Agent Big

There are some fundamental ideas that point away from a exclusively materialistic closed universe, towards a universe existing as a result of intent.Current evidence based thinking supports the idea of the universe existing from the moment of a singularity;described by Hoyle mockingly as the ‘Big Bang’.Either the universe had a initial agency cause or it has existed eternally there are no other options available as far as I can see.An eternal universe has several problems -one that is new to me is the idea of heat death as expounded by William Lane Craig – :

‘According to the second law of thermodynamics, processes taking place in a closed system always tend toward a state of equilibrium. Now our interest is in what implications this has when the law is applied to the universe as a whole. For the universe is a gigantic closed system, since it is everything there is and no energy is being fed into it from without. The second law seems to imply that, given enough time, the universe will reach a state of thermodynamic equilibrium, known as the “heat death” of the universe. This death may be hot or cold, depending on whether the universe will expand forever or eventually re-contract. On the one hand, if the density of the universe is great enough to overcome the force of the expansion, then the universe will re-contract into a hot fireball. As the universe contracts, the stars burn more rapidly until they finally explode or evaporate. As the universe grows denser, the black holes begin to gobble up everything around them and begin themselves to coalesce until all the black holes finally coalesce into one gigantic black hole which is coextensive with the universe, from which it will never re-emerge. On the other hand, if the density of the universe is insufficient to halt the expansion, as seems more likely, then the galaxies will turn all their gas into stars and the stars will burn out. At 10[30 ]years the universe will consist of 90% dead stars, 9% supermassive black holes, and l% atomic matter. Elementary particle physics suggests that thereafter protons will decay into electrons and positrons, so that space will be filled with a rarefied gas so thin that the distance between an electron and a positron will be about the size of the present galaxy. At 10[100] years some scientists believe that the black holes themselves will dissipate into radiation and elementary particles. Eventually all the matter in the dark, cold, ever-expanding universe will be reduced to an ultra-thin gas of elementary particles and radiation. Equilibrium will prevail throughout, and the entire universe will be in its final state, from which no change will occur.

Now the question which needs to be asked is this: if, given sufficient time, the universe will reach heat death, then why is it not now in a state of heat death if it has existed for infinite time? If the universe did not begin to exist, then it should now be in a state of equilibrium.’

The problem with an eternal universe that has always existed is that we have an infinite regress, that is we’d have an infinite series of moments to surpass in order to arrive at this moment. The infinite past would never catch up with the present so that no causality would be effected. That leaves the idea of an agent causing the universe to exist,further to this idea I came upon this idea from a guy on a forum called forhisglory which I like :

1.The universe, and everything in it, is contingent ,that is it does not have to exist (it is not certain to exist-it is not logically necessary)

2.This contingent nature of the universe gives it the potential to not exist or to change its nature .

3.Something that has potentiality is by definition an effect of some cause.

4.Contingent entities cannot cause there own existence .

5.Therefore, there must be pure actuality, that exists as a necessary being, to actualize all that is contingent. We could call that pure actuality God.

More Bono and Bill

Bono & Bill

As a long time fan of U2 -I narrowly missed seeing them on there October tour heres an excelent interview with Willow Creek Pastor Bill Hybels

Happy Birthday Darwin

John Angus Campbell on the a priori assumptions  of Charles Darwin :

What is most revolutionary about Darwin’s Origin is not simply his case for natural selection… or his case for evolution itself. The other, and equally important, revolution going on within his argument for species change is his case for naturalism, which slides insensibly between an innocent methodological precept and a prior metaphysical commitment… The first step in Darwin’s case for metaphysical naturalism… was taken in his flyleaf citations, all of which identified the ordinary mode of divine activity with natural laws. Implicitly and in chapter 2 explicitly, Darwin was laying the foundations for a revolutionary philosophy of science… when Darwin was having a difficult time with an explanation or when he was particularly keen on the reader’s realizing the consequences of a refusal to accept an explanation, he would sometimes draw on the reader’s partial commitment to naturalism to negotiate yet further commitments. At some points Darwin would simply equate naturalistic explanations – evolutionary case histories with the blanks filled in by an ‘it must have been’ story-line – with reality itself.

Leaning on  presuppositions when the data isn’t there is natural to us all, we fill in the gaps-this though is not what science is concerned with ; Science wants objective data,wants  calculated  probability and to narrow the gaps empirically.

