Your Uncle's Third Nipple

November 6, 2006 - 8:15am

Some Christians and scientists seem to enjoy fighting about evolution, natural selection, and creationism. At least I hope they enjoy it. It would be a shame to spend so much time doing something that you dislike.

The scientists bring a lot to this fight. They’re scientists, first of all, and we hold them in awe because of that. I know whenever I see a scientist on the street, I stop and stare. It’s the white coat, goggles, and the little flask with a rubber stopper that get my attention. Also scientists can write down all sorts of information using mathematical symbols. I don’t know what that stuff means, but it makes me think that they know something. And you have to give them this: the scientific method is impressive. The scientists always do their homework. They aren’t sloppy.

The Christians always come to the fight with the same old, tired argument. The second law of thermodynamics. They LOVE the second law of thermodynamics. It’s their trump card, their patron saint of science, their “nanny-nanny boo-boo,” and they never get tired of talking about it.

You see, the second law of thermodynamics states that entropy always increases within a system. Things move toward disorder. When left to their own, things do not grow more complex. The energy in the system diffuses, and the system winds down toward inactivity.

In other words, if you toss a ham sandwich on the sidewalk, you wouldn’t expect to come back 10,000 years later and find it smiling at you.

So the basic argument coming from the creationist’s point of view is that you shouldn’t expect complex things like fingers and flippers and fundamentalists to develop out of single celled organisms. And this argument sounds pretty good on the surface.

Except that it’s completely wrong.

The second law of thermodynamics applies to closed systems that have no external source of energy. But if there is an external source of energy, things move from disorder to order all the time. You don’t believe me? Go clean up your kitchen.

The earth, you see, has an external source of energy. Turn your eyes toward the sky. Now move your head around until your eyes start to hurt real bad. See that huge ball of fire? There you go.

Things on the earth do move from disorder to order. Not in my daughter’s bedroom, mind you, but in other places. This is what the scientists are talking about. They have seen evidence of complex systems developing out of lesser complexity. If I was a scientist I could demonstrate this – plus I’d get the lab coat and goggles – but you can trace the energy behind putting your kitchen in order all the way back to the sun.

God doesn’t have to micromanage the rise of complex organisms from more primitive forms. The sun plus unthinkable amounts of time do the trick. If you want to believe that God handles every detail, you can, but that doesn’t work very well, philosophically. It makes the problem of evil hurt real bad. Like sun on your eyeballs.

If this upsets your theology, I know that’s hard. It’s always hard to change the way you think about God. But you need to let your theology flex and bend to fit our ever-growing understanding of the way the world works. I know that sounds like heresy, but our theology changes as our knowledge of the cosmos grows. It always has.

I say we should take this conversation to the stars. Lift your eyes from the squirming fur that covers our planet and consider the heavens. Leave the shadows of the cave wall and stop spitting paint on the back of your hands. Stop worrying about why your uncle grew a third nipple and look to the galaxies and the universe.

I don’t know who came up with the idea of stars spinning around black holes in beautiful, random patterns while life does or does not develop in all its awesome diversity, but that person is a fucking ARTIST. That is large. Fling the stars onto an ocean of dark matter and let them do their thing. I swear I can feel the joy rising to my skin and then up to my scalp when I think of it.

That artist. That’s who I’m talking about. Whoever or whatever set all of this in motion. Whoever dreamed up the stars and delights in their handiwork.

That’s who I’m singing to.

rlp

Some information about thermodynamics here, here, and here.

Submitted by Keith on November 6, 2006 - 9:06am.

Far more marvelous is the truth than any artists of the past imagined it. Why do the poets of the present not speak of it? What men are poets who can speak of Jupiter as if he were a man, but if he is an immense spinning sphere of methane and ammonia must be silent?
--R.P. Feynman

Nice poeting.

Submitted by Anonymous User on November 6, 2006 - 9:24am.

wow. i like your writing. have you in my rss feed. but i was completely floored by your use of the "f-word."

i realize you are not the typical baptist preacher, but you are a talented writer and surely you could think of an equally effective and more appropriate descriptive. as far as i know, the artist to which you refer has not done the f-thing, as Christ was born of a virgin.

on a side note, i live in waco. i'm always a bit disappointed when i hear truett students use language in normal converstaion that i would not want my children to use. after all, they are the future ministers in the churches where my kids might be.

perhaps i'm just a bit old-fashioned....

Submitted by rlp on November 6, 2006 - 10:26am.

Hi there,

You are why I hesitate to use this word and don't very often. Nice people like you. And I don't want the power of my writing to be diffused by the jolt of one word.

