So, why study Christianity and not Judaism, Islam, or any other of the thousands of world religions?
For many, the sheer number of world religions is enough to dissuade them from believing that any one religion can hold the truth. Geographical location often has a tremendous impact on religion and it often seems like religion is based mostly on chance (to whom were you born?). So, it can seem as though choosing a religion is just silly. I want to address this in a couple of ways:
First, it is important to note that often times religious people inhabit lands with like-minded religious people because at some point in history, a group of people who shared a faith relocated themselves to a specific geographic location. So, it is the believers who settle a location, not a location that makes believers. That being said, when a large population shares a belief, it is easy to succumb to societal religious pressures regardless of whether you genuinely believe or not (just like any other societal pressure), so religions have a tendency to perpetuate themselves (at least outwardly). Parents and societies will always have a huge impact on their children and mistaken parents/societies will likely beget mistaken children.
Second, societal beliefs have no impact on truth regardless of the size of a society. If there is a God, and 99% of the world’s population believes in God, God exists. If there is a God, and 99% of the world’s population is atheist, God exists.
In a nutshell, it doesn’t matter what the majority believes or why they believe. The only thing that matters is what is true. Over the past weeks, I discussed what it was that led me to seek God. I have given my reasons for not giving as much credence to pantheism or polytheism. Both place constraints on gods based on universal laws and physics; as such, I think that pantheism and polytheism are basically naturalism (i.e. “gods” are of the universe and therefore natural, alien beings). I simply don’t see any reason to define a natural being as a “god”. So, that leaves monotheism.
I want to quickly touch upon the three major monotheistic religions. Each of the three is founded upon Judaism. The Bible adds to the teachings of the Torah via the fulfillment of the Messianic prophecy. The Qu’ran adds to the teachings of Torah with the testament of the prophet Mohammed. Neither Judaism nor Islam recognizes the divinity of Christ. As I write on the Old Testament, I will discuss the Messianic Prophecy and will later provide reasons as to why I believe in Christ’s divinity. In short, a discussion of Biblical events will touch upon each of the three.
The direct and indirect accounts of Jesus found in the gospels are the reason that Christianity exists as it does. There is a great deal of evidence (that we will explore in late posts… now you’re probably understanding why I vacillated between beginning with the New or Old Testament) that the gospel authors wrote truthful accounts of Jesus. Might they have been deceived by the great magician, Jesus of Nazareth? That option is still on the table right now, but I believe that it is safe to say that the authors wrote (and died for) what they believed was the truth.
In these accounts, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John note on numerous occasions Jesus referencing the scripture as truth. Indeed, there are several specific stories where Jesus refers to unambiguous passages and people in the Bible. When Jesus chastises the Pharisees, He asks why they have abandoned directives from the scriptures. He references Isaiah, Jonah, Moses, David and several other historical figures and reprimands those who claim to be knowledgeable but who do not defer to the scripture. Jesus taught that the scripture was God’s law and the true story of God’s people. In the very least we should study those people and passages referenced by Christ.
“Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35).
“"Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests?” (Matthew 12:3-12:4)
"He answered them, "And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God commanded, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.' " (Matthew 15:3-15:5)
"…for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God" (Matthew 15:6).
"For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished." (Matthew 5:18).
“And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God: 'I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not God of the dead, but of the living." (Matthew 22:31-22:32)
When reading the words of Jesus, it seems rather clear that the Pentateuch is His primary source; accordingly, it will be my primary focus as we study the Old Testament. If such stories prove to be mythology and nothing more, I think that we can safely assume that the story of Jesus was folklore as well; conversely, if we study the Bible and find evidence of its truth, Jesus is given more credence via His adherence to this truth.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
20 comments:
This is a little random, but I wanted to post this off of the website from the Mayflower Congregational Church in Oklahoma City. It sums me up quite well:
"The people of Mayflower Congregational UCC church of Mayflower of Oklahoma City invite you to experience Christianity as a way of life, not a set of creeds and doctrines demanding total agreement. We invite you to join us as we seek to recover the meaning of the gospel for our time, looking to scripture, faith, and reason -- interpreted by love. At Mayflower we believe that what Jesus teaches us about God is more important than what the church has taught us about Jesus. We believe in the liberty of of conscience, the responsibility of every believer to work out his or her own salvation, and the obligation of faithful men and women to become partners with God in building the kingdom. We take the Bible seriously, not literally, and believe that in our time the church must recover, above all, its radical hospitality -- welcoming all persons into her midst, without regard to race, age, gender, sexual orientation, or physical abilities."