Of  course there must be a naturalistic explanation  to the origin of  life; to the increase in information within biological systems across the phyla; to the origin of a code, a system to translate and transcribe that code and keep the fidelity of that code high, The origin of a  means of replicating that code and the origin of a system of controlling expression of that code.

Recently on tv I heard some die hard evolutionists defend themselves against the claim that they were arrogant-they said ‘we are arrogant because we are right!’ Being right  for them means an exclusively closed universe -with no possibility of a supernatural agent.

They presume there metanarative is correct because for them its the only game in town -nothing else is there,the same unproven presumption Campbell says Darwins gradually introduced into his theory.

survival of the truest

Here’s a quote from G.K.Chesterton:

So far as a man may be proud of a religion rooted in
humility, I am very proud of my religion; I am especially proud of those parts of it that are most commonly called superstition.

I am proud of being fettered by antiquated
dogmas and enslaved by dead creeds (as my journalistic
friends repeat with so much pertinacity), for I know very well that it is the heretical creeds that are dead, and that it is only the reasonable dogma that lives long enough to be called antiquated.
G. K. Chesterton, from The Autobiography of
G. K. Chesterton (1936)

In an age where Jesus is  repeatedly reinvented and the gospel is presented in the media with, in some cases , breath taking bias ,witness the recent Channel4 program by   Howard Jacobson  called: ‘ Christianity: A  History’.

According to  this  program Christians are  antisemitic as the New testament   is full of anti-Jewish rhetoric, encouraging hatred and antisemitic attitudes.I didn’t recognise anything  in the program that in any way accurately represented Christianity as I have known it .

I found this program  amazing and perplexing , I’ ve been a Christian for over 25 years and have never come across antisemitic attitudes amongst Christians in the UK,or anywhere else I have been.

In fact the situation from my point of view is the exact opposite, for instance  on my bookshelf is a book by Edith  Schaeffer  called ‘Christianity is Jewish’ which expounds on the Jewish  roots of Christianity.

Also I have several journals regarding the Jewishness of Christianity  some authored by, most notably, Dr David H Stern who produced the the Complete Jewish Bible as well as the excellent book ‘Restoring the Jewishness of the Gospel: A message for Christians ( Stern  is part of the Messianic Jewish movement in Israel ).

From the the Times article regarding Jacobsons Program:

‘ “That’s a wonderful way of putting it,” said Dr Karen Maitland, of the Jewish Community of Lincoln, when told by her interviewer (Jacobson) that Christianity’s relationship with Judaism was Oedipal: a younger religion in terror of a cruel parent religion.’

This Oedipal religion  is not the Christianity I have known.In fact a  Pastor in my old church  and good friend is a Jew.

There’s no denying the historic use of the Gospel as a justification ,however tenuous, to antisemtic behaviour on the part of some, but this is not part  of good news Christ brought.

Biblical Christians realise as Paul said that they have been grafted into Israel; Romans 11 :

‘I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew.’

Howard why didnt you quote this in scripture in your program ?

Ideas about matter… matter

From Viktor Frankl by way of Richard Weikarts discovery institute paper:

“If we present a man with a concept of man which is not true, we may well corrupt him. When we present man as an automaton of reflexes, as a mind-machine, as a bundle of instincts, as a pawn of drives and reactions, as a mere product of instinct, heredity and environment, we feed the nihilism to which modern man is, in any case, prone. I became acquainted, with the last stage of that corruption in my second concentration camp, Auschwitz. The gas chambers of Auschwitz were the ultimate consequence of the theory that man is nothing but the product of heredity and environment–or, as the Nazi liked to say, of ‘Blood and Soil.’ I am absolutely convinced that the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Maidanek were ultimately prepared not in some Ministry or other in Berlin, but rather at the desks and in the lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers.”

Can Viktor rest easy now these nihilistic ideas are banished or does a million copy best seller like Dawkins God delusion spell out within the west at least, an increasing tendency to accept the naturalistic narrative along with its corresponding low view of humanity ?

I don’t get it !

 

I recently watched Richard Dawkins on a Sunday morning BBC program expounding the awesome wonder of the world science has uncovered and how meaningful a life without pretensions to an existing  Deity can be.

