The Case for Idolatry: Why Evangelical Christians Can Worship Idols

While perusing Wintery Knight’sblog, I saw a repost from another blog which is probably one of the best parodies I’ve seen in a long time.  Here comes a repost-repost!

The article is called, “The Casefor Idolatry: Why Evangelical Christians Can Worship Idols” written by Andrew Wilson.  It is well-worth reading the entire post.  As Christians, we tend to weigh sins as if some are worse than others, but the nice thing about this post is that any sin we try to justify can be inserted into the parody.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“For as long as I can remember, I’ve wanted to worship idols. It’s not that my parents raised me that way, because they didn’t; I was brought up in a loving, secure, Christian home. But from childhood until today, my heart has been drawn to idolatry….For many years, I was taught that idolatry was sinful. As a good Christian, I fought the desire to commit idolatry, and repented when I got it wrong. But the desire to worship idols never went away…..So it has been such a blessing to discover that worshipping one God, and him alone, isn’t for everyone. There are thousands of Christians out there who have found faithful, loving ways of expressing worship both to God and to idols, without compromising either their faith or their view of Scripture. In recent years, I have finally summoned the courage to admit that I am one of them. Let me give you a few reasons why I believe that idolatry and Christianity are compatible.”

Wilson then goes on to list some of the reasons he has come to accept that idolatry is compatible with his Christian faith:

·      A number of scholars have provided strong cases for “a Christlike approach of humility, openness and inclusion towards our idolatrous brothers and sisters.”

·      Most of the passages on idolatry come from the Old Testament, which also says we can’t eat shellfish or bacon, yet who doesn’t love crab legs or bacon?  We are in the new covenant now.

·      Jesus loved everyone and never said anything about idols in the Gospels.

·      New research in neuroscience has shown that some people are wired for idolatry.  Anyone who argues with established science is ignorant.  Example:  My father is an alcoholic; therefore, I’m more likely to be an alcoholic…If I choose to drink, I didn’t really have a choice. 

·      Paul has been misunderstood and misused by the church.  In Romans 1, Paul is not talking about people who naturally worship God, but those who exchange God’s glory for idols.  As long as we don’t exchange God’s glory, we’re cool!

·      In Paul’s time, idolatry involved physically bowing to a statue, which is out of date and doesn’t apply anymore.  The modern day notions of idolatry involve someone prioritizing what they want over God…completely different.  The culture has changed and so must the Christian viewpoint.

Wilson concludes the article by imploring Christians to have a new and inclusive perspective on idolatry.

“I hope you will all search the scriptures, search your hearts, and consider the evidence afresh - and avoid judging those who disagree in the meantime! Maybe, just maybe, we can make space in the church for those who, like me, have spent a lifetime wrestling with the challenge of idolatry.”

  

Susskind’s Response to Mithani and Vilenkin: Let’s Play Pretend

Alex Vilenkin has been a staunch supporter of a temporally finite universe.  In spite of the numerous papers and lectures he has given showing that the universe cannot avoid a beginning and the “eternal” models are only eternal into the future, many atheists refuse to acknowledge that all of physical reality had a beginning and are still arguing that it is has an eternal past.  Even Alan Guth, who is the “G” in the BGV Theorem, says they have been able to “prove” the universe had a beginning, yet he still thinks it may be eternal.  I have often wondered what other scientists say about Vilenkin’s work, since if he had made a significant error in his analyses of the other models, surely someone would have said something more than quibble over what constitutes a beginning.

I came across a short paper by Leonard Susskind where he responds to the paper, “Did the universe have a beginning?” by Mithani and Vilenkin which I summarized here (spoiler- the answer is Yes!).  Susskind is a popular physicist that makes frequent appearances on science programs like Nova.  In this paper, he “will argue the opposite point of view; namely, for all practical purposes, the universe was past-eternal.” 

 

He uses a thought experiment of a semi-infinite city called, Hilbertville, to represent the multi-verse.  It has a boundary at x=0, but the goes to infinity at x>0.  The observers of Hilbertville are trying to see the boundary of the city.  Those close to the boundary can see it, but those who are very far away cannot.  Since most of the observers will statistically be too far away to see the boundary of the city, he concludes the city may as well not have a boundary and the same goes for a beginning to the universe.

