Meeting Saturday

We'll have a meeting at my place this Saturday at noon. We'll be discussing some cosmology. That is, to put it simply, we'll talk about how the "heavens declare the glory of God (Ps 19:1)."

The Problem of Evil (part 2?)

One of the things about the Problem of Evil (and by the way, thank you Laura for reminding me that there is a technical term for the POE: "theodicy") is that it can't be summed up in a simple answer. You can't boil it down to a yes or no question.

For example, let's say you are confronted with a skeptic who says that he (or she) is upset about the idea of hell. He just can't believe that a loving God would consign people who don't believe in Him to a place like hell. Then he goes on to say that his mother was a good, kind person, who gave money to charity, helped out with the elderly, and cared for some of her friends when they were sick. But she recently had a terminal illness and passed away. And she was a non-believer. Then he asks you, "Do you believe she went to hell?"

Put on the spot like that, many of us (if answering truthfully), would have to say, "Yes." But it's so much more than a one word answer (even for those of us who believe "no").

What are your thoughts?

The Problem of Evil (part 1?)

I was thinking about the "Problem of Evil" (POE) last night, while laying in bed trying to go to sleep. I didn't get very far in thinking about it, since I fell asleep really quickly, but I was troubled by something I had heard about it. Apparently, from studies regarding the public perception of the Christian faith, it turns out that the POE is the biggest stumbling block to people believing in the God of the bible. I've also noted this from experience; it seems that I've heard more objections to the Christian faith regarding the POE than anything else.

The POE takes many forms, and lots of people don't even realize they're essentially the same thing. For example, there seems to be a large interest in this question "Why won't God heal amputees?" The idea is that, if God is good and real (ie, if He exists), then He would do miraculous healings of all kinds, not just of the kinds that people would normally recover from (such as sickness or broken bones). Since we don't see any amputees being healed, that must mean that all healing is natural, and probably means that God doesn't exist. After all, wouldn't He want to heal amputees?

This is just a special case of the famous syllogism (I don't know who originally came up with it):

• Premise 1: If God were all good, He would want to eliminate evil.
• Premise 2: If God were all powerful, He would be able to eliminate evil.
• Observation: Evil exists.
• Conclusion: God is either not all good, not all powerful, or neither good nor powerful (but He can't be both good and all powerful).

This syllogism has multiple logical problems with it, of course, but simply pointing out those inconsistencies isn't usually enough to persuade non-believers to accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

I'll have more on this later, but for now, what are your thoughts on the POE?

I agree with Richard Dawkins

OK, first, I want to apologize for riding Richard Dawkins so much. This isn't a blog about him, and regardless of his views about Christianity, we really should not view him as some sort of "enemy".

That being said, this post is about him, but with an unusual twist: I agree with him. To some extent.

After thinking more and more about the topic that I posted the other day, I decided that I might want to read his The God Delusion. So, I was browsing for it on amazon.com and found a short video interview where Dawkins is talking about his book.

In short, he says three things that I would agree with. (The rest of what he said, I pretty much disagree with.) First, he says that the question of whether God exists is an interesting, exciting question. Not much else to say about that.

Second, he says that the question of whether God exists is a scientific question. This is not to say it is purely a scientific question. It is also philosophical, historical, personal, and, of course, theological, to name a few other adjectives. But what he is saying here is that we can discover whether God likely exists or not based on our study of the natural world. That sounds like what I've been saying all along. He is basically refuting those atheists that are trying to keep God and science apart, who say that science can only discover natural phenomena, and can say nothing about the supernatural.

Then he goes on to say why he thinks it's a scientific question, which is the third point of agreement for me. He says a universe created by God (or one in which a god or gods exist(s)) would look completely different from one in which no supernatural being or force acted. I agree wholeheartedly. I just disagree about his conclusion. He goes on to say that this universe looks more like one in which there is no supernatural.

And that's the sticking point. But this is a good thing. If people are ready to put their theories to the test, then in the end, the truth will eventually come out. (I think.)

The Probability of God

I had a revelation this morning while I was swimming.