This is not an unfamiliar comment from an atheist-but I cannot get my little head around it no matter how many words are spilt , there remains to me a few questions that have yet to be answered:

1.Why do atheists evangelise ?

If the chief final end of man is to spend countless eons in  a cold,empty, ever expanding  ’nobody at home’  universe -what does it matter what a person believes, as long as they are happy for the few  short years that they are alive  -who cares about whats right, whats wrong, whats true whats false ? In the final analysis how will atheists promoting atheism change the end result of man one iota ?

If what we do has no effect on the fianl outcome -why does really matter what we do in the now ?

Why should atheist care ? Why should we be seeing the rise of nu-atheism, a more virulent aggressive  form of the old atheism, which  has spawned a whole section on its own in my local bookshop! Its a great money spinner -but is that the only motive for spreading the word, the ‘good’ news of Gods death ?

2.What has a sense of wonder to do with anything ?

Dawkins said:

‘I have a very positive, I’d almost say poetic, vision of the universe from a scientific point of view. I feel people are missing something if they content themselves with what I think of as an outdated, medieval view of the world, when they could be latching on to something much more exciting.’

I’d like to know whats scientific about a poetic view of the universe,sounds subjective to me and  not the stuff of  science  at all ? What does it matter if you have feelings of a poetic nature -there just neurons and neural networks firing -so what ? Why should that be valued more highly such that it deserves mention more  that the fact that my neck itches (different neurons firing) for example?

All this sense of awe atheists are feeling …so what ? It doesnt change the end result -with nothing that went before having any impact on the final outcome…so be good  or be bad it really makes no difference -as it doesn’t impact the final final outcome for you and me of death.

Athesits talk about family and friends adding to the meaning of life-but why?

What does it matter in the end ?It doesnt matter at all.

I read this on a forum recently:

Pascal :

“We run heedlessly into the abyss after putting something in front of us to stop us seeing it.”

 

Phillipm (whom I couldn’t contact-sorry Philipm) wrote this :

‘Whenever atheists address the claim that without God life is meaningless, I feel like they really stop thinking about it in an objective mindset. The point is about our ultimate meaning, which is a category in everyone’s minds I think. It is not a point about your life from point A to point B, but rather is a thought about humanity’s place in the universe.’

I agree its the ultimate final outcome thats important.Within Christianity there is the notion that what is done now has eternal consequences this has the effect of making every moment charged with import and precious.

 

 

How much does a thought weigh ?

 

 

 

‘I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient.

It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.’

 

Erwin Schrödinger

Use your gifts.

 

James reminds us in James chapter 4 verse 6, that ‘God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble’. Pride comes in two flavours –the puffed up –self proclamation of achievement or ownership, an orgy of arrogant self importance and then there’s the less obvious less extravagant pride which denies; it denies our value before God, calling God a liar and stops us accepting compliments from others, making men out to be mistaken.

The Uriah Heap stance of wringing hands and bowing acceptance of our lot ,not wishing to trouble others or offend. The type of pride that tries to closely resemble Humility yet is nothing like it.

Reading the Telegraph this morning, there is an article about a new TV adaption of the Passion to be shown on BBC 1 on Sunday .In the article the actor playing Jesus Joseph Mawle describes what it is like to play this person, what caught the interest of the Telegraph Writer Cassandra Jardine was that Joseph had to deal with being both dyslexic and deaf,these ‘thorns in the flesh’ may  propell us towards God, Mawle provides the antidote to pride:

Jardine writes, quoting Mawle:“…As I learnt more about Jesus, I found he had a more positive message: use your gifts” That thought gave him Joseph Mawle courage, but still he was often so nervous that he turned for help to David Oyewolo, who played Henry VI  for the RSC and is Joseph of Arimathea in The Passion . “He’s straight down the line religious and that was very calming. I was getting mixed up with words and so I asked him what it meant to be humble. He said, ‘It means asking for help’.” Mawle’s humility turned out to be his best qualification for the part.’

The future of Christianity in Europe

Andrew Fellows (English L’abri) my brief notes on his –‘The future of Christianity in Europe’ lecture Europe as part of western Christianity no longer represents the future of Christianity –that now lies elsewhere-we in Europe are in a desperate situation.Psalm 11 1-3: In the LORD I take refuge.
How then can you say to me:
“Flee like a bird to your mountain.

2 For look, the wicked bend their bows;
they set their arrows against the strings
to shoot from the shadows
at the upright in heart.

