Better Participants

Recently I had the privilege of speaking to faculty members at a major University in Maryland. At the end of our scheduled conversation, questions from the faculty followed. One of the questions in particular I would like to dialogue upon further.

The question was brought to me by a Theist who was having a conversation with a friend that is of a Materialist persuasion. The Materialist made the claim that science will be able to recreate life from nothing at some point. Not a recreation of preexisting materials but able to create a simple single cell life from nothing. From that, a discussion ensued about what constitutes life. So the Theist gave this question to me; what constitute life according to the theistic belief? What form of physical compilation of material according to theism institutes life? Does this single cell need to reproduce, rationalize… to be determined life?

Although a worthy discussion, I would like to draw your attention to something different. It is here where we can see the Christian Church needs to be discipling better participants. The Theist, like most, was taking the claim as stated, "science will be able to produce life from nothing" and then proceeded to develop an argument for a theistic position on life. Let me expose a damaging epistemic disposition, that is, one who believes they have the correct worldview, feels obligated to assume the responsibility of the "burden of proof". I said to the theist that I believe first the Materialist must create something from nothing. Once this claim or burden of proof has been accomplished by the Materialist, discussion can begin in validating the definition of life. The burden of proof is still that of the Materialist to create something out of nothing, this has not yet happened. Philosophically, nothing comes from nothing, something does not come from nothing; it is logically impossibility.

My aim is not to single out the theist that I spoke with; but I am using the above scenario to raise a larger point. My concern is with the Christian Church finding itself faced with certain character issues that this above example perpetuates.

A study called Six Megethemes Emerge in 2010 by the Barna Group¹ revealed that "The Christian Church is becoming less theologically literate". It indicates that certain common, universally-known Christian truths have become mystery to a majority factor of Americans. The Christian church has disengaged itself from discipleship for other self nurturing and promotional initiatives. Not focusing on intellectual rigor within a belief system gives no justification for holding that belief; one simply exists for pragmatic happiness. With no surprise, pragmatism
replacing spiritual principles was also one of the revealed megethemes.

Another disposition of concern is postmodernism and its rejection of meta-narratives and focuses on micro-narratives. When it comes to conversations like those above, rejecting the importance of understanding and contextualizing your worldview, ejects you from intellectually engaging reality. Isolation from society or even everyday pragmatism denies you existential admission. If a worldview exists that does not emphasize reasons for analytical thinking, rationale and logical consistency it's extinction is almost inevitable. Currently the Church is not concerned about making claims because critical thinking is not a priority but rather the replaced concern is for being tolerant. In the Christian belief faith seeks understanding not tolerance. First hand from our think tank, rationalizing is the last concern of the American mind.

This mentality or social characteristic can only welcome ignorance. The burden of proof is also a fallacy referred to as the "burden of ignorance". This burden of ignorance is not because people in general are mentally inefficient but simply uneducated. It is a sign of an anti-intellectual society or culture fueled by a mindless philosophy of postmodernism. As a society in general and for the Christian church, the current epistemic outlook does not look promising for social unity.

Note this: Whether the Church wants to participate or not, it takes on the burden of proof because it continues to make claims and have opinions. The question is not about participation but of what value is your participation. Exampling the Theist in the above explanation of pursuing answers seems a necessary social obligation. Reclaiming discipleship in worldviews, allows rational contextualization creating Better Participants.

 

1. Barna Group - Six Megethemes Emerge in 2010. / http://www.barna.org/culture-articles/462-six-megathemes-emerge-from-2010

 

2010 Copyright © Mark Elson

From The Very Beginning

It was reported just a couple of weeks ago that new discoveries reveal…

    God did not create the universe, says Hawking

LONDON (Reuters) – God did not create the universe and the "Big Bang" was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics, the eminent British theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking argues in a new book.

In "The Grand Design," co-authored with U.S. physicist Leonard Mlodinow, Hawking says a new series of theories made a creator of the universe redundant, according to the Times newspaper which published extracts on Thursday.

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist," Hawking writes.

"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."

I am going to appeal here from as neutral a position as possible because I think that each polar party deserves the respect of an objective platform to rule from. In other-words, my goal with this thinking is to search for an end result of truth.

Let me start with the article itself; given that the above article is accurate, (I did a comparison of news reports and they are very similar), let me make some comments. I am not a theoretical physicist but I am given to logic and analytical thinking and it seems that Mr. Hawking has missed the point about the argument from Cosmology. The argument is, for those who are not familiar, that everything that exists has a cause for its existence. Hawking's claim is that new scientific information reveals that prior to the "Big Bang at least the law of physics (Laws of Nature) existed to enable such an event to occur. But Scientists majoritively believe, that at the "Big Bang", something came into existence from nothing, even these laws of nature themselves came into existence. This seems then more like theoretical speculation rather than involving causal principles, something from nothing. Logically, Hawking theory is now a contradiction of a causal nature, for even the laws of Physics to exist there has to be matter to adjudicate with. These laws then must come into existence when matter, space and time were instituted (regardless of Intelligent Design or Evolutionary processes).