I had been thinking of something I read regarding a common atheist response to the anthropic principle (see my post from June 1). There is so much design apparent in the universe, it would be a monumental coincidence for all of this to happen by chance. But the atheists say that that does not prove God exists, because no matter how improbable our universe is, the statistical probability of God existing is even more remote. (Apparently, this is one of Richard Dawkins' arguments in The God Delusion; I haven't read it, but I was reading a book that critiqued it.)

The more I thought about it, the more absurd that argument seemed. First, my response was, "Who sez?" Or perhaps more eloquently, "How can you demonstrate that?" It seems to me that there is a fallacy of burden of proof here. After a statement like Dawkins', proponents of the Christian faith may be left sputtering, trying to figure out how to show that the probability of God existing is not as remote as Dawkins says it is. However, that is overlooking two things. First, perhaps Dawkins should be proving that it is remote, rather than the other way around. Looking at it that way, Dawkins' counterargument here to the anthropic principle seems to rest on an unprovable assumption. But even more intriguing is that this is a red herring fallacy as well. Simply saying that God, as an explanation for the improbability of this universe, is Himself improbable does not explain how we got here. It's just a negative argument against one explanation of how we got here. What we're left with in Dawkins' treatment of the situation is that we are here because we are here. Which doesn't answer any of the big questions at all.

So that's two logical fallacies Dawkins seems to be committing here. (And please forgive me if I'm not representing his case very well. I really should do my homework before critiquing someone else's position.) First is shifting the burden of proof, and second is the red herring fallacy.

But it gets worse.

The second thing I realized this morning is that the statement "no matter how improbable this universe is by chance, the probability of God is even less" is tantamount to saying "the probability of God existing is zero." Think about it. The only non-negative number that is guaranteed to be smaller than all positive numbers is zero. This is quite a strong statement. It goes far beyond saying God doesn't exist. It says that God cannot exist. In other words, Dawkins is using an assumption that God cannot exist to try to prove that God does not exist. It is a completely circular argument.

Here's another way to think about it, for the more math-oriented folks. In probability and statistics, the proof we're trying to make is something called a conditional probability. We see an improbable universe around us. What is the probability that God exists given we live in an improbable universe (ie, what's P(G|U))? Using Bayesian inference, we can easily come up with:

P(G|U) = P(G)/(epsilon + P(G)).

Here P(G) is the prior probability that God exists, and "epsilon" is the small chance that this universe came together by coincidence (all scientists would agree that epsilon is very small...something like 10^-50 or less). When doing Bayesian inference, you often have to bring in some a priori assumptions to assign prior probabilities (hence the name), so we have to guess at what P(G) is. But you never outright assume that P(G) is identically zero (or one). That would be the same as saying "no matter what our studies tell me, I will choose to believe X." (That's called blind faith.) Usually, when you don't know, you simply set your prior probabilities equal to 1/2. It's easy to see that P(G|U) (the probability that God exists given the universe we live in) would be extremely close to one for any reasonable choice of P(G). The only choice that makes P(G|U) small is P(G) = 0. Which is apparently what Dawkins wants to say.

Perhaps I'll write more on this later, but for now, I'd appreciate any comments.
.
.

Review of meeting about Genesis 2, part 3 (of 3)

In my first two posts about our meeting from July 13 (where we discussed Genesis 2), I addressed two common charges that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are conflicting, contradictory creation accounts. Here in this post, I will wrap up some miscellaneous discussions that we had during the meeting.

The first "miscellaneous" thing I noted was the length of Creation Day 6. In Genesis 1 (which, of course, does not conflict with Genesis 2), we are told that God created both Adam and Eve on Creation Day 6. However, in Genesis 2, which offers an expanded view of the relationship we have with God, and the relationship we have with the physical creation, we find that Adam had many tasks to perform before the creation of Eve.

In particular, we are told that God brought the animals to Adam so that he could name them. In Hebrew culture, this implies much more than simply assigning a name to the creatures he sees (see previous post). Adam would have to become acquainted with each animal, determine its characteristics, and name it accordingly. Note that this is after we have Adam placed in the garden in order to tend and maintain it.

