Very good, I appreciate very much your labors and articles such as the current one...always a blessing. I think as an astro-physicist you might enjoy reading some of the books and articles of Michael S Heiser, PhD. A Hebrew scholar with a high Christology and a very high view of Scripture. His book, "the Unseen Realm" I can say, changed my life. He was working on a book that dealt with the ancient near east understanding and explanation of the heavens that permeates Scripture. Though a peer reviewed semetic scholar, he wrote for the layperson.
He hit I think, the best nuanced and balanced explanation of the very old age of the universe and yet dealt honestly with the 6000+ years at least, of the history of man as told in the Scripture in a very coherent manner from Genesis to Revelation, so to speak. . . not 'either/or', but 'both/and'.
Though sadly passing a couple of years back, his website https://www.drmsh.com is still active. His podcasts were followed worldwide. His take on Ps 19 and Revelation 12 regarding what God is declaring within the context of the 'heavens' might possibly be an encouragement to Matthew. That podcast link is https://tinyurl.com/59z6bazt
The idea that Christianity advocates belief without evidence, so far as I can tell has less to do with doctrine and originates more with the behaviour of individual Christians, often Low-Church types, who've demonstrated that they don't personally care much about the concept of evidence. Whether we like it or not, we see God, or a lack of God, in the people around us, and Christians need to surround themselves with Christians who care quite alot about evidential justification.
P.S. working on an article about this myself. Some of the things in it you've covered. Not competing, just saturating the sea.
"I was struck by the universe’s lawfulness. The consistency of physical laws across time and space..."
The consistency of physical laws across time and space is an _assumption_ of physics, not something that is proved by physics. When inconsistencies are found, they are not taken as proof against the consistency of physical laws, but rather as proof that we're still working on completely identifying the consistent physical laws that are assumed to be there. See, for instance, the Cosmological Principle. Should it be the case that there are no consistent physical laws and that the appearance of consistency is simply an artifact of our very limited perspective, physicists literally would not notice, because they're taking consistency on faith and excluding other possibilities out of the gate.
Ironically enough, this Western faith in consistent laws can probably be traced back to Western monotheism, though I am not prepared to argue that point rigorously. It's really all of a piece, though, whether you're assuming the existence of God or you're assuming the existence of consistent laws. You can't use one assumption to prove the other.
For my part, I put forth the quiet, patient and kind voice that dwells within us as evidence to support my Christianity. If other folks want to think that voice is something other than God, though, this is fine by me (and fine by God, as far as I can tell.) So long as they see the reality that I'm trying to point to, engaging with that reality is far more important than understanding it. I'm skeptical that anyone truly understands it.
Agreed. But then, I don't quite understand how you're "struck by" something you admit is an assumption. You say the "seemingly timeless laws of physics...point to a purposeful design" but you're assuming timeless laws of physics!
You ask, "Why should the cosmos be so comprehensible?" But isn't the answer simply that our minds seek comprehension even in the absence of purposeful design? Think of things like rorschach tests or pareidolia. We see patterns in pure undesigned chaos all the time. If anything, we're clearly built (whether intentionally or not) to err on the side of seeing patterns where there are none.
Now, this isn't the argument against the existence of a Creator that many atheists think it is--we see patterns in designed things as well, obviously. But it's an argument against considering the comprehensibility of the cosmos to be evidence in favor of a Creator. The only thing it's really evidence of is our own sense-making capabilities.
The consistency of the laws of nature is an assumption the way Euclid's postulates are assumptions. We can't prove it, but we have every indication that it's true and we've been able to do amazing things with it.
I reject utterly that the comprehensibility of the universe is an illusion akin to pareidolia. We wouldn't be able to send astronauts to the Moon or build GPS or nuclear reactors if our understanding of the universe was just finding patterns where there are none.
But we don't call postulates evidence. And different sets of non-Euclidean postulates also lead to amazing things. That doesn't mean any set of postulates is "true" it just means that they lead to useful models when applied to the evidence. But they're not themselves evidence. For instance, the Parallel Postulate is crazy useful when the evidence itself observably obeys it, but it's definitely not a universal truth, and you couldn't offer the postulate itself as "evidence" of anything.
And we can totally send astronauts to the Moon or build GPS or nuclear reactors even if the patterns are ultimately temporary and local. It doesn't mean the universe is comprehensible, it just means we've found repeatable patterns within our extremely limited observations. I certainly didn't mean to imply that every pattern we see is an illusion akin to pareidolia, I mentioned it only to highlight how unremarkable it is that we can identify patterns. But the only reason you think these patterns reveal anything about the universe itself is because you postulate as much. That's not evidence.
How is God complex? The Essence of God is asserted by the Church Fathers to be mysterious and unknowable, beyond the limits of rational comprehension. Thus to call God's Essence "complex", "simple" etc. is to assign properties to God that are contrary to the Orthodox Church's teachings.
Very good, I appreciate very much your labors and articles such as the current one...always a blessing. I think as an astro-physicist you might enjoy reading some of the books and articles of Michael S Heiser, PhD. A Hebrew scholar with a high Christology and a very high view of Scripture. His book, "the Unseen Realm" I can say, changed my life. He was working on a book that dealt with the ancient near east understanding and explanation of the heavens that permeates Scripture. Though a peer reviewed semetic scholar, he wrote for the layperson.
