? Why would we presume that something existed “before” time? If something is within time, that something should also be within the universe. Does it not require significantly more faith to eschew science and to believe that there was time “before” the universe than it does to believe what observation and substantiated theory have shown? Unless we dismiss Einstein’s equations and corroborative evidence completely, are we not compelled to believe that time did not exist until the universe existed?
CAUSE AND EFFECT
All of science is built upon the search for a cause. Despite the truly marvelous analogy (and I mean this with all sincerity) given in the comments section of my last post where Skyhook used beta decay as a model for positing the existence of an uncaused physical phenomenon, in actuality the observation of this decay led directly to a quest to find the cause. Why? Because scientists know that all effects are caused. As was correctly pointed out, radioactive decay does have a cause at the subatomic level.
Back to the universe… all effects are caused so what caused the cause? The universe and indeed any conception of a time-inclusive cosmos must be susceptible to causality. Conversely, an entity that is not susceptible to causality must not carry with it the concept of time. I can say this with certainty because time is defined. (This is like saying that any continuous, two-dimensional shape whose points are equidistant from a single point is a circle. You can conceptualize a square, but since the points on a square are not equidistant from a single point, you cannot correctly call a square a circle… no big revelations here.) Scientists have theorized concepts such as anti-time or imaginary time, but such ideas do not free us from the effects of time (namely cause and effect) in the same way that squares do not preclude the existence of circles. As such, anything that is not susceptible to cause and effect must be eternal and anything eternal cannot be susceptible to cause and effect (after all, without time, cause and effect are meaningless).
I would assert that something existing outside of time is, by definition, eternal and uncaused.
Where has science and logic led us?
- Physical effects have a cause.
- The components of the universe came into being.
- Time is a component of the universe.
- Therefore time had a cause.
- The cause of time cannot exist in time.
- Therefore the cause of time must be eternal.
NOTE: This was once a much longer post with a whole section on mathematics and the concept of “infinity”, but I imagine this first piece (above) will be discussed rather heatedly; so, I will pick up the rest of the universe argument next week to allow the appropriate time for discussion. Plus, I don’t want to drive away all of my readers with math.
Truth is absolute
Reason is our greatest tool for understanding truth.
Our universe (that which is composed of matter, energy, space, and time) had a beginning.
THE LAND BEFORE TIME
The beginning of our universe has been corroborated again and again by physical law (entropy), theory (Big Bang, General Relativity), and observation (universal expansion, cosmic background radiation, etc). Outside of an intense want for an eternal universe, there is little reason to doubt such a beginning. So, we’re left with the seemingly unanswerable question: “what was before the universe”? My question to you is: Does such a question have any meaning?
The physical state of the universe is, at best, counterintuitive. I would imagine that when I assert that the universe is expanding, the vast majority would interpret it as “the universe is expanding into space”. Physics tells us, however, that this is not the case. The universe does not exist in space; rather, space exists within the universe. This notion is further confirmed when we observe the far reaches of the universe. The expansion is accelerating because space itself is expanding. Moreover, time exists within the universe. Time itself is interrelated with space. It fits into relativity. Its very definition is dependent upon it being an aspect of our universe. We have no scientific reason to believe that time exists outside of our universe and if some sequential time-like thing did exist outside of our universe, we would be forced to give it a different name altogether since we have defined “time” as a quantity tied to the universe.
(Big breath)
What would it mean for something to exist “before” the universe if time is of the universe? Why would we presume that something existed “before” time? If something is within time, that something should also be within the universe. Does it not require significantly more faith to eschew science and to believe that there was time “before” the universe than it does to believe what observation and substantiated theory have shown? Unless we dismiss Einstein’s equations and corroborative evidence completely, are we not compelled to believe that time did not exist until the universe existed?
CAUSE AND EFFECT
All of science is built upon the search for a cause. Despite the truly marvelous analogy (and I mean this with all sincerity) given in the comments section of my last post where Skyhook used beta decay as a model for positing the existence of an uncaused physical phenomenon, in actuality the observation of this decay led directly to a quest to find the cause. Why? Because scientists know that all effects are caused. As was correctly pointed out, radioactive decay does have a cause at the subatomic level.
Back to the universe… all effects are caused so what caused the cause? The universe and indeed any conception of a time-inclusive cosmos must be susceptible to causality. Conversely, an entity that is not susceptible to causality must not carry with it the concept of time. I can say this with certainty because time is defined. (This is like saying that any continuous, two-dimensional shape whose points are equidistant from a single point is a circle. You can conceptualize a square, but since the points on a square are not equidistant from a single point, you cannot correctly call a square a circle… no big revelations here.) Scientists have theorized concepts such as anti-time or imaginary time, but such ideas do not free us from the effects of time (namely cause and effect) in the same way that squares do not preclude the existence of circles. As such, anything that is not susceptible to cause and effect must be eternal and anything eternal cannot be susceptible to cause and effect (after all, without time, cause and effect are meaningless).
I would assert that something existing outside of time is, by definition, eternal and uncaused.
Where has science and logic led us?
- Physical effects have a cause.
- The components of the universe came into being.
- Time is a component of the universe.
- Therefore time had a cause.
- The cause of time cannot exist in time.
- Therefore the cause of time must be eternal.
