Soliloquy: Fear and Friendship
April 27, 2009
What is it to love another? To give, devoid of obligation? To harness a sinking capstone? I do not know it. I am obliged, my footing is weak.
Steps, cautious, lead my person to the bluff ahead. I tremor.
And what of love’s impression? A selfish and relentless impulse, it drives me away from rationality – forces my hand. Love’s chemist is a barbarian. Deep admiration is not the great act of the ages. When is love of pure motive, no motive?
Shaking now, I reach the crest.
My barrier to this is selfishness. I am misconceived in believing I should feel good by love. To love another is beyond assumption, achievement. My preservation takes an illicit first priority: a sycophantic pedestal of insecurity.
I lay down the stones of fear, I summon him through sobs of loathing.
Upon my altar of selfish motivation I call forth pain.
He rises from below, a freezing river.
My sickness lies: pain and love are the same. Emotion and logic rob me, as they are being robbed from me. I am stealing from myself to feed a liar.
Seizing now, I am awake and asleep.
This is the drowning nightmare. Skin becomes scale.
Pain is introduced, an inevitable acquaintance, I expect him to grasp me. I expect him to drown me. I expect him to spirit me away. The sea draws near, it calls to me: existence is pain; a destruction of ebbing tides.
A beam of heat.
The river stops, frothing at the mouth of the sea. Existence has an adversary. Pain has a healer. The warmth dries up the river, it sets me on the bottom of the dry channel.
I am still now. I slumber, a good death.
In my slumber I recall those altars upon which I warm:
a youth group …
a greek lab …
a small classroom …
Love is Immortality, a fire that tears off scales – revealing wings.
I dawn my cape
|
Ranging from the clever and profound (mostly not my own), to the silly (mostly mine), here are some theological and liturgical miscellanies relating to the smoking of pipes.
Order for the Solemn Blessing of a New Pipe
Ideally a new pipe should be blessed by the bishop, but in his absence a lower cleric may be authorized. The Canticle Benedicite (p. 16) should be sung. In Eastertide the antiphon, A pillar of cloud went before them by day and a pillar of fire by night, may be added. Then shall be read:
A reading from the prophet Isaiah: In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the LORD sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and his train filled the temple. Above him stood the seraphim; each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet and with two he flew. And one called to another and said, “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory.” And the foundations of the thresholds shook at the voice of him who called, and the house was filled with smoke.
R. Thanks be to God.
V. The Lord be with you.
R. And with thy spirit.
Let us pray: God of incense, burning coals, and of the pillars of fire, vouchsafe to + bless this pipe, that it may become a source of enjoyment and a constant reminder of thy goodness, at whose right hand our pleasures forevermore; through Christ our Lord
R. Amen.
All shall then retire for a smoke as the choir and organ break forth joyously in the Te Deum.
From Arthur D. Yunker Toward a Theology of Pipesmoking, p.49
Tobaccos & Pipes which by virtue of character, unique quality, or coincidence of geography, pair well with particular theological/philosophical ideas/books, empirically manifested & conveniently annotated (together with some notes on taste and smokabilty).
Tobacco: Three Nuns- Three Nuns was the favorite tobacco of both C.S. Lewis and his brother; one wonders if The Kilns doesn’t still reek of the stuff. Unfortunately, it seems hard to come by in the colonies (that’s US), but can be ordered over the internets.
Pairings: Mere Christianity, the theological/allegorical bits of Narnia, and Christian apologetics in general, though some of the most recent evangelical apologetic writing (McDowell for instance) deserves not to be read, but lit aflame with a trusty butane pipe
lighter (as you know it would be bad form to use a cheap gas station lighter; conventions must be followed, after all).
Tasting Notes: I unfortunately have not had the honor of smoking it, but if C.S. Lewis liked, hell…
Tobacco: 1864: Perfect Mixture by W.Ø. Larsen- W.Ø. Larsen, as some of you may have guessed from the Larsen and the /Ø/ is a Danish producer of both pipes and tobacco. Named for the 9th anniversary of Søren Kierkegaard’s death, 1864 should be smoked in Scandinavian and Scandinavian inspired pipes. I typically smoke it in my Nørding (also Danish) with fantastic results.