The f-word is powerful, and it can be over-used. I assure you that I take language and words far too seriously to be flippant with them. I agonized over this. I wrote the paragraph out three different ways. My conclusion was this: The tone of this piece was irreverent, a bit saucy, with a little attitude. And as I wrote that paragraph I found myself emotionally juiced, so that's the way I said it. That's how it came out - full of excitement. The f-word used to be an angry word, and very forbidden. These days it has become a powerful word of emphasis, WHEN USED IN THE RIGHT CONTEXT AND NOT OVERUSED.

Honestly, I felt that if I changed it, I would be false to myself as a writer. When I write I bear a large burden of honesty. Were you and I speaking in person, I would bear a large burden not to cause offense to you unless there was no avoiding it.

Right or wrong, I felt that phrasing best expressed what I felt. And yes, we of the younger generation (I say that relatively since I am in my 40s) are not offended by this word very much. Language is like that. Words change and are accepted and rejected with every era.

Thank you for the kind way you challenged me. I've been challenged about my language in harsher, more accusing ways. You should know that using the f-word gets me nothing and risks a lot for me, personally. My mother reads me, as does my mother-in-law. And they feel as you feel. I don't want to offend either of them, since I love them. Sometimes I just go with my gut and say it as it comes to me. This was one of those times.

Submitted by Anonymous User on November 6, 2006 - 10:35am.

Actually, you don't speak for the younger generation when you say they are not offended very much. Despite your rationalizations, it was unnecessary and detracts from your point. And, especially in this context, it is offensive to most people of all ages.

Submitted by Keith on November 6, 2006 - 10:45am.

It was necessary and absolutely pivotal. The fact that it offended some people doesn't change that.

There are two ways to write: You can either tell the truth or not.

Part of my own truth is that I'm never sure how to behave here, and I say things sometimes that probably come off oddly, because I'm not entirely at ease. I didn't grow up anywhere near the traditions and contexts that many of the regulars find natural. So I'm not even sure my participation in this exchange is appropriate.

I don't know anything about preachering, but I do know something about writing. And following the "Tell the truth" rule:

Without that word, this piece would have been much less. It wasn't until its occurence that I shared in the electricity.

Submitted by scout on November 6, 2006 - 12:42pm.

I'm with Keith here. At least to my generation, "fucking ____" indicates emphasis. I liken it to the use of "bloody" by our British contemporaries.

Submitted by Anonymous User on November 6, 2006 - 12:10pm.

So you are speaking for most people of all ages? :-)

Submitted by iandunn on November 6, 2006 - 1:04pm.

I'm 23. I think RLP is right when he says that connotations change. I'm sure there are some people under 40 who are offended by words like "fuck"--probably because they were raised exclusively in a Christian subculture--but they're in the minority.

Submitted by Stacy McKenna Seip on November 6, 2006 - 5:53pm.

Actually, most of the poeple I know (including Christians) would not be offended by this usage of the word.

Submitted by Anituel on November 6, 2006 - 11:02pm.

I couldn't disagree more. Many great poets and lyricists use this technique. It's called 'shock', but not in a Marilyn Manson sense. It's shocking because it immediately jolts you awake. You aren't expecting the f-word, but BOOM! there it is, and you can't help but paying attention now. All of the moralizing in the world can't detract from its artistic merit, and I think that you're way over-thinking this. It's an artistic tool and nothing more or less than that. If RLP used the word all over the place like some of my friends tend to, perhaps I would be a bit offended or at least would doubt his vocabulary. As it stands, the use of a swear word once in a while is hardly a damnable offense.

"If God lived on earth, people would break His windows." ~ Jewish proverb

Submitted by Anonymous User on November 8, 2006 - 8:55pm.

The problem is that it's lost it's REAL shock value and in and of itself become DE-valued. In other words, it's hard for the f-bomb to have shock value when it's used so often in casual conversations.

Also, I believe that it was Tony Campolo (during a sermon) who once related the story of a woman who had an awful life. He told of the horrors and depravations she had gone through. He finished by saying, "She's had a really shitty time." There were gasps of horror at that. After a pause he concluded that it was a sad statement about Christianity that we are more horrified by the use of a foul word than horrifed by the suffering of this woman's life.

Submitted by Anonymous User on November 10, 2006 - 4:03pm.

Anonymous User Dude, speak for yourself.

Also, look what you've done - an entire thread about the stupid f-word, and nothing about the issue at hand. Does that word really deserve that much consideration, esp. in comparison to this topic? Seriously, maybe you should work on your focusing skills a little harder and quit volunteering for victimhood. If every little offensive act is going to be a stumbling block for you, you're gonna spend your entire life flat on your face.

