In a world full of conflicting testimonies, sooner or later we are all forced to take a stand on the supernatural. I’ve taken several. But in the end one either believes there is more to existence then we can understand through observation or one does not. There are at least two ways other than the best way, prayer, to get past spiritual skepticism:
- move to Jerusalem, or
- think things through
If one moves to Jerusalem the cure is simple; one regularly sees and hears of supernatural events. But thinking things through seems at first glance—given all we “know”—to favor the abrupt dismissal of Faith. So I’ve split this entry into two parts; this first to outline support for the notion that the universe may not have created itself, which would allow us to at least consider the second, which will embrace the supernatural as it applies to the special meaning of the terms “Hunters” and “Fisherman” in prophecy.
It can be both comforting and liberating to reject Faith. A world that strictly obeys Natural Law, while cold and fairly meaningless, is at least free of externally imposed Right and Wrong. (I’m talking here about God.) If the Universe created itself we answer only to ourselves and are bound as a species by only the limits of our cleverness.
And the truth is that we are very clever. Think of all we “know” about the origins of the universe and the nature of matter, about Leptons and Tachyons and Hadrons and Quarks. But it’s easy to place a misguided Faith there, in science. Even the most enthusiastic Big Banger, for example, will have to confess that the theory breaks down just before it all begins.
The Big Bang singularity is a point of zero volume, but very high mass, which makes the density infinite.
Okay, so in the initial state we had nothing at all but it was very very heavy. (Then it exploded into “space” that could only have the form, according to Hawking, of another universe kind of standing by in which it could expand.) Easy enough to swallow if we can also accept without too much squirming that light is both a particle and a wave, or neither. Any questions? I’m not saying these guys aren’t right about the mechanics, but they all don’t agree, and so what makes their assorted conjectures slam dunks and the Garden of Eden a myth?
Especially when we’ve seen miracles.
As for particle physics and our deep understanding of reality, are all these discoveries from high-energy accelerator collisions which supposedly clarify what the universe is made of really anything more than observed phenomena to which scientists have assigned clever names?
“Hallo!” said Piglet, “what are you doing?”
“Hunting,” said Pooh.
“Tracking something,” said Winnie-the-Pooh very mysteriously.
“Tracking what?” said Piglet, coming closer.
“That’s just what I ask myself. I ask myself, What?”
“What do you think you’ll answer?”
“I shall have to wait until I catch up with it,” said Winnie-the-Pooh. “Now, look there.” He pointed to the ground in front of him. “What do you see there?”
“Tracks,” said Piglet. “Paw-marks.” He gave a little squeak of excitement. “Oh, Pooh! Do you think it’s a–a–a Woozle?”
“It may be,” said Pooh. “Sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn’t. You never can tell with paw-marks.” With these few words he went on tracking, and Piglet, after watching him for a minute or two, ran after him. Winnie-the-Pooh had come to a sudden stop, and was bending over the tracks in a puzzled sort of way.
“What’s the matter?” asked Piglet.
“It’s a very funny thing,” said Bear, “but there seem to be two animals now. This–whatever-it-was–has been joined by another–whatever-it-is– and the two of them are now proceeding in company. Would you mind coming with me, Piglet, in case they turn out to be Hostile Animals?” (Source.)
(For even more about Woozle’s, click here.)
Any similarities between particle physics nomenclature and Pooh Bear’s tracks in the snow? Maybe, maybe not, but it is important to understand that not all devoted and highly regarded scientists have abandoned Faith. One of them, Dr. Ard Louis, PhD, is a Royal Society University Research Fellow and a Reader in Theoretical Physics at the University of Oxford, where he leads an interdisciplinary research group studying problems on the border between chemistry, physics and biology. Bottom line…
everyone has a worldview upon which they base their lives
The big questions of how to extract reliable information about the world, and how to separate fact from mere opinion are clearly complex. Unfortunately, that doesn’t mean that we can simply ignore them or remain agnostic about them. These questions are critical to the construction of our worldview, that is, the set of values and assumptions upon which we base our lives. Our worldview may be carefully thought out, or it may consist of a hodgepodge of unexamined ideas that we have picked up from family, friends, school, or the media. However it emerges, every person has a worldview, and it plays a critical role in how we live our lives…the Bible is key foundation upon which I build my worldview. Therefore, it matters greatly to me whether or not this text is a reliable source of knowledge. This is a fascinating topic that I don’t have space to address here. But, I believe that there are strong rational grounds to believe that the Bible is indeed reliable . (Source.)
Next post, we’ll look at some specific prophetic predictions that seem to be coming true now.
Funny and not so funny…