As a young electrical engineer just out of school, I had a horrifying experience that will color my theology forever. I went to work for one of the largest electrical companies in the world. My assignment was an aluminum processing line up near Quebec. It was a long assignment, something like six or eight months. I’m sure it wasn’t always winter, but all I can remember are mountains of snow and that bitter cold.
I was a junior engineer on a team with many who were much more experienced. They came from Sweden, Germany, Finland, and all over the world. We worked 16-hour days and nearly 100-hour weeks installing the first of the digital systems. In the end, after all our back-breaking effort, nothing worked. Well, that’s probably an exaggeration. I’m sure something must have worked. But I can’t think of anything. I distinctly remember working several days straight without sleep, and then the operations manager screaming at us because his manufacturing facility was losing thousands of dollars an hour. In the end, we finally did get his line running, after I had lost a lot of weight and had a near mental collapse. When all the lawyers were done, the company had lost a lot of money too.
As consumers, we just get into our cars and turn the ignition. We don’t often think of the years of science and engineering that went into the automobile. When we hold an iPhone in our hands, we don’t consider the sleepless nights those poor engineers had to spend making it work. Actually, I’m sure they’re not poor. They were amply compensated. But the point is that there’s no free lunch. Nothing works without a deal of effort. The more complicated the project, the greater the required effort.
Unless you’re Lawrence Krauss contemplating the beginning of the universe. Apparently the universe does get a free lunch. In Krauss’s book, “A Universe from Nothing,” he states the universe just popped out of the quantum physics. No assembly or God required. Wonderful! Where was he when I was working that aluminum processing line up in Quebec? I’m sure Steve Jobs could have used some of that cosmic math with the iPhone. “What really interests me,” Albert Einstein once remarked, “is if God had any choice in the creation of the world.” This is Einstein’s way of saying the same thing as Krauss, that the cosmos was created spontaneously from a physics equation.
Einstein and Krauss are smart guys, much smarter than me, but this strikes me as ridiculous. You mean all I had to do was put the right equation down on paper, and that aluminum processing line would have sprang into existence, fully operational? Silly me! Here I was working those 16-hour days and all. No, paraphrasing Anselm of Canterbury in his Proslogion, God is that which nothing greater can be conceived. From my experience, the universe and its vast magnitude of unimaginable wonder cannot just pop out of a math construct. I think Anselm would agree with me. It takes something much greater than that. It takes an infinite, omnipotent mind. It takes God.
Thanks Bruce,
I read recently in a popular new magazine about the concept of multi verse and the complexity involved in even beginning to think in the terms of multiple verses that are significantly different than our verse. It bears witness to diversity, complexity and creativity. Doesn’t seem random at all to me
Thanks John- Yes, I have also read about the multiverse. It’s a fascinating idea, which I believe is born out of dark energy and inflation theory. I agree with you that the universe is such an amazing place that to me it bears the mark of a Creator.
I don’t think you can say that Bruce. Since logic does not apply to God (on your position) there is no way to say what the “mark” of such a being would be. Furthermore, since there is no universal truth (again, on your position) a “mark” has no objective meaning.
Agreed, from a logical perspective i cannot say anything about God, since God is beyond human reason. But from a literary perspective, I can say anything I want.
Note that saying God is beyond human reason is not the same thing as saying there is no universal truth. I certainly believe there is universal truth, but that truth is an extension of God’s being. God does not bow down to logic, logic bows down to God.
Bruce –
[“But from a literary perspective, I can say anything I want.”]
Okay, but of what use is that? You can say anything you want from a literary perspective? So what? So can anyone else. But how does that advance our understanding? Why say anything at all?
[“Note that saying God is beyond human reason is not the same thing as saying there is no universal truth. I certainly believe there is universal truth, but that truth is an extension of God’s being. God does not bow down to logic, logic bows down to God.”]
Before addressing your actual statement, I want to point out that you specifically told me, in another discussion, that you don’t adhere to the idea of universal truth. Have you changed your mind?
As to your statement, what do you mean by “logic bows down to God”? What does it mean for God to not “bow down” to logic?
