That horrible atheistic idea: the Big Bang!

I recently dropped by the website of a young Christian teenager who had paid a visit of his own to OutsideTheBox. In one of his posts, in typical fundamentalist form, he had scoffed at the notion of the Big Bang, no doubt parroting the diatribe of an ill-informed Sunday school teacher. Of course, he assumed that the Big Bang is nothing but an atheists dream forwarded to dispel the idea of Creation. I briefly responded to his post with a comment. It later occurred to me that the thoughts I shared with this young man, brief and simple as they were, may be of benefit to some of my own readers....

Be careful. The Big Bang is merely a description of what apparently happened 13.7 billion years (or so) ago in light of what is happening right now in the cosmos. Hubble demonstrated that everything in the universe is moving away from everything else at a constant speed. We have only one model to fit this data: an explosion. Later studies determined the rate at which galaxies are diverging. So the Big Bang and its timing are a simple math problem.

The Big Bang is not atheistic. To the contrary, the initial reaction to the Big Bang among most materialistic scientists (and Einstein) was abhorrence. They did not like it because it necessitated a point of beginning, and thus a First Cause (a Creator). Ever since, atheistic scientists have been running to find cover in speculative notions like "Eternal Inflation-deflation", or "Membrane Multiverse" etc.

I, and many other serious followers of Jesus, accept the current state of astrophysics and cosmology as described by the Big Bang. And we see the fingerprints of God all over it! If the universe did not start from a point of singularity roughly 13.7 billions years, then God took extreme measures to make it look like it did. Of course, that is possible. But I'm uncomfortable with the idea that God would create a universe which tells stories that are not true. If God makes things appear as they are not, that would render all scientific inquiry as a colossal waste of our time. I much prefer to think of God as creating an honest universe for us to explore to learn about reality, and about his glory!

Check your brain at the door, please ... (Part 4)

This church sign series on Faith and Reason has taken some interesting turns. In doing so, it has moved away from my original purpose. I did not expect it to become a referendum on theistic evidence, though the discussion has been lively, invigorating, and hopefully useful.

My intent in the original post was not to engage skeptics. Rather, I was hoping to hear from other believers, particularly believers who are resistant to reason. The title of the series, “Check your brain at the door, please ...”, is a comment upon the attitude I encounter among many of my Christian friends who sincerely believe that the exercise of rational thought can undermine faith. These believers (whom I respect and who are quite intelligent) will cite various New Testament scriptures suggesting that faith cannot prosper in an atmosphere of rational thought. They would actually agree with my skeptic friend Tom who contended in the last thread that faith and reason are like water and oil; though their reasons would be different from Tom’s.

Some of my Christian friends have expressed concern, sometimes even alarm, over the degree to which I rely upon science and reason in my evolving understandings of Christian theology. I would love to offer this venue for these friends to build their case. And so the question here is whether faith is undermined by reason, whether reason poses a threat to faith as the reader board above (from a church across the street) would suggest.

So, back to the original question ...

“Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has.”

AGREE ~ DISAGREE ??

Anyone?

Check your brain at the door, please ... (Part 3)

One of the comments on the previous post prompted me to continue this "church sign" series on faith and reason. My friend, Psi, questions whether there can be any rational discussion of a linkage between faith and reason. Following is his question, and my response. 

Sorry Folks,

I am lost right at the beginning. I can't see any kind of mechanism or logical way in which faith can be a passing acquaintance with reason let alone a friend. Simply stating that it is a foundation simply seems to replace the word friend with the word foundation without explaining anything. Any chance of a 101 remedial class on this one for me?

Regards,

Psi

Hi Psi,

I'll try. When I used friend, I had in mind the third or fourth dictionary definition, "a familiar or helpful thing.” So the question is, might faith be something helpful to reason? Thus, it was no great leap to move from "friend" to "foundation". Certainly a foundation is a very "helpful thing."

Now, the first definition of faith is "complete trust or confidence in someone or something.” In that sense of the word, we all exercise faith every day of our lives. And without faith, our ability to reason would be quite limited. If I did not trust the findings of Einstein and Hubble, for instance, I would have no basis for the reasoned assumption that a Big Bang occurred about 13.7 billion years ago. If I did not exercise faith in history books and science, I would have no reason to believe anything happened prior to the year I was born and started taking my own notes. Faith is an absolutely essential stepping stone all along the pathway of reason.

Of course, I had in mind something more like the second definition of faith, "strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof”. The rest of the post (and the WSJ essay) merely presented some evidence to suppose that faith is helpful to reason without attempting to establish a logical link. Apparently, the study cited demonstrated that people of faith are less likely to believe in superstitious and paranormal phenomena than the general public. On the face of it, that might suggest a more reality-based outlook, something I think we could agree is reasonable. (Tom, and others, have here suggested other valid explanations for this statistical trend. But also, in the comments, some suggested reasons why Christian faith might be helpful to reason.)