“Combing the Mithani-Vilenkin's observations with the ones in this note, we may conclude that there is a beginning, but in any kind of inflating cosmology the odds strongly (infinitely) favor the beginning to be so far in the past that it is effectively at minus infinity.”

Susskind didn’t say Mithani and Vilenkin were wrong in their analyses of other model types.  Susskind agreed the evidence indicates there was a beginning.  Instead he said the beginning of the universe (or multi-verse) was probably so far in the past that the universe may as well be eternal for us observers on Earth.  That’s akin to saying ‘the evidence says there was a beginning, and while I acknowledge that’s the evidence, I can still pretend there wasn’t a beginning and ignore all implications of a beginning’.  Atheists get upset when Christians quote Romans 1 and claim they suppress the knowledge of God, but with a response like this, can you blame us?

 

The Multi-Verse: Part III – The Height of Irrationality

The idea of the multi-verse is often used to hand-wave away difficulties with a naturalistic explanation for our universe.  Unfortunately, all the multi-verse does is move the goal posts back a level; the questions in this universe do not go away by adding an infinite number of universes.  There are many scientific and philosophical implications or unanswered questions with the idea of the multi-verse without a designer, so here’s a short list: 

 

 

The laws of physics are independent of the universe

The laws of physics are needed to allow a universe to form prior to the universe forming, if not temporally then ontologically.  As Alex Vilenkin said in this interview,

 

“The same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe; its coming into being.  This seems to suggest that the laws were there prior to the universe itself…..The laws of physics have some platonic existence which is independent of the universe.” – Alex Vilenkin

A platonic existence is the idea that abstract objects, like numbers, shapes, truth statements, etc exist in an independent reality as opposed to being ideas that do not really exist.  Vilenkin is saying the laws of physics exist in an independent reality.  Appealing to a multi-verse does not explain away the laws of physics, since it too needs laws of physics to exist.  The next question is, are the laws of physics brute fact (exist out of necessity), chance, or is there a mind behind the math?  I’ll deal with chance next.  If the laws of physics are brute fact, then it is impossible to have a universe with different laws of physics.  I don’t know of any scientist that holds this view, but even if true, does not explain how the constants within those laws are fine-tuned for a life-permitting universe.  The fine-tuning of the universe for life still cries out for an explanation. 

 

Using the multi-verse to escape a designer is a logical fallacy

The reason the multi-verse has gainedpopularity in scientific circles is due to the fine-tuning problem, which many (not all) atheists acknowledge as the most compelling evidence for a designer, although not compelling enough.  In order to avoid a designer or appealing to the Anthropic Principle (it has to be that way or we wouldn’t exist aka “just have faith”), atheists are now appealing to the idea of an infinite number of universes to increase the probability/chance that a universe tuned to 10^-120 is closer to 1.  There are a couple of issues with this:

 

1).  In order to have an infinite number of universes with different physical constants and early universe conditions, a constant scrambler or some other mechanism must exist to set these different constants prior to these universes forming.  Where does the randomness come from?  Is this cosmic slot machine also tuned to randomly spit out universes with different constants?

2).  This commits the Inverse Gambler’s Fallacy which is “the fallacy of concluding, on the basis of an unlikely outcome of a random process, that the process is likely to have occurred many times before.”  In other words, simply saying that ‘the odds are extremely low that a universe such as ours would form; therefore, there must be an infinite number of universes’ is a logical fallacy.

 

Occam’s Razor

Occam’s Razor is a principle that states that when there are competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.  This is not a principle that refutes logic or science, nor does it prove/disprove anything.  What it does implicate is that one should not posit an infinite number of universes just to explain one universe when the simple explanation of a mind fits the data for the fine-tuning and other discoveries that have been made.

 

The multi-verse also had a beginning

In this video, Alan Guth describes his theory of eternal inflation, which is the leading theory for what happened just prior to the Big Bang (the Big Bang is the result of inflation).  It is not a complete theory, as the he acknowledges, but has made some predictions that have been confirmed.  One of the predictions of this theory is that once inflation starts, the universe expands forever into the future and can repeat by creating more universes.  The caveat to the theory of eternal inflation is that the “eternal” part only goes one way; the future.  Something had to start the first inflating universe.

