So You Say "The Big Bang Never Happened!" Part II

In order to untangle Psarris’ train of thought and the consequent “conclusions” he draws within his presentation, it is necessary that viewers of the vdeo make a distinction between the two concepts that are labeled “science” and “scientism.”  “Science,” can be defined as either a particular field of study within the material, natural world (physics, astronomy, geology, zoology, botany, etc.), or as the systematic study of the natural order (called the “scientific method”).  By contrast, “scientism” is NOT science, but instead, a philosophical belief about the extent and nature of reality as a whole.  Scientism as a philosophy, emphatically holds that material entities (matter and energy) are the only things that exist.  Scientism denies any reality to spiritual existence (Spirit, spirituality, mind, personality, etc.).  It is precisely because this philosophical position believes (hence: the suffix “ism”) that only material things exist (hence: the root word “science”) that it is called “scientism.”

Dr. Psarris completely confuses these two concepts.  Whether this confusion is sourced in personal ignorance, or whether it is deliberate, I cannot tell.  I shudder to imagine him to deliberately set out to deceive non-scientists.  Neither error, however, can it bode well for a lecturer arguing against the Big Bang on the authority of his scientific credentials as a physicist, by means of such confusing logic.    For example, Psarris repeatedly asserts that the Big Bang model is atheistic and explicitly anti-supernatural on the grounds that naturalism is the only allowable explanation for the events it purports to describe.  The logical problem with that objection is simple.  While it must be granted that certain cosmologists indeed allow only naturalistic explanations (thereby embracing the “scientism” described above), it emphatically does NOT logically follow from their philosophical prejudices that the broadly-acknow-ledged scientifically- attained data concerning the history of the universe is false.

The roster of that very data, ascertained by observation, which supports the absolute beginning of the universe out of nothing in the finite past, includes the cosmic pattern that 1) all galaxies are flying apart from one another, 2) that they are measurably farther apart now than they were in the past, 3) and that this expansion has been slowing down, 4) even as the temperature of the universe is cooling off.  5) We can also observe the background radiation from the initial “blast” (which was not chaotic, but highly controlled) at its beginning, 6) which reveals (with increasing visual detail as instruments improve) the disconformity in the radiation at the level that was required in order for stars to form.  Were this unfolding development reversed like rewinding a movie, that same pattern would take all of material existence back to a zero-volume singularity, the Big Bang, which was the absolute beginning of all things.

To be continued...

So You Say “The Big Bang Never Happened!” Part I

(This essay is a revision of a previous (deleted) posting titled “Who Loses if the big Bang is True?”)

“By faith we understand that the whole created order was fashioned by the command of God.”  (Hebrews 11:3)  

 
There has of late been a shift in the strategy of young-earth creationists in their apologetic challenge to atheistic materialism.  Until recently, their attacks focused directly on undermining the foundations of the Darwinian paradigm, including 1) the utter lack of transitional remains in the fossil record of the history of life, 2) the immensity of the challenge of non-living material naturalistically “evolving” to become life of even a most simple kind (technically the Darwinian change-mechanism  can’t even work until there exists life to be changed), 3) the challenge of blind processes (having no foresight or goal) producing, step-by-step, irreducibly complex machines (e.g. the stator rotator on a flagellum), and 4) the reality of enormous amounts of information laden within in the DNA of even the most primitive life forms discovered.  I agree that these four challenges carry enormous weight, even though I do not agree with certain aspects of their conclusions.

Just recently, certain leading young-earth creationists have, as late-comers, significantly expanded their apologetic strategy into the whole new area of astronomy.  For many old-earth creationist Christians, “cosmology” (the scientific study of the cosmos) and “cosmogony” (the scientific study of the beginnings of the same) has, as a branch of knowledge, become a very effective source of scientific evidence supporting the existence of the God of the Bible.  Young-earth creationists, on the other hand, have a far different assessment of the same evidence, particularly with respect both to the status of the evidence for a Big Bang, and also the implications of the Big Bang for the question of God’s existence. 

I took the opportunity a few months ago to carefully study a lecture on you tube titled, “The Big Bang Never Happened,” by scientist Spike Psarris.  He claims to have previously been an atheist, but apart from any Christian influence on his thinking about cosmology, he says came to believe in a young-earth view of creation strictly on the basis of the scientific evidence alone.  The video of his presentation had been recommended to me as her proof that a straight scientific examination of the cosmos, free from “evolutionary” assumptions, points to a cosmos that is between six and eight thousand years old.

To be continued...

Why Christmas Must be Controversial Part III

John 1:1-3, and v.14 draw together two extremely bold themes in regard to the status (“person”) of Jesus of Nazareth.  Moving backwards, I cite first v. 14 which highlights the Biblical claim that Jesus came into the world in the same way that we all do, that is, through the birth canal of a woman.  Early Christianity affirmed the full humanity of Jesus (Hebrews 4:15), and consequently fought against the competing notion that Jesus was never really a fully flesh-and-blood human being, by stating, “And the Word became flesh” (v.14. See also 1 John 1:1-3). 

Now to John 1:1-3, as to the One who came in the flesh on that night we call Christmas, was no less than God the creator of all things (See also Genesis 1, Philippians 2:6, Colossians 1:16, Hebrews 1:2, 2 Peter 1:1).  The Christmas message is that God became human in Jesus of Nazareth.  He is “The Word become flesh” in John 1:14, “the image of the invisible God” in Colossians 1:15, and the One who “bears the very stamp of God’s nature” (Hebrews 1:3).  Of Himself Jesus said to Philip, “He who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9).