NOTE: This was once a much longer post with a whole section on mathematics and the concept of “infinity”, but I imagine this first piece (above) will be discussed rather heatedly; so, I will pick up the rest of the universe argument next week to allow the appropriate time for discussion. Plus, I don’t want to drive away all of my readers with math.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Our Temporary Universe (Week 3)
While it is not necessary for the belief in a deity that the universe was born, once we have clearly illustrated that the universe is not eternal, it is extraordinarily difficult to reconcile the creation of the universe without a creator of the universe. Obviously this post is tracking toward a creator; however, this week I would like to focus on the more specific point that it is not reasonable to believe that the universe is eternal; therefore, it must have had a beginning.
GENERAL RELATIVITY
In the early part of the 20th century, Einstein proposed theories that were at best counterintuitive. Chief among them was his theory of General Relativity. General Relativity is a topic that is covered in graduate college courses over several semesters, so we obviously won’t be delving too deeply into the subject; however, we should take a look at some of the things predicted by this theory:
Space, time, matter, and energy are interrelated.
The universe should be expanding.
Space, time, matter, and energy (the components of the universe) had a beginning.
Einstein himself thought the consequences of his theory to be “irritating”. At the time he posited his theory, he was a pantheist (believer that the universe is an eternal God). So irritated was Einstein that he actually introduced his infamous “cosmological constant” into the general relativity equations. Later discovered to simply be bad mathematics, this constant would have nullified the aforementioned implications. Hubble (as in the telescope) was among the first to actually observe the “red shift” necessarily implied by an expanding universe. Still in disbelief, Einstein made the journey himself to look through Hubble’s telescope and verify his claim. Much to his chagrin, Einstein’s theory looks to be correct.
THE BIG BANG
The Big Bang Theory is the most widely accepted theory regarding the origin of the universe. It yields no answer to the philosophical questions like:
"Why are we here?"
"Is there a God?"
Rather, it is a theory based on the forensic evidence we have regarding the universe. Our measurements tell us that every massive object in the universe is moving away from a central point. The radiant energy we observe at the very edges of the universe is consistent with what we would expect from an explosion on the magnitude of the Big Bang. Everything points to the idea that all matter, energy, and space was located at a centralized point light years from our current position. In other words, all that comprises the universe exploded into being about 14 billion years ago.
For many years, many scientists did not view this as tantamount to saying that the universe was created. After all, the universe could just as easily slow its expansion and being to collapse upon itself. Then, matter and energy would rush in at somewhere around the speed of light until everything ended up at a single point once again. From there, the universe would simply bang again and the cycle would continue for eternity. In the last several decades, however, we have been able to more accurately see the physics of the universe's fringes. What astronomers have discovered is that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. What does this mean? Basically it means that the universe shows no signs of slowing down and reversing course and thus no sign of collapse (The "Big Crunch").
If the universe will continue to expand throughout its lifetime, logic tells us that it had a single starting point in time. In other words, the universe had a beginning.
COSMIC RADIATION
In 1965, two scientists at Bell Labs, Penzias and Wilson, won the Nobel Prize for their accidental discovery of cosmic background radiation. Previously unseen, such radiant energy must exist if the universe actually began with a bang. One of the leading 20th century physicists, Robert Jastrow described the discovery this way:
The measurements showed that the earth itself could not be the origin of this radiation, nor could the radiation come from the direction of the moon, the sun, or any other particular object in the sky. The entire Universe seemed to be the source. The two physicists were puzzled by their discovery. They were not thinking about the origin of the Universe, and they did not realize that they had stumbled upon the answer to one of the cosmic mysteries. Scientists who believed in the theory of the Big Bang had long asserted that the Universe must have resembled a white-hot fireball in the very moments after the Big Bang occurred. Gradually, as the Universe expanded and cooled, the fireball would have become less brilliant, but its radiation would have never disappeared entirely. It was the diffuse glow of this ancient radiation, dating back to the birth of the Universe, that Penzias and Wilson apparently discovered.
The Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) yielded data in 2008 that confirmed not only the existence of cosmic background radiation but also its predicted behavior (I’ll speak more to this in the next couple of posts). COBE left little doubt to the veracity of the Big Bang.
THOSE CRAZY LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS
Let me pose a hypothetical question: If I have been shrinking for all eternity, how tall am I? Mathematically, the question actually has an answer. If I said that my height was H, the amount I shrank each year was X, and time was represented by t, my current height would be H/(H + Xt). Now, since I have been shrinking for eternity, t would approach infinity. So, the equation basically becomes H/(Z →∞) which is equal to zero. My current height would be zero. Interesting hypothetical, Randy, but why in the world do we care?
Thermodynamics is an aspect of physics that deals with the energy of a system. The Second Law of Thermodynamics concerns the notion of entropy. Entropy is somewhat difficult to describe in full without getting terribly mathematical; however, the basic idea of entropy is that any system with no external energy acting on it works toward equilibrium. If we look, for instance, at two pots of water - one near boiling and one just above freezing - what happens when we combine the two pots? They come to one temperature. The new pot is neither near boiling nor near freezing. If you then separate the water again, they maintain their equilibrium temperature. Neither returns to its original state. This is entropy in a nutshell. All systems come to equilibrium.