I must admit I am growing weary of going round the same circle. My initial reaction was to comment on the progression from the universe’s definitional beginning - to time and cause being “caused” simultaneously “before” or “outside” of time and the universe – to a dismissal of the anthropic principle in order to have intelligence as a requirement – to an incomprehensible and indescribable being (that is comprehended and described as eternal, not subject to universal law, intelligent, limitless, and singular) and then turning to an ancient religion (that perpetuates independent of truth) for definitive answers – a religion that has this being visiting Earth in a story that is compatible with the knowledge naturally available at the time (no mention of things these people could not have known). I have decided to try to let go of these valid objections for the time being.
Instead, I am content to follow Vernicus’ lead and get to weighing truth and myth. So let’s get on with it. Shall we start with Noah and his ark?
Oh, apparently the comment made by Vernicus was deleted by Randy while I was commenting. This takes away from the comment I was making so I am reproducing Vernicus’ comment here. Also, Vernicus is showing a genuine effort and contributing to the blog… how about some of that good old Christian forgiveness?
“Vernicus said:
I wish it were as simple as Myth or Truth, but they’re not necessarily mutually exclusive. The term 'myth' received its first precise formulation in modern times from the classical philologist, C. G. Heyne, who defined the myth as a necessary and universal form of expression within the early stage
of man's intellectual development, in which unexplainable events
were attributed to the direct intervention of the gods. In fact, the word ‘myth’ derives from the ancient Greek word muthos, which meant simply an ‘utterance’ or a ‘traditional tale’. And these utterances, or traditional tales – usually concerning Gods and heroes – were generally considered to be true stories.
How do we quantify the level of truth and weight it against the level of mythology?
If we’re to use the hyperbole from last post, would it be reasonable to show the genetic, logistic, and physical impossibility of the great flood and Noah’s ark as sufficient evidence against the absolute and divine truth of the Pentateuch and in turn the Bible as a whole?”
I hope everyone had a Happy Easter! Whatever your interpretation is of the holiday.
Exploring the flood story (stories) in Genesis sounds great, but here are a few thoughts and questions on Randy’s post.
Randy - “a group of people who shared a faith relocated themselves to a specific geographic location. So, it is the believers who settle a location, not a location that makes believers”
I’m not sure of the point you’re making by the idea that a group of believers in a geographical location moved to another geographical location. Did not the traveling “group of people who shared a faith” start from the same location?
Randy - “I think that pantheism and polytheism are basically naturalism”
I don’t think this is consistent. If God is supernatural and outside the universe, then he can manifest Himself physically in this world. That is the concern of religion. God could manifest himself as Krishna or as Jesus or as a burning bush, or as the entire universe if it served His purpose.
If God is “outside the universe” why not Vishnu, Shiva and Krishna instead of Father, Son and Holy Spirit? How is the Trinity different than Hinduism in its polytheistic nature? Both assert a divine unity as expressed through different personas or avatars. In fact, Islam and Judaism see the Trinity as an affront to true monotheism.
The only reason presented for God is that we don’t understand many causal issues related to the Big Bang and the subsequent microseconds of reality. This has been shown in principal to be no different than ancient man using a god to explain rain. No satisfactory answer for only exploring the Christian god has been presented.
The “outside the universe” idea is a container in to which anything could be placed.
Randy - “Might they have been deceived by the great magician, Jesus of Nazareth?”