Also note that at the end of all of this, Adam was lonely. The text directly says that Adam was alone, not lonely, but we can infer from the text that Adam was also lonely. After God creates Eve, and Adam sees her for the first time, he says, "This is now bone of my bones /and flesh of my flesh (v. 23, NIV)." The Hebrew translated here as "This is now" could more rightly be translated "At long last." This implies that the sixth creation day would be quite a bit longer than 24 hours. How much longer is not implied by the text.

Next, we discussed what kind of "creation" we are talking about, when God created Adam and Eve. The point here is, if we are interesting in discussing our faith with scientifically-minded non-believers, we may need to address this question. To be honest, I wasn't prepared to talk about it, but it is a quite difficult question to address. This question contains implications for biblical interpretation, what exactly is the "imago dei" (image of God), and who we (as humans made in the image of God) are.

However, one thing we can certainly discuss is the current state of the scientific theories of human origins. In our post-genomic age, we have discovered that humanity originated from a very small population, roughly 50-100 thousand years ago, in a region in northeast Africa. In fact, the scientific data so closely resembles the biblical account, it is often referred to as the "Garden of Eden" hypothesis.

But this is a whole 'nother can of worms. In what ways did God intervene in the history of the universe, if at all? Can we tell? Why should we care? Is life designed? Did it evolve from random processes? We'll touch on these topics in the near future, but for now, let's keep in mind that answering any of these questions has far reaching implications. It's not easy to address any of them by themselves.

Review of meeting about Genesis 2, part 2 (of 3)

A few days ago, I posted the first of three segments about our meeting on July 13 where we discussed Genesis 2. I mentioned that there is often confusion about verses 5-9, where it appears that God created Adam before He created the plants. Here I will briefly address the common charge that Genesis 2 appears to say that God created Adam before He created the rest of the animals.

Before we go on, one thing to keep in mind is that Genesis 1 and 2 each have different purposes. They are both creation accounts, but they specifically focus on different parts of creation. You won't find a very detailed description about the physical creation in Genesis 2, because that's what Genesis 1 is there for. Genesis 2, on the other hand, is primarily about God's relationship to us, and our relationship to the rest of creation. Any information about the physical creation is only there in Genesis 2 to give background information. If you want more detail, simply turn a couple pages back to Genesis 1.

That being said, I will try to dispel this apparent contradiction. In verses 18-20, we learn that God did not want Adam to be alone, and thus He introduces Adam to all the animals (the livestock, the beasts of the field, and the birds of the air), in order that Adam might come to know each one well, and each species' characteristics. (In fact, the passage talks about Adam naming the animals, which would imply, from the Hebrew culture, that Adam must know the animals quite well at that point.)

But the problem here is verse 19. It says, right after God created Adam and the realized he was alone, "Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air...(NKJV)" This seems to imply chronological order. Did that really happen after God created Adam? The problem is the translations at times can be a little misleading. Recall from our discussion on Genesis 1 that verb tenses in Biblical Hebrew have several possible, literal meanings. In other words, the verb here (in the NJKV) translated as "formed" is, in the NIV, translated as "had formed". In light of this, verse 19 receives its proper place: as background information about what was taking place. Adam was about to be introduced to the animals, so we are reminded that God had, at some time in the past, formed these animals from the dust of the ground.

Now, how exactly did He do that? That, my friends, is a topic for another discussion. Perhaps I'll pick that up in the third and final post about this past meeting.

I'd be excited to hear someone's comments.

Review of meeting about Genesis 2, part 1 (of 3)

On Monday, July 13, we met and discussed common objections to Genesis 2. I had basically prepared to answer the common charge that Genesis 1 and 2 are conflicting, contradictory creation accounts. In particular, the seeming order of events in verses 5-9 conflict, as it appears from Genesis 2 that God creates man before the plants. Additionally, some translations seem to say that God creates Adam before He creates animals. Today, I'll talk about the first conflict.

