Reality is Being Born

Our world is a womb, a seed.

Reality is being born, we are being born.

Reality is still very young, as are we. If it were not so, evil would not still exist. We are in the pains of birth.
Creation is unfolding, flowering, just now beginning to burst from the seed.

It is not born yet. As yet only the firstfruits have flowered, only Christ has gone through the door to new creation, and in his resurrection He lets a gleam of light through to us still in the seed. He leads us on, to Himself.

He is the firstborn from this womb, the firstfruits from this barren ground.

God is in the midst, kneading, shaping, guiding, participating in creation, in a sense growing within it Himself as the one who is always, at every step, leading us further up and further in.

God is not sitting outside watching the process unfold, He is here.

The Story of Reality and its Flowering is the story not of creation only but of all things, of God and creation together, of all reality.

Read More...

A Story Reflected: The Great Rider

I saw a great Rider on a white horse, robed in white and clothed in glory and light and magnificent splendor, a mighty warrior riding into battle like the wind.

His hair flowed behind him, but his face was constant, calm and benevolent, full of love, yet also of strength and power – his triumph was at hand. The Rider's face was ageless, both young and old, and his majesty was all the greater. All wisdom and knowledge was present in his face. He is good. I saw also in him the memory of suffering; in his body he bore the mark of his love, a wound that brought healing. In his eyes was light from an older age - from the very beginning.

The Rider directed his horse with ease. His armor shone like the sun, and in his hand was the greatest of swords. He wore no helmet, but a silver crown.

I too rode into battle, among the great host led by this Rider. The bright sun shone down on him from a clear blue sky - far above, at the edge of sight, flew a red and golden bird, the phoenix. The host of the Enemy was vast, but we had One, mightier than they: our captain and our banner, our White Rider, our Lord and King. His presence brought strength and hope to all who followed; we felt no fear, but wonder and joy. I remembered the older place and knew that our Lord would win the victory.

Gabriel and Michael rode beside him, one on either side, terrible to behold, but our Lord was greater far than they, and he rode before them like the wind. The drumbeat of the footfall of his horse shook the earth. As he rode I saw more clearly the wound he bore in his heel, the mark of his victory.

Read More...

"The Cardinal Difficulty of Naturalism"?

C. S. Lewis described, in his book Miracles, what he considered to be “The Cardinal Difficulty of Naturalism.” In a naturalistic, materialistic picture, rational human thought is merely the end product of a long chain of evolutionary causes and effects. But, writes Lewis, “an act of knowing must be determined, in a sense, solely by what is known...if it were totally explicable from other sources it would cease to be knowledge.” In other words, if you say “I think X because of my evolutionary history” this means you cannot say “I think X because it is true.” Why? “If causes fully account for a belief, then, since causes work inevitably, the belief would have had to arise whether it had grounds or not.” Consequently, naturalism leaves no room for affirming truths simply because they are true; all knowledge collapses for the naturalist, and his worldview self-destructs.

It’s an interesting argument, but does it work? I hesitate to give it too much weight. Lewis writes as if the evolutionary cause-and-effect process does nothing to differentiate between beliefs based on whether they are true or not (whether they have logical grounds or not). In his view, blind natural selection brings about thoughts with no regard to how true they are, so it “leaves no room” for believing things on rational grounds.

But it is by no means obvious that “believing X because it is true” and “believing X as a result of physical processes” are mutually exclusive, even if the physical processes are deterministic.

A moment’s reflection will convince us of this. We can all affirm, regardless of our worldviews, that the psychological act of making logical deductions can be described in terms of physical processes in the brain. The ideas running through the mind are exact representations of the (largely) deterministic neurological process (perhaps they are even the same thing, although that is another question). That is, abstract logical deductions are in a sense occurring as physical events. So we have in the human brain both an object that runs according to physical laws, and a truth-deducing mechanism, albeit imperfect and flawed.

Are we to throw up our hands in epistemological despair and cry “our thoughts have a physical cause-and-effect history in our bodies, therefore we cannot hold them rationally - science has destroyed itself as a rational endeavor, along with all other human knowledge!”? Surely not.

Doubtless Lewis would be in agreement here, but perhaps maintain that blind, atheistic natural selection eliminates any “left over” room for affirming truths because they are true. But couldn’t the evolutionary process works in such a way that it produces not merely brains that help us survive, but brains that can think rationally, as ours clearly do? Might we not expect natural selection to give us the ability to think rationally and logically precisely because that way of thinking reflects reality accurately?