Miraculous works were not unique to Jesus. We read that when Jesus was accused of driving out demons by the power of Beelzebub, that Jesus asked the Pharisees “by whom do your own exorcists cast them out?” The practice of magic, exorcism, miracles, etc. are throughout Scripture and the ancient world. There are other magicians in the Bible, such as in the court of the Pharaoh. Other wonder workers existed during Jesus’ time, like Honi the Circle Drawer.
"For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished." (Matthew 5:18).
How do we explain Paul and others negating much of the law? Today we frequently wear shirts made of multiple fibers, Christians don’t observe kosher dietary restrictions, and we do not consider things that a menstruating woman touches to be unclean. These laws have, in all practical ways, “passed away”. The author of Matthew was quite possibly an early Christian (perhaps an Ebionite?) who still believed that Christians needed to be Jews and observe the full law.
I'll respond to comments probably this evening, but I did want to comment on Vernicus' post first. I did not wish to remove the content of this post, but I did not at all appreciate the manner in which Vernicus took the discussion with Kyle and turned it into a personal attack that would be a bit scary to most people. If you took at look at the Vernicus profile, you would note that there was a google map of Kyle's house posted. Not cool. I assumed one of two things:
1. Vernicus is Kyle (in which case pulling one personality wouldn't harm anyone)
2. Vernicus was trying to intimidate Kyle by posting personal information on a public forum (which I think is childish at best and scary at worst)
In either case, I didn't feel terribly guilty about yanking the posts. I didn't like having to approve new comments, either, which I decided was a necessary step for ending a discussion that was in no way contributing to the blog.
I'm not excited about allowing future posts, but I'm open to the possibility if there is good reason to do so.
Vernicus said...
"Vernicus was trying to intimidate Kyle by posting personal information on a public forum (which I think is childish at best and scary at worst)"For the record, Kyle called me [names].
Also, none of the information on my profile was private. Facebook, the County Assessor, Google Maps, Myspace. Public information on a public forum.
If the posts weren't deleted, I'd ask you to go back through and read the posts; Who's the bully? I didn't come after Kyle on the board out of respect for your blog. I knew it was going to be a distraction, so I chose a more subtle approach.
Kyle lectured me on "the rules of the internet".
I pulled rule 3, 7, 8, 62 and 83.
You countered with Rule 9, touche noble blogger.
Moral of the story...there's nothing anonymous about the internet, so know who you're arguing with before hurling insults their way.
There is some merit to the notion that I should have booted Kyle too. In the interests of keeping on-topic, I won't argue over who was the worse offender. You're welcome to post again.
Societal pressures, current geographical location, and so on have no bearing on ancient religious truth. But they can act as an extremely reliable predictor of individual religious belief. Generally, the individual is completely oblivious to these biases. The important part is not that beliefs are chosen based on a poll of the majority, but being an individual within such a society creates bias in predictable directions, independent of truth. If the belief you happen to hold is one that can be determined in a reliable way by geographical information, it is particularly important to understand the set of biases you may be exhibiting.
Even if we have determined that there is reason to abandon agnosticism with respect to the existence of an intelligent being that lies “outside” of space-time (which we have not), to turn to an ancient text for more information, one that happens to be the one the majority of people around you believe, and probably your family believe, shows an increased probability that you might be influenced by factors other than science, reason, logic, etc. If you are thinking this is simply because your belief is the truth, then consider the multitude of incompatible religions when assessing your bias.
Thanks Randy!
Back to the task at hand...
I think you're being a bit generous in attributing the spread of a specific religion exclusively to geographical pilgrimage.
An alternative theory might also weight the resources available such as animals fit for domestication and land suitable for agriculture. I'm of Diamond's opinion that Guns, Germs, and Steel had every bit as much to do with the spread of Christianity as the story of Jesus.
I couldn't agree more on your assessment of truth throughout the blog, but truth is harder to find through empty questions. I'm reminded of Jurassic Park when they use a computer program to make sure all 377 dino's are accounted for. Every time, the computer found exactly 377 dino's, it wasn't until they looked for 430 did see the emptiness of the original question.