To be forward and say, it is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going, is a non sequitur. The conclusion (God did not initiate existence) does not follow from "the Big Bang is a necessary derivative of the laws of physics" - the conclusion does not follow the premise. Let me clarify more; to claim the laws of Physics are the necessary origin of the Big Bang, fails to say anything about God's existence or his possible involvement in starting something from nothing. It could be (not that it is) that God initiated the laws of Physics thereby initiating something from nothing. Who or what was intelligent enough to "light the blue touch paper"?

One of the other issues here is that Hawking, as an evolutionist, postulates from an intelligent argument (Laws of Physics) as the genesis of the start of the known universe. But this also is contradictory, this is not part of his evolutionary worldview; an intelligence claim is that of the Theistic worldview. Could it be that Hawking's latest research might indicate that intelligence was responsible for the start of everything in this universe.

Professor John Lennox weighed in on Hawking's theory and in a refuting article wrote the following:

But contrary to what Hawking claims, physical laws can never provide a complete explanation of the universe. Laws themselves do not create anything, they are merely a description of what happens under certain conditions.

What Hawking appears to have done is to confuse law with agency. His call on us to choose between God and physics is a bit like someone demanding that we choose between aeronautical engineer Sir Frank Whittle and the laws of physics to explain the jet engine.

These laws of nature are explanatory laws, intelligence constitutes there function and consistency is there perpetual existence. These laws of nature are the how certain physical parameter functions. To use these laws in a foundational manner for theoretical construction of the origin of the universe is to deposit more responsibility then they really can contribute.

My last comment is sort of observational intuition that really has more to do with an honest pursuit toward truth. Its common knowledge that Theists are charged consistently with narrow-mindedness, and though such a faction exists and represents too many, there is a rising rich resource of theistic thinkers. With a quick search one can easily find this accusation of narrow-mindedness highly fallacious given the quality and quantity found. A recovery of thinking in such areas as apologetics, philosophy, science, history, archeology, and so-on reveals the multiplicity of studies the theists have engaged in their effort toward sound truth. The narrow-mindedness seems to develop in our social and cultural emphasis of scientism - the use of science single-handedly being the catalyst to unveil truth.

As a human looking at the determination and all-inclusiveness of the above argument, the impression is the theist succeeds. Even if the theistic argument was not entirely accurate, still based on their open-minded pursuit for truth it is easier to put my trust in their conclusion. We live in an age of information, but often times this information is still unstructured. Our effort of resolution through theoretical means restricted to science will continue a path of limited postulations and perpetual speculation.

"God did not create the universe, says Hawking"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100902/lf_nm_life/us_britain_hawking

John Lennox, Professor of Mathematics, University of Oxford, Fellow in Mathematics and the Philosophy of Science

http://johnlennox.org/index.php/en/resource/stephen_hawking_and_god/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1308599/Stephen-Hawking-wrong-You-explain-universe-God.html

Extra resource:

    William Lane Craig, Research Professor, Biola University

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer?pagename=q_and_a

 

2010 Copyright © Mark Elson ~ Elson Group Inc.

Complicatedly Simple

As one of the most, if not the most gripping subtle destroyers and scandals of the Evangelical Church and North American culture, anti-intellectualism has thrown its inhuman robe of simplicity over the minds of the Church. I am certainly not alone in realizing this current Church disposition; many if not all noted Christian Apologists and Philosophers will agree with this factual observation. Mark Noll, Professor of History at Notre Dame in his book The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind states in his first sentence of the first chapter, “the scandal is, it has no mind”. He then very clearly gives a systematic historical account of how the Church retained the mindless disposition it has today.

My goal here is to tease your mind of the problem and heighten your awareness.

• 
  
  Complicated because it does take such extreme nonsensical ideas to become so complicatedly simple. I mean that the enormous amount of “reasoning” that it takes to defend a disposition and ideology of simple mindedness, leaves a great deal to shovel through.

• 
  
  Complicated… now that we are what we wanted, simple, educating the simplicity out of the simple is not simple. Also not simply stated, and certainly not simply refuted… complicated.

• 
  
  Although there are many great things happening in our Church, we have unfortunately taken on an anti-intellectual disposition championing simplicity. By majority Christian discipleship is accomplished by small groups, devotional studies and a spiritual transformation obtained via your service to the kingdom. Please carefully hear me, these are not bad things, but they cannot develop an intelligent and coherent Christian worldview.

Simplicity, although thoroughly tried by today's more contemporary church and cultural milieu, is non-defendable... trying to build an intelligent defense proposition for simplemindedness, is a self-refuting argument.

The result… a church who proudly promotes its worldview as simple. Christianity then is considered by many including believers as a relative worldview, good for personal comfort, and a sense of personal piety, however not as a reliable means toward any real answers.

1. “The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind” Mark Noll, Francis A. McAnaney Professor of History, University of Notre Dame.

© Mark Elson 2010