So, let’s compare our incredible shrinking Randy to entropy. If the universe (another system) were trending toward a state of equilibrium for eternity, where would the universe be? At equilibrium! What do we see instead? Stars burn at millions of degrees. The majority of space is right around -230 degrees within our solar system and closer to -273 degrees in the expanses between the stars. The universe is nowhere near the homogeneous state to which it is trending. Therefore it cannot have been trending for all eternity.
Physical laws and theories tell us that the universe had a beginning. Seemingly every new discovery serves to substantiate these physical laws and theories. At the end of the day, it would simply be unreasonable to believe in the eternal universe.
ASIDE: There are numerous other theories regarding the universe’s origins, though none of them generally considered credible for various reasons. I opted not to pick and choose which theories to discuss but I would be happy to explore any alternatives you might suggest in the Comments section.
GENERAL RELATIVITY
In the early part of the 20th century, Einstein proposed theories that were at best counterintuitive. Chief among them was his theory of General Relativity. General Relativity is a topic that is covered in graduate college courses over several semesters, so we obviously won’t be delving too deeply into the subject; however, we should take a look at some of the things predicted by this theory:
Space, time, matter, and energy are interrelated.
The universe should be expanding.
Space, time, matter, and energy (the components of the universe) had a beginning.
Einstein himself thought the consequences of his theory to be “irritating”. At the time he posited his theory, he was a pantheist (believer that the universe is an eternal God). So irritated was Einstein that he actually introduced his infamous “cosmological constant” into the general relativity equations. Later discovered to simply be bad mathematics, this constant would have nullified the aforementioned implications. Hubble (as in the telescope) was among the first to actually observe the “red shift” necessarily implied by an expanding universe. Still in disbelief, Einstein made the journey himself to look through Hubble’s telescope and verify his claim. Much to his chagrin, Einstein’s theory looks to be correct.
THE BIG BANG
The Big Bang Theory is the most widely accepted theory regarding the origin of the universe. It yields no answer to the philosophical questions like:
"Why are we here?"
"Is there a God?"
Rather, it is a theory based on the forensic evidence we have regarding the universe. Our measurements tell us that every massive object in the universe is moving away from a central point. The radiant energy we observe at the very edges of the universe is consistent with what we would expect from an explosion on the magnitude of the Big Bang. Everything points to the idea that all matter, energy, and space was located at a centralized point light years from our current position. In other words, all that comprises the universe exploded into being about 14 billion years ago.
For many years, many scientists did not view this as tantamount to saying that the universe was created. After all, the universe could just as easily slow its expansion and being to collapse upon itself. Then, matter and energy would rush in at somewhere around the speed of light until everything ended up at a single point once again. From there, the universe would simply bang again and the cycle would continue for eternity. In the last several decades, however, we have been able to more accurately see the physics of the universe's fringes. What astronomers have discovered is that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. What does this mean? Basically it means that the universe shows no signs of slowing down and reversing course and thus no sign of collapse (The "Big Crunch").
If the universe will continue to expand throughout its lifetime, logic tells us that it had a single starting point in time. In other words, the universe had a beginning.
COSMIC RADIATION
In 1965, two scientists at Bell Labs, Penzias and Wilson, won the Nobel Prize for their accidental discovery of cosmic background radiation. Previously unseen, such radiant energy must exist if the universe actually began with a bang. One of the leading 20th century physicists, Robert Jastrow described the discovery this way:
The measurements showed that the earth itself could not be the origin of this radiation, nor could the radiation come from the direction of the moon, the sun, or any other particular object in the sky. The entire Universe seemed to be the source. The two physicists were puzzled by their discovery. They were not thinking about the origin of the Universe, and they did not realize that they had stumbled upon the answer to one of the cosmic mysteries. Scientists who believed in the theory of the Big Bang had long asserted that the Universe must have resembled a white-hot fireball in the very moments after the Big Bang occurred. Gradually, as the Universe expanded and cooled, the fireball would have become less brilliant, but its radiation would have never disappeared entirely. It was the diffuse glow of this ancient radiation, dating back to the birth of the Universe, that Penzias and Wilson apparently discovered.
The Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) yielded data in 2008 that confirmed not only the existence of cosmic background radiation but also its predicted behavior (I’ll speak more to this in the next couple of posts). COBE left little doubt to the veracity of the Big Bang.
THOSE CRAZY LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS
Let me pose a hypothetical question: If I have been shrinking for all eternity, how tall am I? Mathematically, the question actually has an answer. If I said that my height was H, the amount I shrank each year was X, and time was represented by t, my current height would be H/(H + Xt). Now, since I have been shrinking for eternity, t would approach infinity. So, the equation basically becomes H/(Z →∞) which is equal to zero. My current height would be zero. Interesting hypothetical, Randy, but why in the world do we care?
Thermodynamics is an aspect of physics that deals with the energy of a system. The Second Law of Thermodynamics concerns the notion of entropy. Entropy is somewhat difficult to describe in full without getting terribly mathematical; however, the basic idea of entropy is that any system with no external energy acting on it works toward equilibrium. If we look, for instance, at two pots of water - one near boiling and one just above freezing - what happens when we combine the two pots? They come to one temperature. The new pot is neither near boiling nor near freezing. If you then separate the water again, they maintain their equilibrium temperature. Neither returns to its original state. This is entropy in a nutshell. All systems come to equilibrium.