Alvin Plantinga’s “evolutionary argument against naturalism” is a more recent version of Lewis’ argument. It is unlikely, suggests Plantinga, that true beliefs* would lead to behavior that would help us survive and reproduce. Consequently, the probability of blind natural selection generating true beliefs is low. If we are going to trust our cognitive faculties, we must appeal to some higher power influencing the course of natural selection so that we develop accurate cognitive faculties. Plantinga concludes, contra Dawkins, that "Darwin made it impossible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."
*For the sake of argument, we may as well consider the kind of beliefs that don’t seem immediately useful for our survival; for example, atheism, theism, quantum field theory, or the theory of evolution.

But natural selection may still bring about a particular belief or idea or cognitive capability, even if it in turn has no survival value. It may be that natural selection constructed the ability to perceive the world accurately on a more basic sensory level (eg. counting objects, determining distances with simple geometry), which in turn generated, as a byproduct, the ability to think and reason on a higher level. The details of such a hypothetical scheme are beyond me, but it is a question science may yet answer. We cannot say that our ability to understand higher mathematics, or philosophize about the nature of reality, cannot have arisen from evolution, simply because these phenomena have no apparent evolutionary value.

If and how evolution brought these capabilities about is a complex scientific question, and the absence of a complete answer today is no reason to doubt that the gap will be filled eventually. Consequently, we can recognize that our beliefs have a biological history while at the same time affirming them because we think they are true.

If we are too uncritical in accepting evolutionary arguments against atheism, we may end up saying things like “we don’t know how natural selection could have given us brains fit for understanding the universe, so there must be a supernatural power at work.” Perhaps there is a higher power, and perhaps we can learn about this power in other ways. But in the present case, a less hasty response would be “we don’t know how natural selection gave us these remarkable brains, so let’s think about it, come up with a hypothesis, and test it out.” Maybe at the end of the day biologists will find that under no circumstances would natural selection give rise to the kind of accurate cognitive faculties we seem to possess; then we would indeed have an argument, and a very strong one at that. But Nature has surprised us time after time, so let’s not count on it. Let’s not make the “god of the gaps” mistake yet again. As Bonhoeffer said, “we are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know.”

The kind of God reached by this argument is a grand architect who refines the physical process so our brains turn out to have the desired capabilities. Is he not rather like the “intelligent designer” God who intervenes in the evolutionary process when it can’t get the job done? And the kind of nature (or theologically, creation) assumed is an insufficient one - a nature that needs help from the outside. Isn’t this familiar?

Science has taught us to expect surprises from nature; evolution has proven itself up to the task again and again. And should we not also expect surprises from God? A creation that can give rise to rational beings of its own accord - in a sense, a world that can make itself - is a greater marvel. It is a creation truly other than God, a creation that has “grown up” in a sense, like a child learning to walk on its own feet.

Read More...

Christian Apologetics

What is the best approach to Christian apologetics? My thoughts:

• The shocking fact of existence should not be taken for granted; this fact is best understood in light of a single, ultimate, and personal source and foundation of reality, that is to say, God.
• Awakening an awareness of beauty, meaning, and purpose is important to me, since I have experienced God in this way. Beauty (in music, mathematics, the natural world, etc.) is an objective reality best understood within a theistic worldview.
• The same can be said of morality.
• Arguments for God based on science (eg. fine-tuning, cosmological argument) have little or no merit.
• Christianity, properly understood, is its own defense. Explaining is prior to defending.
• The story of fall and redemption gives the most illuminating account of human nature, which is paradoxically both good and sinful.
• An understanding of the story of the cross can be aided by seeing it reflected in fictional stories, some of them very popular today. This is important to me because I came to understand Christ’s death and resurrection in this way.
• The problem of evil is perhaps the apologist’s greatest concern. A Christian response must be centered on the cross, Christ’s resurrection, and the hope this gives for “eucatastrophe” even in the face of death (1 Corinthians 15).
• Second in importance to seeing the beauty of Christianity is understanding its historical credibility. We must study the claims of the first Christians in their cultural context.
• Skeptics need to see that Christianity is consistent with modern science, including biology. BioLogos has set a good example in addressing this issue.

Read More...