Pairing: The works of Søren Kierkegaard, but especially the Preface to Fear and Trembling, which is an eloquent meditation on the story of Abraham Sacrificing Isaac.
Tasting Notes: 1864 is my favorite tobacco. It’s sweet but not overpowering odour reminds one of fresh maple syrup being poured onto pancakes enjoyed before embarking on a crisp, chilly walk near the fjørd. Mainly comprised of premium Virginia, it is mixed with Black Cavendish and a hint of Burley, which in non-uber-nerd terms means that it lights easily, burns evenly, and produces a dense, very smooth, and delicate smoke, which is the perfect consistency for blowing smoke rings.
Pipe Type: Meerschaum- Meerschaum pipes are carved, many times into whimsical shapes, from a soft grayish mineral of the same name. The lion’s share of this mineral is mined in Turkey especially inbetween Istanbul and Ankara. Meerschaum pipes may in the near future become rather scarce as the Turkish government is getting a little ticklish about exporting it.
Pairing: The works of the Church Fathers of Constantinople. Why not curl up in front of the fire place with the sermons of John Chrysostom, or maybe St. Gregory Nazianzen on Pneumatology?
Smoking Notes: Though I own one not, I have smoked several, but can’t pinpoint exactly what makes it a different experience than a briar (though it is different). One cool thing about them is that as ones smokes the Meerschaum over time the color changes from grayish white, to yellow, to orange, to red.
Pipe Type: Churchwarden- Churchwarden pipes are named after that particular office in Anglican parish churches. As the name implies, Churchwardens take care of and police the church property. I don’t remember where I read it, but it seems I read that one of the Churchwarden’s responsibilities back in 17th and 18th century England was to poke sleeping congregants with a long stick. Maybe that’s where they got the idea for a pipe with a very long stem. In the Lord of the Rings Movies, Gandalf smokes a Churchwarden pipe (wow, that sounds dirty), which is clear and undeniable proof that Gandalf is an Anglican—witchcraft, false worship, beware!
Pairing: The churchwarden was made for reading, as the smoke will be well away from your eyes and you can more easily look down at a book in your lap as you sit in the easy chair by the fire place in the corner of your study. And what should you read? The Anglican Divines, of course. Robert Hooker, known as the father of the Via Media, would be a great choice. Other possibilities might include Archbishop Cranmer, and Matthew Parker. Modern day Anglicans are a heck of a lot of fun, too: Archbishop Rowan Williams is an erudite and serious thinker (who like myself loves Dostoyevsky), and I certainly don’t need to talk up the Bishop of Durham on this blog, his reputation speaks for itself.
Smoking Notes: Churchwardens produce amazingly cool smoke, as it has more of an opportunity to cool in the extra distance between the bowl and your mouth. Depending on how you smoke, they may be a little trickier keeping lit.
Tobacco: Frog Morton by McClelland Tobacco Co.- Frog Morton and its sister blends Frog Morton on the Town, on the Bayou, & across the Pond are mainly a blend of Virginia and Latakia. Here’s what the blending notes say about the name:
“The name Frog Morton comes to us from the works of JRR Tolkein Frogmorton: A village in the Eastfarthing of the Shire. It stood on the East Road, between the Three-farthing Stone (fourteen miles to the west) and the Brandywine Bridge (twenty-two miles to the east). Immediately to the north of the village, the stream known as the Water broke into two, creating a wide watery region – this feature seems to have given Frogmorton its name, which means ‘frog marsh’. Until the War of the Ring, the village seems to have been most notable for its inn, the Floating Log. During the brief time when Saruman took over the Shire, though, it became the home of the First Eastfarthing Troop of Shirriffs, and it was here that the returning Ring-bearers were ‘arrested’ on their journey back to Hobbiton.”
Tasting Notes: This must be said first. Frog Morton is a very deceptive tobacco. When you smell it before it is lit, it smells very spicy, almost peppery—that’s the Latakia. However, lit it is very smooth with no bite. It has a uniquely earthy flavor as if you could take earth right after a good rain, and pack into your bowl and light it(not that I would try this literally). When had with a glass of Belgian Abbey it leaves your mouth with all the good parts of a cigar aftertaste.