But before I discuss this conflict directly, it is important to note the focus of the chapter. While Genesis 1 seems to be primarily an account of the physical creation, and how God is mighty in His creative acts, Genesis 2 focuses primarily on the creation of humans and our relationship with God and with the rest of creation. In other words, attempting to glean details about the physical creation from Genesis 2 is almost silly when there is an entire chapter devoted to it in Genesis 1. Furthermore, as the focus is on Adam's relationship with God and the rest of creation, any details about the physical creation should be seen as the necessary background for understanding this context.

Even so, Genesis 2:5-9 does seem to be confusing. The passage seems to say, "When no plant had yet come up on the earth, ...God created Adam." Is it really claiming that God created Adam before He created plants? One of the misunderstandings comes from the fact that the word often translated as "earth" in this passage can also be translated as "land". Furthermore, it could be talking about a specific piece of land, or geographical area. So it need not mean that no plant had ever come up on the whole face of the earth. It is more likely saying that in a certain geographical area, no plant had sprung up (perhaps even that year) because the rainy season had not come yet, and this was before man was around to do artificial irrigation. So there were no crops yet come up in the land.

I don't think this is over-interpreting. Remember, this story was told from the standpoint of a highly agricultural people. Further support of this idea comes from Genesis 2:8-9, which then tells us what specific piece of land we may be talking about: Eden.

So, Genesis 2:5-9 could be read as following. At some point in time, there was no vegetation to speak of in the area which was to become Eden. That was because the rains had not yet come that year, and man wasn't around yet to do irrigation of the fields. At this point, the rains (or mist) began to come, and God created the first man: Adam. God also planted a garden in this piece of land, which was to be called Eden. The garden began to grow because the rains had just started coming. And God put Adam into the garden in order to tend it (otherwise, it would grow out of control).

Even if this is reading too much into the account, the point is that we must take the whole passage into context. The sentences in verses 5-7 are only meant to be understood in the context of the passage as a whole. The entire description of the lack of "shrubs of the field", etc, is meant to give us a background as to what the land looked like outside of the context of Eden. Then, the setting shifts to Eden and we are told Adam is to work the garden, such that the garden continues to grow and look beautiful, in contrast to what the land could look like without the garden and without man to tend it.

This perspective also harmonizes with Genesis 3, in which Adam and Eve sin against God. In that chapter, we are told that the ground is "cursed, because of you [Adam]." In our sinful state, our attempts to tend the land, such as Eden, will be less fruitful. So we have the contrast of what the land looked like before Eden, and what we can expect it to become like as a result of our misuse of the land after man became sinful.

Was Eden perfect?

I was listening to a sermon the other day, an the pastor said that Eden was where we were meant to live. I am not going to expressly disagree with him, because in some sense, I agree, but it was food for thought. In particular, such a statement raises questions about whether God had to scrap plan A (Eden) in favor of plan B (redemption through Christ) because of Adam's sin, and whether or not God foresaw/foreknew/predestined this outcome.

Without fully exploring the implications of this statement, I'll just go ahead and say that God at least knew, and at the strongest planned, for things to turn out this way. I'll give you three reasons why.

First, we know from our study of the universe that it is only temporary. We live in a continuously expanding universe, and it's accelerating. Pretty soon, the sun will burn up. Before that happens, some natural disaster will surely befall us. (I am not being doomsday-ish here; the more we study this world, the more we realize that we live at a very special time in earth's and the universe's history which allows for advanced life and a civilized human society. This is not true of the earth and the universe at any other era of time.) The second law of thermodynamics says that entropy (disorder) is a constantly increasing quantity in the universe, which will one day make it impossible to do work (i.e., have useful energy). In other words, from our studies of the world around us, it is clear that this earth, and Eden in particular, was never meant to be our permanent home.

Second, the book of revelation speaks of a new creation, one in which the laws of physics will be completely different. There will be no more darkness or shadows, as God's glory will illuminate everything. (It's debatable how metaphorical this is...one could argue this simply means there will be nothing more to hide.) There will be no more suffering or pain, and God will wipe every tear away. One reason why the laws of physics must be totally different is because of the decay we see around us. I find it unlikely that the second law of thermodynamics will hold true, or even have any meaning, in the new creation. But the second law, in terms of statistical mechanics, is just an outflow of the fact that we live in a universe in which matter is made of small particles (atoms/molecules, etc.). If there is no law of decay in the new creation (as Paul implies in Romans 8), then the entire makeup of the new creation must be different!