J. R. R. Tolkien on "Eucatastrophe" and Christianity

“The “consolation” of fairy-tales has another aspect than the imaginative satisfaction of ancient desires. Far more important is the consolation of the Happy Ending. Almost I would venture to assert that all complete fairy-stories must have it…I will call it Eucatastrophe [literally, “good catastrophe”]. The eucatastrophic tale is the true form of fairy-tale, and its highest function. The consolation of fairy-stories, the joy of the happy ending, or more correctly of the good catastrophe, of the sudden joyous “turn” does not deny the existence of dycatastrophe, of sorrow and failure; the possibility of these is necessary to the joy of deliverance. It denies (in the face of much evidence, if you will), universal final defeat and in so far is evangelium, giving a fleeting glimpse of Joy, Joy beyond the walls of the world, poignant as grief…In such stories when the sudden “turn” comes we get a piercing glimpse of joy, and heart’s desire, that for a moment passes outside the frame, rends indeed the very web of story, and lets a gleam come through.

It is not difficult to imagine the peculiar excitement and joy that one would feel, if any specially beautiful fairy-story were found to be “primarily” true, its narrative to be history...Probably every writer making a secondary world, a fantasy, every sub-creator, wishes in some measure to be a real maker, or hopes that he is drawing on reality: hopes that the peculiar quality of this secondary world (if not all the details) are derived from Reality…The peculiar quality of “joy” in successful Fantasy can thus be explained as a sudden glimpse of the underlying reality or truth.

The answer to this question [“is it true?”] that I gave at first was (quite rightly): “If you have built your little world well, yes: it is true in that world.” That is enough for the artist…But in the “eucatastrophe” we see in a brief vision that the answer may be greater – it may be a far-off gleam or echo of evangelium in the real world.”

The Gospels contain a fairy-story, or a story of a larger kind which embraces all the essence of fairy-stories. They contain many marvels - peculiarly artistic, beautiful, and moving: “mythical” in their perfect, self-contained significance; among the marvels is the greatest and most complete conceivable eucatastrophe. But this story has entered History and the primary world; the desire and aspiration of sub-creation has been raised to the fulfillment of Creation. The Birth of Christ is the eucatastrophe of Man’s history. The Resurrection is the eucatastrophe of the story of the Incarnation. This story begins and ends in joy...There is no tale ever told that men would rather find was true, and none which so many skeptical men have accepted as true on its own merits. For the Art of it has the supremely convincing tone of Primary Art, that is, of Creation. The joy which the “turn” in the fairy-story gives…has the very taste of primary truth…It looks forward to the Great Eucatastrophe. The Christian joy, the Gloria, is of the same kind; but it is pre-eminently (infinitely, if our capacity were not finite) high and joyous. But this story is supreme, and it is true.”

-J. R. R. Tolkien, "On Fairy Stories"

Read More...

The Beginning

Irenaeus, one of the Fathers of the early church, shares this memory in a letter:

“For I distinctly recall the events of that time better than those of recent years (for what we learn in childhood keeps pace with the growing mind and becomes part of it), so that I can tell the very place where the blessed Polycarp used to sit as he discoursed, his goings out and his comings in, the character of his life, his bodily appearance, the discourses he would address to the multitude, how he would tell of his conversations with John and with the others who had seen the Lord, how we would relate their words from memory; and what the things were which he had heard from them concerning the Lord, his mighty works and his teaching, Polycarp, as having received them from the eyewitnesses.”

It is so clear and vivid a memory - there is nothing quite like it. Envision “that very place” where Polycarp shared his memories, smell the salty sea air of the Mediterranean nearby, now observe with Irenaeus “his goings out and his comings in.” What sort of conversations did Polycarp recount? What must it have been like to hear, spoken by a living voice, memories of the apostle John himself? To be that close...

Yet even this is two steps removed from the beginning. What must it have been like to live at that time, when the story of resurrection was first in the air? It was a discovery, groundbreaking, revolutionary, the greatest the world has ever seen. Death itself, “the last enemy,” overturned and destroyed - their Teacher and Lord had gone through, to the other side. “Philosophy’s greatest problem,” the meaning of death, answered in this singular event in history. We might compare it to, say, the discovery of a unified theory of the laws of nature, which is the holy grail of science.

How thrilling, how terribly and wonderfully exciting, to hear it first-hand and for the first time, as Paul did, when he went up to Jerusalem after his conversion and spent “fifteen days” in conversation with Peter (Galatians 1:18). What was it like for Paul after the first of those days? The world was a different place now. The tide of history had turned, and here he was with Peter, at the center of it all.

Repeatedly in the New Testament, we encounter the language of testimony, of bearing witness. For the early Christians, the response to so unique and powerful an experience was: remember. Never forget His words, never forget His acts, never forget His death and victory, but guard and remember the truth of what we have seen and heard. Retell these things to one another. Do not add or take away, but pass on faithfully so that others may find what we have found: bear witness, bear testimony. “We cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard” (Acts 4:20).