So, let’s compare our incredible shrinking Randy to entropy. If the universe (another system) were trending toward a state of equilibrium for eternity, where would the universe be? At equilibrium! What do we see instead? Stars burn at millions of degrees. The majority of space is right around -230 degrees within our solar system and closer to -273 degrees in the expanses between the stars. The universe is nowhere near the homogeneous state to which it is trending. Therefore it cannot have been trending for all eternity.
Physical laws and theories tell us that the universe had a beginning. Seemingly every new discovery serves to substantiate these physical laws and theories. At the end of the day, it would simply be unreasonable to believe in the eternal universe.
ASIDE: There are numerous other theories regarding the universe’s origins, though none of them generally considered credible for various reasons. I opted not to pick and choose which theories to discuss but I would be happy to explore any alternatives you might suggest in the Comments section.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
WHAT CAN WE KNOW? (Week 2)
This seems like a bit of a silly question to some, but it is one that has been on the minds of philosophers for generations, and it is necessary to answer before we embark on any discussion. Most of you are familiar with Descartes’ statement, “I think; therefore, I am.” Many, however, are not familiar with the philosophical analysis that led to this statement or with the reason statement is important. Descartes posed to himself this week’s question: What can we know? He began systematically questioning everything that mankind considered to be knowledge. His analysis went something like this:
- Can I trust what others tell me of the physical world? After all, I did not carry out these experiments myself. So, the answer is no. Knowledge from others is not true knowledge.
- For that matter, what if I carried out an experiment and I saw the result with my own eyes? My eyes have deceived me before. So, my eyes cannot be trusted implicitly.
- For that matter, even if my eyes properly relayed information, how can I trust my brain to properly interpret it? I know of people who are insane. What if I am among the insane and I don’t know it? My brain cannot be trusted implicitly either.
Descartes finally came to the logical conclusion that only one thing can be known for each individual: Nothingness cannot think. I think. Therefore, I am not nothingness. Descartes used logic to determine that something was certainly real: I think; therefore, I am.
In a response to my last blog, Steven posed the question, “Does a falling tree in the woods always make a compression wave? Without an observer we cannot know for sure….” Descartes would take it one step further and argue that even with an observer, we cannot know for sure. Philosophically, there is a great deal of merit to Descartes’ questions. He certainly was not the first to question whether anything could truly be known and (as Steven thoughtfully demonstrated) he certainly will not be the last.
I think it is important for the purpose of our discussion, however, that we not set limits that are so harsh that we preclude any argument. Again, this is not to say that Descartes or Plato were ridiculous when they questioned truth; rather, I am saying that if nothing can be known, there is really no point to any discussion/debate. The fact that we do debate these things means that we have all accepted that logic and reason can lead us to truth. Else, why discuss at all? If you insist that truth cannot be known, that’s fine, but I urge you to seek the most reasonable explanation nonetheless. At least that way you will increase your chances of being right. A year from now, if you believe that this blog presents the most reasonable explanation, you can still opt for a less reasonable or less likely alternative. Likewise, if compelling evidence were to show that Christ is not the man from Messianic prophecies, my choice to believe would have to be based on something other than reason. It is important, though, that we understand that which we have chosen.
CHRIST ON TRIAL
I think that we should view these discussions in the same manner that we would a criminal trial. The question of “what can we know?” then morphs into “What is most reasonable?”
Reasonable: sensible, logical, rational, sound.
I assert that Christ was God and that he walked on the earth. As such, my role is basically that of the prosecution. Over the course of this year, I will attempt to “convict” Jesus of being God. If you contest this claim (or if you simply want to play devil’s advocate… no pun intended… ooh, I just noticed that was a double pun), your role is that of the defense. You need only provide “reasonable doubt.” For many of my non-Christian friends, I imagine that such a challenge brings a smile to your face. If you do participate, though, keep in mind that it would benefit you to provide REASONABLE doubt… not just doubt. It takes little effort to doubt, but it can take a great deal of effort to provide reasonable alternatives. It is important to remember that your role is not akin to the mother of a murderer. If you come into the trial with the thought that no matter what you hear, you will not believe in God or in Christ or in the Bible, then nothing I say (no matter how reasonable) will sway you.
Some common unreasonable arguments:
1. I can’t believe in a God who allows evil.
I would assert that if insurmountable evidence points to the existence of God, but that everything we discover points to an “evil God” (and I’m not saying that this is the case), you can’t negate the evidence because you don’t want to believe in this particular God. The evidence would remain intact regardless of God’s character.
2. I refuse to believe in the supernatural.
Great! You’re a naturalist. You’ll probably want to check out another blog, though. If God exists, His very existence is supernatural. Refusing to believe in the supernatural is tantamount to refusing to believe in God. It is unsound to say that you don’t believe in God because you don’t believe in God.
3. If God is as powerful as you say He is, He would not care about someone as insignificant as me, so all religion is moot.
I won’t address all of the arguments pertaining to the psyche of God, but many people don’t believe in God because they refuse to believe that He would act the way He does. Throughout this year, my approach will be very systematic. The first task is to establish that it is reasonable that God exists. We can delve into His psyche only after we have reasonably illustrated his being. There are methods that God employs that I do not understand, but I don’t believe we should discount His existence because of it. If we show through reason that God exists, we should strive to better understand these actions.