 

“….we’ve been able to “prove” mathematically that it’s in fact not possible to extrapolate arbitrarily far into the past.  Somewhere if you extrapolate backwards into the past [], somewhere [was] the beginning of inflation.” – Alan Guth

Eternal Inflation is only one of several theories for the origin of the universe and is compatible with some of them like string theory; however, the BGV theorem says if a universe has an average state of expansion, it had a beginning.  Alan Guth is the G in BGV.  This also applies to the multi-verse.  If the multi-verse is expanding, it too had a beginning.  Is it possible the multi-verse is not expanding?  It’s difficult to imagine a multi-verse full of expanding universes that is not also expanding, but if the multi-verse is not expanding it must be infinitely large which leads toproblems.

 

Another reason to believe the multi-verse had a beginning is the 2^nd Law of Thermodynamics.  As Vilenkin explained, the laws of physics had to exist prior to the universe to allow the universe to form at all.  If our universe was formed out of the multi-verse and the laws of physics were already in place, there is no valid reason to believe the 2^nd Law of Thermodynamics does not also apply to the multi-verse.  This also suggests a beginning since the multi-verse should have hit thermal equilibrium an infinite time ago.

 

If the multi-verse does exist, it also had a beginning and requires a cause.

 

Our universe would not be an isolated system

Many of the equations used in the laws of physics are based on the assumption that the universe is an isolated system and have been repeatedly confirmed.  If the multi-verse exists and has interacted with our universe in any way, our universe would not be an isolated system.  This would call into question many things we have observed and think we know about our universe.  Should the multi-verse be discovered our laws of physics may not need adjusting, but I think observational confirmation of our equations lends credence to the idea that our universe has not been impacted by an outside universe. 

 

Multi-verse of the gaps

I don’t know if there are an infinite number of universes or not.  No one does; there isn’t any evidence for or against it.  The issue I have with the multi-verse is that it is being used to hand-wave away evidence for a designer.  It provides an intellectual escape by allowing people to ignore the problems with naturalistic explanations and then claim there is no evidence for a designer.  It’s the “multi-verse of the gaps” argument.  With an infinite number of universes, anything and everything can be explained away.  A theory that can explain anything explains nothing.

 

Why is there something, rather than nothing?

The multi-verse does not answer one of the fundamental questions, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” 

 

The multi-verse can substitute for religion

The multi-verse can be used as a religion substitute.  One of the benefits to having an infinite number of universes is the comfort of knowing that you will live again in another universe.  Tommaso Dorigo laments this new trend in this article where he says,

 

“Indeed, long ago man invented religion as a way to explain what he could not figure out by logical methods, as well as to accept his own mortality: religion made acceptable the concept of death, as well as give an explanation to other natural phenomena. And man is now inventing the multiverse in what appears to me a new, albeit well disguised, attempt in the same direction. One as reassuring and sweet as the idea of an almighty entity….We might be immortal after all….if we accept that the universe is a multiverse unlimited in time, with bubbles continuously regenerated, we must conclude that we are bound to live again not one, but an infinite number of times.”

 

 

Your evil twin is wreaking havoc somewhere

One of the fun implications of an infinite number of universes is the reality that every individual exists in oneor more other universes.  There are an infinite number of me! 

 

“some calculations suggest that a reality with infinite space and infinite universes would necessarily have to repeat itself sometimes, leading to the conclusion that copies of Earth and everyone on it exist somewhere else out there.” – Daniel Mortlock

 

Could one of these copies be my evil twin?  Maybe in another universe I’m an anti-theist, or apologist for atheism…..or a super hero or super villain! 

 

 

The multi-verse is best explained by God

A transcendent mind is still the best explanation for our laws of physics, the fine-tuning of those laws, the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics, the origin of the multi-verse, and why there is something rather than nothing.  Adding an infinite number of universes does nothing to explain these and is an intellectual leap without warrant. 

 

 

The idea of multiple universes does not pose a threat to Christianity.  God is free to do as he pleases.  The multi-verse may or may not exist.  We don’t know one way or the other, but using an infinite number of universes as an escape for a designer is not a rational counter-argument to the arguments for theism. 

 

“To postulate a trillion trillion other universes, rather than one God, in order to explain the orderliness of our universe, seems the height of irrationality.” – Richard Swinburne, Is There a God?