Read More...

Thoughts on Dawkins' The God Delusion, Ch. 4: "Why There Almost Certainly Is No God"

Dawkins' main argument against the existence of God is a philosophical extrapolation of the simple-to-complex pattern seen in evolution. Again and again, very complex organisms have been accounted for as things that have evolved from simple organisms by means of natural selection. This "simple-to-complex" pattern describes not only biological processes, but the physical world in general; chemistry and physics have allowed us to describe the simplest living organisms in terms of even simpler things: molecules, atoms, particles, fields, etc.  The complexity we see grows out of the interactions between these simple entities.

Now, Dawkins describes God as a "super-intelligence," an omniscient and omnipotent being who interacts with millions of people simultaneously by answering prayers. Such a being would have capabilities far beyond that of any human, and since the human brain is incredibly complex, such a God would have to be extremely complex. Why, when science has succeeded again and again in explaining complex phenomena in terms of simple laws, would we hypothesize such a super-complex first cause? "We need a 'crane', not a 'skyhook', for only a crane can do the business of working up gradually and plausibly from simplicity to otherwise improbable complexity" (p. 188).

This is Dawkins' central argument that there is no God, and he makes a very strong point here, one that should be a serious concern for Christian readers. We certainly do need a "crane," that is, a simple starting point, a seed from which the tree of reality can grow. Dawkins' God, an omniscient, omnipotent "super-intelligence," is no crane, but I find this to be a rather flat, two-dimensional theology; merely naming some characteristics doesn't really get to the heart of what God is like. Let me explain by proposing an alternate view of God.

It may be that God's complexity emerges or is "generated" from his simplicity. We know that the complex human brain is "generated" from simpler organisms; over billions of years, particles came together in increasingly complex ways, and in the end, the human brain emerged. The universe looks complex, but it's basic rules and building blocks are simple. Perhaps God is fundamentally simple in a similar way, and perhaps the simple "core" of his nature generates a beautiful complexity (facets of which include his omniscience, omnipotence, etc.), not as a process within time, but as an eternal event within Himself. And if the patterns of God's creation are based on those of his own nature (see "The Pattern of Reality"), one would expect this "emergence of complexity" in God to share similarities with the corresponding pattern in the universe (see NOTE below). I offer some speculative thoughts on this "emergence" in a post on how "Creation Reflects the Pattern of the Trinity." It is important that one needn't think of the emergent reality as ontologically dependent on the simple "seed." In fact it may be impossible to separate them - that is, saying that the simple "core" of God's nature is just "there" may really be the same as saying that God in all his apparently complex fullness is just "there."

If you look only at the "surface" of God, you may see a complex super-intelligence, as Dawkins does. If this is your idea of God, you may rightly agree with Dawkins that it is highly unlikely that this "God" just happened to exist eternally. But if you use your imagination and consider how deep and mysterious God's nature might really be, you might begin to find words like "super-intelligence" less helpful. God is not static and fixed, but dynamic, moving, perhaps even growing in a sense (yet also constant and unchanging, paradoxically, but all these words lose much of their meaning when we try to apply them to God). The ocean of his being is wider and deeper than we can know, and the foundational simplicity Dawkins seeks may still be there, hidden beneath the surface.


NOTE: You may be thinking, "this God sounds a lot like the universe; why not call the universe God and forget about anything beyond it? and in that case, why not drop the word God altogether?" Good question...and one that opens the door to the biggest question of all, "why is there something instead of nothing?" Something deep lies beneath the mystery of existence, and our experience is a signpost guiding us towards the answer, but not all the way. I for one find that the universe as we know it does not give much explanation or illumination of its own existence. To me, it makes more sense to think that there is a greater reality beyond the universe, from which it came and for which it, and we, were made. This "other" reality, this ultimate truth, this center of everything, is why there is something instead of nothing. This, and not the universe, we call God.

And if we are still going to use the word "God" as it is usually used (and not in the Einsteinian sense that Dawkins describes in chapter 1) we must maintain that everything about God - the simple foundation, the patterns within His being, the glorious whole of the Trinity - is self-existent and uncreated, and that everything else, such as the universe, from its basic building blocks to its complex parts, is created by God and dependent on God. That is, we must maintain an ontological gap between God and the rest of reality (see "The Idea of Creation").

Read More...

What Does "Creation" Mean?