It feels like we're being asked to look for 377 when we dismiss the hundreds of religions that have come along in the last 20,000 years. Using first few books of the bible to justify the last few books of the bible might make sense to some, but to a person who doesn't afford any book this authority, it's a rather big jump.
Skyhook:No one is dismissing anything. In fact, I think I argued in one post that one could assert either the earth was made to fit humanity or that humanity was made to fit the earth. I did give statistical arguments for the unlikelihood of the formation of the universe and the unlikelihood of the formation of life from non-life, but I think it only natural (no pun intended) that we question hitting the lottery twice.
Vernicus:“…would it be reasonable to show the genetic, logistic, and physical impossibility of the great flood and Noah’s ark as sufficient evidence against the absolute and divine truth of the Pentateuch and in turn the Bible as a whole?”
Yes.
Steven:“If God is supernatural and outside the universe, then he can manifest Himself physically in this world…. God could manifest himself as Krishna or as Jesus or as a burning bush, or as the entire universe if it served His purpose.”
Yes, but if a single God manifests Himself in this way, but is not confined in this way, aren’t we just splitting hairs? One God. Multiple manifestations. Still monotheism.
“The only reason presented… microseconds… rain….”
I can’t force you to believe that the universe (and thus time) began. I can’t force you to believe that nothingness cannot generate something (though such an idea defies logic). I can’t force you believe in cause and effect nor can I force you to believe that statistical abnormalities are anything more than a crazy happenstance. I can’t force you to acknowledge that conditions vital to the survival of amino acids are devastating to the survival or nucleic acids (the fundamental components of life). I will be unable to force you to believe that Jesus’ miracles, if true, are evidence for His divinity. Still, I had hoped that you wouldn’t simply dismiss these things.
It’s frustrating to carry on a debate when scientific discoveries are acknowledged or cast aside depending on whether they add to or detract from a discussion. What it feels like is: If data points to evolution, for instance, it should be used to demonstrate that the earth and therefore the universe most likely came into being naturally. If, on the other hand, data points to things that go against our statistical understanding or our knowledge of physical properties, we should just hang on until science gets it right and ignore the evidence in the interim.
“How do we explain Paul and others negating much of the law?”
They don’t. The law existed for the descendents of Abraham. There are also elements of the law that pertain only to acts within a temple that no longer exists. None of this matters, though, becuase there is no reason to assume that rules can’t change. The rules that I apply to my toddler are much different than those I will apply in his teenage years. But, the “toddler rules” aren’t negated in his adolescence. Likewise, the rules used to prepare Israel differed from those that applied to Noah and should differ from those that apply to mankind as a whole.
Societal PressureI could say that if you attended college, the societal pressure placed on you to argue against the merits of Christianity is the reason you (royal) are an atheist. I could say that the reason you don’t believe in Christianity is that you believe people will go to hell if it is true and you find that unacceptable. I could say that your interactions with Christian people drove you to the belief that Christians are no different than anyone else and that Christianity is therefore worthless. The fact of the matter, though, is that:
A. That may or may not be true.
B. It doesn’t affect the truth or untruth of atheism.
What if I am conditioned by society to believe in Christ? What if my entire family is Christian?! Would my arguments carry more weight if I told you that I grew up in Iran and that my family members are devout followers of Islam? What if I told you that I’m not even really a Christian and that I use this blog as a means to generate fodder that I can apply in arguments against Christian friends? None of these things would affect whether the arguments carried weight.
Does it help if I tell you that my Bible-centric view of Christianity is generally frowned upon? Even most self-described Christians I know tend to believe the warm fuzzies of Christianity and cast aside any accounts of God’s wrath. To me, Christianity doesn’t exist without the Bible (how else do you have any idea what Christianity is?). This conclusion I came to without pressure from friends or family. The Bible simply is the source for information on Jesus.