Submitted by janb on November 6, 2006 - 3:31pm.

"as far as i know, the artist to which you refer has not done the f-thing, as Christ was born of a virgin."

The Artist to which rlp refers created "the f-thing" in all its messy beauty. Stars, sex, all the passion of the universe...beauty, delight, joy.

Submitted by Anituel on November 6, 2006 - 11:04pm.

Brilliant and true!

"If God lived on earth, people would break His windows." ~ Jewish proverb

Submitted by Anonymous User on November 7, 2006 - 12:09pm.

My daughter's dorm room window looks out at the George Truett Seminary.

I have to admit that she was already using the "f-word" before she rolled up to Baylor a few months ago.

I think these kids are learning and using these words before being exposed to those tough-talking Truett graduates.

Submitted by Anonymous User on November 8, 2006 - 3:51pm.

but, i would hope that she wasn't exposed to that word by a minister her at church- you know, the type that has graduated from truett

Submitted by papachil on November 6, 2006 - 9:29am.

Thanks, RLP, as usual. Do you say this stuff at church? I usually get some strange looks if I do :)

Submitted by Anonymous User on November 6, 2006 - 9:40am.

As usual, you are a good writer and we all drool while staring at the screen, reading RLP. But all that aside, I found this article Swartweldian in tone (that's a Simpsons compliment, in case anyone thought I was trying to be mean) and context, from the third nipple to the ten thousand year old smiling balogna sandwich! Really, great!

Submitted by Anonymous User on November 6, 2006 - 9:42am.

You don't have to clean your kitchen to see an external energy source bringing order from disorder. Take a look at hurricanes, tornados, and other large scale weather phenomenon.

Few things exhaust me as quickly as the creation/evolution debate. Truth of the matter is nobody knows. No one writing today was there when it happened. Nobody has a monopoly on the proper reading of Genesis. Likewise, the scientists don't have a complete understanding of how we got from primordial soup to space stations.

That said, the debate between young earth creationists and the mainstream scientific community does seem a bit like flat earth versus round earth.

I believe God reveals aspects of himself not only through the Bible but also through his creation (Romans 1:20), and so I wonder what we could learn about how God is at work in the world today by studying how he was at work on the long scale of evolution.

randall
lonetomato.blogspot.com

Submitted by Anonymous User on November 6, 2006 - 9:48am.

Thank you for being awesome. It's always so good to know that people like you exist - those who can see that science and religion are compatible instead of demonizing one side or the other.

Totally linking this over in my LiveJournal. I want to make sure the people on my flist check this out.

Submitted by Stacy McKenna Seip on November 6, 2006 - 10:00am.

Thank you, RLP. And now my head is ringing with the sound of MC Hawking's "Entropy". If you haven't heard it, you should. Despite the foul language, I think you'd enjoy it.
http://www.mchawking.com/multimedia.php?page_function=mp3z

Submitted by Simian Farmer on November 6, 2006 - 1:18pm.

I'm a big fan of MC Hawking, Stacy. Love that song in particular!

Submitted by Anonymous User on November 6, 2006 - 10:20am.

I thought the article was great until you dropped the f-bomb. It was unnecessary. Do you use this language in public? If not, then why use it in the public arena of your blog?

Submitted by rlp on November 6, 2006 - 10:32am.

See my answer to the person who commented above...

in addition: I don't write the way I speak, but yes I say the f-word sometimes. I think I'm careful about the context, of course. I don't write for Christians or other people who are offended by the f-word. I write for myself. I write to express my thoughts and feelings.

I'm not offended by the f-word at all, and find it to be very expressive. It's how people talk. Everywhere. We English speaking people use that word all the time. So why would I avoid it in writing?

Submitted by Anonymous User on November 6, 2006 - 1:09pm.

I'm not offended by the f-word, either. Well, probably because I use it on occasion. You are right, sometimes there isn't another word that expresses quite as well as that word does.

Either way, I appreciate your writings. My husband found your site for me a week ago when I was bothered and upset over the christian obsession with homosexuality. He found the blog you wrote (I think in 2003) and it really struck a chord. I appreciate you and your reality. Thank you for being a "real" christian to me.

Submitted by Anonymous User on November 8, 2006 - 8:59pm.

OK, RLP, I love you and all -- and I'm trying to be hip and cool and whatnot, but I, too, am offended by this kind of language.

But I am offended much more by the "G-d Damn" that most people let fly everyday. Or the "OMG" that people use so very casually.

Submitted by rlp on November 8, 2006 - 10:36pm.