Pairing: Frog Morton is a delightfully playful blend, fraught with paradoxes (not in the least because the label depicts a frog smoking a pipe: hilarious). In this regard, it is a metaphor for the whole theological exercise. Not only is theology full of paradoxes, but at its best it is playful, elusive, whimsical. For this reason, I suggest reading the parables of Jesus with this tobacco. Jesus did not formulate his theology with dry and boring syllogisms, but with captivating stories about farmers and vineyards, bread and fields with hidden treasure. It is exactly this connection with the earth, this grounded-ness—which is so paradoxically transcendent—that make Jesus’ teachings, and secondarily this tobacco so luminous and illuminating.
And finally a poem,
Smoking Spiritualized. In Two Parts. The first part being an old meditation upon smoking tobacco; the second, a new addition to it, or improvement of it. by Rev. Ralph Erskine
This Indian weed now wither´d quite,
Though green at noon, cut down at night,
Shows thy decay;
All flesh is hay.
Thus think, and smoke tobacco.
The pipe so lily-like and weak,
Does thus thy mortal state bespeak.
Thou are ev´n such,
Gone with a touch.
Thus think, and smoke tobacco.
All when the smoke ascends on high,
Then thou behold´st the vanity
Of worldly stuff,
Gone with a puff.
Thus think, and smoke tobacco.
And when the pipe grows foul within,
Think on thy soul defil´d with sin;
For then the fire,
It does require.
Thus think, and smoke tobacco.
And seest the ashes cast away;
Then to thyself thou mayest say,
That to the dust
Return thou must.
Thus think, and smoke tobacco.
Part II
Was this small plant for thee cut down?
So was the Plant of great renown;
Which mercy sends
For nobler ends.
Thus think, and smoke tobacco.
Doth juice medicinal proceed
From such a naughty foreign weed?
Then what´s the pow´r
Of Jesse´s flow´r?
Thus think, and smoke tobacco.
The promise, like the pipe inlays,
And by the mouth of faith conveys
What virtue flows
From Sharon´s rose.
Thus think, and smoke tobacco.
In vain the´unlighted pipe you blow;
Your pains in outward means are so,
Till heav´nly fire
The heart inspire.
Thus think, and smoke tobacco.
The smoke, like burning incense, tow´rs;
So should a praying heart of yours,
With ardent cries,
Surmont the skies.
Thus think, and smoke tobacco.”
from The Sermons, and Other Practical Works of Ralph Erskine
Origins Revisited
November 25, 2008
An impromptu curiosity seized me this morning as I woke with an odd urge to read a bit of commentary on the primeval stories in Genesis. While sipping coffee and interspersedly checking my blogs, I absorbed the series of articles that dealt with the topic in my Anchor Bible Dictionary. The whole activity reminded me of our sustenance topic and I thought I might revisit it here with a few observations I learned about Genesis 1-3.
1. Myth, History, or Story?
In what language can we discuss this epic literature? Certainly it captures elements of all three of these vague ‘genres.’ John J. Scullion (the writer of “The Narrative of Genesis” article in the ABD) prefers to speak of it in terms of Story. History, he says, is “still much under the influence of the fathers of modern scholarly and documented history—[...] and rightly so.” Additionally, only myth fails to capture the gravity of meaning that this literature carries for communities throughout history and today. As he explains;
“For the people of Israel, the book of Genesis, and the whole of Pentateuch, is their tradition; this is their past, this has made them what they are, this is what happened.”
2. God Created Order, NOT matter
Despite what a fundamentalist may tell you, Genesis 1 is not a scientific, event by event essay on the creation of the space-time Universe. Rather it is the story of God bringing order to chaos, and the outline of mankind’s role in that intended order. The Hebrew word for create, bara inescapably implies ordering. Much confusion came when the Hebrew idea of creation as order collided with the Hellenistic idea of creatio ex nihilio. You can see this tension of interpretation played in the scriptures. Compare Isaiah 45:18: “[God] did not create [the Universe] a chaos, he formed it to be inhabited” and the much later 2 Maccabees 7:28 “Son, look upon heaven and earth, and all that is in them: and consider that God made them out of nothing.”