But let me pose this question to you: Assume (just for a moment!) that in back of this vast cosmos is an intelligent, personal, powerful being, God. If there is such a being, and I base my worldview upon the correct assumption that he exists, and you base your worldview upon the mistaken assumption that he does not, which of us will have the more "reasoned" approach to life and understanding.

Assuming it were true, believing in God could hardly be less reasonable than not believing. One person looks at certain evidence and draws the conclusion that there is a God, a step involving faith. Another person looks at the same evidence and draws the conclusion that are billions of universes, a step involving faith. 

For the sake of the discussion, let's assume this definition for reason from my dictionary, "what is right, practical, or possible; common sense.” If person A draws a correct conclusion, and person B draws an incorrect conclusion, who has the foundation to exercise better reason? (I realize this entire argument can be turned around)

Comments, anyone?

Check your brain at the door, please ... (Part 2)

Okay, so I made my own church sign reader board message; a twist on the Luther quote appearing on yesterday’s post. The impetus for this new reader board message was my fascination with Look Who’s Irrational Now, an article by Mollie Ziegler Hemingway which appeared in the Wall Street Journal on September 19. (Hats off to Bradford over at Telic Thoughts for posting on this article Friday.) As Hemmingway reports it, Baylor University recently contracted with Gallup to do a poll on “What Americans Really Believe.” The results were quite interesting, and no doubt counter-intuitive for some. It seems that the stronger one’s Christian faith, the less likely one is to believe in such paranormal phenomena as palm reading, astrology, Atlantis, haunted houses, or Bigfoot. Other studies sited in the article suggest a positive correlation between education and some superstitions. It turns out that faith is a better safeguard against superstitious beliefs than education. Some will no doubt object that faith itself is superstition. On the other hand, perhaps G.K. Chesterton had it right when he said (through his fictional character Father Brown), "It's the first effect of not believing in God that you lose your common sense, and can't see things as they are."

Let’s continue this discussion of the relationship between faith and reason: could it be that faith actually grounds its possessor in reality? Far from reason being the enemy of faith, these studies suggest that faith is the friend of reason.

I consider myself to be a “believing skeptic”. Is that a hopeless oxymoron? Or does my faith in God serve as stable foundation for healthy skepticism? So ...

"Faith is the greatest friend that reason has."

AGREE ~ DISAGREE ??

I am anxious to read your comments....

Check your brain at the door, please ... (Part 1)

Its been nearly a month since my last post. The next two posts I am planning (a review of The Design Matrix by Mike Gene, and a post I’ve promised to my atheist friend Psiloiordinary on “My Reasons for Belief”), are both a bit daunting, for some reason. As I continue to work on them, here is a “filler” discussion starter ...

_________________________________________

I found the church reader board at right on at this site where you can compose your own message (its actually quite fun, especially if you are as cynical as I am about church reader boards ... yuk!), but I understand that this message was for real. It expresses a sentiment which has been directed against me and this blog site by some of my own friends. Anyone care to defend this point of view? It is quite common in some conservative evangelical circles. So ...

“Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has.”

AGREE ~ DISAGREE ??

POST #18: Evolution, Red in Tooth and Claw (part 2)

Nature’s bloody brutality, exhibited in the processes of natural selection, is pressed into service by two opposing viewpoints. Atheists point out that such a display of cruelty cannot possibly be the work of a loving, personal God. Ergo, the case is made: “No God!” Creationists point out that such a display cannot possibly be the work of a loving, personal God. Ergo, the case is made: “No evolution!”

Rarely do these two divergent groups agree on anything. But here they find common ground: God, and his creative purposes, as typically presented by traditional church teachings, is wholly incompatible with evolution.

What of the growing population of Bible-believing Christians who accept the evidence of evolution. Are we caught up in a sea of schizophrenic denial? Is there no way to bring into harmony the creative purposes of a loving God, and the modus operandi he apparently chose for creation?

In part 1 of this post, I discussed the originator of the phrase, “Red in tooth and claw,” Alfred, Lord Tennyson. Compelled by the untimely death of friend to deal with the dilemmas of a cruel Nature and a loving God, Tennyson is left only with a faith-shaken hope that the mystery will somehow be resolved.

[Not all believers see a problem here that needs solving (see, for example the Stephen Douglas exchange with Tom in the comment thread following part one.) But the arguments that death, animal pain, thousands of species extinctions, and other examples of natural evil pose no theodicy problem fail to convince me, and many other theists and atheists alike.]