You're a sweetheart, I can tell. And it is people like you that cause me to think twice. It's hard to be gutsy and edgy and honest without crossing a line or two. The truth is, whereever you go crosses someone's line.

Submitted by Anonymous User on November 6, 2006 - 10:34am.

Awesome.

Every word.

Submitted by Anonymous User on November 6, 2006 - 10:40am.

I liked this piece very much. Hope you'll also write something of how we believe that God is present in the creation and can care about us all at the same time as making things able to exist on their own. Because I don't think the Aristotelian god who just gets everything started and stays out of it completely is a god to have a relationship with or a religion around.

Submitted by mrupert on November 6, 2006 - 10:43am.

Funny that people still read a great post like this and fixate on one word. That word, as RLP says, is powerful, and without it the post would still be great, but that force at the end would be gone. It's needed there.

That said, great post...
[FTM]

Submitted by Anonymous User on November 6, 2006 - 10:44am.

I'm glad you still dare to use strong words, writing under your own name and all.

Submitted by Anonymous User on November 6, 2006 - 10:57am.

I approve of this.

-Jason

Submitted by Anonymous User on November 6, 2006 - 11:17am.

Great writing! What do you think of irreducible complexity?

Submitted by raj on November 6, 2006 - 11:48am.

I love this piece--it's beautiful and passionate and truth-telling from your heart, and that's why I keep coming back to this page, this place that you have made.

I didn't even notice the emphasis/profanity, it just worked. In this context it conveys awe and wonder and profound respect, to me. Language is so flexible like that.

Thanks as always, RLP.

Submitted by msog85 on November 6, 2006 - 12:06pm.

Your article is very interesting, however, I disagree with your assertion that God does not control every aspect of the universe, including the placement of every atom and molucule and the thought of every human being. I think all of these are predestined and sovereignly controlled by God. That being said, how is evil a problem if I believe this? As Jonathan Edwards notes, God's decree of evil allows his Glory to be more accurately displayed to his creation by allowing his infinite and perfect justice to operate in His creation in a way not otherwise possible without sin. Without any sin, we humans would have only a skewed sense of the justice of the Almighty.

Submitted by DSpitko on November 6, 2006 - 12:23pm.

Sorry MSOG85 - but I could not disagree more. I just can't concur that all is predestined. To do so requires the acceptance that God knowing orders up all the pain, illness, tragedies and evil of our existance. I know the usual responses to my disbelief, i.e. God sends us adversity to "test us" or we cannot see God's plan. Both are rationalizations simply to support the first assertion. To add to the debate about RLP using the f-word ... it seems to me that God created all of this wonderful universe and then shit happens.

Submitted by Anonymous User on November 6, 2006 - 2:49pm.

Really, if everything is predestined, that God is the maker of evil, there is no freewill, we are just cogs of the machine, our sin is of God's making and no grace. A rather dismal picture. Not my god.

Celle T.

P.S. I feel the iniability to find an appropriate, in-offensive way of saying things is only indicative of a failure to try. English is far richer than to lower ourselves to offensive language.

Submitted by Anonymous User on November 7, 2006 - 10:32am.

This is the most bizarre expression of hardcore Calvinism I've ever run across. If what you're saying is true then there is no sin, because there is no human agency. If I thought this was what the universe was really like I'd kill myself out of pure spite.

Submitted by msog85 on November 7, 2006 - 12:38pm.

Yes I am a Calvinist, however, as Jonathan Edwards writes, the main difference between Calvinism and Arminianism is the dispute of whether moral agency is required for moral responsibility. Calvinists, for the most part, believe that no moral agency is required for moral responsibility. As Paul says in Romans, who are we to argue with how God has made us. He chooses to harden those He will harden and have mercy on those He will have mercy. However, Arminians will argue that a person must have some form of agency for any moral responsibility. This seems counter to that afore mentioned passage in Romans though.

Submitted by scout on November 7, 2006 - 1:32pm.

Yikes, now I know why I consider myself a "recovering Calvinist."

Submitted by Anonymous User on November 8, 2006 - 9:01pm.

*Screaming*
Run away!!
Run away!!
*screaming*

Submitted by Anonymous User on November 8, 2006 - 9:02pm.

I really hate supralapsarianists.
But it was probably meant to be.

Submitted by Anonymous User on November 8, 2006 - 9:21pm.

Actually I'm an infralapsarianist.

Submitted by seebs on November 7, 2006 - 7:24pm.

I don't have much use for Edwards. The man took questionable notions and ran with them, focusing on pandering to the lowest human emotions and trying to make them sound like God was just like us, only infinitely meaner and more powerful.

