Digg, and atheistic scholasticism (or lack thereof)

Digg.com has been around for donkeys years, but I never understood it. I had cause to use it for my first time ever just today. I read a good article by a prominent Australian Christian layperson, Bill Muehlenberg, who is not afraid to confidently and competently address popular fallacies of what Christianity is all about.

Bill Muehlenberg wrote a Letter To The Editor of one of our top three newspapers here in Australia, and commented on the ineptitude demonstrated by leading atheists in their attempts to denigrate Christianity. Well, I decided I would "digg" his article (www.digg.com), only to discover it had already been dugg! The previous digger was an atheist who entitled his diggment "As an Atheist [I] have never been so offended".

What was it he found so offensive in Muehlenberg's Letter To The Editor? Was it something in the actual content of Bill's letter? The digger was kind enough to tell us. "An attack on Dawkins and Athiests. Final paragraph is a kicker, claims we [atheists] can not love, be truthful and moral, or see beauty" Well, had Mr Muehlenberg made such an outrageous claim, I would have joined the protestation.

But of course Bill has a brain and uses it well, and wouldn't make such groundless assertions. No, in fact, Bill's points were several and good. It was in fact the Atheistic digger and his misdirected criticism of Bill's letter who revealed the very scholastic slovenliness of which Bill spoke in his letter!

Here's a link to the original News.com.au post (Bill Muehlenberg's Letter To The Editor) : http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20983690-5007146,00.html

Here's a link to the digg.com page where this atheist made inadvertant mockery of the atheists whose intellectual rigour he would assume he bears : http://digg.com/offbeat_news/As_an_Athiest_have_never_been_so_offended

And, since I'm new to Digg, and uncertain whether they ever delete comments (I'm sure a few folk would be keen to delete my comments if there's any easy way to do so! :) ), I reproduce below the text of my tuppence-worth, the two comments I added to the article :

Comment the first...

I remember reading "Farewell To God - My Reasons For Rejecting The Christian Faith" by Charles Templeton, and being appalled by how emotionally-laden and factually-scarce his reasoning was. It is my experience (and that of many I know) that atheists frequently exhibit stupendous ignorance of Christianity in their attempts to defame it.

As a Christian, I am extremely critical of various stupid things that are done and believed from time to time by those who also bear this name, but mindless defamation of Christianity itself is of no value.

As Bill Muehlenberg himself states, Biblical Christianity is cogent and reasonable. Yes - it extrapolates beyond what reason alone can conclusively state, but where the Bible can be tested by reason (as opposed to where witless and ignorant criticisms of supposed-but-non-existant Biblical claims can be tested by reason), the Bible holds it's own, and always has. I am a student of archeology, and archeology is just one of many fields of scientific enquiry which repeatedly confirms the accuracy of the content of the Bible.

So, I have no problem with atheists believing there is no God, and I have no problem with Christians believing there is one. But I stand with Bill Muehlenberg, concerned, no, shocked and appalled, at some of the emotionalism and straw-man-shooting that goes under the name of 'logic' in an attempt to disparage Christianity.

Comment the second...

Not wishing to be inflammatory, but Spootzta who originally "dug" this article, typifies the kind of intellectual sloppiness that quickly earns atheists and atheism a bad name. Spootzta states "Final paragraph is a kicker, claims we can not love, be truthful and moral, or see beauty". So let's have a look at this final paragraph :

"But for billions, non-material things such as truth, beauty, justice, love and even God are very meaningful realities, which the narrow world of atheism will never fully enjoy nor understand."

The question is not who will *experience* these realities. Love, truth, beauty, morality, etc are part of human existence, and of *course* both atheist and non-atheist alike will experience these realities. Bill Muehlenberg chose his words carefully when he said only that atheists will miss out on the *full* enjoyment and full understanding of these concepts.

Spootzta's claim that Bill claims that atheists cannot see beauty, experience love, etc, is intellectual slovenliness.