Recently I've been writing about the Christian doctrine of "creation."  What does "creation" mean?  It's a word that has acquired a lot of baggage in recent decades; here I try to explain the original idea.  And what does it imply about God as Creator, and about the nature of reality as creation?  Some thoughts:

• The Idea of Creation
• Does God Need Creation?
• C. S. Lewis on the "Plain Bounty" of the Creator
• Can God Love without Creating?
• The Universe Was Made for the Cross
• If creation is small compared to God, is He a poor artist?
• An Analogy involving God, Creation, Mathematics, and Physics
• The Wonder and Joy of Creation

Read More...

About This Blog

Why hello, dear reader. My name is Elliot. I am a graduate student in physics at Penn State, and in my spare time, an amateur philosopher and theologian and an avid reader and writer. I enjoy climbing trees, playing the legendary game of pooh sticks, and looking (hitherto without success) for hidden doors to other worlds.

But your interest, I suspect, is primarily in the content of this blog. Whether you found this site while on some intriguing theological internet quest or stumbled upon it in sheer boredom, I’m glad you are here. This blog is the necessary overflow of the thoughts in my brain - thoughts that I feel compelled to share with others.

I've posted a list of topics on the left side of the blog; this functions as a sort of index for everything I've written. Each link there takes you to a page of links to individual posts. As I publish more writing to this blog (in no particular order), I will do my best to categorize it through these pages.

As the subtitle indicates, these writings are my "exploration of Christianity." Christianity, as I see it, is the true story of the world we are in, so what is it all about? Can it shed any light on this strange world in which we find ourselves? How does it address the problem of evil and suffering, or our perceptions of beauty and meaning in the world? Is there a deeper beauty in the many apparent paradoxes of Christianity? What is the significance of Christian themes in books and movies? Being a scientist, I also enjoy writing about the relationships between Christianity and science and between God and mathematics. Perhaps most importantly, who is God and how should we think of Him?

As I rational person, I am compelled to ask "why believe Christianity?" There are many reasons. But before we weigh the evidence, we must understand this worldview. We must ask "what is Christianity?" and only when we find the answer to this question will we see how Christianity explains things and why it is true. Responses to some of the most common objections to Christianity made by atheists or agnostics can be found here. More importantly, though, this site as a whole is my explanation of and apology for Christianity - my answer to both "what is it?" and "why believe it?"

You may be wondering what the title "unless a seed dies" means. The words come from Jesus: "unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit" (John 12:24). The meaning of this saying is central to my understanding of Christianity, and to much of what I have written on this site, including these posts on the beautiful theme of death and resurrection. God "empties himself" and is "made nothing," even to the point of human death on a cross, and from his own death God brings a new and greater life. Joy from suffering, beauty from ashes, life from death - this is the secret of Christianity and the beauty of God himself.

These thoughts are all about God - who He is and what He has done to reveal Himself to us. He is the foundation of existence and the fountain and purpose of all life - all reality revolves around God and finds its meaning in Him (Romans 11:36). And when I see His great design for humanity, I exclaim with Paul, "oh the depths of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!" (Romans 11:33).

I hope this blog will be a blessing to you in one way or another. If you have something to say, do not hesitate to leave a comment or email me at elliot137@gmail.com.

-Elliot


P.S. Some of my own favorite posts...
-He is Himself the Grain of Wheat: The Self-Emptying Nature of God
-The Paradox of God's Love: The Empty Cup Overflowing
-At the Cross, Death is Destroyed by Death
-A Story Reflected: Resurrection
-The 'Foolish' Wisdom of the Cross

Read More...

The Wonder and Joy of Creation

...Creation is not a mere copy of God's nature, nor is it so far below him as to be unworthy of his love and delight. It is the garment he wears, the theater of his glory, his grand design, the masterpiece of the Artist - his song and his dance and his story. As light from the sun, as streams from a fountain...

In creation the Maker "calls into existence the things that do not exist" (Romans 4:17); "by [his] will they existed and were created" (Revelation 4:11). Out of nothing at all, yet at the same time from him, the overflowing fountain, come all things, given being through the life and power of God, the self-existent One. The patterns of his own nature, the ideas eternally present in his infinite mind, are kindled with a creative fire and given a new and different expression in things other than God!

In Him there is no scarcity of ideas or designs for things that could be. Because God is not only the fountain but also the infinite well, he pours forth creation without limit. Plain bounty, as Lewis says - infinite abundance! When one thing is willed into being through the awesome power of the Maker, there is no depletion in the potential for things that yet may be. And for this - for his unending power and creativity - God is to be praised.