 

 

The Multi-Verse: Part I – Desperate to Avoid God

I really don’t know why I remember this conversation, but I do.  I had just started my freshman year of college and was talking to one of my classmates on a break.  He seemed like a hippie- type, so for him to say that our universe could be one of an infinite number of universes wasn’t surprising to me.  What is surprising to me is how the idea of a multi-verse is now part of mainstream science.  Just about every recently made program I watch regarding the universe preaches the possibility of the multi-verse as if it is true.  Even Nova made a video on the multi-verse.  Let’s be clear; it is only an idea.  It’s not a scientific theory.  A theory has evidence supporting it.  It’s not a scientific hypothesis.  A hypothesis is testable.  The multi-verse has neither supporting evidence nor is it testable, so why is it discussed (preached) in science?

The idea of the multi-verse has been around in science for decades, but it wasn’t taken seriously.  Scientists try to avoid theories that have no evidence and cannot be falsified.  Many claim to reject the existence of God for this reason, but now scientists actively discuss an idea that has no evidence and cannot be falsified.  Why has this changed?  The reason for the change is because the universe appears to have been fine-tuned to allow for life.  What does this mean?  The laws of physics have several constants contained in their equations that, should they vary in the slightest amount, our universe would not have been life permitting, if it had formed at all. 

The most extreme example of fine tuning is the Cosmological Constant which has been tuned to 1:10¹²⁰ (120 decimal places).  If this had been a slightly smaller value, the universe would collapse on itself to form a giant black hole.  If this value had been slightly bigger, the universe would have flown apart so fast that atoms would not have formed.  Just for a scale reference, we’ve had 10¹⁷ seconds since time began and it’s estimated the all of the particles in the observable universe total around 10⁸⁰.  I’ve included more examples below of finely tuned constants.

What is the best explanation for this?  As Leonard Susskind says in this video, “nobody thinks that’s accidental….that is not a reasonable idea that something is tuned to 120 decimal places just by accident”.  The more discoveries scientists make, the more it becomes clear that a designer is required to set these constants into the extremely narrow range.  If one were following the evidence, then a designer is the simplest explanation.  Yet many atheist scientists don’t allow for the option of a designer.  Sandra Faber explains how they get around the evidence:

“Faber declared that there were only two possible explanations for fine-tuning. “One is that there is a God and that God made it that way,” she said. But for Faber, an atheist, divine intervention is not the answer.  “The only other approach that makes any sense is to argue that there really is an infinite, or a very big, ensemble of universes out there and we are in one,” she said.”

This Discover Magazine article discusses if there is an alternative to a creator, since the ‘fine-tuning problem’ indicates intelligence.

“Call it a fluke, a mystery, a miracle. Or call it the biggest problem in physics. Short of invoking a benevolent creator, many physicists see only one possible explanation: Our universe may be but one of perhaps infinitely many universes in an inconceivably vast multiverse.”

“Advocates argue that, like it or not, the multiverse may well be the only viable non­religious explanation for what is often called the “fine-tuning problem”—the baffling observation that the laws of the universe seem custom-tailored to favor the emergence of life.”

“if there is no multiverse, where does that leave physicists? “If there is only one universe,” Carr says, “you might have to have a fine-tuner. If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse.””

The probability that all of these constants and early universe conditions could be randomly set so precisely and accurately is so low that it is beyond comprehension.  Atheists often claim that there is no evidence for a designer, yet when they discover such evidence, they postulate an idea that has no evidence; an infinite number of universes.  The multi-verse is a faith-based claim, not a scientific hypothesis.  Good science does not come up with theories based on the need to avoid God. 

The fine-tuning of our universe was either caused by a designer or there are an infinite number of universes; one has evidence and the other has to be taken on blind faith.  As Bernard Carr said in the Discover Magazine article, “If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse.”  Christians are free to follow the evidence where it leads; atheists must hold on to blind faith. 

Examples of fine tuning:

Cosmological Constant – 1:10¹²⁰ – This is the energy of empty space (dark energy) that is causing the universe to expand.  If it were too high the universe flies apart so fast that atoms cannot form, too low and the universe collapses into a black hole.

Critical Density – 1:10¹⁵ – This is the density of the universe required so that it would neither expand nor contract (the density without the Cosmological Constant).  It’s value determines the shape of the universe; open, closed or flat.  If it were too high the universe flies apart, too low and the universe collapses into a black hole.