Third, the laws of physics in this current universe are explicitly set up to provide a "battleground", if you will, against evil. Without our spatial and temporal limitations we experience here, evil cannot spread too rapidly. The second law of thermodynamics (yes, that one again) discourages and punishes evil. For example, I'm a very lazy person, but if I don't clean my house regularly, it becomes a mess. Big deal, right? Well, this sort of thing was a big deal for cities in medieval Europe. A simpler example is abuse of tools. If you're too lazy to take care of your tools, for example if you leave a hammer or screwdriver (or a bicycle...I'm guilty of that one) outside without putting it away, it becomes rusty and less useful. This is a general principle. Paul put it very succinctly when he said, "A man reaps what he sows." One could argue that God's wrath is waiting for the unjust, but it is also true that your own punishment befalls you naturally according to the way this world works. To sum up this paragraph, I'm saying that, from the way this universe works, it appears that it was meant to be a place where evil would be confronted and vanquished, for the benefit of all humanity.

OK, I'm pretty sure I stepped on a few people's toes with that one. If you're angry or excited, or just have something to add, please post your comment below.

Fully gifted creation

One of the hot button topics these days, at least in terms of Christianity and science, is evolution. Most of the time, the debate/discussion is artificially polarized/caricatured into two camps: creationism and evolution. If you're a Christian, you believe in creation, and if you're smart, you believe in evolution. (Whatever "believe in evolution" means.)

Some refuse to be part of that partisianship. Prominent scientists like Ken Miller and Francis Collins (both authors as well) ascribe to a view commonly called "theistic evolution", which loosely means they affirm both God's existence (both would accept Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and savior), yet also naturalistic evolution. That is, both would deny that God had a hand in creating any of the life by fiat miracle, as many creationists would state.

Howard van Till calls this point of view "fully gifted creation", in that God, when He created the universe, did it in such a perfect way, with the just-right initial conditions, such that everything would unfold according to His plan.

What is interesting about this point of view is that it isn't just a concession to mainstream science, as some creationists claim, but indeed it demonstrates the existence of an Intelligent Designer. If the universe unfolding this way is according to God's plan, then life's history on earth does have a purpose, even if it can be fully explained by "mere" naturalistic forces. In other words, even in a theistic evoltionary worldview, we would expect to see design and fine-tuning in life's history. It is an inevitable consequence of believing in a God "who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will (Eph 1:11)."

I'd really like to hear someone's (anyone's?) thoughts on this topic.

Review of meeting about Genesis 1, part 4 of 4

Up until this point, I have primarily focused on a particular interpretation of Genesis 1, called the "day-age" view, espoused by an organization called Reasons to Believe. However, I don't think their point of view is the full story.

First, it is clear that the divine workweek, while perhaps not 144 hours as we would understand a six-day period to be, is at least analogous to our workweek. Six days of work, one day of Sabbath-rest (see Hebrews 4). Some have used this as an argument for a 24-hour day interpretation. However, besides a human work week, other things follow this pattern of six "somethings" of work, followed by one "something" of rest. For example, Exodus 23 instructs us to work the land for six years, and for the seventh let the land "rest". This pattern itself actually follows work six/rest one-Sabbath pattern: a "Sabbath of Sabbaths" shall occur every fifty years, in the year of Jubilee (see Lev 25)! In other words, perhaps God created in this particular pattern in order to provide us with analogy to our prescribed pattern. This is called the "analogical day view", and provides one answer to the question as to why God did not just create everything in a big "poof". (Delving deeply into this may be a topic for later discussion.)