We are the streams from the fountain, the branches dependent on the tree. Yet we are even more dependent than this - without God we have no being at all, but without us He is the same, distinct from creation and without any need for it. He is Love, He is the Giver, and he creates so that his love and giving may overflow. We are blessed to receive this great treasure, given because God is a Giver, not because he needs to give. We are loved because God is a Lover, not because he needs to love us.

God is all-sufficient in himself, yet it is a joy for him to create - to see his own patterns and divine characteristics expressed and reflected in new ways, to see his ideas made to be as things distinct from him. And it is a joy for him to enter into his creation, even to live within it, as a creature - this too is his nature, and we see it in Christ.

Creativity, imagination, the making of new things, the bringing into being of worlds out of nothing...blessed be He!

Read More...

An Analogy involving God, Creation, Mathematics, and Physics

Let me ask another question to probe the relationship between God and creation: If creation is a reflection and expression of God's nature, is it something new, or merely a redundant copy of good things that are already there in God himself?

God, the "first thing," contains in his essence, his nature, all that is good and worthy in creation - its value is his value, its pattern an extension of the pattern of God's own nature. There is nothing created that does not derive its goodness or value or beauty from God. Every facet of creation is ultimately rooted and defined in God. Does not mean that creation is merely a copy of what was there first in God?

No. First of all, creation is something other than God, and that fact alone gives it a sort of newness. As an analogy, we might consider the laws of physics that describe our world. Many have argued that the mathematical truths expressed in physics have a reality of their own. That is, our world functions according to the language of mathematics, but the world does not need to exist for 1+1 to equal 2. All laws of physics are to some extent based on and dependent on mathematical truth(s) that are real apart from the physical world.

Perhaps it is similar with God and creation, in that there is no beauty or value in creation that is not rooted in the Maker and derived from him. Things that are eternally present as ideas in his mind, or even as part of his nature, are given actual reality in creation. They may have existed as God's ideas (like an artist's idea of his work), but they did not actually exist in their own right any more than the universe exists in the mathematics that describe it. Creation is still ex nihilo, a new thing made out of absolutely nothing.

It may even be that what I have used as an analogy here is an actual example of creation being rooted in God. The mathematical truths that form the foundation and structure for physics are, in my view, part of God's own nature. If God is three-in-one, then number is inherent to his very being - how then can any mathematical truth derived from basic numbers be separated from God? If this is so, then our physical world gives a new level of reality to that which is already true in God - a sort of creative fire is breathed into the divine equations, making them laws for a real world. In the same way, it may be that other facets of God's nature - moral truth, beauty, etc. - are given a new kind or degree of reality in creation.

No matter how extensively creation is rooted and grounded in the Creator, it is still something else, something new. Creation may be linked to God and dependent on God in every respect, but it remains a thing in its own right, with its own unique characteristics. God is able to give creation a distinct and unique identity, to help it stand alone on its own two feet, apart from him in a sense (for example, in the giving of free will to creatures). This is how he intended it to be.

At the same time, we must balance this affirmation of creation with a reaffirmation of God's all-encompassing supremacy. Creation comes into its own, yet it remains God's creation and cannot escape his design and purpose. As a branch must remain attached to the trunk of a tree, so must creation remain dependent on God. He is all in all, never lacking in himself any good which comes into being in his creation. He is ultimate reality, the overflowing fountain. Creation arises not to complete him, but because of who he is, because of the patterns and ways and perfections that are in him.

This is a difficult balance to keep because it is not clear exactly in what sense creation attains independence, or in what sense it remains dependent.*  As long as we are careful to affirm both creation's integrity and God's supremacy, I think we are on solid ground.
*At the very least, creation is utterly dependent on God in order to continue in its existence.

Read More...

If creation is small compared to God, is He a poor artist?

I mentioned above that God is on an incomparably higher level of existence than anything he creates; God is to creation as a plane is to a line, perhaps. There is a vast chasm between creation and the uncreated Creator. In a sense, creation can never come close to God in his fullness. Compared to the infinite and transcendent God, creation is virtually nothing.

Is God a poor artist, then, to make something so little compared to himself? Ought God to do better than making something infinitely below himself?

No. First consider human artists. What painting or symphony could compare to the complexity and intricacy and beauty of the human mind that gave birth to it? The artists mind is in many ways a work of art far higher and greater than anything he produces. So also with God and his tapestry of creation. But this is an imperfect analogy, and I do not mean it to be taken as a strict, logical argument.