Saying that we hit the lottery twice indicates that you do not understand the anthropic principle. The fact that you think the values of one sample from a population (of anywhere from one to infinity; certainly one) gives you enough information to deem such values as statistical anomalies speaks for itself. We can’ force you to understand your fallacy, but we can ask you to take a look at your biases, hoping that you might see.
Also, evolution by natural selection has nothing to do with the formation of Earth and we have no evidence that is has anything to do with the beginning of the universe. It is an example of natural explanation working but it does not have cosmological implications. I suspect that you know this.
On societal pressures we agree that society’s opinions have no bearing on what is objectively true. All I am saying is that you should take inventory of your biases. If I were to give you “52 blogs to why I am not a Christian”, it would be prudent of me to cover how certain university subjects affected me, how I feel about hell, or whether or not I have some deep seated hatred towards Christians.
It is not about arguments carrying more weight, it is about recognizing your biases. Had you grown up in Iran, you would have a different set of biases to account for. We all have biases – but those who act like they know that they have found the truth have an even greater duty to examine their biases. Especially when they claim to have reached the truth through science and reason and especially when the truth just happens to be of the local flavor.
I find the reason we are turning to an Iron Age philosophy to explain anything about that which existed “before” the big bang or “outside” of the universe to be an exercise in cultural bias. Are we to turn to Bronze Age philosophy to get a handle on dark matter? Doubtful. The confusion I have comes from the “I have always been a physicist at heart” statement.
Claims found in Genesis 6 – 9 (NIV). Many of these claims are made repeatedly, but I have not cited each iteration in every case. None of these claim fit with reality. If these claims did fit with reality, there would be overwhelming evidence.
- Man’s days will be 120 years. 6:3
- Mankind, men, and animals on the ground and in the air were wiped from the earth. All life under the heavens. Everything on Earth perished. 6:8, 13, 17
- Everything was killed other than what was on the ark. 7:23
- Noah, his wife, his sons, and their wives, were be saved 6:18, 7:13.
- Noah built an ark that was 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high. 6:15 (V= 1,518,750 ft^3)
- Two of all living creatures were brought onto the ark and kept alive. 6:19-20
- Seven of every clean animal, seven of every bird, and two of every unclean animal on the ark. 7:2-3
- Food for all the creatures was stored on the ark. 6:20
- 40 days and 40 nights of rain on 2-17.
- Water came from springs below and from behind the floodgates of heaven. 7:11
- Noah was 600 years old when the floods came. 7:6
- The (wild) animals came to Noah to enter the ark. 6:9
- All the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered by more than 20 feet 7:19-20
- The waters flooded the earth for 150 Days. 7:24
- The waters steadily receded and the ark came to rest on 7-7. 8:3-4
- On olive tree survived the flood and produced a leaf for the (wild?) dove to bring back to Noah. 8:11
- All the creatures exited the ark one after another, atop Mount Ararat. 8:4, 8:19
- God says that everything that lives and moves will be food for Noah (man), minus that which has its “lifeblood” still in it. 9:3-4.
- God will be reminded of his (its?) covenant whenever he sees a rainbow. 9:15
- The earth was populated by 3-4 males and 3-4 females. 9:18-19
- Noah lived for 950 years. 9:28-29
Randy, honestly evaluate these claims. Set bias aside, and evaluate these as a physicist would. This is absurd.
Religious thoughts
Randy: “but if a single God manifests Himself in this way, but is not confined in this way, aren’t we just splitting hairs? One God. Multiple manifestations. Still monotheism.”
Exactly. I think we agree here. I was taking issue with your casting aside of “polytheistic” religions, as the differences between them and “monotheistic” religions are often just superficial. Most Hindus, a technically polytheistic religion, believe in a divine unity expressed differently. So discounting polytheism and pantheism in this discussion is not warranted.
Also, since the number of adherents makes no difference to a religion’s validity, then surely a lifetime of study is needed before any serious claim can be made about one religion’s superiority over the thousands of others.
"For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished."
