Blog
What Can We Know About Knowledge? (Notes from Last Night.)
Last night we began several weeks of seeking answer these questions:
- How can Christians claim to really know God?
- How can they claim to have a true knowledge of God, especially one that is more accurate than other concepts of God?
- How can we really know anything?
In other words: What is possible to know, and how can we know it?
We noted that the academic discipline that explores these questions is epistemology. That’s the study of how we know things, how we acquire knowledge, and what the limitations of our knowledge are. (The related word is epistemological, “having to do with theories about how we know things.”)
These epistemological challenges are some of the most important challenges we are facing to our claim to know Truth. It’s not that people tend to say we have the wrong God, but that they question our claim to be able to really know or say anything definitive about God at all. So we’re going to spend some time trying to see how the Bible gives us justification for claiming to know God. Last night we were laying some ground work. The basic core of the study was: What can we know about knowledge?
First, we noted that behind these types of questions are some basic assumptions. Learning to locate and discuss the assumptions people make when they speak is a key to being able to converse with them about the Bible’s claims.
Here are five assumptions being made when people question our ability to know true things about God and reality:
- That the source of our knowledge is within—what we can figure out with our own brains. That our brains are limited, and that these limits are the limits of our knowledge. (Often it is assumed, in connection with this, that our perceptions acutally work.)
- That if God exists, he could not give, or has not given, or would not give, information about Himself and the world. (But this means, for all practical purposes, that God doesn’t exist in any meaningful way.) The upshot of this is assuming that there has been no authoritative information given about the world or about God.
- That if a being such as God did give information, we could not understand it in any more than some partial, vague way. But this simply assumes #1 and applies it to information from God. In other words, it assumes that if God spoke, He would be unable to communicate truly and accurately to the minds that He made. He would be limited by our minds. So here it is assumed that He can make us, but not communicate to us.
- That in order to anything meaningfully, we must know exhaustively. Since we can’t know everything about God, we can’t claim to know anything about God. (A question we’ll get to: Do we really think it’s impossible to be right about something, oranything?)
- Since no one is there to explain the world to us, it is up to us to figure it all out using our minds. We do this by observing objects and analyzing data. In other words, knowledge is impersonal.
Before we move on, we should note that none of these assumptions have ever been proven. They are assumed–by your teachers, classmates, and co-workers. They should be challenged.
Now, let’s look at assumption #5, where last night’s study focused. Notice it contains an assumption that God doesn’t exist, at least in terms of giving us information aout Himself and the universe. But there are two important things we need to see if we assume this to be true.
Let’s follow out the implications of assuming that God isn’t there to tell us about things, and that knowledge is an impersonal thing.
- If there is nothing behind the universe (if it is impersonal), then knowledge can be impersonal too. But, if everything is impersonal, then so are we. If the universe is really just made of matter and time and chance, then, as Francis Schaeffer said, if everything is a machine, then we are part of the machine, too. Modern philosophy has followed this idea to its logical conclusions–we can’t have any way of knowing that our knowledge is anything more than the working of the machine. It’s just electricity and chemicals and hormones and the working of a “brain” machine. We can’t actually trust our knowledge.
- If nothing is behind the universe, then we are left with a metaphysical problem as well as an epistemological one. In other words, where did the universe come from? Can any universe come from nothing? Even science is saying no. Something must have been eternal. So either impersonal matter is eternal (which leaves us with problem #1) or Personality is eternal. The problem really reduces down to this: If matter is all there is, where did it come from?…and then how could we truly know anything about it?
Turning to Genesis 1:1 and Proverbs 1:7 and 2:1-7, we see a different picture. (One that makes more sense out of the world we live in.) The Bible says God was in the beginning. He made everything, and knew things before He made it, and before He made us. Before we know anything, He knew everything. Therefore:
- Knowledge is personal—it comes from Someone and is ultimately characterized by His personality.
- Knowledge is relational—it comes from being in right relationship to that Personality.
When we are rightly related to the Personality who possesses knowledge, He gives it to us. That is how we know anything.
Some Implications of the Bible’s way of describing knowledge:
- We can’t pursue knowledge just by analyzing data and observing objects. We must receive our knowledge from a Person. Of course, this matches even our earliest experiences, where we begin to experience things by observation (what we see/hear/feel) but then we begin to know things by the information (interpretation) given to us by parents (hence Proverbs 1:8).