3. The Full Meaning of Genesis is Best Understood in the Context of Other Primeval Cultural Stories
The Genesis account is to designed to make distinctions in light of other creation accounts. For example the sun and moon are created and not to be worshipped, light is created and is in no way identified with or as God (as in the Egyptian account), and it is through God’s (not Baal’s) own natural blessing that humans and animals are fertile.
4. Man is Made
Among many other things, Adam is not some dude named Adam but is in fact mankind, ha’adam. He is made from the dust and is limited and will one day return to dust. But despite this, he is made in the image of God and exists in communion with the creator. In this way there is a distinction between ha’adam and the animals. He is given work and he is held accountable for his will.
5. The Prohibition is an Essential, Thematic Detail
Both the Garden and The Tree of Life are common themes in ancient Near Eastern creation stories. Their significance is not so much their presence as the way that (ha’adam) interact with them. In Genesis, the creator’s prohibiting the Tree from humanity implies certain theological certainties. Among them;
1. It emphasizes the will of the creator, and ha’adam‘s responsibility to obey a will outside of his or her own.
2. There is the opportunity for disobedience
3. Work and toil is not punishment for disobedience. It is given before the prohibition is disobeyed.
6. Woman In Complete Oneness
God did not forget at first to create woman. Nor did man survey the animals and find none of them suitable to mate with so God had to make him something else instead. Man surveyed the animals and found none that could be his equal. In fact, woman is the counterpart of man and made of the same stuff. The author of Genesis “is expressing the complete oneness of man and woman: their physical and spiritual unity, their mutual belongs as equals, their mutual joy in each other.”
7. The Serpent Is Not a Character
The Serpent is a significant symbol in the Ancient Near Eastern world (the brass serpent in Numbers 21, the serpent as a symbol in the Canaanite fertility cult, etc…) The question should not be “what does the serpent represent?” (i.e. the devil, temptation, man’s selfishness, etc…) but “how does the serpent function in the story?”
The serpent functions to exaggerate the prohibition. He addresses the woman, you always in the plural. Knowledge here is not a theoretical, smarts kind of thing, but a practical and experiential thing. It is the knowledge to know what is right and wrong for ha’adam. It is dethroning God of his role as creator and attempting to function in his stead.
When the disobedience is discovered the serpent’s role is finished. It is not interrogated, nor cursed, nor are its motives explained.
8. The Riddle of Existence
“The writer [of Genesis] faces that unfathomable riddle which is part of the human race so long as and wherever it exists. There is in the human being that drive to transcend the self by overstepping or bursting the limits within which it is set. There is nothing wrong in the desire itself. The fruit is “good to eat and pleasing to look at.” Two normal and good reactions are described. The fruit is also “desirable so as to make one wise.” It is here that the drive to overstep the limits is introduced. The relationship of the man and the woman to God is changed by the transgression; hence too their relationship to each other.”
—John J. Scullion in ABD “Genesis, Narrative of”
The Status of Our Sustenance Topic
September 6, 2008
Um … yeah. So since I have talked to a few of you who feel that the subject of sustenance will not go anywhere. And we have waited a week for Josh, Dave, Marquel and Chris to post their view on the subject with no luck. I say it is high time to move to a new topic.
I have a couple ideas but I would also like to hear a couple of yours first before we choose one.
In case anyone is interested, Alicia and I are moving in a couple of weeks to our new house. I would enjoy seeing you there whenever you have some free time.
Origins and Love
August 26, 2008
Tony (Sr.) has shared with me several times his distaste for the removal of narrative from the throws of theological discourse. I agree, in this case, a narrative is the perfect outlet for proper theological development.
—-
Paul Sandbourne had been in love with Estelle Ventido ever since he could remember. Estelle has always been close to him geographically, despite his propensity to travel here and there, he always found her very near himself in thought.
After a long time in waiting and some good advice from his mother, Paul bought land for his love. The land was vast, hundreds of acres and full of trees, grass and soaring sky.
Paul looked upon the land and was happy.