To the deist or theist, these concepts (love, truth, beauty, etc) have an a-temporal nature forged in the magnificent person of God himself. But to any atheist with whom I've had communication, these concepts are transient and in perpetual flux. If the atheistic worldview is correct, deists and theists well over-rate these concepts and draw too much enjoyment and pleasure from them. If the deistic/theistic view is correct, atheism denigrates some of the most compelling facets of these concepts. In either case and irrespective of whether atheism is correct or not, the deist's/theist's experience of these concepts is significantly beyond that of the atheist. Bill Muehlenberg's final paragraph is almost a tautology - the claims therein are almost true by definition.

A Brief Introduction To Biblical Cosmology

Cosmology : (study of) the framework of existence; the fundamentals of this universe, and of life itself.

The ancient Greeks believed the world composed of fire, earth, air and water.

Modern secular cosmology puts space, time, matter and energy as the framework of existence.

In recent years, scientists have begun to acknowledge that 'information' itself is as fundamental as space, time, matter and energy.

But despite recent advances, modern secular cosmology is incomplete and inaccurate, missing the most fundamental thing of all.

Instead of starting with the latest faddish 'scientific view', lets examine cosmology from a Biblical perspective.

In this article I will simply outline the scope of Biblical cosmology, with a few notes on the significance of certain distinctions.

An Introductory Outline Of Biblical Cosmology

Sequence
  -> Space
  -> Time
Matter/Energy
Information
Gravity
Personhood
  -> Self-awareness
  -> Creativity
  -> Desire
  -> Intention

Sequence

Time & space are manifestations of sequence. A proper understanding of sequence leads to a proper understanding of time, space, and of numbers. You may not believe it now, but sequence, and it's application in time, space and number theory, has astounding implications and immense practical impact on our daily lives.

In popular cosmology, space is thought of as three dimensions, and time is thought of as a fourth dimension, similar in composition to space and perhaps one day able to be overcome and travelled through freely.

In contrast, Biblical cosmology reveals that the similarities between time and space are very few. It allows for time travel within tight constraints, rather than willy-nilly ad-hoc time-travel on-demand. I plan to explore this fascinating topic with you in a future article.

Matter/Energy

Are matter and energy merely different forms of the same thing? While a fascinating subject in it's own right, it is the one aspect of cosmology most thoroughly studied elsewhere. I intend to focus here on more significant aspects of cosmology, as well as a few aspects of cosmology that are rarely considered.

Information

There are two aspects of Biblical cosmology I don't intend to study in detail here. The first is matter/energy. The second is information.

Many books have been written on 'information theory'. Most of those perpetuate the fallacy that information is merely the ordering of coding elements (e.g. the sequence of letters in a book or bases in a DNA chain). Information is far more than that. I do not intend to write any further on information theory for a long time yet, but you can contact me directly if you have questions.

Personhood

And here is where Christians fail most miserably to think Biblically when it comes to cosmology.

What came first? Matter? Energy? Time? Space?

Modern Secular Humanists seem to think that matter, energy, time and space all magically sprang out of nowhere at about the same time, for no particular reason.

Christians familiar with Genesis 1 might be tempted to answer that "in the beginning" implies that God created time (and possibly space) 'before' He created matter and energy.

But even time did not 'come first'. Before time, "I Am", says He who is. God exists, outside of time, outside of space, not as an energy blob, nor composed of matter. God is. And God is a person. Personhood thus precedes time, space, matter and energy as the most fundamental aspect of cosmology.

What then is a person, as opposed to an automaton or a robot? A person is aware of his own existence. A person has creativity. A person can desire things, and a person can make decisions. I have written much on these topics before (although not on this blog), and I hope to explore some of the cosmological implications in future articles, but for now, let me just make this one note : the making of decisions - i.e. the creation of the intention to do something - is quite a separate matter from the ability to carry through with the decisions!!!!!!! And this has later implications.

Let me stress that without personhood there would be no cosmos. If God did not desire and intend to create this universe, there would be no cosmos.