Edwards offers a theology in which there is no way to tell God from Satan until you find out which wins. Both claim infinite power, both torture other creatures for the sheer joy of inflicting pain, and both think that this is somehow "glorifying".

Who does God have to impress?

In short, that Edwards supports a position is one of the best arguments I can see for guessing that the position will be found to be absolutely incompatible with anything Jesus ever said.

Submitted by msog85 on November 8, 2006 - 11:13am.

Can you point to a place in Edward's writing to support this?

Submitted by Keith on November 8, 2006 - 11:52am.

I think you already did.

Submitted by DSpitko on November 6, 2006 - 12:13pm.

Thanks for this writing RLP. Top shelf and thoughtful as usual. Regarding the f-word, when I read it, I interpreted it as RLP meant it. I know that he no longer uses it as much as he did earlier in RLP's life - and when I read it I understood that he was being more passionate than usual. Come on folks, this blog is RLP's personal thoughts and writings. He was just being intellectually honest - to both himself and us - no spin here. I enjoy reading his unsanitized (i.e. real) writings. And I am old enough to remember TV way before commercials for erectile dysfuntion and vaginal dryness ...

Submitted by Anonymous User on November 6, 2006 - 12:33pm.

Hi rlp...good stuff. Before I was ordained l0 years ago I spent 25 years of my life teaching anthropology at the college level (Ph.D. from Syracuse University, post doc at Cornell) Not to brag, just to say, not all scientists (even us "soft/social scientists") reject God's marvelous creation (this is really more about how we read the Bible-- literally or metaphorically) and not about science vs. religion. I have no doubt that the God that threw the universes (plural!) into being, also counts the hairs of my head and watches over the lilies of the field. These things are not mutually exclusive unless one is a literalist..then there's a problem. keep up the good writing..it cheers, encourages and makes us think (well me at least) Gail

Submitted by Anonymous User on November 6, 2006 - 12:36pm.

Hi rlp...good stuff. Before I was ordained l0 years ago I spent 25 years of my life teaching anthropology at the college level (Ph.D. from Syracuse University, post doc at Cornell) Not to brag, just to say, not all scientists (even us "soft/social scientists") reject God's marvelous creation (this is really more about how we read the Bible-- literally or metaphorically) and not about science vs. religion. I have no doubt that the God that threw the universes (plural!) into being, also counts the hairs of my head and watches over the lilies of the field. These things are not mutually exclusive unless one is a literalist..then there's a problem. keep up the good writing..it cheers, encourages and makes us think (well me at least) Gail

Submitted by Anonymous User on November 6, 2006 - 12:39pm.

Oh dear oh dear...I wrote before I read the comments. I think it is sad that we Christians see the trees and not the forest. The use of the f word was more important than what you said, the questions you raised? I recall a preacher who used the s word in a sermon-- paused and said, "Most of you will remember the swear word but not the message of the gospel-- what does that say about us Christians." Amen. Keep on my friend. You enliven and encourage most of us, f words or not. Thanks for the honesty..there's just too little of it in our church-- any church (and I was a General Conference Baptist for most of my life...) Gail

Submitted by scout on November 6, 2006 - 12:49pm.

Here's what I'm wondering: if you have to morph your theology in response to scientific discovery, doesn't that mean your theology has been wrong all along? Logically, won't it always be wrong...unless discovery ceases, or course.

Submitted by revscott on November 6, 2006 - 1:35pm.

But isn't theology ALWAYS a process of discovery? I don't think God handed down the Nicene Creed verbatim because God REQUIRED us to belive in that way: we use the Creeds because we've discovered this is the best way to begin getting into the mystery of God. The impact of science on theology can work in the same way. Some might argue that science eliminates the mystery of creation: I think science actually expands the mystery. Every time we think we've boiled creation down to one irreducible quantification, someone up and discovers something smaller and even more incomprehensible. Dark matter, the weight of light, it all shows me that our Creator is far, far beyond simplistic truths and absolute facts.

Thanks for this, Gordon - your truth and your art are, as always, inspiring.

Scott

Submitted by Anonymous User on November 6, 2006 - 2:54pm.

Science is continually rewritten as new discoveries come along. No one is bothered that the mechanistic world of Newton is replaced by the completely bizarre (from the Newtonian perspective) world of Relativity. Why should we be bothered if our theology much likewise evolve? As we understand the world better, it would seem quite natural that our theories (theological or scientific) must likewise adapt. It's not God who's adapting here; it's the story we tell of how we understand the world which is changing.

Celle T.

Submitted by scout on November 6, 2006 - 2:56pm.