Then Paul thought, my love cannot come to my land if she has no house in which to dwell. So he built her a fantastic mansion, with hundreds of floorboards, large windows and a big front door with an enormous ‘welcome home’ sign upon its frame.
Paul looked upon the house and was happy.
Then Paul thought, if my love had nothing to drink how would she survive in such a place? At once Mr. Sandbourne built a deep spout. At its base was a deep, flowing river that shot water up and out its enormous mouth. The water was clean and cold, refreshing to the touch.
Paul looked upon the spout and was happy.
Then Paul thought, how could my love survive in such a house, she has nothing to eat? Then with painstaking effort, Paul tilled, planted and watered a garden. From the garden large tomatoes grew, along with cabbage and a plentiful supply of carrots.
Paul looked upon the garden and was happy.
After many years and awesome acts of love the land was ready for Estelle. She came and was happy in the land. After many children survived and thrived on the land they looked at the gifts bestowed upon them, forgetting Estelle and Paul,
they continued along in the grace of their love.
It will appear after this post that it would seem Dan was using a labeling-gun with no glue. For our tags continue to fall off as it would appear so far that nobody believes that the whole of the cosmos was created in six twenty-four hour periods.
I might start off by adding, in concert with the others that I am not a scientist, physicist, mathematician nor even an able theologian and so I suppose that in this regard my post will bring no finality to the conversation either. But I do hope to bring some epistemological light to this nihilistic darkness.
I will start by stating what it is I do believe, not necessarily why I believe it or how I came to believe it. In light of other Near Eastern evidence it would appear that the Genesis creation stories are not merely a statement or revelation about ‘what happened’ nor even just about what God (here I believe the name used is Elohim) is like or His design for creation; that is developed more fully in later tradition. Rather it is a statement that God will brook no rivals. Marduk needs slayed dragons in order to shape the world, Israel’s God creates by speaking. God calms the waters of chaos and does not struggle to calm them as do other gods. And all this likely created as early Hebrew tribes are being oppressed by a kingdom who by all traditional accounts stands in judgement of their God. He who’s kingdom is ruling has the God who is ruling. Not so say the ancient Hebrews.
Because this is what I believe is being communicated I do not find a ‘belief in science’ in conflict with this story or with our testimony as Christians. Yet that does not mean that my position is that God as Creator is a sort of ‘theological’ or ‘spiritual’ truth unrelated in any way to ‘the facts on the ground.’ Perhaps the ‘Big Bang’ occured, but where did the matter come from? How about the physical laws that command the matter to behave in said way as to predicate and demand a Big Bang? And so I believe in Creation Ex Nihilio even though Gen 1-2 does not necessarily demand that it be so. If one should wish to say that this position is a bare and childish ‘statement of faith’ then they are welcome to. As the phenomenon was not observable, testable nor repeatable I would argue that both ‘creationists’ and ‘scientists’ are on even footing. (But this split is itself a line created by the thinking of ‘Modernity,’ reality, thankfully, is much more complex than ‘science vs religion’).
I am actually an enthusiastic supporter of Evolution. Perhaps not taken to a crude extreme, but I have found it to be a theory that makes a lot of sense of what we can discern about how life progresses. I think it makes sense of this physical world, but also of free will, of the fall, and subsequent and progressive ‘recreation’ of a creation gone amiss. In the same way that we humans can ‘guide’ or ‘manipulate’ the life around us (for instance by selective breeding and even advanced gene manipulation, cloning, etc…) so God would act upon and guide creation by ‘natural’ means. Humanity is the apex of creation, the product of millions of years of careful and tender care and growth. I used to say that to suggest that God took millions of years to create would be to not give God His place or to limit His power. In reality that was simply my own prejudice. I judged that length of time meant weakness, but it need not be so. Therefore there is no mystical ‘supernature’ whereby God does magic tricks, but He acts as He also sustains and heals by the same manner. By allowing for infinite possibilities, and endowing His creation with freedom there is the potential for a ‘falling’ whereby free agents act against the perfect wisdom of their Source and so fall into disrepair. (As I recall there is a story about how God is going to restore His creation, but that is another essay)
There seems to me to be way too much concern with why we believe what we do. Or how we came to believe what we do. Or even a mourning over the inability to discern things ‘objectively’ and so what we really do is just pick a worldview, as if it were a supermarket and one simply just happens to like oranges to apples. Here are a few quotes to this extent:
Reed:
“Thus, (while fully admitting I’m inescapably tied to my own worldview) I’ve made a decision to believe in a creator who has a purpose for his creation”
“Because no matter what criteria you’re using to discern the origin of the Universe, you will inevitably encounter the same limitation: your own point of view.”