- Since knowledge comes by relation to this Personality, it means that even when we are analyzing data by observing objects, it is not an impersonal activity, but it is (ultimately) the Personality giving us environment, ability, correspondence to come to the knowledge we obtain.
- We may not recognize this, but that means this Personality is generous—He gives even when we don’t know it is Him giving.
How must we relate to this Personality?
Proverbs 1:7–“fear” In other words, humble submission and reverence. We must bow before and seek connection to the Maker and Authority Possessor of all data.
Proverbs 2:1-5–We must apply our hearts to wisdom. It matters! There’s things to know and we can know them!
Proverbs 2:6-7–But when we find things out, it is because God has given us the wisdom. Therefore: Knowledge is moral— See also Prov 8:13, Psalm 53:1-4, 94:1-12, 2 Tim 2:7, Rom 1:18-22, 28.
This is all good news! We’re not just chance arrangements of matter. Because He is Personal, we are personal. Our individual personalities really exist (we’re not just part of the machine) and really matter (we have real siginificance as beings created in the image of God). Because He is reasonable, we can expect to be able to use our reason to discover things. Because He made the universe knowable, and in a way that corresponds to us (He made it for us), then we can use the minds He gave to explore and discover it. We can know that we have significance. We can have confidence. And as we relate to Him, He gives us knowledge about what we seek to know.
Not only that, but we can know that our Maker is good. The Bible reports that the reason we have all these problems with our knowledge is that we aren’t rightly related to the giver of knowledge. And the break in relationship comes because of our willful sin. But He made a way for us to be rightly related to Him again. Jesus Christ lived a life in full agreement with God, then died in our place and took the penalty for our sin–our break with God. Then He rose again and told His followers to go tell everyone that forgiveness and restoration to relationship with God was possible. And this opened up the way for us to know Him, ourselves, and the universe truly again.
Challenges:
Nonbelievers: Ponder the implications of:
- there not being a God behind everything.
- of God being there, and of not being rightly related to Him.
- what He has revealed about how you can know Him.
Believers:
- Let’s ask God to sift our thinking to find where we might be assuming these things.
- Let’s grow in understanding the universe our God made, and how we get to know it.
- Let’s worship God for being the generous giver of all knowledge.
- Let’s seek to be totally connected to Him, and to seek wisdom from His hand.
- Let’s spread this message.
Can we really know anything about God? (A sneak preview of tonight)
Tonight we’ll begin several weeks of studying the scriptures to explore one of the central concerns of our age, and one of the central objections people have to the preaching of the Gospel. The concern is epistemology, and the objection is an epistemological one. We’ll do quick definitions tonight. And then we’ll begin trying to answer these questions:
How can Christians claim to really know God?
How can they claim to have a true knowledge of God, especially one that is more accurate than other concepts of God?
How can we really know anything?
Francis Schaeffer was one of the leading Christian thinkers to address these questions in the last generation. Over the next few days I plan to post some thoughts from him and others to augment our studies on Monday nights. Here’s the first thought from Schaeffer. The question he’s addressing here is, “If God is infinite, and therefore so far above us, how can we claim to have any knowledge of Him at all?” The answer, he says, begins with the biblical description of God as both personal and infinite:
Let us return again to the personal-infinite. On the side of God’s infinity, there is a complete chasm between God on one side and man, the animal, the flower, and the machine on the other. On the side of God’s infinity, He stands alone. He is the absolute other. He is, in His infinity, contrary to all else. He is differentiated from all else because only He is infinite. He is the Creator; all else was created. He is infinite; all else is finite. All else is brought forth by creation; so all else is dependent and only He is independent. This is absolute on the side of His infinity. Therefore, concerning God’s infinity, man is as separated from God as is the atom or any other machine-portion of the universe.
But on the side of God being personal, the chasm is between man and the animal, the plant, and the machine. Why? Because man was made in the image of God. This is not just “doctrine.” It is not dogma that needs just to be repeated as a proper doctrinal statement. This is really down in the warp and woof of the whole problem. Man is made in the image of God; therefore, on the side of the fact that God is a personal God the chasm stands not between God and man, but between man and all else. But on the side of God’s infinity, man is as separated from God as the atom or any other finite of the universe. So we have the answer to man’s being finite and yet personal.