Universe Density – 1:10⁶² – The density of the universe is tune to 10^-62 of the critical density required for a flat universe.  This has become known as the Flatness Problem.  Life requires an almost flat universe.

The Weak Force – 1:10¹⁰⁰ – The weak force is what allows radioactive decay.  If it were too strong, only heavy elements (like iron) could form; too weak and only light elements (like hydrogen) could form.

Electromagnetic Force to Gravity – 1:10⁴⁰ – If this ratio varied by 10^-40, stars would only form either small red dwarfs or giant blue stars, neither of which can sustain life.

The Amplitude of Primordial Fluctuations (Q) – 1:10⁵ – Q is a measure of the mix of atoms, dark energy, and radiation at the various points in space after the Big Bang (the distribution of the ‘stuff’).  The results are ‘ripples’ throughout space.  If the amplitude of these ripples were larger than 10^-5, the resulting chaos would prevent star formation; smaller than 10^-6 and the universe would collapse into black holes.

Hoyle Resonance – 1:10⁵ – The Hoyle Resonance is a property of carbon-12 that allows both carbon and oxygen to be produced from stars.  A change in this state by 10^-5 would result in either no carbon production or no oxygen production.  The Hoyle Resonance allows for both to be produced.

The mass of hydrogen converted into energy in stars – 0.007% - This is the percent of a hydrogen atom’s mass that is converted into energy from the nuclear reactions of stars.  If that percent were 0.006%, the universe would be full of hydrogen and nothing else.  If that percent were 0.008%, there would be no hydrogen which results in no stars like our sun or water.

Entropy – 1:10¹⁰¹²³ – This is the low entropy value Roger Penrose estimates our universe had at the Big Bang.  Entropy is the amount of order in the universe and never decreases over time.  You could literally take a zero from this number and put it on every particle in the observable universe with many zeroes left over. 

 

Click here for a list of 93 finely tuned constants.

Sources

 

Paper on fine Tuning

InspiringPhilosophy on theTeleological Argument

Reasonable Faith on the Teleological Argument

The Flatness Problem

Roger Penrose on entropy

Leonard Susskind quote – Full Video

Intelligent Design of the Cosmos

List of constants

Intellectual Escapism

 

I’ve been getting into several discussions with atheists online and I must admit that I’m amazed at the lengths people will go to intellectually to avoid the existence of God.  Relativism has invaded science; emotion has taken over logic in the name of rationality.  People claim they do not believe in God because of a lack of evidence, but then they point to stories of those who have left Christianity purely for emotional reasons; they ceased to feel want they once felt.  Then they become bitter and go on a crusade to educate others about their delusions. As someone who does not trust emotions, I find this baffling.  I’m not bitter that I no longer believe in Santa.  Why is God different? 

Here are some of my favorite objections to the arguments for God:

• I am open to God existing, but only if he can be scientifically verified.
• It may be possible for something to come from nothing without a cause.
• Watch this video where an anti-theist scientist says something can come from nothing….but then later admits that nothing weighs something and isn’t really nothing.  Buy my book!
• “Philosopher’s Nothing” may not even be possible, so there’s nothing to discuss.
• A supernatural first cause that is not bound by our natural laws is special pleading, but it’s ok if the multi-verse is a first cause not bound by our natural laws.
• There was no time before the big bang, so any questions about a cause for our universe is meaningless….unless you believe the multi-verse did it.
• The "god of the gaps" argument is a logical fallacy….it's ok for the multi-verse to fill the gaps.
• Just because there is no evidence that the multi-verse exists does not mean an atheist has faith. 
• I trust science; that is not the same as faith.
• We just got lucky with the fine tuning of the universe and with life forming from non-life. 
• Why should we be surprised we exist?  Someone has to win the lottery.
• Objective moral values do not exist, but God sure was evil in the OT.
• Objective moral values exist through evolution and are set by society, but Nazi Germany (or anything else I disagree with) was/is still wrong.

"In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't." - Blaise Pascal

I think this quote aptly describes what is happening in the mind of an unbeliever.  They have made a choice that they do not want to see; therefore, they do not see.  Rather than worship the creator, they worship the creation and ultimately themselves.