To the questions raised three paragraphs above, the message of Christmas offers its (ramification-laden answer that the baby born in Bethlehem is no less than God Almighty who came in the flesh.  In the face of that claim neither apathy nor indifference is a rational option.  We are instead confronted with the all-important choice to either walk from Him, or receive Him as Savior and Lord (John 1:12).

May this Christmas become, for you, the most blest of all Christmases.

Why Christmas Must be Controversial Part II

Noted 20^th Century literary critic and playwright, Christian, Dorothy Sayers, described Jesus similarly in her essay, “The Greatest drama Ever Staged.” (http://thesweetroad.com/2010/11/ 20/ the-greatest-drama-ever-staged-dorothy-sayers/).   She began her work by declaring, “The greatest drama that ever staggered the imagination of man is the orthodox creed of the Christian Church” (by “creed” was meant the 2^nd Article of the “Apostles’ and “Nicene Creeds,” which reference God the Son). Concerning Jesus’ character she noted:

“The people who hanged Christ never, to do them justice, accused Him of being a bore – on the contrary; they thought Him too dynamic to be safe. It has been left for later generations to muffle up that shattering personality and surround him with an atmosphere of tedium. We have efficiently pared the claws of the Lion of Judah, certified Him “meek and mild,” and recommended him as a fitting household pet for pale curates and pious old ladies. To those who knew Him, however, He in no way suggested a milk-and-water person; they objected to Him as a dangerous firebrand.  … But He has a daily beauty in His life that made us ugly,” and officialdom felt that the established order of things would be more secure without Him. So they did away with God in the name of peace and quietness.” 

Although Jesus is never once recorded to have boasted about his own oratorical powers and skills, the Gospel writers noted of Him (as historians have generally agreed) Jesus’ great popularity among the masses of common people (Matthew 9:35-37).  Yet significantly, this same passage also speaks of heightening resistance to Him on the part of others (who also concede His rhetorical power—Luke 20:26), namely the religious leaders, who recognize Jesus to be a threat to the corruption in which they generally all participated (Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea are exceptions). 

Jesus named the spirit behind the division so described when He stated, “And this is the judgment [krisis Gk (crisis)], that the light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light, because their deeds were evil.  For everyone who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.  But he who does what is true comes to the light, that it might be clearly seen that his deeds have been wrought in God” (John 3:19-21).

The greatest source of all, however, of the controversy and division surrounding Christmas, concerns not merely the personality, but even more, the very person (nature of His essence, or being) of Jesus of Nazareth.  Sayers opens her essay with the question “What think ye of Christ?,”  which was of course inspired by Jesus’ two question to His disciples, namely, “Who do [others] say that I am?” and “Who do you say that I am?” (Matthew 16:13-15).  The answer to that largest of all questions that can be asked has ramifications for the whole rest of life.  It addresses such questions as 1) Is there a God?, 2) Is God a personality?, 3) Granting the existence of such a God, what then are His demands on me?, 4) What is God’s character?, and 5) Can I be in relationship with Him, and if so, how so?  Sayers concludes her section, referenced above, “So they did away with God in the name of peace and quietness.”   That statement highlights the most fundamental aspect of the Christian claim about Jesus.

To be continued...

Why Christmas Must Be Controversial Part I

“Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth” – Jesus Christ (Matthew 10:34)

Those who have the strongest feelings about Christmas, either for, or against it, are the ones most aware of the formidable ramifications of the Christmas message.  The suggestion that Christmas is merely a trivial or harmless holiday can only be maintained if its central point is either, blunted, suppressed, or demonstrated to be false.  But logic will never allow Christmas, in its full-bodied expression, to be considered an inconsequential holiday. 

H.G. Wells affirmed this reality from one angle in his book series, “The Outline of History” (v.I, (Garden City Books, 1920), p.425,6).  Though the famous science fiction writer was a strong opponent of Christianity, he nevertheless understood that the personality of Jesus of Nazareth cannot be trivialized or treated with indifference:

“[Jesus] was too great for his disciples.  And in view of what he said, is it any wonder that all who were rich and prosperous felt a horror of strange things, a swimming of their world at his teaching?  Perhaps the priests and rulers and rich men understood him better than his followers.  He was dragging out all the little private reservations they had made into the light of a universal religious life.  He was like a terrible moral huntsman, digging mankind out of the snug burrows in which they had lived hitherto.  In the white blaze of his kingdom there was to be no property, no privilege, no pride, and no precedence, no motive and reward but love.  Is it any wonder that men were dazzled and blinded, and cried out against him?  Even his disciples cried out when he would not spare them that light.  It is any wonder that the priests realized that between this man and themselves there was no choice but that he or their priest craft should perish?  Is it any wonder that the Roman soldiers, confronted and amazed by something soaring over their comprehension and threatening all their disciplines, should take refuge in wild laughter, and crown him with thorns, and robe him in purple and make a mock Caesar of him?  For to take him seriously was to enter into a strange and alarming life, to abandon habits, to control instincts and impulses, to essay an incredible happiness . . . Is it any wonder that to this day this Galilean is too much for our small hearts?”

To be continued...