It is not that this is the best answer to existence; it is the only answer. That is why we may hold our Christianity with intellectual integrity. The only answer for what exists is that He, the infinite-personal God, really is there.
–Francis Schaeffer, He is There and He Is Not Silent
New Post from Ben and Emily
The Spectors have a new post at their website, with come great pictures of their new city of residence, Cakovec. (I was there in 1996. Nice place!)
Here’s Ben:
The longer we are here, the more we are falling in love with this country, the people, and the privilege we have to be here with them. Over and over again, Emily and I remark to eachother how great an honor is it to be living alongside the believers at Calvary Chapel Čakovec, gleaning from them and from Pastor Damir. We have front row seats to the very neat things the Lord is doing in Croatia, and it is evident He has directed our steps here.
Read the whole thing here.
More on the Higgs Boson from Dr. Craig
On Tuesday I posted a response from William Lane Craig to the idea that the discovery of the Higgs Boson disproves the existence of God. Here’s one more helpful post from him, which he had written shortly before the discovery was announced. In it he sites what sounds like a study that is good to know about–the Borde, Vilenkin, Guth study from 2003 in which they proved that any universe which has been expanding (as ours evidently has) must have been finite in the past. In other words, it must have had a beginning. In other words, it cannot be eternal. This is key for people who think that we don’t need to have a creator in order to have our universe (or any universe). People just assume that matter and energy can be eternal. But even scientifically, this just isn’t true. Matter is a contingent substance, which means that it depends on other things for its existence. It must have a cause. But Dr. Craig does a better job of explaining all this:
Question: At the moment there has been a lot on the news about CERN and how it will shed light on the origin of the universe. I’ve heard various atheists getting excited about how it might do everything from prove the parallel universe theory to show how the universe popped out of nowhere and was wondering what impact CERN might have on theism?
Thanks, Graeme
Answer: That atheists should get all excited about the theological implications of the experiments which will be conducted at CERN’s new Large Hadron Collider, which was successfully activated last Wednesday, reveals, I think, how desperate they are to wish away the evidence of current cosmology for the beginning and fine-tuning of the universe. For although the experiments which the collider will make feasible will expand the horizons of physics, since we have never been able to re-create such high energy conditions before, it is very hard to see how anything of theological significance could ensue, except to confirm the evidence we already have for the beginning and fine-tuning of the universe.
The new LHC will enable researchers to re-create the conditions existing less than a millionth of a second after the Big Bang at energies higher by a factor of four than previously possible, a great advance but nothing compared to the energies prior to the Planck time 10-43 second after the Big Bang, where General Relativity breaks down. We’ll probably never be able to re-create energy levels high enough to probe that era.
The LHC should enable physicists to test for the existence of certain partners for sub-atomic particles, like the photino for the photon or the gravitino for the graviton, which are predicted by supersymmetric theories of particle physics. Scientists hope to be able to discover the Higgs boson, a particle thought to be responsible for the field that imparts mass to various sub-atomic particles. The Higgs boson is frequently called “the God Particle,” not because it has any theological significance but because, like God, it is everywhere but is mysteriously hidden. The LHC could provide experimental evidence for string theory and therefore additional spatial dimensions and help to discover the nature of the dark energy that pervades the universe. Of course, it could disconfirm these theories if the predictions fail.
But whatever turns up, I don’t see anything here that should cause atheists to get their hopes up. For the evidence for the beginning and fine-tuning of the universe already factors in the possibility that these discoveries might someday be made. In 2003 Arvind Borde, Alexander Vilenkin, and Alan Guth were able to demonstrate a theorem which proved that any universe which has on average been globally expanding at a positive rate has a past boundary and therefore cannot be infinite in the past. This theorem applies equally to inflationary theories of the multiverse and to higher dimensional cosmologies based on string theory. Theorists intent on avoiding the absolute beginning of the universe could previously always take refuge in the period prior to the Planck time, an era so poorly understood that it has been compared to the regions on the maps of ancient cartographers marked “Here there be dragons!”—it can be filled with all sorts of fantasies. But the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem does not depend upon any particular physical description of the universe prior to the Planck time, but is based on deceptively simple physical reasoning which will hold regardless of our uncertainty concerning that era—not to speak of the much later era probed by the new LHC.