Also, is your post on Krauss’s book merely a literary expression posing as a critique? Should I take it seriously?
A few more questions:
What does it mean for universal truth to be an “extension of God’s being”?
If God does not “bow down to logic” (whatever that means), does God also not bow down to morality?
Finally, did you even read Krauss’s book?
Don’t you ever read science fiction?
I don’t agree with your concept of universal truth, that truth is above God. God is truth. God is the one who defines truth and morality. They do not exist without God. God does not bow down to morality. There is no morality without God.
Yes, I enjoyed Krauss’s book.
No, I don’t generally read any fiction. How is that relevant?
Yet again, you seem to be defeating yourself, since you are forced to make statements about God. You say, “Agreed, from a logical perspective i cannot say anything about God…” and then turn around and say, “God is truth. God is the one who defines truth and morality.”
Note further that you are making meta-statements about God – e.g. “God is truth”. But is this true? Is the statement, “God defines truth” true? And if so, it seems that it would have to be true independent of God making it true. Similarly, if truth does not exist without God, then how can the very statement “truth does not exist without God” be true? For, suppose there were no God, then, according to you, there would be no truth. But then at least one thing would be true, namely, that there is no truth, which is a contradiction. So, something would still be true even without God.
[“God does not bow down to morality. There is no morality without God.”]
But on your position there is no morality (in the sense that we usually mean) with God either, since morality would be an arbitrary construct of God. And since “He” doesn’t “bow down to morality”, “He” presumably need not adhere to it, which renders it rather meaningless. The God you hope in is probably a devious, malicious, maniacal, deceptive being. What hope do you have in Jesus then? Since God doesn’t “bow down” to morality or logic, “He” may just send all Christians to Hell for the fun of it.
I’m seriously wondering what your take on evangelism is. Do you honestly try to convince people of such a being? And even if you could get them to believe such an absurd concept, what could possibly recommend that they accept Jesus as their savior? The “God” you espouse would feel no obligation nor urge to honor their faith or to be consistent. Everyone is just as likely to end up in Hell believing in Jesus as they are not believing in Jesus.
Ryan-
We’ve been round and around these discussion so many times I feel like I keep repeating myself. The differences I see between our viewpoints is this:
You view logic and math as a universal entity. If God exists, then (He) must conform to that logic since it is universal.
I do not believe in such a universal entity. If logic and math exist it is because they are aspects of God’s character.
It is difficult to discuss the question you raise above because they have different meanings to each of us. I understand your viewpoint, but I don’t agree with it. I think we need to let it stand at that.
I understand the difference between our views. The view you are putting forward, however, is incoherent and unintelligible. How can I let it stand at that when you use it as a platform for criticism against other views, like mine. You have a double standard that kills learning, conversation and coming to truth. For instance, when I bring up objections about God, your response is to make the absurd claim that logic doesn’t apply to God. But then you turn around and use logic to support your views and make all manner of claims. I think this is disingenuous and unfair.
I am also still interested in your response about evangelism.
I don’t appreciate being called incoherent, unintelligible, and absurd. Let me try yet once again to put down my views plainly:
1) There are no universal entities. Therefore there is no universal truth, no universal logic, no universal math.
2) God’s existence is accepted by faith.
4) God has created the universe to operate in an orderly manner. That order is the source of truth. Notice truth does not exist outside of the created universe.
5) Humanity is able to perceive the order of the universe. We understand how the universe operates as an extension of human intuition. Intuition is the source of logic and math. Logic and math are created entities as human beings are created entities.
Now that I have put it in steps, I do not want to continue going round and round about things we will never know an answer to. If you have different beliefs that is fine. I don’t have to accept yours and you don’t have to accept mine, but I would like to end this discussion.
For what it is worth, I’m not calling you incoherent, unintelligible or absurd. But I am saying that the position you are currently defending is incoherent, unintelligible and absurd.
You cannot assert (4) on your position without being self-defeating. (5) cannot be correct as logic and mathematical investigation have often shown our intuitions to be incorrect.
(1) also cannot be correct because it assumes a universal truth. To be true, (1) would have to be a universal truth.