Second, it is clear that Genesis 1 should be interpreted within a literary framework. The framework hypothesis, if I am portraying it correctly, states that each of the days should be taken as part of a literary whole. Note the parallelism in the passage. In the first three days, God creates "kingdoms". Day 1: day and night. Day 2: the waters and the sky. Day 3: the land. Then, in the next three days, God creates things to fill these kingdoms (the "rulers"). Day 4: sun and moon. Day 5: swarming creatures in the ocean, great big ocean beasts, and birds. Day 6: specialized land-dwelling creatures, and, of course, humans.

Taking these two positions together, in addition to what I've already described, answers a couple outstanding questions. Why does the text appear to say that God created the sun and moon on Day 4? Not only is that because they are first clearly seen on Day 4, but also because it fits the divinely-orchestrated creation psalm that we call Genesis 1. Why does God seem to create sea-dwelling mammals (Day 5) before land mammals (Day 6)? Because Genesis 1 is not telling the whole story, only the essential points, and doing it this way fits the literary framework. Perhaps God did create land mammals on Day 5 as well. But the specialized ones, such as horses, goats, etc, important for human culture, perhaps were created on Day 6. These are the ones that are highlighted. One many also ask why He created in this pattern at all? Because of the importance of analogy to our workweek.

Wow. I really must apologize for the long time it took to finish writing this. I hope it was clear. But hey, one of the reasons why I'm writing this thing is to hopefully stimulate some discussion among friends and brothers and sisters in Christ. I'd really appreciate hearing what you have to say.

Review of meeting about Genesis 1, part 3 of 4

The third point that I focused on in our discussion last Saturday was not a roadblock for non-believers so much as it was a positive case for Christianity.

The Genesis 1 creation account is primarily proclaiming that God is the one who creates. This can be seen in the way the sun and the moon are described in Creation Day 4 (ie, the "greater light" and the "lesser light"). Most scholars agree that this wording was chosen to help keep the Israelites from idolizing and worshiping these heavenly bodies the way many of their neighbors did.

But beyond that theological point, it also appears that the Genesis 1 creation narrative is a chronology. Now, many people object to this point of view, saying that "the bible isn't a science textbook". While that is true, it is also a mischaracterization of the problem. Even though the bible isn't a science textbook, it does speak the truth on matters that it discusses. You won't find descriptions of electrons, gravitational theory, or optics in the bible, but when it does speak of natural phenomena, it should be error-free (when interpreted correctly).

So, back to the chronology of Genesis 1. If we are so bold as to examine it as a chronology, we see remarkable accuracy. There are at least 11 major points discussed in the Genesis 1 account that are now known to be scientifically accurate in their statement or in their chronology:

1. The universe is created from nothing, and time had a beginning.
2. The primordial earth was dark (ie, blanketed with thick clouds).
   
3. The primordial earth was unfit for life.
4. The primordial earth earth was covered with water.
5. Early on in earth's history, the thick cloud cover was exchanged for a thinner atmosphere.
6. The water cycle began.
7. Dry land appeared.
8. Photosynthetic plant life appeared.
9. The oceans swarmed with life (Cambrian Explosion).
10. Advanced animals appeared.
11. Humans appeared.

It's pretty remarkable that Moses, who knew nothing of these events, was able to describe them with enough detail that, with our knowledge today, we can recognize these events as happening the way Genesis 1 describes. But Moses had knowledge from the one who performed these acts. If God, who knew how these events took place, told Moses through the Spirit what to "write" and in what order, and from our vantage point today we find that these events, as recorded, are true, shall we say that it's a coincidence? Or should we affirm that the Genesis 1 chronology is a miraculously scripted history of earth and the universe?

One last thing. I am not saying that all the answers lie in Genesis 1. There are parts of this chronology that we don't understand, or, perhaps, seem to contradict what we have discovered through studying the natural world. However, there are other interpretations of the text, and I think it would be instructive to peruse these as well, in particular the "framework hypothesis" and the "analogical day view", which we'll get to in the next posting.

But for now:
Comments are welcome!

Review of meeting about Genesis 1, part 2 of 4

Continuing on with my previous post summarizing our discussion group, I'd like to discuss the second common roadblock that non-believers have with interpreting Genesis 1.