So now theology is an evolving process? With all due respect, that seems like a cop out.

Submitted by Anonymous User on November 6, 2006 - 3:31pm.

How is it a cop out? Why should we believe that any domain is complete and perfect without need for amendation and correction? Are theologians somehow more perfect than scientists? And, if so, how do they come by such perfect knowledge?

Celle T.

Submitted by Lauren on November 6, 2006 - 4:15pm.

Theology that doesn't evolve is hopelessly unworthy of its name. As our study of all aspects of the created world evolves with greater knowledge, insight, and experience, so must our study of the Creator. Unfortunately, in many cases and domains, theology has been nothing more than an attempt to use pseudo-logic to defend a predetermined set of propositions -- held sacrosanct. Thus, the discipline is not only deeply suspect but incapable of enlightening its proponents. Instead it attempts to have its way through dogmatic rigidity that dooms its relevance, credibility, and value.

Lauren

Submitted by Stacy McKenna Seip on November 6, 2006 - 5:47pm.

If you think theology doesn't evolve, you've not read enough history of religion.

Submitted by scout on November 7, 2006 - 7:25am.

So you are perfectly comfortable with the notion that your theology could "evolve" until the idea of "god" is completely obliterated?

Submitted by Anonymous User on November 7, 2006 - 8:21am.

What are you afraid of? You seem to want to hold on to an idea for fear that you might be wrong. If theology evolves to the point that god is written out of the picture so be it. But by its very nature, that sounds to me like saying physics might evolve until matter is written out of the picture. I can't see how that will happen. If theology is the study of god, then god will always be the central focus of theology.

Celle T.

Submitted by scout on November 7, 2006 - 10:02am.

I'm not afraid of anything. I don't have any theology to which I'm beholden. I just think its a cop out - that theology somehow evolves every time science proves it wrong. It just seems that, at some point, you would have to just toss the whole thing out the window and admit that you were wrong before, you're still wrong now, and you'll always be wrong...and then face the conclusion that there is every liklihood that this god doesn't exist at all.

Submitted by rlp on November 7, 2006 - 8:18am.

you can call it a cop out or whatever you want, but there has never been anything but an evolving theology. Ask Galileo and Copernicus.

Theology has been, from the beginning, reflective of culture and the growing human understanding of the world. That's why slavery was theologically and Biblically acceptable, but now is not.

Submitted by scout on November 7, 2006 - 10:06am.

I agree with that - that theology has always been evolving. I guess my real question is what does that tell us? It tells me that its wrong. Science is ok with being wrong. I'm not so certain the church is. If it was, it wouldn't ask us to accept things on "faith" alone.

Submitted by rlp on November 7, 2006 - 11:21am.

Look, I think I can imagine the kinds of church settings and theology that would lead you to this conclusion. But there are many ways to think about theology. How about this: Theology is the imagining of humans about the nature of the reality that is beyond their ability to discover. Why speculate? Because we are driven to do so, the way we are driven to sing and fall in love.

Most of reality is completely beyond our ability to sense, and yet it is there. Think of theology as poetic songs to what is beyond us. In that case, it will always change with our knowledge, but always have a place because humans are limited in what we can know. The speed of light alone prevents us from knowing what is happening right now in most of the universe.

Submitted by Keith on November 7, 2006 - 12:13pm.

Theology is the imagining of humans about the nature of the reality that is beyond their ability to discover.

To play devil's advocate (or maybe just devil's riffer, two, three, four)...

That's what theroetical physics is, too. However, the physicists hope that at some point, there will be a way to test the imagining, at which time even the most beautiful theory may be proved wrong.

Is there a theology with any interest in (or ability to) test its conclusions?

If not, it seems to me that the beauty of the theory is what its truth is judged on. God as love--that's beautiful. God as the artist--also beautiful. But what else, besides beautiful, is it?

If I have my choice between poetic songs that are beautiful and true, and poetic songs that are beautiful, either will do when what I'm after is beauty. When what I'm after is truth, I'd rather say "I don't know" than assert "Beauty, truth, same thing."

Submitted by Anonymous User on November 8, 2006 - 9:03pm.

It's called "process theology" and all the cool seminarians are doing it.

Submitted by drpcp on November 6, 2006 - 1:00pm.

Bravo. Thank you RLP.

As a working scientist, and a biologist to boot, this hits home for me every day. I have been challenged by people who say that I can't do science and be a Christian -- and those challenges come from both sides of the spectrum. My usual response is quite similar to yours: everything is so intricate and detailed AND so expansive and beautiful that I want to know more about the hand that set it all in motion.