Also, the Bible asserts that Man was made 'in the image of God'. The fact of human personhood has a significant impact on the cosmos as humans employ creativity, desire, and intention, often to dismal ends. Personhood has shaped the universe, and the very nature of existence. And I hope to explore this in much greater depth in later articles.

Gravity

Gravity is one of the most fascinating of natural forces. I have a lot of theories about gravity. I'm not going to load you with them now, nor even in this series of articles.

Modern scientists in search of a "theory of everything", are trying to reconcile gravity's strange properties with the strange properties of light, magnetism, and all other natural forces, to identify a single underlying component which will prove to be in common across all of these forces.

It is a sideline issue here, and one I do not intend to explore further on this blog, but it is my belief that gravity is a fundamentally unique force.

Interestingly, gravity is more important to the cosmos than light and magnetism. Without light, and without magnetism, we could survive, although the universe would be a very different place. (For example, all heat transfer would be via convection, which would mean on the one hand that earth receives no thermal energy from the sun, but on the other hand that earth would not lose heat by radiating it out beyond the atmosphere.) Whilst an absence of light and magnetism would leave a world and a universe that is still somewhat recognisable (you could still have stars, planets, orbits, continents, water bodies, tides, plants (although not based on photosynthesis), etc), an absence of gravity would make anything vaguely resembling this universe a complete impossibility. Things would fly through space in dead-straight lines, not in orbits. There would be no reason for gasses and dirt and rocks to clump together, and so instead of having planets, you would have random dust and rocks. Plants could hardly exist under such conditions, let alone thrive. The best you could hope for in terms of 'life forms' is microbes.

And so whilst very few people get excited about gravity (I'm one of the weird ones who do :o) ), it is almost as important to the cosmos as space and time itself, and even vastly more important than light. And that's why I list it here as a fundamental of cosmology. Of course, feel free to disagree with me on this point, as gravity's inclusion here is not something I draw directly from the pages of Scripture, whilst personhood on the other hand is.

Wrapping It Up

And so now that I've introduced you briefly to all the major players, let's revisit the outline of Biblical cosmology, this time listing the elements in order of significance, most significant first. (When I showed it to you earlier, I listed the elements you were more likely to be familiar with first - the order in which secular cosmologists rank the importance of each item.)

An Outline Of Biblical Cosmology - Putting First Things First

Personhood
  -> Self-awareness
  -> Creativity
  -> Desire
  -> Intention
Information
Sequence
  -> Time
  -> Space
Matter/Energy
Gravity

I hope in future articles to delve deep into the fascinating mysteries of personhood and sequence. The depth of Biblical cosmology is astounding, the implications far-reaching, and the conclusions are consistent with what we see in the world around us.

In short, gaining a Biblical cosmology will improve our understanding of the world around us and from time to time prove of great practical benefit.

Join me in the exploration! :o)

Defending God's Sovereignty

Subtitle : Defending God's sovereignty against a prevalent misconception thereof

"If [such-and-such can happen] then God is not actively sovereign over all human actions." - name withheld

Time and again I've come across well-meaning Christians who use Scripture to prove that God is "sovereign" and then use the dictionary definition of the word "sovereign" to prove some other point. The author of the above quote, for example, believes that God's sovereignty is challenged if it is possible that something not to God's utmost delight occurs. He (and many others I've encountered) are convinced that if God is truly "sovereign", then it is impossible that anything other than His greatest delight could come to pass.

If He wants something to happen, it will happen, and thus, whatever has happened, God wanted it to happen.

But in actual fact rather than exalting God, this view demeans God, and strips Him off His ultimate power.

God is not much of a god if all He can create is a mechanism of a universe that operates flawlessly. Agreed - that is a mighty feat, and well beyond any human's capacity, but there are many heathen 'gods' who are attributed with this kind of power. The God of the Bible is more glorious. He creates a universe, and the very timespace continuum in which the universe hangs, but He goes one step further and does that which NO-ONE and NOTHING else can do. He creates choice.