“From this place of preference we choose which evidence to accept”
Jeremy:
“I am not opposed to the existence of an intelligent God figure, in fact I am strongly in favor of inclusion of this character to the equation. However, this predisposition for me is based on desire more than conclusion and as such I find it difficult to choose a specific divine representation.”
“My personal affinity is for a theory which aligns itself with man’s current knowledge while still leaving room for an intelligent designer.”
I greatly appreciate conversing with people so honest as to critique themselves with such veracity. Both essays have been a pleasure to read and great to mull over. If I am discerning their argument I would put it as follows:
1-Nobody can have ‘objective’ or ‘empirical’ ‘proof’ of a particular interpretation of Origins or really any worldview at all
because
2-We all interpret reality through our cultural history, our life experience and/or preferences
therefore
3-In lieu of this inability to make a comprehensive and unhindered decision, at the end of the day what we really do is pick an interpretation on the basis of personal desire or as Jeremy puts it, “this predisposition for me is based on desire more than conclusion.”
I would argue that this line of reasoning is a Non Sequitur. That is to say I believe not that we cannot know something objectively, but rather that there is no such thing as objective knowledge. Not just that it is unattainable, but that it does not itself exist. All knowledge involves the object which communicates to another object, which interprets the stimuli as it is able to do so. When I see a tree I am actually seeing light, put out, or reflected off of it. The tree is not itself light, but I can only discern it by light or by running into it. When I read an essay or hear a lecture the communicant uses different words, rhymes, rhythms, grammatical structures, tenor, tones, pauses, etc… to communicate. I cannot discern mere words because words do not stand alone, they are only discernable via context and delivery and even then one can misunderstand the original intent.
And so when one might say, because I cannot objectively prove a worldview I must resort to matters of taste or even of reasoning and/or argument. Because there is no objective knowledge there is not even knowledge of why we prefer one thing to another. One cannot say: “I like this so I will choose it.” One can only say “I am predisposed to believe this for what reason I know not why.”
And so I do not offer my testimony that
- I believe in one God the Father Almighty,
- Maker of heaven and earth,
- And of all things visible and invisible
with reservation knowing that I have no ‘proof’ in an empirical sense. I offer it with confidence, being convinced of it’s truth not knowing why it is that I do believe it. In a way, by uttering it, I create the worldview itself, to be accepted or rejected by others for what reason they themselves do not know. This is frighteningly the closest I have ever gotten to Calivinism (Irresistable Grace)
Origins and Sustenance
August 16, 2008
God created many parallel versions of you--all of whom are wearing different colored shirts.
The Problem of Extraordinary Limitations
So the other day I was listening to my favorite NPR program, Radio Lab. In this particular episode one of the hosts was interviewing Brian Greene, the head of Cosmology and Physics at Colombia University. Dr. Greene was presenting on the theory of multiple universes or “parallel dimensions” as they are commonly called in popular science fiction. Being nothing near a theoretical physicist or even very good at 10th grade science, I will none-the-less attempt to briefly summarize the tip of his argument for anyone unfamiliar with strings and quantums and all that other sciency stuff.
Scientific observation has shown us that the Universe is infinite. While we don’t know the exact nature of this infinitude (it’s shape, motion, or even origins) there exists no boundary of space but only extreme distance. In a Universe of infinitude, with an infinite amount of particles, every single compilation of particles is possible and thus every single compilation of those particles will occur. The metaphor they gave to explain this was that of a coin toss. It is statistically improbable that if you were to toss a coin one hundred times, you will get heads 100 times in a row. It’s still next to impossible that you would get heads 100 times if you tossed the coin 1000 times. But eventually, if you tossed the coin enough, millions of times, you would eventually get heads 100 times in a row.