4. Most monotheistic religions describe a heaven and a hell. I refuse to believe that if one religion is right, those who practice another religion – no matter how good they are – are going to hell.
Again, we should examine the question of God’s existence first. We can look at the merits of hell later.
Basically, the unreasonable arguments are those that preclude the existence of God on the basis of implications that are logical (if not desirable). This is simply not sound. If God exists, the implications are for us to try to understand. You may even find that the implications are more reasonable than you ever knew. By the same token, I won’t use arguments such as “I can’t imagine a world without God,” and I won’t use my personal revelations as truth. The tools that I will use are the same as those used by scientists throughout the world: logic, reason, observation, and expert testimony (for instance, I will call upon documented archeological evidence, even though I did not conduct any digs myself). These tools are considered appropriate in any other academic endeavor and I think we should hold the same standard here. If we use the trial example, this is the “defense” you should try to avoid:
“Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we have heard evidence that there were 12 witnesses who saw my client shoot the victim. The DNA evidence clearly points to my client. He had the proper motive, and there were distinct powder marks on my client’s hands that clearly link him to the weapon. I’ll grant you all of this. But, just look at his face. Do we really think that a human being would be capable of something like this? Furthermore, how can we really KNOW anything?”
BACK TO THE TREE
How do we “know” that all trees that fall make a compression wave? We use reason. Because we can observe that a tree rests on the ground, we know that the tree interacted with the ground. Else, the ground would not have stopped the tree’s fall. So, although we did not observe the tree as it fell, we can say with confidence that the tree interacted with matter when we observe the effects of the fall (the tree resting on the ground, the bug that was squashed underneath, the crater that the tree created, the branches that snapped when it hit, etc). It would take quite a leap of faith to assume that the tree did not interact with the matter in the air in the same manner as it did with the ground. It would take a further leap to assume that although the tree obeyed the gravitational forces that caused its fall, it did not obey the other physical forces consistent with a falling tree in the observed world. In the observed world, a compression wave results when matter interacts with matter. That compression wave is referred to as “sound”. Given our knowledge of the wave nature of sound, believing that the falling tree made no sound in light of this evidence would have to be based on something other than reason. Such a conclusion would not be rational.
SUMMARY
Science is often thought to be the opposite of religion. A common assertion is that science relies on facts and figures whereas religion relies on blind faith and personal revelations. While it is true that many religious people rely heavily on faith, this faith need not be “blind”. To follow faithfully in spite of contradictory evidence is indeed “blind” faith; however, to have faith in that which is reasonable is prudent. When we discuss the merits of scientific discoveries, we speak of truth attained through reason and observation. We should hold our religious views to the same standard. If you follow Christ because you were raised as a Christian, understanding the logic of these claims can only serve to strengthen your faith. Further, Christians are taught to seek others in an effort to bring them to Christ. That means that you should be prepared to present a rational case to astute skeptics. If you have doubts about the validity of Biblical claims, I urge you to incorporate the same logic you would apply elsewhere. Seek reasonable answers and give rational arguments and I am certain we will all learn a great deal.
These first two posts basically set the ground rules for the next fifty. If we cannot agree on the premises that (1) truth is absolute and (2) that reason is our greatest tool for finding that truth, there is little point in a discussion like this one. These two concepts are shared by most (in theory, if not in practice), so I apologize if they seem unnecessary; however, these premises must be the foundation for any reasonable discussion and especially for one such as this.
On a more general blog note, I would encourage you to make use of the Comments area. I do my best to tackle each issue as fully as I know how; still, sometimes you may be left with questions that have gone unaddressed. You may have strong opposition to something I say, and this is a great way to challenge me. You may have a point to add that I did not discuss. Plus, even if you have no questions, you may miss out on a rather lively debate. In my limited blog experience, I have found that I generally get more out of the comments than from the blog itself. This is the great benefit a blog has over a book or a newsletter. I would also encourage you to forward this link to anyone you think might find it interesting. The greater the readership, the better the feedback.
- Can I trust what others tell me of the physical world? After all, I did not carry out these experiments myself. So, the answer is no. Knowledge from others is not true knowledge.
- For that matter, what if I carried out an experiment and I saw the result with my own eyes? My eyes have deceived me before. So, my eyes cannot be trusted implicitly.
- For that matter, even if my eyes properly relayed information, how can I trust my brain to properly interpret it? I know of people who are insane. What if I am among the insane and I don’t know it? My brain cannot be trusted implicitly either.
Descartes finally came to the logical conclusion that only one thing can be known for each individual: Nothingness cannot think. I think. Therefore, I am not nothingness. Descartes used logic to determine that something was certainly real: I think; therefore, I am.
In a response to my last blog, Steven posed the question, “Does a falling tree in the woods always make a compression wave? Without an observer we cannot know for sure….” Descartes would take it one step further and argue that even with an observer, we cannot know for sure. Philosophically, there is a great deal of merit to Descartes’ questions. He certainly was not the first to question whether anything could truly be known and (as Steven thoughtfully demonstrated) he certainly will not be the last.