This second roadblock is that many skeptics object to the idea that the sun, moon, and stars are allegedly created on Day 4, after not only the earth has been created, but also the first plants have been created as well. First of all, this makes no physical sense, and second, we know for a fact that many stars (and galaxies) are far older than the earth. But Genesis 1:16 says, in the middle of the Creation Day Four account:

God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars (NIV).

What are we to make of this? The common misconception here hinges on a subtle shift in point of view. In verse 1:2, the text tells us:

Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

This implies that it was dark on the surface of the earth (but not necessarily because the sun didn't exist). Then, in Creation Day One, "God said 'Let there be light,' and there was light (v. 1:3)." Does this mean that the light here in verse 1:3 is different from sunlight? Some have proposed it is God's shenikah glory, as will be true of the new creation (Rev 21:23). However, it doesn't have to be that mystical. I contend that it was dark on earth's surface because of thick cloud cover, and not due to the lack of a sun. When God said "Let there be light," He was not creating light, but allowing light to pass. (The Hebrew verb here, haya, can be translated "come to pass".) In fact, our best planetary formation models predict that the primordial earth was covered in thick clouds, much like Venus is today, and only because of a miraculous collision event with another planet-sized body (which, by the way, is the same event that formed the moon and a topic for another discussion) did the cloud cover become thin enough to allow light to impinge upon the surface of the earth.

So what then do we do with Creation Day Four? It seems that in verse 1:16, the Bible is clearly teaching that the sun, moon, and stars were created that day. Well, the answer is that the Hebrew verb tense translated as "made" could also be translated as "had made." In other words, verses 1:16-18 were, in a sense, parenthetical notes.

But Creation Day Four still talks about the sun and the moon appearing for the first time. God said "Let there be" lights in the sky, which as we saw before, means "let it come to pass that lights would be in the sky." We should interpret this to mean that, in this creation epoch, this is the first time that an observer on the surface of the earth can see and distinguish these heavenly bodies. Previously, the cloud cover that allowed light to penetrate was still scattering enough to obscure the sun and moon as distinct objects. Kind of like a haze. If you read further in Day Four, the text even tells you why it is important for the heavenly bodies to become distinguishable: to mark the days, seasons, and years. This was not previously possible.

So that's roadblock #2. I know it was kinda wordy, but hopefully understandable. Of course, if you didn't understand it or if you have questions/criticisms...

Comments are welcome!

Review of meeting about Genesis 1, part 1 of 4

Hi folks!
Yesterday, we had another "Two Books" discussion meeting at my place. My original intention was to discuss Genesis 1 and 2, as these chapters seem to contain a high concentration of stumbling blocks that skeptics have regarding Christianity. Indeed, one of my stated goals for this discussion group and this blog is to talk about thoughtful responses to common objections that skeptics raise. We had a good time discussing Genesis 1, but did not have enough time to get to Genesis 2. Next time!

We read Genesis 1:1-2:4. (Note that many Bibles place verse 2:4 with the chapter 2 creation narrative, while some place it with the chapter 1 narrative. Some, such as the NIV, even divide the verse into two parts.) In particular, we focused on three points.

First, many skeptics object to the Genesis 1 creation account because of the common view that it teaches that the earth and the universe are less than 10,000 years old. This comes from the divine work-week structure of the creation narrative. However, the Hebrew word translated as "day" (yom) can be interpreted in several different ways. Indeed, there are at least two uses of the word "yom" in the very same text that unequivocally mean something other than a 24-hour period. The first is in vv 1:5, 16, and 18 (here "day" means the roughly 12-hour period of daylight). The second is in verse 2:4. In fact, this appearance of the word "yom" is not even translated as "day" very often (the NIV does not even have a clear translation of this word), but this verse is referring to an ambiguously long period of time, greater than 24 hours.

The punchline is that "yom" can possibly refer to an unspecified, long (but finite) period of time, and if that's true, why would we be compelled to accept the days of the creation week as 24 hours? (And by the way, there are many scriptural reasons for regarding these "days" as long, unspecified periods of time, which are far beyond the scope of this particular post.)