As for fine-tuning, the discussion has for some time now considered the hypothesis that our universe is but a relatively tiny part of a World Ensemble of universes. I can’t imagine any sort of evidence emerging from the LHC that would show that we are but a random member of a World Ensemble of an infinite number of randomly ordered universes. Moreover, the fact that these multiverse theories all have a beginning in the finite past implies that the mechanism which generates new universes has been working away for only a finite amount of time, which may well be insufficient to guarantee by chance alone the appearance of a finely-tuned universe like ours. Indeed, as I explain in Reasonable Faith, if our universe were but a random member of such a world ensemble, it is fantastically more probable that we should be observing a much different universe. That suggests that the fine-tuning cannot be explained away by easy appeals to parallel worlds.
The real shame about the LHC is that decades ago the U.S. had a chance to build our own supercollider in Texas, but a short-sighted Congress cut off the federal funding and so scuttled the project. The other scandal is the hysterical reactions in some quarters by people harboring groundless fears that the LHC will wind up creating a black hole that will annihilate us. Both of these spectacles say something about the weak state of science education and appreciation in the U.S.
–William Lane Craig
“I Don’t Need a Coward.” (Rich and Sabina’s Story: Part 4)
Here is the last post in this series about Rich and Sabina. After their conversion to Christ, Rich and Sabina’s life completely changed as they to embraced His call for them. Rich did become a pastor, and Sabina served faithfully at his side. But their lives would be changed again–this time it happened when the communist party came to power in their country. Rich narrates what happened next:
The campaign to undermine religion developed rapidly. All church funds and estates were nationalised. A Communist Ministry of Cults controlled the priesthood completely, paying salaries and confirming appointments…The next task was to tear apart the Roman and Greek Catholics, of whom there were two and a half million. The Greek Catholics, usually called Uniates, while keeping many traditions of their own (including the right of priests to marry), accepted the Pope’s supremacy. Now they were taken over and forcibly ‘merged’ with the obedient Orthodox Church. Most of the priests, and all of the bishops, who objected to this shotgun wedding were arrested, their dioceses abolished and their property seized. The Roman Catholics, ordered to break with the Vatican, refused; they, too, paid dearly for their resistance. With priests filling the jails and lurid stories of their treatment spreading through the country, the minority religions simply bowed the head and waited to hear their fate.
They did not have long to wait. In 1945 a ‘Congress of Cults’ was called in the Rumanian Parliament building, with 4,000 representatives of the clergy filling the seats. Bishops, priests, pastors, rabbis, mullahs applauded as it was announced that Comrade Stalin (whose vast picture hung on the wall) was patron of the congress–they preferred not to remember that he was at the same time president of the World Atheists’ Organisation. The trembling old Patriarch Nicodim blessed the assembly and the Prime Minister, Groza, opened it. He told us that he was a priest’s son himself, and his lavish promises of support, echoed by other personages who followed him, were appreciatively cheered.
One of the chief Orthodox bishops said in reply that in the past many political rivulets had entered the great river of his church–green, blue, tri-coloured–and he welcomed the prospect that a red one should join it, too. One leader after another, Calvinist, Lutheran, the Chief Rabbi, rose in turn to speak. All expressed willingness to co-operate with the Communists. My wife, beside me, could bear no more. She said, ‘Go and wash this shame from the face of Christ!’
‘If I do, you’ll lose your husband,’ I replied.
‘I don’t need a coward. Go and do it!’ Sabina said.
I asked to speak and they were pleased to invite me to the rostrum: the organisers looked forward to publishing a congratulatory speech next day from Pastor Wurmbrand, of the Swedish Church Mission and the World Council of Churches.