Second, the artist's work is not to be judged by whether it surpasses its author, but by what it is in its own right. In a sense, creation is little compared to God (and so it must be, or God is not God), but that is only a relative evaluation. When we speak of things as they are, creation is enormous, limitless in its growth and infinite in potential (see "Will God Stop Creating?").

Third, and most importantly, it is inconsistent with God's nature to make something greater than himself, or even to make something in the same category. This is on par with logical impossibilities: God's level cannot be reached by a created thing by definition! For what creature, what part of creation, could possibly compare with the Uncreated One? Creation is inherently dependent on God - how then could it approach the self-existent One in his transcendence? How could the One whose very essence is greatness make something greater than himself? God can no more make something comparable to or better than himself than he can make a stone so big that he cannot lift it or make 1+1=3. It would be inconsistent with who He is - his divine nature - and therefore no more possible than a logical contradiction.*

Is the sun less glorious because its rays cannot compare to it? Of course not. We must pause and think before directing the same absurd objection towards the Creator. Creation is the light God shines, the garment he wears. It is his expression and revelation, his song and his story. And seeing it as such enlarges our perception of both creation and God.

*One might object that it is a cop out simply to say "such and such is inconsistent with God's nature," for what do we really know of the depths of God? This would be a valid complaint if we had no reason to think of God in this way (that is, if "God's nature is such and such" really was an arbitrary statement), but in my view, we do have just enough light to speak confidently of God in this way, as did Anselm, for example, when he spoke of God as that something "than which which nothing greater can be conceived."

Read More...

The Universe was Made for the Cross

Creation, I have suggested, is an expression of God's nature much as a work of art bears the mark of the artist. God is like a fountain - it is in his nature to overflow, that is, to create, and to express himself through creation. According to Christianity, God reveals himself most fully to mankind in Jesus, and especially in his death and resurrection. In the cross and the empty tomb, God's wisdom, beauty, justice, love, self-giving and self-emptying nature, and power over evil are seen clearly in an unparalleled way (see "The Victory of God," "The Self-Empting Nature of God").

These qualities, which are part of the divine nature, that is, of God's character, are just as real in him without the story of the cross. God is immutable: his nature is not changed through his interaction with creation. The God who suffered and died on the cross is also the God who exists eternally before and beyond the universe.

But God is like a fountain, or like the sun: his light must shine, his nature must be expressed in new ways and shared and revealed to creatures made in his image. God's story must be told, the beauty of his ways expressed, the depths of his nature revealed. Something like the cross must therefore happen, and consequently a world must be made where this can occur.

If the cross was God's design for the deepest and highest revelation of his character to mankind, then it was primarily for this event that the world was made. The design of a universe in which creatures would have a free choice to sin (possibly accomplished through the indeterminism of quantum mechanics) and would be subject to death and evil (accomplished in part by the second law of thermodynamics; see "Integrating Scientific and Biblical Eschatologies") makes inevitable the need for salvation from sin and victory over death and thereby sets the stage for the cross. In other words, this world was created and allowed to fall into evil so that God could empty himself and enter an evil-filled world, and in so doing overcome evil and reveal himself most fully.

Read More...

Can God Love without Creating?

I recently shared some thoughts on the question "does God need creation?" What I said there is, I think, sufficient to demonstrate that (from a Christian perspective) the answer is a definite "no." But it may seem a little vague to say, as I suggested there, that the love between God and creatures (in particular, us humans) is incomparably lower than what God experiences in himself. Here I want to focus on this particular facet of the question: does God need creation in order to be in relationship with another, in order to love?

According to Christianity, love is central to God's character. But how, one might ask, could love be part of God's nature if he does not experience it in himself? And how could God know love without knowing another? Anyone other than God is a creature. Does God then need creation in order to love? Again, the answer is "no," and it is here that the Christian doctrine of the Trinity becomes essential.

If God was just one "person" as a human being is simply one person, he could not love another without creating someone to love. But God is Triune, both one being and three persons (see "Creation Reflects the Pattern of the Trinity" and "The Trinity: Mystery Beyond Comprehension"). Scripture speaks of Christ as the Son, who is "in the form of God," "one with the Father," "the image of the invisible God" and "the exact imprint of his nature." John begins his Gospel by saying simply that Christ, the Word, "was God." Implicit is the idea that the Son is uncreated and co-eternal with the Father. The bond of love and joy between the Son and the Father is so real and strong that many have understood the Holy Spirit to be a sort of personification of this love. In Jesus' own words, the love and glory shared by the Father and the Son as they delight in one another's perfection has been a reality since "before the foundation of the world" (John 17:24, see also 17:5).