Like several above, I don't need for G-d to have put every atom into my being, I need for a faith that strives to explain the "whys" not the "hows" of the universe. Those are the questions I cannot answer at a bench, in a lab, or in a lecture hall. Those are also the questions that keep most of us going -- just for that glimpse.

pcp

Submitted by Bro. Bartleby on November 7, 2006 - 5:30pm.

Do you find that those who challenge you seem to have this children's Sunday school version of Christianity that they are really challenging? Over the past several months I have read many "de-conversion stories" of now self-proclaimed atheists, and far too many of the change from Christianity to atheisms came at an early age when their childhood curiosity was not addressed, and in many cases their childhood challenges of Biblical stories were not accepted by pastors and priests and mothers and fathers, and these kids could not help but wonder, why can't they give me a straight answer. And so it goes, their curiosity turned to science where skepticism is the hallmark, for a scientist that is not also skeptical, will more than likely be a poor scientist. Just the opposite of the 'organized' church, where skeptics are feared.

Submitted by Estepp on November 9, 2006 - 10:26am.

That was pretty much my experience, in turning from Christianity to Atheism in a young age (probably when I was bout 12-13).

All I wanted back then was to understand "why" and "how". Either people in the church couldn't answer my questions sufficiently, didn't bother trying to answer, or became angry at my "questioning of faith."

Well, not only are children inquisitive in nature, there's just too much to question about organized religion where a "because God said so" just didn't cut it for me.

 *** This is not a signature...***
http://www.projectlucidity.com 

Submitted by Anonymous User on November 6, 2006 - 1:15pm.

Amen and Amen...
I've been thinking about how to comment, but anything I have to say will not add to your points. Suffice it to say that I agree with you and remain amazed that folks who call themselves scientists and/or believers in God waste any amounts of energy in this debate. There is more than enough to do in utilizing the gifts of science and/or belief to alleviate suffering in the world; perhaps if we'd just forget our arrogance and need to be right for a little while....

just a wondering pastor

Submitted by Simian Farmer on November 6, 2006 - 1:23pm.

Thanks for the awesome post, RLP. That beautifully answers the question I emailed you a while ago.

Submitted by Anonymous User on November 6, 2006 - 1:33pm.

I agree the Earth gets energy from an external source (the sun). But usually the creation versus evolution argument centers around the origins of the universe, does it not? And, therefore, you have to consider whether the universe is a closed system, don't you?

This is my own armchair thinking here . . just thought this part of the argument was a little weak.

Love you, though, dude.

Submitted by rlp on November 6, 2006 - 3:00pm.

Yes, I understand what you say, and have considered it. But the argument has historically been about the earth and evolution here, with Christians arguing against evolution of life here on earth. My essay encourages us to raise the discussion to the stars and universe. My difference with you is that we don't know enough to know whether the universe is a closed system or not. The truth is, no one knows much about anything outside of our solar system. We don't even know that much about our solar system, actually.

Submitted by Keith on November 6, 2006 - 3:21pm.

Even if the universe is a closed system (which I assume it is, given that the first law of thermodynamics doesn't seem to stop working), we don't know enough to insist it's not tending toward heat equilibrium. So the expansion of the argument, taking it away from evolution and making it about all of creation, doesn't make much difference: It's still quite possibly heading toward entropy, not order.

Heat equilibrium is what you get when all the things that can bump into each other and crack apart have done so, all the available energy in its various forms has been converted to heat, and the universe settles into its new role as a very big, really boring place.

On the one hand, no war, no plague, no cruelty.

On the other hand, no steaks with the fat dripped all over them, no sunrises, no BATTLESTAR GALACTICA.

Luckily, if things do go that way, it won't be for many times the current age of the universe.

Which would be give-or-take 20 billion years if you think science has any kind of a grip on the question; around 6,000 years if you think Genesis is a reliable witness; or 22 months if you're one of my toddlers.

I'm supposed to be editing video.

Submitted by producer girl on November 6, 2006 - 3:50pm.

HA! This snapped me back to reality, as I too, am supposed to be editing video.

This discussion is too intriguing not to pop by and see what's been added. Great job, RLP.

Submitted by David Goldfarb on November 7, 2006 - 1:31am.

This is a nitpick, to be sure: current best estimate of the Universe's age is 13.7 +- .2 billion years, rather than 20 billion. It constantly boggles me that we can know it that precisely! (And really I have to take it on faith that we do.)

Submitted by Keith on November 7, 2006 - 6:25am.

Cool. When I went looking, I found "current best estimates" anywhere up to 40 billion. Which method gives 13.7 ±.2?

Submitted by David Goldfarb on November 8, 2006 - 12:34am.