I began with a brief word on Communism. I said it was our duty as priests to glorify God and Christ, not transitory earthly powers, and to support his everlasting kingdom of love against the vanities of the day. As I went on, priests who had sat for hours listening to flattering lies about the Party seemed to awake as from a dream. Someone began to clap. The tension snapped, and applause suddenly broke out, wave after wave, with delegates standing up to cheer. The Minister of the Cults, a former Orthodox priest called Burducea who had been an active Fascist in other times, shouted from the platform that my right to speak was withdrawn. I replied that I had the right from God, and continued. In the end, the microphone was disconnected, but by then the hall was in such uproar that no one could hear anything.
That closed the congress for the day.
If you didn’t already know, the narrator is Richard Wurmbrand, founder of Voice of the Martyrs, who, after this speech, spent 14 years imprisoned by the communist government in Romania. You can read Sabina’s side of the story in her book The Pastor’s Wife.
Their story is another beautiful illustration of people whose ordinary lives God redeemeds, who then are taken up and used by God as they simply seek to be faithful to the God who saved them. If you want to read about the rest of Rich’s life, I recommend the book these posts were taken from: In God’s Underground.
Rich and Sabina’s Story: Part 3
Here’s part three of Rich and Sabina’s story. In part two we saw Rich meet Christ and be saved. What we find out in this part is that he had already married Sabina. His conversion was the first major incident that rocked their life, and as he recounts below, initially she didn’t take it too well. In the next part of the story (and final post in this series) we’ll see the second life-changer they encountered. (Click here for part 1.)
[My] conversion took place six months after my marriage to Sabina, a girl who had never spared a thought for spiritual things. It was a terrible blow to her. She was young and beautiful, and she had lacked so much in her childhood. She hoped a happier life was beginning, when the man she loved, her partner in pleasure, changed into a devout believer who talked of becoming a pastor. She confessed to me later that she had even thought of suicide.
One Sunday, when I proposed going to evening service, she burst into tears. She said she wanted to see a film.
‘All right,’ I said. ‘We’ll go – because I love you.’ We walked from one theatre to another and I chose the film which looked most suggestive. When we left I took her to a café and she ate a cream cake. I said, ‘Now go home to bed. I want to look for a girl and take her to a hotel.’
‘What did you say?’
‘It is plain enough. You go home. I want to find a girl to take to a hotel.’
‘How can you say such things!’
‘But you made me go to the cinema, and you saw what the hero did – why shouldn’t I do the same? If we go tomorrow and the day after to such films…every man becomes what he looks at; but if you want me to be a good husband, come to church with me sometimes.’
She thought about it. Then, quietly, gently she began to come more and more often to church. But she still hankered after the [party] life and when she wanted to go out somewhere, I went too. One evening we went to a drunken party. The air was full of smoke. Couples were dancing and making love openly. Suddenly my wife was disgusted with it all and said, ‘Oh, let’s go! Now!’
I said, ‘Why leave? We’ve only just come.’ We stayed until midnight. Again she wanted to go home, and again I refused. It was the same at 1 a.m. And again at 2 a.m. When I saw she was thoroughly sickened by the whole affair, I agreed to go.
We came out into the cold air. Sabina said: ‘Richard! I’m going straight to the pastor’s house to make him baptize me. It will be like taking a bath after all this filth.’
I laughed and said, ‘You’ve waited so long. You can wait until morning now. Let the poor pastor sleep.’
And so Sabina received Christ as well. Tomorrow we’ll see the way these decisions shaped the rest of their lives…
How to Use the Armor: Notes from Last Night
Last night we finished our look at Paul’s teaching on the armor of God in Ephesians 6. Here’s the notes:
How do we use the armor of God in our personal battles?
First, Our Lifestyle:
- Truth: Eat and Drink God’s word as your daily food. Live a life of integrity.
- Righteousness: Receive God’s righteousness by faith, and let it shape your whole life.
- Prepared readiness from the Gospel message : Let your life choices be shaped by the need to spread the Gospel.
- Faith: Cultivate and inflame your trust in God as a perfect, divine person.
- Salvation: Let what God has done in Christ dictate how you see the world. (see above)
- Word of God: Trust God’s word—believing it and speaking it—as your go to in life. Not other things.
- Prayer: “Pray at all times.” Regular set times of prayer, all-day constant prayer. Pray for other believers—6:18!
Second, in Specific Instances:
Temptation (Source: Circumstances, Personal Inclinations, Spiritual Attack)
- Truth: Speak and live truly in every situation.