He hit I think, the best nuanced and balanced explanation of the very old age of the universe and yet dealt honestly with the 6000+ years at least, of the history of man as told in the Scripture in a very coherent manner from Genesis to Revelation, so to speak. . . not 'either/or', but 'both/and'.
Though sadly passing a couple of years back, his website https://www.drmsh.com is still active. His podcasts were followed worldwide. His take on Ps 19 and Revelation 12 regarding what God is declaring within the context of the 'heavens' might possibly be an encouragement to Matthew. That podcast link is https://tinyurl.com/59z6bazt
I'm a huge fan of Dr. Heiser.
Excellent, Sarah!!! Thank you.
Some good points made here.
The idea that Christianity advocates belief without evidence, so far as I can tell has less to do with doctrine and originates more with the behaviour of individual Christians, often Low-Church types, who've demonstrated that they don't personally care much about the concept of evidence. Whether we like it or not, we see God, or a lack of God, in the people around us, and Christians need to surround themselves with Christians who care quite alot about evidential justification.
P.S. working on an article about this myself. Some of the things in it you've covered. Not competing, just saturating the sea.
"I was struck by the universe’s lawfulness. The consistency of physical laws across time and space..."
The consistency of physical laws across time and space is an _assumption_ of physics, not something that is proved by physics. When inconsistencies are found, they are not taken as proof against the consistency of physical laws, but rather as proof that we're still working on completely identifying the consistent physical laws that are assumed to be there. See, for instance, the Cosmological Principle. Should it be the case that there are no consistent physical laws and that the appearance of consistency is simply an artifact of our very limited perspective, physicists literally would not notice, because they're taking consistency on faith and excluding other possibilities out of the gate.
Ironically enough, this Western faith in consistent laws can probably be traced back to Western monotheism, though I am not prepared to argue that point rigorously. It's really all of a piece, though, whether you're assuming the existence of God or you're assuming the existence of consistent laws. You can't use one assumption to prove the other.
For my part, I put forth the quiet, patient and kind voice that dwells within us as evidence to support my Christianity. If other folks want to think that voice is something other than God, though, this is fine by me (and fine by God, as far as I can tell.) So long as they see the reality that I'm trying to point to, engaging with that reality is far more important than understanding it. I'm skeptical that anyone truly understands it.
"The consistency of physical laws across time and space is an _assumption_ of physics, not something that is proved by physics."
True, and that assumption - which is necessary for science to work - can be traced back to Christian ideals and assumptions about God's creation.
Agreed. But then, I don't quite understand how you're "struck by" something you admit is an assumption. You say the "seemingly timeless laws of physics...point to a purposeful design" but you're assuming timeless laws of physics!
You ask, "Why should the cosmos be so comprehensible?" But isn't the answer simply that our minds seek comprehension even in the absence of purposeful design? Think of things like rorschach tests or pareidolia. We see patterns in pure undesigned chaos all the time. If anything, we're clearly built (whether intentionally or not) to err on the side of seeing patterns where there are none.
Now, this isn't the argument against the existence of a Creator that many atheists think it is--we see patterns in designed things as well, obviously. But it's an argument against considering the comprehensibility of the cosmos to be evidence in favor of a Creator. The only thing it's really evidence of is our own sense-making capabilities.
The consistency of the laws of nature is an assumption the way Euclid's postulates are assumptions. We can't prove it, but we have every indication that it's true and we've been able to do amazing things with it.
I reject utterly that the comprehensibility of the universe is an illusion akin to pareidolia. We wouldn't be able to send astronauts to the Moon or build GPS or nuclear reactors if our understanding of the universe was just finding patterns where there are none.
But we don't call postulates evidence. And different sets of non-Euclidean postulates also lead to amazing things. That doesn't mean any set of postulates is "true" it just means that they lead to useful models when applied to the evidence. But they're not themselves evidence. For instance, the Parallel Postulate is crazy useful when the evidence itself observably obeys it, but it's definitely not a universal truth, and you couldn't offer the postulate itself as "evidence" of anything.
And we can totally send astronauts to the Moon or build GPS or nuclear reactors even if the patterns are ultimately temporary and local. It doesn't mean the universe is comprehensible, it just means we've found repeatable patterns within our extremely limited observations. I certainly didn't mean to imply that every pattern we see is an illusion akin to pareidolia, I mentioned it only to highlight how unremarkable it is that we can identify patterns. But the only reason you think these patterns reveal anything about the universe itself is because you postulate as much. That's not evidence.
Thanks for commenting. God doesn't need a designer/creator. That's a weak argument I address in my FAQ here:
https://sarahsalviander.substack.com/p/faq
Despite atheists defining faith as belief without evidence, that's not how Christians use the word. See here:
https://sarahsalviander.substack.com/p/is-faith-a-bad-word
Your inability to understand the argument or to be convinced of it doesn't mean it's not credible.
She didn't invent that assertion, nor is it unsupportable. God's eternality is simply a fact about God that He's revealed to His Church.
How is God complex? The Essence of God is asserted by the Church Fathers to be mysterious and unknowable, beyond the limits of rational comprehension. Thus to call God's Essence "complex", "simple" etc. is to assign properties to God that are contrary to the Orthodox Church's teachings.