I think it is important for the purpose of our discussion, however, that we not set limits that are so harsh that we preclude any argument. Again, this is not to say that Descartes or Plato were ridiculous when they questioned truth; rather, I am saying that if nothing can be known, there is really no point to any discussion/debate. The fact that we do debate these things means that we have all accepted that logic and reason can lead us to truth. Else, why discuss at all? If you insist that truth cannot be known, that’s fine, but I urge you to seek the most reasonable explanation nonetheless. At least that way you will increase your chances of being right. A year from now, if you believe that this blog presents the most reasonable explanation, you can still opt for a less reasonable or less likely alternative. Likewise, if compelling evidence were to show that Christ is not the man from Messianic prophecies, my choice to believe would have to be based on something other than reason. It is important, though, that we understand that which we have chosen.
CHRIST ON TRIAL
I think that we should view these discussions in the same manner that we would a criminal trial. The question of “what can we know?” then morphs into “What is most reasonable?”
Reasonable: sensible, logical, rational, sound.
I assert that Christ was God and that he walked on the earth. As such, my role is basically that of the prosecution. Over the course of this year, I will attempt to “convict” Jesus of being God. If you contest this claim (or if you simply want to play devil’s advocate… no pun intended… ooh, I just noticed that was a double pun), your role is that of the defense. You need only provide “reasonable doubt.” For many of my non-Christian friends, I imagine that such a challenge brings a smile to your face. If you do participate, though, keep in mind that it would benefit you to provide REASONABLE doubt… not just doubt. It takes little effort to doubt, but it can take a great deal of effort to provide reasonable alternatives. It is important to remember that your role is not akin to the mother of a murderer. If you come into the trial with the thought that no matter what you hear, you will not believe in God or in Christ or in the Bible, then nothing I say (no matter how reasonable) will sway you.
Some common unreasonable arguments:
1. I can’t believe in a God who allows evil.
I would assert that if insurmountable evidence points to the existence of God, but that everything we discover points to an “evil God” (and I’m not saying that this is the case), you can’t negate the evidence because you don’t want to believe in this particular God. The evidence would remain intact regardless of God’s character.
2. I refuse to believe in the supernatural.
Great! You’re a naturalist. You’ll probably want to check out another blog, though. If God exists, His very existence is supernatural. Refusing to believe in the supernatural is tantamount to refusing to believe in God. It is unsound to say that you don’t believe in God because you don’t believe in God.
3. If God is as powerful as you say He is, He would not care about someone as insignificant as me, so all religion is moot.
I won’t address all of the arguments pertaining to the psyche of God, but many people don’t believe in God because they refuse to believe that He would act the way He does. Throughout this year, my approach will be very systematic. The first task is to establish that it is reasonable that God exists. We can delve into His psyche only after we have reasonably illustrated his being. There are methods that God employs that I do not understand, but I don’t believe we should discount His existence because of it. If we show through reason that God exists, we should strive to better understand these actions.
4. Most monotheistic religions describe a heaven and a hell. I refuse to believe that if one religion is right, those who practice another religion – no matter how good they are – are going to hell.
Again, we should examine the question of God’s existence first. We can look at the merits of hell later.
Basically, the unreasonable arguments are those that preclude the existence of God on the basis of implications that are logical (if not desirable). This is simply not sound. If God exists, the implications are for us to try to understand. You may even find that the implications are more reasonable than you ever knew. By the same token, I won’t use arguments such as “I can’t imagine a world without God,” and I won’t use my personal revelations as truth. The tools that I will use are the same as those used by scientists throughout the world: logic, reason, observation, and expert testimony (for instance, I will call upon documented archeological evidence, even though I did not conduct any digs myself). These tools are considered appropriate in any other academic endeavor and I think we should hold the same standard here. If we use the trial example, this is the “defense” you should try to avoid:
“Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we have heard evidence that there were 12 witnesses who saw my client shoot the victim. The DNA evidence clearly points to my client. He had the proper motive, and there were distinct powder marks on my client’s hands that clearly link him to the weapon. I’ll grant you all of this. But, just look at his face. Do we really think that a human being would be capable of something like this? Furthermore, how can we really KNOW anything?”
BACK TO THE TREE
How do we “know” that all trees that fall make a compression wave? We use reason. Because we can observe that a tree rests on the ground, we know that the tree interacted with the ground. Else, the ground would not have stopped the tree’s fall. So, although we did not observe the tree as it fell, we can say with confidence that the tree interacted with matter when we observe the effects of the fall (the tree resting on the ground, the bug that was squashed underneath, the crater that the tree created, the branches that snapped when it hit, etc). It would take quite a leap of faith to assume that the tree did not interact with the matter in the air in the same manner as it did with the ground. It would take a further leap to assume that although the tree obeyed the gravitational forces that caused its fall, it did not obey the other physical forces consistent with a falling tree in the observed world. In the observed world, a compression wave results when matter interacts with matter. That compression wave is referred to as “sound”. Given our knowledge of the wave nature of sound, believing that the falling tree made no sound in light of this evidence would have to be based on something other than reason. Such a conclusion would not be rational.