- Righteousness: Test everything by the character of God.
- Let all-day readiness characterize you, and you’ll see opportunities instead of temptations. Use the gospel to diffuse tempting circumstances!
- Faith: Use God’s word to remind you what God says about life to contradict the temptation.
- Salvation: See sin as the thing that Christ suffered for, and that God will eradicate from the world.
- Word of God: Know and use Scripture to contradict the lie of the temptation.(Eph 4:22, Pr 6:27, Mt 5)
- Prayer: Pray about not entering in to temptation (Mt 6:13) and pray when you’re tempted (Heb 2:18) Pray for other’s issues with temptation (6:20)
Discouragement
- Truth: Let what is real weigh more heavily on your mind than what is not
- Righteousness: Dwell on the righteousness God has given to you freely—Christ’s!
- Gospel prep: Let the fact that God is winning the battle drive you to share his Good news.
- Faith: Believe God’s word instead of what a discouraging thought says.
- Salvation: See the world through the lens of redemption. Remind yourself of your salvation.
- Word of God: Know & use scripture to bring encouragement to yourself.
- Prayer: Talk to God about your discouragement. Look to him for encouragement.
Disorientation
1. Truth: Remember that God and His universe exists even if we can’t see it.
5. Salvation: Remember that God made the world and is working to bring it to an end.
6. Word of God: Let the actual words of Scripture shape your thoughts when you can’t find the way
7. Prayer: Keep asking God for what you need.
Persecution
- Truth: Live out what is true no matter what is costs. You won’t gain anything by cutting corners.
- Righteousness: Let your life of righteousness assure you that your suffering is not from sin.
- Gospel prep: Fight opposition by speaking the Gospel—Rom 1:16!
- Faith: Believe God over the promises of persecution—that loss or suffering are ultimate.
- Salvation: Remember that you are part of God’s plan to remake the world anew. Remember that Christ suffered and helps those who suffer.
- Word of God: Believe and speak God’s word in the face of persecution.
- Prayer: Bring your needs to God.
Spreading the Gospel
- Truth: Know that everyone and every situation needs the gospel. Never shy away from it.
- Righteousness: Trust what Christ has done to make you righteous “enough” to share. Live it out to strengthen your assurance.
- Gospel prep: Let the implications of the Gospel make you eager to share it. Prepare!
- Faith: Believe the gospel for yourself and others, over appearances or opposition.
- Salvation: Know and get excited about your personal salvation ,an about the big, global sweep of what God is doing in the world through the death, resurrection and return of Christ.
- Word of God: Trust the Word of God by using it to speak in to people’s lives.
- Prayer: Pray for opportunities, for specific unbelievers and during every conversation.
Sum up: God has provided everything we need for the battle we face. We should notice when we’re trusting other things, and seek to rely on what He has provided instead.
Does Finding the Higgs Boson Disprove God’s Existence?
I still have yet to learn, really, what this thing even is…but we should probably all get up to speed since it seems like everyone will be talking about it for a few weeks. (The decay time of news is very short in our culture these days.) Here’s a post by William Lane Craig to get your feet wet:
Question: Hello Dr. Craig,
…I have read an article claiming the the scientists at the CERN supercollider have actually found the Higgs Boson (“God Particle”). All my atheist friends are now ranting, raving, and, more or less, partying over the fact that now “God has been disproved!” So my question is: assuming that CERN has found this boson, what theological implications does the Higgs boson have?
With many thanks, T.C.
Answer: The reaction of your atheist friends to this discovery, T.C., is eloquent testimony to the deplorable state of science education in our country which has been frequently lamented by professional scientists.
Without wanting to spoil the party, I have to say that this impressive achievement just has no theological implications of any direct sort, so far as I can see. The Higgs boson is the final particle postulated by the standard model of particle physics to be empirically confirmed. The standard model postulates various fundamental sub-atomic particles like quarks, electrons, photons, and the like in order to explain three of the fundamental forces of nature, namely, the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces. The fourth fundamental force, gravity, is left out of the standard model.