Randy - “there is no reason to assume that rules can’t change”
Randy, I ask you then, what is the writer of Matthew, quoting Jesus, referring to then? How would the law “pass away” if he isn’t referring to its observance? Does he just mean that the ancient writings of the law will never be misplaced? Most likely, he is arguing for the continued observation of the Jewish law by followers of Christ. Remember that this was a point of major contention between Paul, a Diaspora Jew/Christian, and Peter and James in the Jerusalem church. We know that the Ebionites, a group of early Jewish Christians who believed that any convert to the cause of Christ needed to become a Jew and keep the law, used a version of Matthew as their gospel. It also makes sense that this group didn’t last too long, as most Jews rejected Jesus as the Messiah and most gentiles didn’t see the need to become circumcised as too inviting. Anyway, We still find that early conflict in Scripture.
“All the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered by more than 20 feet 7:19-20”
This would require flood waters over five miles in height to cover Mount Everest
“ -Two of all living creatures were brought onto the ark and kept alive. 6:19-20 - Seven of every clean animal, seven of every bird, and two of every unclean animal on the ark. 7:2-3”
The contradictions are because the Noah’s ark story is a blending together of two different versions of the story, the first by the “Yawhist” writer of the earth’s prehistory and the second by a later “Priestly” source. Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch is no longer recognized as literal truth. Rather it’s a blending together of several different traditions, which occurred over time by editors.
There is much to be gained from studying Scripture, but unless we liberate it from the viewpoint of inerrancy and literalism, we miss a lot, AND the Scriptures grow in danger of being seen as irrelevant in today’s world.
“All the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered by more than 20 feet 7:19-20”
”This would require flood waters over five miles in height to cover Mount Everest”
Taken literally, this would mean, conservatively, that there was roughly 10,000 – 20,000 feet of water on the surface of the earth, equivalent to more than half a billion cubic miles of liquid! Since according Genesis 6:12, the rain fell for 40 days and 40 nights – or only 930 hours – the rain must have fallen at a rate of at least fifteen feet per hour. This is enough to sink any aircraft carrier, much less a wooden ark with millions of animals and their feed on board.
So much for reason. :`(
Science/Philosophy Thoughts
We’ve hit on these topics, of course, but I am continuing to use this forum to test and refine thoughts on these matters....
First off - As to the “illogical” nature of the universe “just beginning,” I’m not saying that the universe did pop into existence out of nothing, I’m just saying why not? The idea of God outside the universe is, by its nature, completely illogical as well, as it lies outside the purview of logic. What’s the difference? Any option we pick is pure speculation at this point, except perhaps inflation and the multiverse it implies, as it has SOME justification in observation or at least theoretical problem-solving.
Now....
ANTHROPIC FOCUS
If there is a God, then what are the odds of God creating man?
Imagine the universe evolving of its own accord so that we don’t exist. Now imagine God creating the universe in a way to where we don’t exist. What is the difference here? What are the odds of God creating us? infinitely long as the universe could have been created many different ways.... the only explanation that it is likely that God created us is that we exist. What are the odds of the universe generating us without a theistic God?.... infinitely long.... except that we exist. We exist, therefore the chances of us existing are 100%.
So we can see that the anthropic principle and the God hypothesis are both tautological. We’re here because we’re here. BUT, this seems acceptable since we only have one universe that we are capable of observing. The odds of the universe evolving in any ONE way are one in infinity. Comparisons are impossible, as Skyhook has stated, so sweeping statements about odds are problematic.
COPERNICAN FOCUS
But perhaps the God hypothesis and the anthropic principle are fundamentally in error, as they both assume a viewpoint of man as the goal of the universe.
“Stephen Gould compared the claim that the universe is fine-tuned for the benefit of our kind of life to saying..... that ships had been invented to house barnacles.... Life appears to have adapted to physics, and not vice versa.”
This is a question, I would love to see Randy and Skyhook expound upon.