SUMMARY
Science is often thought to be the opposite of religion. A common assertion is that science relies on facts and figures whereas religion relies on blind faith and personal revelations. While it is true that many religious people rely heavily on faith, this faith need not be “blind”. To follow faithfully in spite of contradictory evidence is indeed “blind” faith; however, to have faith in that which is reasonable is prudent. When we discuss the merits of scientific discoveries, we speak of truth attained through reason and observation. We should hold our religious views to the same standard. If you follow Christ because you were raised as a Christian, understanding the logic of these claims can only serve to strengthen your faith. Further, Christians are taught to seek others in an effort to bring them to Christ. That means that you should be prepared to present a rational case to astute skeptics. If you have doubts about the validity of Biblical claims, I urge you to incorporate the same logic you would apply elsewhere. Seek reasonable answers and give rational arguments and I am certain we will all learn a great deal.
These first two posts basically set the ground rules for the next fifty. If we cannot agree on the premises that (1) truth is absolute and (2) that reason is our greatest tool for finding that truth, there is little point in a discussion like this one. These two concepts are shared by most (in theory, if not in practice), so I apologize if they seem unnecessary; however, these premises must be the foundation for any reasonable discussion and especially for one such as this.
On a more general blog note, I would encourage you to make use of the Comments area. I do my best to tackle each issue as fully as I know how; still, sometimes you may be left with questions that have gone unaddressed. You may have strong opposition to something I say, and this is a great way to challenge me. You may have a point to add that I did not discuss. Plus, even if you have no questions, you may miss out on a rather lively debate. In my limited blog experience, I have found that I generally get more out of the comments than from the blog itself. This is the great benefit a blog has over a book or a newsletter. I would also encourage you to forward this link to anyone you think might find it interesting. The greater the readership, the better the feedback.
Thursday, January 1, 2009
TRUTH AND CONSEQUENCES
In the late 1980’s two scientists named Fleischmann and Pons declared to the world that they had harnessed the power of cold fusion. Cold fusion would allow mankind to generate untold amounts of power. It would bring electricity to destitute nations. It would change the world as we know it. The problem was that Fleishmann and Pons falsified their experimental records. No one could duplicate their experiment because they never achieved what they claimed in the first place. As a result, cold fusion and the scientists that touted its validity became a laughingstock in the scientific community. When they set out, Fleischmann and Pons truly believed in the possibility of cold fusion. They believed it so badly that they ignored or explained away any results that were not consistent with their expected findings. Quite simply, they ignored evidence. They ignored the truth.
In almost every aspect of life, we seek the truth. We expect truthful relationships with our spouses. We cringe when we learn that our political leaders turn from the truth. We employ millions of scientists to learn the truth about the workings of our world. When we search for truth, we hold fast to the notion that if two “truths” contradict one another, one must no longer be considered true. We understand and appreciate absolute truth as a society in all aspects of life except for one: when we seek the truth about ourselves, we are told that we should honor and respect everyone’s beliefs as “individual truths”. We are told, in essence, that truth is relative.
Let’s examine for a moment a few implications of “relative truth” as opposed to absolute truth. Mathematics and science can be eliminated. After all, both are a quest for absolute truth. For that matter, education is basically the passing of knowledge from one person to another. Since the so-called knowledge that you pass down may not coincide with the truths that I hold, we may as well do away with education altogether. We’ll just set aside time to search deep within ourselves and see what we come up with. The good news is that ignorance is bliss, so we will be a happy-go-lucky people until we run out of food.
Relative truth is a myth. We all know it; we just, for some reason, don’t want to acknowledge it. We know that mathematics is defined by absolute truth. We know that science relies on an absolute truth. We know that the world consists of either/or scenarios. Either 1+1=2 or it does not. Either the earth is round or it is not. Either there exists a God or there does not. To acknowledge that there both is a God and there is not is nonsensical.
Fundamentally, I think that even those who profess to believe in relative truth are really speaking of relative perception. There is no doubt that two people may perceive opposite things, but this does not change that which is perceived. Let’s say, for instance, that two people stand in front of a wall. One is blind; the other is not. For the blind man, the wall is absent. Does this mean that the wall exists for the other man but not for the blind man? If you said “yes,” does your answer change when the two men begin to walk forward? If the blind man professed that there was no wall, he would simply be wrong. He would not hold the truth, relative or absolute. His insistence that the wall is nonexistent would not cause the statement to be true; it would simply cause a headache when he discovered that he was wrong.
When exploring the idea of relative truth, people often call upon things like Plato’s cave allegory, existing as characters in some dreamer’s dream, or existing within a computer program. Something that I find humorous is that in each of these scenarios there exists an absolute truth:
In Plato’s cave allegory, we find a man in a cave who sees only the shadows cast by those outside the cave. The man perceives the shadows to be truth. Of course, the premise of the allegory tells us that the man is indeed in a cave (the absolute truth).
In the dreamer’s dream, the dreamer himself is the absolute truth.
In the Matrix, the perceptions of those within the Matrix are not consistent with reality. The reality (absolute truth) is that the people live out their lives in a computer program.
Human beings cannot truly even fathom the concept of relative truth. When we make up scenarios, we give premises that contain absolute truth. When we utter sentences like “truth is relative” we are essentially saying that it is the absolute truth that truth is relative. The very sentence contradicts itself.