One of the theoretical particles in the standard model is a type of particle, called a boson, which is responsible for a field permeating space which determines the mass of various other particles moving through space. For example, the photon has zero mass, whereas the electron has a small mass. This particle has been called the Higgs boson after Peter Higgs, the physicist who predicted its existence, and the corresponding field the Higgs field.
Because the Higgs boson decays so quickly and requires such extraordinarily high energies to create, it took considerable time, effort, and money to finally provide empirical confirmation that the standard model was correct in postulating such a particle. It is one of those wonderful instances in science where theoretical predictions were shown to be correct by experimental scientists.
I think you can see that this confirmation just has no theological significance, except in an indirect sense (e.g., testimony to the mathematical order and beauty of nature). In particular, it changes nothing for cosmological arguments for the universe’s beginning or teleological arguments concerning the fine-tuning of the universe, since those arguments have proceeded on the assumption that the standard model of particle physics is correct (–at least so far as it goes! We still need a Grand Unified Theory in order to explain the physics of the universe prior to the emergence of the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces as distinct forces. And prior to that we need a quantum theory of gravity or so-called Theory of Everything to incorporate the gravitational force. We have neither of these yet.) All that was wanting was empirical confirmation of the standard model with respect to the Higgs boson. Now we apparently have that; so much the better! Nothing has changed.
The contrary impression, evidently shared by your friends, is undoubtedly due to the appellation “the God particle” given to the Higgs boson by Leon Lederman in his 1993 book The God Particle. Some people seem to think that the Higgs boson takes the place of God. In fact, however, Lederman called it “the God particle” for two reasons: (1) like God, the particle underlies every physical object that exists; and (2) like God, the particle is very difficult to detect!
I really like Lederman’s nomenclature because it highlights two aspects of God’s existence, first, His conservation of the world in being, and, second, the hiddenness of God. With respect to the first, according to Christian theology, God not only created the universe in being, but He upholds it in being moment by moment. Were He to withdraw His sustaining power, the universe would be instantly annihilated. Similarly, on a physical level, without the Higgs boson nothing would have any mass and the universe would be devoid of physical objects. (By the way, no fear that the Higgs boson supplants God in conserving the universe because the Higgs boson is itself a contingent particle, which decays almost as soon as it is formed, so that it does not exist necessarily, and the Higgs boson and the Higgs field themselves are the products of the Big Bang and so non-necessary and non-eternal.)
With respect to the second point, it is part and parcel of the problem of evil that God is hidden. Not only is He undetectable by the five senses, not being a physical object, but He sometimes seems frustratingly absent when we need Him most. But the lesson of the Higgs boson is that physical undetectability is no proof of non-existence, and something can be objectively there and real, even pervasively present, even when we have no direct evidence of its presence. Just because you may not see God’s hand at work when you are suffering, that doesn’t imply that God is not present and active in your situation unbeknownst to you. So the Higgs boson is a nice reminder of these features of God’s existence.
It’s a shame that atheists who have little understanding of science or theology should party over something that has not happened and miss what is truly celebratory in this triumph of human reason and discovery.
–William Lane Craig
(Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/higgs-boson-discovered#ixzz20EF0WKFL)
Rich and Sabina’s Story: Part 2
We continue today with the story of Rich and Sabina, with Rich narrating his time after his marriage when he was recovering from tuberculosis.. (Click here to read part one.) And don’t worry, Sabina will be in the next part…
Although I had read the Bible for its literary interest, my mind closed at the point where the adversaries challenge Christ: ‘Descend from the cross if you are the son of God’; and, instead, He dies. It seemed to prove His foes were right, and yet, I found my thoughts going spontaneously to Christ. I said to myself, ‘I wish I could have met and talked to Him’. Each day my meditation ended with this thought.
There was a woman patient in the sanatorium who was too ill to leave her room, but somehow she heard of me and sent a book about the Brothers Ratisbonne, who founded an order to convert Jews. Others had been praying for me, a Jew, while I wasted my life.
After some months in the sanatorium, I grew slightly better, and went to convalesce in a mountain village. Here I became friendly with an old carpenter, and one day he gave me a Bible. It was no ordinary Bible, as I learnt later: he and his wife had spent hours every day praying over it for me.