If we posit the premise of atheist and Creationist, that a loving and personal God, and his creative purposes, as typically presented by traditional church teachings, are incompatible with evolution, Christians who accept evolution are left with few choices. Either,

1. Evolution has not, in fact, been a brutal display red in tooth and claw, or
   
2. God is not loving and personal, or
   
3. the traditional church teachings have failed to tell the whole story, or to tell it accurately.

Of these three alternatives, I find the first indefensible, the second unacceptable, and the third thus highly probable. I am thus compelled to seek a retelling of the story of the ages, one that takes into consideration all the data available to us in this late day. Many of my biblicist friends are troubled by even the admission that we must search for a more fitting, more compelling metanarrative for the Christian story. “God said it, that settles it,” they tell me. Of course, that presumes that God finished his speaking 2000 years ago; that we have nothing to learn of his purposes and plans from the volumes of historical and scientific data which are unfolding before our very eyes. No, I cannot join their contentment with a traditional telling of the story; for this believer, the search is imperative.

My personal search is guided by Scripture, reason, and principles we can glean from the on-going exploration of God’s creative work. To leave out this ever-expanding source of “General Revelation” is to doom Christian theology to the dustbins of history. When we discover something about the cosmos, something that profoundly impacts theology, and when the discovery is confirmed again and again by science, we must be prepared to adjust our understandings of Scriptural truths where those understandings have been errant. History yields abundant testimony: the church has been painfully slow in learning this lesson.

Earlier in this series, in this post on Theodicy, I addressed the need to adjust traditional theology in light of entropy’s timeline. There I noted that entropy (which is the driving force of the cosmos, a force of degradation, decay, and death) has been functioning since the very dawn of creation. It is not the result of the Fall, as theologians have long held. Decay, disease, and death predate the Fall of man by billions of years! God created the universe to be entropic from the very start.

In that earlier discussion, I suggested that the creation of the cosmos must have been a divine response to evil. If God created the cosmos with built in concessions, characteristics such as death and decay, from which he planned later to deliver his cosmos, we must ask, 

“Why?” I have suggested that when evil arose in God’s presence, he was confronted with a formidable challenge. The annihilation of evil is the overriding purpose of the cosmos. The destruction of evil is apparently no simple task, but one that required a 13.7 billion year process and a vast entropic universe to accomplish; and that it would involve untold suffering. In this suffering, God himself leads the way; but he also calls upon creation, including man, to suffer with him (see Romans 8:19-24).

Enter the processes of evolution. Viewed in the light of a cosmic battle that has raged for billions of years, the processes which at first seem heartless and cruel can be seen in a different light. They are necessary. We live in a cosmos in which the forces evil have been granted freedom and dominion. These forces are arrayed against everything good, including life itself. And the death principle wielded by the forces of evil (Hebrews 2:14) has had much success in its endeavor to destroy life. For every living species alive today, one hundred or so have become extinct. And yet, here we are. Living beings, capable of faith, capable of relationship with the Creator.

Scripture suggests that the culmination of God’s plan to annihilate evil involves faith-filled living beings such as ourselves, beings who are the end result of this long process, beings whose very existence proves what God knew all along: Life is more powerful than death (see 1 Corinthians 15) and does win out in the end.

The struggle of life has not been painless. It is indeed “red in tooth and claw”. But when viewed as part of the price of the annihilation of evil, all pain and suffering takes on meaning. There is an overriding purpose which will, in the end, render significance and purpose to all suffering, to all pain, to all death.

I am aware that this explanation is incomplete. There are pieces of the puzzle which are not yet understood. And it does not tell the whole story. As others have noted, there is value in suffering on many other levels. But when I consider how essential pain, suffering, and death have been in the Creative purposes of God, I believe such an understanding as I have suggested must be part of the answer. I invite your comments.

Personal note: My Wife's Cancer

As many of the readers of this blog are aware, my wife of 36 years, Ginger was diagnosed with stage four colon cancer in October, 2006. The cancer had metastasized to several other organs including her liver. She underwent surgery immediately and the largest of the tumors were removed. Since that time, she has been receiving chemotherapy in six month stints, with brief respites. She just completed the third such round of chemotherapy, and the results have been excellent. Today, we saw her oncologist, and he showed us the scans from the CT she had Monday. The spots on the liver, easily seen on all previous scans, are now practically indiscernible. The doctor told us that when he first viewed the scans earlier this week, he thought he must be looking at the wrong sets. He was amazed! So are we!

by the Metolius River in Oregon, one of our favorite retreats!

The recommendation is to extend treatment for two months after the cancer is no longer detected. So Ginger will be continuing the chemotherapy which she has been on for the last six months until the end of September.

Needless to say, we are thrilled with this news, and very thankful. Colon cancer is, of course considered incurable, but can be managed, sometimes for a very long time. We are hopeful! And we are so very thankful! Hundreds of friends on four continents have been praying consistently. We are so very grateful for this effort!