“Truth is relative” has been uttered so often that it has become something of a catchphrase in American society. Ours is a society that teaches honor and respect for all people. Certainly honor and respect are valuable notions and it is important that we show respect when we interact with one another. At what point, though, did respecting individuals come to mean that we must give credence to any idea that comes from any individual? People often hold to ideals that defy logic and reason. Such ideals are rarely challenged, and when they are challenged, those who contest them are seen as intolerant or uneducated. As a society, we have taken to coddling people regardless of what comes out of their mouths. We reason that since truth is relative, the people aren’t “wrong”; rather, they simply know relative truths that differ from our own. We then extol our own virtues for having shown respect. The funny thing is that this coddling is really the ultimate form of disrespect. We look at people as being so fragile that they couldn’t possibly handle hearing that they are wrong. We have no respect for their strength and we only profess respect for their opinions.
Truth is absolute. If it is not absolute, it is no longer truth. Truth is not always provable, but it cannot be refuted by facts. When it comes to religious views, you may believe that we all hold pieces to the puzzle. You may believe that we’re all wrong. You may believe that God honors all who seek with admission into Heaven. You cannot, however, believe that all beliefs are true (i.e. that each holds “relative truth”) without discounting logic and reason.
Randy’s Philosophical Statement of the Week:
When a tree falls in the forest, it always makes a compression wave.
In almost every aspect of life, we seek the truth. We expect truthful relationships with our spouses. We cringe when we learn that our political leaders turn from the truth. We employ millions of scientists to learn the truth about the workings of our world. When we search for truth, we hold fast to the notion that if two “truths” contradict one another, one must no longer be considered true. We understand and appreciate absolute truth as a society in all aspects of life except for one: when we seek the truth about ourselves, we are told that we should honor and respect everyone’s beliefs as “individual truths”. We are told, in essence, that truth is relative.
Let’s examine for a moment a few implications of “relative truth” as opposed to absolute truth. Mathematics and science can be eliminated. After all, both are a quest for absolute truth. For that matter, education is basically the passing of knowledge from one person to another. Since the so-called knowledge that you pass down may not coincide with the truths that I hold, we may as well do away with education altogether. We’ll just set aside time to search deep within ourselves and see what we come up with. The good news is that ignorance is bliss, so we will be a happy-go-lucky people until we run out of food.
Relative truth is a myth. We all know it; we just, for some reason, don’t want to acknowledge it. We know that mathematics is defined by absolute truth. We know that science relies on an absolute truth. We know that the world consists of either/or scenarios. Either 1+1=2 or it does not. Either the earth is round or it is not. Either there exists a God or there does not. To acknowledge that there both is a God and there is not is nonsensical.
Fundamentally, I think that even those who profess to believe in relative truth are really speaking of relative perception. There is no doubt that two people may perceive opposite things, but this does not change that which is perceived. Let’s say, for instance, that two people stand in front of a wall. One is blind; the other is not. For the blind man, the wall is absent. Does this mean that the wall exists for the other man but not for the blind man? If you said “yes,” does your answer change when the two men begin to walk forward? If the blind man professed that there was no wall, he would simply be wrong. He would not hold the truth, relative or absolute. His insistence that the wall is nonexistent would not cause the statement to be true; it would simply cause a headache when he discovered that he was wrong.
When exploring the idea of relative truth, people often call upon things like Plato’s cave allegory, existing as characters in some dreamer’s dream, or existing within a computer program. Something that I find humorous is that in each of these scenarios there exists an absolute truth:
In Plato’s cave allegory, we find a man in a cave who sees only the shadows cast by those outside the cave. The man perceives the shadows to be truth. Of course, the premise of the allegory tells us that the man is indeed in a cave (the absolute truth).
In the dreamer’s dream, the dreamer himself is the absolute truth.
In the Matrix, the perceptions of those within the Matrix are not consistent with reality. The reality (absolute truth) is that the people live out their lives in a computer program.
Human beings cannot truly even fathom the concept of relative truth. When we make up scenarios, we give premises that contain absolute truth. When we utter sentences like “truth is relative” we are essentially saying that it is the absolute truth that truth is relative. The very sentence contradicts itself.
“Truth is relative” has been uttered so often that it has become something of a catchphrase in American society. Ours is a society that teaches honor and respect for all people. Certainly honor and respect are valuable notions and it is important that we show respect when we interact with one another. At what point, though, did respecting individuals come to mean that we must give credence to any idea that comes from any individual? People often hold to ideals that defy logic and reason. Such ideals are rarely challenged, and when they are challenged, those who contest them are seen as intolerant or uneducated. As a society, we have taken to coddling people regardless of what comes out of their mouths. We reason that since truth is relative, the people aren’t “wrong”; rather, they simply know relative truths that differ from our own. We then extol our own virtues for having shown respect. The funny thing is that this coddling is really the ultimate form of disrespect. We look at people as being so fragile that they couldn’t possibly handle hearing that they are wrong. We have no respect for their strength and we only profess respect for their opinions.
Truth is absolute. If it is not absolute, it is no longer truth. Truth is not always provable, but it cannot be refuted by facts. When it comes to religious views, you may believe that we all hold pieces to the puzzle. You may believe that we’re all wrong. You may believe that God honors all who seek with admission into Heaven. You cannot, however, believe that all beliefs are true (i.e. that each holds “relative truth”) without discounting logic and reason.
Randy’s Philosophical Statement of the Week:
When a tree falls in the forest, it always makes a compression wave.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