He first gives choice to Adam. He then gives choice to Eve. Is choice a farce? Does God create a world in which Adam must inevitably sin? No - Adam's sin was wholly his own. Did it take God by surprise? No - God from His eternal perspective sees the course of human history all at once, and 'God' in any temporal perspective knows every possible outcome in every situation. Adam's sin does not take God by surprise, but Adam could have chosen not to sin.

God is not a one-act artist who lacks the creativity to envisage more than one outcome for His creation. Had Adam and Eve chosen differently - and God gave them the power to do so - the course of earth history would have been unrecognisably different. Would that have taken God by surprise? No - He still from His eternal perspective would have known their choices "in advance", and besides, He knows everything including every possible choice a human heart can make, whether an innocent or fallen heart. God would not have been taken by surprise if Adam had not sinned. God is not capable of being taken by surprise, but He is capable of putting real power to make real choices into the hands of sinless humanity.

Sinless humanity employed their real choice, to devestating consequence.

Was God's sovereignty threatened, abrogated, or in any way denied by man's voluntary disobedience? No! Man's sin was entirely his own, authored in no way by the Father of Light. Yet God's sovereignty was preserved, as both the lawful lawgiver and the capable judge. He is sovereign, as having the authority to set the rules. He is sovereign, having the power to reward those who obey and punish those who disobey. He is sovereign, having no flaw in His own righteousness by which any could charge Him with hypocrisy or partiality in judgement. Because His power is absolute, none can disobey and escape His judgement. But at least for Adam & Eve (and I believe also for the adversary of our souls), at least the first choice to sin was entirely of their own selves, not an inevitable outcome of God's handiwork in their lives.

To charge God with Adam & Eve's sin - to say that it was somehow the best and most glorious outcome He could envisage - is to say that He is sufficiently impotent as to be unable to create true choice, and further, that He is responsible then for all that has proceeded from Man's first sin (all manner of wickedness, including rape and murder and child sacrifice).

God is not the author of confusion. God is not the author of a humanity that was inevitably bound to create confusion. If God made a world that would inevitably go wrong, humans that would inevitably sin, then He authored the sin itself. You can't say "Sure I pulled the trigger, but I didn't kill him - the bullet did!". Responsibility is not only for direct actions, but the inevitable outcomes of those actions. Tie a man to a rock at low tide and blame the moon he drowns? Not so! You are guilty. And so is God, if Adam's sin was inevitable.

And so we return to the assertion that sparked this comment; the assertion held by so many who would be jealous for God's honour by defending His sovereignty, but who err by dreaming their own definition of God's sovereignty, instead of holding strictly to what Scripture says on the matter. God is sovereign. He is and has at all times been King over all of creation. He demonstrates His glory by not only having the right and power to rule, but by doing something none other can do, which is creating real choice. Real choice was given to Man; Man misused it; the course of human history was affected by man's choice (in that the course at that pre-Fall point was not inevitably pre-set by God); and in all of this, God remains sovereign. His sovereignty is insulted by we who break His rightful laws, but it is not His sovereignty that determined that Man would fall. It is His sovereignty that allowed and empowered Him to let a creature make a choice with eternal ramifications for himself and billions to come. Were He not sovereign, He could not have allowed any other to have power to choose, or else the course of history might have escaped His grasp, if but for a moment. Because He is sovereign; because His laws are just and rightful, and because He has the power to punish disobedience, and to force into instant submission any and all of His creatures and thwart the plans of men and angels; it is because of His total power and absolute mastery over creation and all His creatures that He can afford to give unfallen Man true choice. Were God not truly sovereign, it would be too great a risk. God demonstrates the greatness of His glory and His incomparable power by unafraid, unflinchingly, unperturbed by the possible outcomes, knowing that in any case His rightful rule will never be withstood one moment longer than He tolerates; God demonstrates His power and glory by creating undetermined choice and giving it to one of His creation.