The same principle can apply to the Universe. Given enough space, any reality is possible. These alternate Universes are, of course, unobservable. They are so distant that their light will never reach ours. Yet somewhere out there, there is another version of you, sitting where you are now, reading this blog entry. Except for that person, there’s no period after this sentence. but actually a comma, followed by an exclamation point! Or he or she is drinking tea instead of coffee. Or they married someone else, or any number of other possibilities.
Such an idea calls into question all sorts of presuppositions we have concerning identity (what does it mean to be me?), God (is he even necessary), destiny (am I making my decisions or just acting out the way my atoms were chemically predisposed to?), and existence (why am I me and not the blue shirted me?)
Believe it or not I discuss all of this, not to expound on string theory, (or bubble Universes, or why we’re stuck with the particular Shoe that we have and not a more pleasant, better smelling parallel Shoe), but actually to illustrate the limits of our observations, and the limitless potential of our conjecture.
One aspect of this interview which caught my attention was Dr. Greene’s insistence that this was really what the evidence suggested was the case. That “scientists don’t just sit around coming up with stranger and stranger ideas for the sake of it,” but that in fact, “these theories come from careful observation and logical analysis.” He said something similar to this on multiple occasions, always unprovoked, in an almost pleading fashion. It was obvious he was used to skepticism from the non-scientific community. Why is this? Certainly no one doubts his intelligence or qualifications? While not all physicists agree on his conclusions, they have to recognize the possibility of his conclusions or at least his adequate awareness of the facts.
Because no matter what criteria you’re using to discern the origin of the Universe, you will inevitably encounter the same limitation: your own point of view.
This means that regardless of how sensible your conclusions are, your arguments are moot unless your audience shares your worldview, and recognizes the same evidence as authoritative. When addressing the question of origins (and if I understand the prompt correctly, God’s plan for sustaining his creation) we must first realize that hardly anyone (within the scientific or religious community) holds the same evidence as authoritative. This is in part due to our extraordinary limitations. While only a phyicist is qualified to discuss the theory of multiple Universes, and a Hebrew scholar and historian would be best for telling us something of what the book of Genesis has to say on the subject, the fact is anyone, seriously ANYONE, can discuss the much broader idea of origin. This is because discussing the origin of life is inseparable from discussing the meaning of life. And since most people are walking around with some sort of meaning for their life (should it be as expansive as the Christian worldview or as simple as “providing for my family and being happy”) they also have some idea as to what they might believe about their origin. These ideas don’t come from evidence alone, but from worldview analyzing evidence.
What I’ve Chosen To Believe
For me, Science has never been able to offer the why I think is necessary to life. Existence is best measured by purpose and hope, and I believe the religious worldview best captures this necessity. Thus, (while fully admitting I’m inescapably tied to my own worldview) I’ve made a decision to believe in a creator who has a purpose for his creation. Some who hold this view may say they reached it through reasonable observations about nature (the complexity of the universe, the precision with which our world is run, the seemingly necessity of a designer to explain morality, art, beauty, etc…) but they disregard an Atheist or Agnostic who will have perfectly reasonable explanations to counter these ideas. I, however, feel like I can be much more honest:
In the end, I prefer a Universe with a creator–a supernatural being who has all the answers, especially since I don’t know them myself. This may sound like an admonition of self-delusion but I believe anyone who believes anything operates in the same fashion.
This is not a bullet-proof, “you must have faith and believe” position, because I think it requires faith to take a step in any direction on this issue. Even Brian Greene, the Atheist Physicist from above, admits that he must still have faith that the Universe doesn’t only “appear” to be infinite or that in this multiverse of infinite possibilities he isn’t some arbitrary computer program created in a parallel Universe by an advanced race(seriously, it comes up in the interview).
From this place of preference we choose which evidence to accept, and begin drawing our conclusions. Accepting the historical setting and mythical status of Genesis and other creation accounts, I can still accept that they contain truth because they share the worldview that I have chosen. When it comes to the very tricky idea of which one of is “right,” I can only appeal back to our problem of mutual human limitation. For this reason, the answer ultimately doesn’t matter.
Tony Hunt
jstambaugh
Shawn Wamsley