3 When the foundations are being destroyed,
what can the righteous do ?

When the foundations are being destroyed what can the righteous do?

King David is being tempted to hide, the real world is dangerous, just bring a few souls into the kingdom and keep our collective heads down –this is the temptation of the European church today as we become more and more ‘the beleaguered church’.Europe is now being referred to by those outside of Europe as the Dark Continent – a term once used to describe India in the 18^th century by European Christians!

The draft constitution of Europe was refused and voted down –the draft constitution was devoid of all references to Christianity in Europe –described by some as a Christophobic constitution, the commitment was to secularism and saw Christianity as the problem.Why? Fellows considers that two vacuums existing today in Europe:

1. The decline of ALL European populations –‘demographic suicide’ –Niall Ferguson described this as ‘The greatest suicidal reduction in European population since the black death’. Financial incentives are being rolled out to encourage a third child. The outworking of this is an increasing aging populations coupled with a lack of economic growth. Why aren’t we concerned –this is the sign of a declining civilisation. There is a lack of forward thinking, a lack of vision for the future. There is a turning inwards a narcissistic tendency. What is going to fill the demographic vacuum of Europe?

1. There is an ideological vacuum-which ideology will fill the vacuum?

The Europe we are seeing is committed to exclusive Humanism –excluding all transcendent reference points-Christianity is seen as an obstacle to a peaceful Europe –Christianity is a problem-beyond that we have a collective amnesia about the Christian foundations of Europe –we are pretending that they do not exist.

The ideology that supports Europe currently has an anti-ideology. We look back at our recent history –which has had the most devastating impact for Europe, leading to an attitude where there’s a neutrality of all worldviews-‘Never again!’ Perhaps Europe’s recent past has brought us to the point of fear in regard to worldviews.

The worthy goals of Europe are tolerance and freedom as part of the EU constitution –that’s excellent –but with an anti-worldview stance there is no basis for this commitment other than a pragmatic one. The foundation is not there, we need reasons for freedom and tolerance.

 Within Christianity there is a basis for these ideas of Europe.Freedom is about choice –the exercise of the will –self expression –freedom is reduced to individual choice, very Nietzsche, the will to power that creates the self-Freedom is no longer related to anything outside of our selves.

 There is a loss of universals-the idea is that we gain more freedom the more we strip away these worldviews such as Christianity. From a Christian perspective Freedom has to be FOR SOMETHING –freedom includes a historical memory and moral imagination as well as choices. We must have freedom and responsibility.The Christian worldview provides a basis for the public square and continues to provide a foundation for modern Europe. 4 foundational pillars from Christianity:

1. The reality of the trinity, the principle of the one and the many: The Lord our God the Lord is one –as a unity God exists as three persons with unique roles and functions –also displaying diversity. The reality of the trinity guards against 2 movements: a. An emphasis on unity to the exclusion of diversity-if we allow unity to dominate we lean towards a totalitarian state. When unity becomes everything the individual looses everything. The other extreme is an emphasis on diversity to the exclusion of unity and here the individual becomes all there is, there is nothing bigger or any collective to belong to no health democracy can exist in that situation. A Trinitarian confederation of states would be loose association, allowing diversity and unity.

b. The reality of the creation order –our universe is not accidental or random but is purposeful and personal –the creator is dynamically involved in the unfolding of creation and we are part of a dynamic partnership ( A dance –a conversation –not coercion on the part of the creator , not the use of force –this represents a model for European civilisation) with God in ruling over creation.

1. The Imago Dei (image of God) Human beings created in the image of God-that is the foundation and basis of Human dignity-the individual has sacred value. This is the basis for a tolerant and free Europe –because we carry the image of God. We should resist brutal regimes where ever we find them, because of the Imago Dei.

1. The reality of a moral universe- the creator is a moral being there is a right and a wrong –these rights and wrongs are a reflection of what God is. The moral value has a transcendent character because it represents God character. It stands outside of people.

These four pillars built the basis of Europe. The state is there to support and protect which is why a limited state is a Christian ideal. Andrew Fellows talks about the Volunteer sector as an expression of the Imago Dei –in post Communistic Russia the voluntary sector is only just beginning –the state is not meant to be the sole arbiter of care we are citizens within a civic society.

Will Europe return to its foundations?

Who will help us?