Monthly Archives: January 2015

The Cosmic Importance Of The Red Circle

My son sent me a link to this picture which is suppose to count against the existence of God. You can see it here.

The guy who put the picture up said that it makes a “good point.” But it really only makes a good point if you are not thinking critically. First, the author is misguided in saying that every single action that Yahweh, Jesus, or Allah did in the Torah, New Testament or Quran occurred within the red circle. This is the claim that the author makes not the claim Christianity makes. The Bible speaks of God as not only the author of all existence (everything is dependent on God for it’s existence) but it also says that God PRESENTLY SUSTAINS all (thus, in human history, God is providentially at work) and lastly, God has a future for the whole earth. There is also the issue that whatever God did in that little red circle, God affected everything else in the cosmos. Lastly, I want to make a round-about response about this via a quote from a book by “Bo Jinn” entitled, “Illogical Atheism.” Bo Jinn says this:

“The “way the universe should have been,” as far as the new atheists are concerned is an ever- morphing tautology which can adjust to any set of altering circumstances.

As a tiny speck of ignorant nothingness floating about in infinite space, none of us are in a position to make any fleeting assumptions about how the universe “should be.” At any rate if we were going to proselytize on behalf of atheism by resorting to doom prophecy, I could have made it far worse for the theist than Mr. Hitchens did; because incidentally all of us, presently living, will be dead before the turn of the century. Or, at least the vast majority of us will. I’d have thought that would have been an altogether more pressing concern than the ultimate fate of the universe a few quadrillion years from now. As for the immense size and scale of the cosmos in relation to us; as the mathematician John Lennox points out, on a logarithmic scale the human being is about half way between an atom and the universe. So, I suppose if God thinks in terms of logarithms that would make us the perfect size for the universe we inhabit. But even if that were not the case, what does the size of the universe have to do with anything anyway? Perhaps a metaphor might better illustrate the point:

Suppose there were a small tribe of ten primitive humanoids in a cave some five hundred thousand years ago. Imagine that these were among the first human beings on the planet. They looked beyond their caves every day. They hunt within no more than a kilometer of their home. The Earth stretches for miles and miles beyond the horizon, across seas and oceans- domains they feel no primate human could ever possibly traverse. Between themselves and the ends of the earth lay vast expanses of land, desert and frozen glaciers battered by the elements- completely inhospitable to any kind of human life. Now, nine of these humanoids believe in a “Great Spirit” that created the world and everything in it, including the humanoids themselves. One humanoid, however, is an atheist. The atheist humanoid turns to his fellow proto- theists and says. “Why does the land and sea stretch so far beyond, so needlessly exceeding our purposes? Why is so much of our planet so completely unsuited to us? What kind of “Great Spirit” would create an Earth so large?! How wasteful! Could he have not made it a bit smaller perhaps? Some design!”

You see the point. These days we are more concerned by the fact that the Earth is too small, yet we take the same attitude the primate atheist took with regard to the cosmos. Speaking in terms of size and quantities is relative to the point in spacetime that we occupy, not that that should even matter at any rate. Precisely what size would Mr. Hitchens or Mr. Dawkins have preferred for our universe? One galaxy? Two galaxies? A few solar systems, perhaps? Or would they have preferred that Yuri Gagarin had had hit some kind a divine barrier between the Earth and the stars putting a halt to all science as we know it? How disappointingly uninteresting would that have made the universe? I am reminded of Robert Southey’s Goldilocks: One really has to ask; just what kind of universe would have been “just right” for the new atheists?”

How one cannot see how this diminishes human significance is beyond me.

Advertisements

On Racism

My buddy Tom Belt wrote an interesting piece on racism that you can view here.

I do have a couple of things to say about this though.

A. Dwayne and Tom see systemic racism to be a failure to truly love someone because of self-perception. I really don’t know if I would identify this as the “systemic” portion of racism. Of course, one could say the same thing about blacks against whites. One could also say the same thing about sexism. The list could go on and on. Not trying to say this is not true. As a matter of fact I do see this as a pretty plausible explanation. But an explanation that seems to have to fit into a wider view of justice.
B. Some Christians are fond of saying that Christian morality should not be forced on to others. Something like, “You can’t force non-Christians to love” through law. So, if this is a Christian understanding of racism, I would like to know how this could ever be reflected in law. Should such a view be encoded in law? COULD it be reflected in law? Sure, a non-Christian may not be able to love the way they should if the Spirit was guiding them, but I tend to think that the Spirit is still at work in unbelievers as well as I tend to think that if a view such as this was encoded in law, it may be able to be done without the Christian trappings. In other words, how could we all perceive ourselves as “one?” Forget law. Just put it in policing policies.
C. I do think that this explanation is helpful with regard to responding to the question that was actually proposed to me on Facebook: “Do you think the police want to kill others?”

I don’t think these question are irrelevant. I think the questions Tom raises is one side of the coin while my thoughts are the other side. Theirs is theoritical. Mine is trying to see this as an outworking in law and policing policy. I’ve been guided by a saying that goes something like this:

“Justice fulfills what love cannot.” You can start out with love–looking at what the problem is or what you think the problem is. You can come up with solutions, ie., deal with the self-perception issue, ., ie, we’re all one. But it also needs to have a practical outworking–justice.