So that's major roadblock #1. The other two will be to come in the next few days. As usual:

Comments are welcome!

This Saturday

Dear all,
We're going to have our second meeting this Saturday at my place, aka, "The Green Rhino". I'll be sending individual email reminders around. Also, please spread the word by word of mouth. We'll meet at noon.

I'm planning to start at the beginning: Genesis 1 and 2. We'll go through these two chapters and discuss how Christians have interpreted them, especially in recent years in light of what we know through the study of General Revelation.

Comments are welcome!

Can we test it?

I have always argued that we can test whether God exists or not. But can we?

Here's the problem. Some scientists (both atheistic and Christian) contend that using God as an explanation anywhere, under any circumstances, undermines the scientific enterprise. After all, if you allow God as an explanation for natural phenomena, then what's to stop you from invoking God to explain a chemical reaction? Or when studying a topic such as cell division?

Another related argument is often called the "God of the gaps" fallacy. This term refers to saying, "It was an act of God," as a causal explanation for something we don't understand. In other words, if there is a gap in our understanding, then we just say, "God did it." The problem is, further investigation may provide a perfectly naturalistic explanation. In ancient times, people would invoke God as an explanation for all sorts of phenomena that we now understand to be completely explainable by the forces of nature. That is, people used to be superstitious. In this line of thinking, then creationism is also tantamount to superstition.

So I ask the question: can we ever plausibly lift up God as an explanation for phenomena without sacrificing our academic or scientific integrity? I'll put it another way: is God ever an appropriate and convincing cause of something?

Perhaps more to come. AND...

Comments are welcome!

"Thank God for Evolution"!

The Skeptics Society, which has, in the past, been quite hostile towards Christianity, is hosting a lecture by Reverend Michael Dowd regarding his recent book, "Thank God for Evolution: How the Marriage of Science and Religion Will Transform Your Life and Our World" at 2pm this Sunday, June 7th. The lecture will be in Baxter Hall on Caltech campus (Ramo auditorium in building #77).

I am quite interested in hearing what Rev Dowd has to say about his book. Unfortunately, I won't be in town this weekend, so I encourage anyone who is interested to attend. I'd love to hear any comments about the lecture, so...

Comments are welcome!

A high purpose

The "anthropic principle". It is an accepted idea in the scientific community. It basically says that, based on our studies of the natural world (mostly physics and astronomy), it sure seems like the universe was designed for the benefit of our existence.

The evidence for design is so powerful, it has caused even atheistic scientists to make remarks such as, "The universe in some sense knew we were coming (Freeman Dyson, physicist)."

If such design is so evident to those who study the universe, what does that mean for us? I think it means that God clearly had some very high purpose for our existence.

Atheists will commonly say things like, "How can you think that the universe was designed for us? We are so small and insignificant. There's so much more out there in the universe." Some would even go so far as to say this idea is the height of arrogance. But is it?

Think about it. One of the discoveries that gave rise to the anthropic principle is that all of the rest of the universe had to be there, in just the right way, for just the right amount of time (yes, even the age of the universe is important), in order for us to exist here on earth. So clearly, we are not cosmically insignificant. In fact, the opposite is true. The universe was designed for us to be here.

In other words, God has a purpose for us.

Comments are welcome!

World TV premiere of Dual Revelation

Just found out that Dual Revelation is also going to show on TBN at 11pm on Thursday, May 21:
http://www.tbn.org/index.php/2/28.html?date=20090521

And also at 12:30am on Sunday, June 14. Just in case anyone who missed it wants to see it.

(Although everyone who I've invited to read this blog at this point has already seen it...)

Our first meeting

Well, we had our first meeting last Saturday at my house. We had about nine people show up, and we introduced ourselves, hung out for a bit and then watched "Dual Revelation", the RTB docudrama:
http://www.dualrevelation.com/

Being our first meeting, I was just feeling out the interest level and how people wanted to participate in this group. I think we generated some good discussion in a short period of time.

We decided to meet again on Saturday, June 13th at noon, my place again.

Comments are welcome!