Well, in Science News (where I first read about it) they said that it was based on models derived from several different kinds of astronomical observation -- of quasars, of the cosmic background radiation, and so on. See for instance here. There's also an interesting discussion of measuring the age here.

Submitted by Keith on November 8, 2006 - 11:22am.

That kooky cosmic background radiation. It just won't let Genesis be...

Submitted by Anonymous User on November 7, 2006 - 3:06pm.

Saying the university is 13.7 billion years old is not very precise at all. I can say I'm 42 years old. But, saying the university is 13.7 billion years old is a bit like saying I'm 42 years old give or take 100 million years.

Celle T.

Submitted by Keith on November 7, 2006 - 5:59pm.

It's actually more like saying someone whose birthday isn't known is 42.5 years old, give or take 6 months. What counts as "precision" depends on scale. If we were talking about hundreds of quadrillions of years, then ± a trillion years wouldn't be too shabby.

To put it another way: Your known age is most accurately expressed (by those of us who don't know your birthday) as 42.5 years ± 6 months. That's less precise than 13.7 ± .2 billion years.

Submitted by Anonymous User on November 7, 2006 - 8:05pm.

Your argument depends upon the placement of a decimal -- a rather relative thing. 137 hundred million years plus or minus 2 billion is pretty crappy by you reckoning. In either scale, narrowing it down to six months is pretty good. Being off by a couple billion years.... that's almost long enough for live to evolve all over again all the way up to us humans.

Celle T.

Submitted by Keith on November 7, 2006 - 8:31pm.

I'm not sure we're having the same conversation. You claimed imprecision; but the thing is, nobody claimed precision in the first place. All they claimed is that as far as we can tell, the age of the universe is somewhere between 13.5 and 13.9 billion years.

By my reckoning, 137 plus or minus 2 is exactly the same degree of precision as 13.7 plus or minus .2, or 1370 plus or minus 20, or .00000137 plus or minus .00000002. Whether that's a meaningful degree of precision is a judgment call--but I think I may be missing your point. What was your reason for calling the figure imprecise?

Submitted by Anonymous User on November 8, 2006 - 7:21am.

I was merely responding so someone else writing in this blog who wondered how we could know the age of the universe so "precisely." I was trying to point out that 13.7 billion years isn't quite what I would call precise.

Celle T.

Submitted by Keith on November 8, 2006 - 10:30am.

Ah! Now I get it.

Well, compared to "We don't know," it's pretty accurate.

Submitted by Anonymous User on November 8, 2006 - 9:05pm.

Damn! Me too. I'm swapping over to Final Cut Pro and it's great.

Submitted by Anonymous User on November 7, 2006 - 2:33pm.

If you expand the system boundaries to the entire universe, then second law arguments against evolution fall apart, since the second law speaks to overall order and chaos of the entire system, not localized and transient effects, such as one must consider life on Earth to be in the scale of the entire universe.

-bigbrotherinlaw

Submitted by Anonymous User on November 6, 2006 - 1:56pm.

Exactly...a little weak on the details of the debate...although I do realize that wasn't your point. There's certainly a lot of detail...more than a vague "2nd Law". Take the origin of language. I mean, I'm sure you've spent time pondering DNA.

Nontheless...as above. Love you, thank you.

Submitted by jfmuggs on November 6, 2006 - 2:18pm.

Gordon,
I won't disagree with the points you make. I've often wished that seminaries would have stronger (that is to say any) science requirements for admission. Personally, I take the whole debate on evolution to be based in people's fears about not being at the pinnacle of creation. We get so touchy about our place in the cosmos 8-).
About God micromanaging creation: there are those involved in Process theology who would say that the evolutionary process is actually a prime example of where God is found. I've never been big on thinking that being God (forgive me, Paul Tillich 8-) means that everything has to be done by a transcendent fiat. If God is powerful enough to set the universe in motion, why not do it up right and actually have it be intelligible and dynamic? It would be enough to give light and life to the earth, but to set in motion events that can lead to the diversity we observe around us is, to me, a stronger testimony (strains of "Dayenu").

JFred

Submitted by jhamlinn on November 6, 2006 - 3:15pm.

Is it possible that folks get lost in the "appropriateness" of the "f-word" because actually facing the awesomeness of creation and the spirit within it is so mindblowing that we shy away in fear, or at least awkwardness. Perhaps it is simply our way of not looking on the face of God, we create our own smoke screen

Submitted by quasifictional on November 6, 2006 - 3:21pm.

It's a powerful and stunning thing to look out and realize that we are this little bit in the universe, is it not?

I was just thinking of it last night.