I lay on the sofa in my cottage, reading the New Testament, and in the days that passed Christ seemed to me as real as the woman who brought my meals. But not everyone who recognizes Christ is saved; Satan believes, and is not a Christian. I said to Jesus, ‘You’ll never have me for a disciple. I want money, travel, pleasure. I have suffered enough. Yours is the way of the Cross, and even if it is the way of truth as well, I won’t follow it.’ His answer came into my head, like a plea: ‘Come my way! Do not fear the Cross! You will find that it is the greatest of joys.’
I read on, and again tears filled my eyes. I could not help comparing Christ’s life with mine. His outlook was so pure, mine so tainted; His nature so selfless, mine so greedy; His heart so full of love, mine filled with rancor. My old certainties began to crumble in the face of this wisdom and truthfulness. Christ had always appealed to the depths of my heart, to which my conscience had no access, and now I said to myself, ‘If I had a mind like His, I could rely on its conclusions.’ I was like the man in the ancient Chinese story, trudging exhausted under the sun, who came on a great oak and rested in its shade. ‘What a happy chance I found you!’ he said. But the oak replied, ‘It is no chance. I have been waiting for you for 400 years.’ Christ had waited all my life for me. Now we met.
Rich and Sabina’s Story: Part 1
Here’s a very edifying testimony about two young people, Rich and Sabina, who meet, fall in love and marry, and then encounter two major events that change everything for them. Rich narrates their story:
My schooling was poor, but we had many books at home. Before I was ten I had read them all and become as great a skeptic as the Voltaire I admired. Yet religion interested me. I watched the rituals in Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches, and once in a synagogue I saw a man I knew praying for his sick daughter. She died the next day, and I asked the rabbi, ‘What God could refuse such a desperate prayer?’ and he had no answer. I could not believe in an all-powerful being who left so many people to starve and suffer, still less that he had put on earth one man of such goodness and wisdom as Jesus Christ.
I grew up and went into the business world of Bucharest. I did well, and before I was twenty-five I had plenty of money to spend in flashy bars and cabarets and on the girls of ‘Little Paris,’ as they called the capital. I did not care what happened so long as my appetite for fresh sensation was fed. It was a life which many envied, yet it left me in great distress of mind. I knew it to be counterfeit and that I was throwing away like trash something in me that was good and which could be put to use. Although I was sure there was no God, I wished, in my heart, that it was otherwise, that there should be a reason for existing in the universe.
One day I went into a church and stood with other people before a statue of the Virgin. They were praying, and I tried to say with them, ‘Hail Mary, full of grace…’ but I felt quite empty. I said to the image, ‘Really, you are like stone. So many plead, and you have nothing for them.’
After my marriage, I continued to pursue other girls. I went on chasing pleasure, lying, cheating, asking myself no questions, hurting others, until, at twenty-seven, these excesses combined with early privations to bring on tuberculosis. It was at that time a dangerous disease and it seemed for a while that I might die. I was afraid. At a sanatorium in the countryside I rested for the first time in my life. I lay looking out at the trees, and thought about the past. It came back to me like scenes from an agonizing play. My mother wept for me; my wife had wept; so many harmless girls had wept. I had seduced and slandered, mocked and bluffed, all for a sham. I lay there and tears came.
In that sanatorium I prayed for the first time in my life, the prayer of an atheist. I said something like this: ‘God, I know that You do not exist. But if perchance You exist, which I deny – it is for You to reveal Yourself to me; it is not my duty to seek You.’
My whole philosophy had been materialistic until then, but my heart could not be satisfied with it. I believed in theory that man is only matter and that, when he dies, he decomposes into salt and minerals. Yet I had lost my father, and had attended other funerals, and I could never think of the dead except as people. Who can think of his dead child or wife as a heap of minerals? It is always the beloved person who remains in the mind. Can our minds be so mistaken?
My heart was full of contradictions. I had passed hours in noisy places of amusement among half-naked girls and exciting music, but I liked also to take lonely walks through cemeteries, sometimes on winter-days when snow lay heavy on the graves. I said to myself: ‘One day I, too, will be dead and snow will fall on my tomb, while the living will laugh, embrace and enjoy life. I shall be unable to participate in their joys; I shall not even know them. I will simply not exist any more. After a short time, nobody will remember me. So what use is anything?’