I just watched another one of those “Biblical mysteries explained” documentaries where they explained how the cities of Sodom and Gommorah were actually destroyed as the result of an asteroid hitting Europe and the subsequent fallout.
The science was interesting, and the show seemed to take an almost apologetic approach toward the faithful as if to say, “hey, no hard feelings. Go on believing in your stories if they make you feel good, but we’ve just uncovered the truth behind your myth.”
I’m always frustrated at the incredibly simplistic view people take of the “could there really be a God in light of all that science has taught us?” As if a) human beings have a monopoly on all the there is to know and b) just knowing how something happened somehow explains everything.
First, let me say that you won’t get a typical creationist type of argument from me. You know, the kind that gets Christians ridiculed for checking their brains at the door. Nor will you find me trying to counter what science has uncovered, as though facts could somehow be ignored.
No, I believe that phenomena can be explained given enough investigation, and that there is no such thing as magic. Which is why I don’t have a problem with evolution, dinosaurs or the big bang. Because they’re all based on investigative fact.
What I do have a problem with is the seeming checking the brains at the door of athiests who can’t see beyond causation to consider the possibility of intent. I mean there is obviously a natural order of things. We can observe it in the world around us, and read about its nuts and bolts in textbook after textbook. But we seem to forget that as humans, we also harness, play with, modify, adjust, manipulate and use that natural order for all sorts of things on a regular basis.
For example, we are able to manipulate materials to form a wing which creates lift in order to adjust the natural order of things and make humans fly. 747s aren’t any more natural than an irrigation system. We play a part in their inception because of our intent to accomplish something.
This is my point if view. That there is a God, who intends to do certain things and uses the natural universe and all of its properties to fulfill that intention. In other words, if God wanted to destroy Soddom, he’d very likely cause a meteor to strike the earth, or a volcano to explode, etc… “Ah,” you say, “those are all just natural phenomena that occur on their own.” And you’re right. Except for one thing, timing.
Moses’ plagues on Egypt have been explained as being the result of either an algae bloom in the Nile or volcanic activity that set off a chain reaction resulting in the plagues. Except that, wouldn’t it have sucked if it had happened a month after Moses tried freeing the Israelites? Similarly, most if not all of God’s interventions in the Bible are foretold by someone either issuing a warning, like the angels disguised as men who visited Lot and told him to take his family out of Soddom or Moses warning of the plagues that would come. I mean really, so they’ve shown that is wasn’t the Red sea, that it was the much shallower Reed sea, which would make it possible for a wind to push its waters aside. Sure, that’s cool. I just find it an an incredible stroke of timing on Moses’ part to know exactly when that extremely rare phenomenon would occur, and to make sure to be pursued by an army of Egyptians at that very moment in order to take advantage of it and make it look like God did it.
The list goes on and on of things being foretold before they happened, or things happening at just the right time. The same happens today. I’ve personally had things happen at just the right time for me to question if they were really coincidence. Of course it isn’t to say that God intervenes on a regular basis. How often, when and why are his prerogative.
I just call it like I see it. ★
I don’t disagree with you. There’s no reason why science and religion can’t go hand in hand. In reality, the laws of physics are constant, which means that if you knew the values of all variables at any point of time, it is possible to project the state of the universe at any other time. The problem for us humans is that we don’t even know what all the variables are, let alone their values. Sure, human psychology and (ir)rationality also have a part to play, but let’s ignore that for a bit.
I do have a problem with people who have blind faith. People who believe that they can sit back in their arm chairs and pray and God will fix that huge tumour growing out of their liver. The old adage “God helps those who help themselves” has some merit. I prefer to think that if there is a God, it definitely intends for its creations to help themselves. We just need to look at ourselves when building artificially intelligent systems. Perhaps this God is just a geek who gets a thrill out of seeing things unfurl the way they were designed to.
Ara, even though we disagree in our belief structure and even though I have had the aforementioned arguments with religious believers, this is one of the most intelligent points of view I have heard.
From either side.
Well said.
Here is my take on this whole science vs. religion thing:
If we assume that the universe was created by an omnipotent being then we can also assert the following:
1. The omnipotence implies that the creator will know the exact state of every single atom of his creation, at any given point in time – from the moment of inception, to entropic destruction of universe. This includes knowledge of completely “random” events. In other words, universe is a deterministic finite state machine of sorts.
2. This in turn implies that every event that occurs in the created universe has been known by the omnipotent being before the act of creation. Every event can be traced to some previous condition that can be eventually traced to the moment of creation (ie. before big bang – maybe long, long before that even).
In other words “everything that happens, happens according to god’s plan” – after all, omnipotence.
3. Because of the above, every miracle and “divine” intervention can be explained using science. The will and intent behind these events is still divine though – it just that the presence of actual divinity cannot be detected in any scientific way. You have to remember that omnipotence transcends space and time – therefore we can assume that every thought and act of god occurs simultaneously across time.
So, God actually knows he will decide destroy Sodom and Gomorrah before he creates the universe. In fact, because he is omnipotent, he already decided to destroy it, just like he decided everything else – simultaneously prior to creation, in the moment, and after it.
Ergo, the destruction of the two cities is built into the pattern of creation. The universe will unfold in such a way which will result in random meteor crashing down and destroying these settlements. It will be a natural event, but also divine intervention.
Does that make sense?
Corollary to this is that science is actually a way to get closer to god. I mean, what better way there is to get closer to a creator than by studying his creation?
Luke: Not being omnipotent beings ourselves, it’s a little difficult to grasp the whole idea of seeing the whole of space time before us in one, non-linear thing. So I’ll try my best to draw crude parallels according to the best of my understanding.
The way I see it, God created the universe (multiverse?) with certain ground rules–what we’d call physics, chemistry, etc… He also created this universe with the intent for humanity (all self-aware beings?) to love Him. But since love can never be pre-programmed and still be genuine love, He also created choice (quantum superstate?).
Being outside of space time, He’s able to observe time unfold non-linearly so He has knowledge of people’s choices before they make them. Thus He’s able to intervene, maybe even to the point of pre-programming certain things to occur at certain times.
Like I said, it’s a crude approximation. I think Einstein said it best, “As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality..”
Hi Ara, I personally have a couple of problems with your theory. Firstly natural order doesn’t require intent. Complexity can emerge from pure randomness. Take ants for example. Out of purely random behaviour it appears that a colony of ants are coordinated and purposeful. That’s not proof of the non-existance of a god, it’s just that we don’t need the presence of a god to explain the apparent purposeful behaviour of ants.
The other problem I have is that your theory assumes that events in the bible actually happened and that the bible is an accurate record of those events.
Just another opinion from ‘the other side’.
Cheers