Doesn’t it make more sense to say that matter evolved to match physical laws, rather than stating that physical laws were set in advance to accommodate matter? Isn’t it backwards to say that stars require the strong nuclear force to be “set” to a certain quantity? Isn’t it more correct to say that physical forces came into being first and then stars came into being as objects which matched those forces? When we look backwards, we tend to reverse cause and effect. What do you guys think?
I consider myself a person of faith in many ways. But I just don’t see God as a supernatural entity who leaves a trail of naturalistic evidence for us to find. I don’t think the “trail of breadcrumbs” God fully represents the true God in his scope and presence within our world and in this moment of reality right now. That said, I agree with Randy, that any concept of God is inherently limited, so being too judgmental of different views is not advisable either, I suppose.
I do not see any reason to assume man as the goal of the universe. And I am not so sure we can separate matter and physical law into before and after. What does seem clear to me is that I am not fully grasping the question you are posing. :)
It is a good thing that Noah lived to be over 900 years old, because it would have taken him quiet a long time to construct an ark that is as long as two Statue of Liberties stacked on top of each other (with only one base)! I wonder if he felled all that birch too? I’ll bet power tools and powered cranes would have come in handy. Well, who needs a crane when you have a skyhook!
Sorry for the re-tread, but I am still trying to understand these things a bit better. Please view these questions as separate from the current biblical debate:
A few quotes from Randy’s earlier blogs concerning the “fine-tuning” of the universe.
“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.”
“The quantum hiccup was perfect for galaxy formation”
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."
Assuming no multiverse theory, here is my first question:
Does it make sense to say that galaxies required certain parameters to form? When the “quantum hiccup” occurred, there were no such things as galaxies or matter. Does it make sense to talk about matter requiring a certain fine-tuning of physical forces? Perhaps matter is what came to be as the result of physical forces. Can we state with certainty that if things had “blown up” differently, that there would not be something else - perhaps not matter as we now know it, perhaps not galaxies, but something else? Isn’t the fine-tuning argument supposing a certain natural law, pertaining to matter and galaxy formation, existing BEFORE physical laws came into being?
Or, to think of it slightly differently - could “matter” possibly have come into being no matter what, because its requirements would have evolved to match physical laws whatever they turned out to be? Isn’t the fine-tuning argument supposing pre-existing requirements of matter before matter existed? Does that make sense?
Now back to multiverse theory, which does suppose a certain naturalism existing before the Big Bang:
My second question is to Randy - Since you invoke inflation in your earlier posts, aren’t you consequently invoking multiverse theory? For inflation states that a tiny portion of a much larger “Universe” blew up, creating our universe. So our universe is a “pocket universe” within a much larger Universe or Multiverse.
I think the fine-tuning argument has a tendency to take poetic license beyond its usefulness as a tool for understanding. I agree with you that even if value X was this or that, something would happen; and we not in a good position to detail the far reaching consequences of what might have happened had the values (or fundamentals) been different. We can model it for a short period of time, but there are just too many variables for in depth analysis.
I have been checking out some of George Smoot’s work detailing the critical role in galaxy formation played by dark matter. We don’t have much of a handle on this stuff (I certainly don’t), but we can observe and model its effects. Considering that we only have a small fraction of what we need to understand the complexities here, staying away from absolutes is reasonable.
To me, the fine-tuning argument essentially says “in order to get what we’ve got, we have to have what we have.”
I think I am getting what you are saying, but we are venturing pretty far off in to speculation land. I think this is what Einstein meant when he asked “Did God have a choice in creating the universe?” – meaning could the universe have began in more than one way? With our selection bias of only being able to view the universe (this universe?) from here and now, we are not in a good position to definitively answer this question. But we can and do speculate.
“in order to get what we’ve got, we have to have what we have.”
This is exactly what I think as well.
Calculating the odds of the universe being the way it is, is like calculating the odds of yourself being born. It took one sperm out of millions, then calculate the odds of our mother and father being who they are, then go backwards. It gets to ridiculous odds very quickly. especially if you include the odds of your parents meeting, their parents meeting, etc.
But it's thinking of the whole problem backwards. If something had happened differently, it would be different.
Post a Comment