Those who think that God must have been bored without creation have no imagination. They do not realize Who they are talking about. We humans must do things in order to entertain ourselves, but God needs no such diversion. He is the definition and climax of all goodness and beauty and glory and majesty, so it is only right for God to delight in himself. We humans delight in things or people because they are praiseworthy, but all worth and value is derived from God. All that is good in creation is only the faintest reflection of that eternal fullness. What could be more worthy of God's delight than himself?

Love between two persons then, is not only something God experiences in his own inner life, but part of his very being. "God is love" (1 John 4:8). And no love given and received between God and a creature could ever compare to this love. As the cube transcends the square, as consciousness seems to transcend matter, so also is the Love within God himself incomparably higher than any creaturely love.

This understanding of God as Trinity helps us to see a little more of the glorious truth that God has no need at all for anything he creates, and to see the beautiful nature of his love for us.

God's love for us is not a need-love but a gift-love. That is, he loves us not because he needs to love but because it is in his nature to give himself, to share himself with other things, to overflow. Because he is love and goodness by his very nature, it is in his nature to give good things. But there can be no giving unless there is something to give to.* God's love and goodness must therefore be expressed first by the giving of existence to something other than God - that is, by creation - and then by the sharing of his joy with creatures. In the end, we will join in the Dance of God and share in the love and glory of the Trinity (John 17:21-23). His own Love is extended to things other than himself.
*There is giving within the Trinity, but this does not mean God is not inclined to love and to give in new ways.

To be loved by a God who has no need for us but simply delights to give us the gifts of existence, intrinsic value, love, joy, etc. - this is infinitely better than to be loved by a God who needs to love us. Why? Because a God who needs nothing and is all-sufficient in himself is infinitely more worthy and glorious than a God who creates to satisfy unfulfilled needs. And if he is more worthy, then his love given to us is a greater treasure. That is why it is a glorious truth for us that God has no need for us.

All this giving and sharing of himself is part of God's self-expression - that is, his creative work as an artist. That we receive his love is part of what it means to be made in his image. So it is with all creation - the light of God's glorious nature is shared and given and received, and in this act God shines forth his light and glory as an artist revealing himself in his work. All things are "from him and through him and to him" (Romans 11:33). In Lewis' words, God is not merely "all" (the sum total of reality, as he was before creation), but "all in all" (Letters to Malcolm, Chiefly on Prayer, p. 70).

We should of course be glad that God loves us and created us so that we could share in the love that he has always known. But let us praise him not only because of who he is to us, but also because of who he is in himself - not only because of his gifts, but because he is the Giver. Praise him not only because he will satisfy our thirst, but because he is the fountain of living water, not only because he loves, but because he is Love. All the gifts he gives to creation are eternally present in him, and when he gives to creation, he is not any less himself, but more - always full, always overflowing.

"From Him and through Him and to Him are all things...All things are by Him and for Him. He utters Himself also for His own delight and sees that He is good. He is His own begotten and what proceeds from Him is Himself. Blessed be He!"

Read More...

C. S. Lewis on the "Plain Bounty" of the Creator

In the previous post I suggested that although God takes delight in creation, he has no need for it and is perfect and complete in himself. As a fountain is inclined to overflow, so is God inclined to create. C. S. Lewis uses similar imagery to describe God's relationship with creation. Consider these two passages from Perelandra:

"He has immeasurable use for each thing that is made, that His love and splendour may flow forth like a strong river which has need of a great watercourse and fills alike the deep pools and the little crannies, that are filled equally and remain unequal; and when it has filled them brim full it flows over and makes new channels. We also have need beyond measure of all that He has made. Love me, my brothers, for I am infinitely necessary to you and for your delight I was made. Blessed be He!"

"He has no need at all of anything that is made. An eldil is not more needful to Him than a grain of the Dust: a peopled world no more needful than a world that is empty: but all needless alike, and what all add to Him is nothing. We also have no need of anything that is made. Love me, my brothers, for I am infinitely superfluous, and your love shall be like His, born neither of your need nor of my deserving, but a plain bounty. Blessed be He!"

God has great use for creation - everything he makes is good and brought into being to accomplish good things. All things made by the Maker have value, and that God is complete in himself without them does not take away from this value. Creation is interrelated - no thing, no creature can be separated from the whole (see "The Pattern of Reality"), and in this sense we are infinitely necessary to one another. Yet only God is the source and root of our being. The "plain bounty" of God, as of an overflowing fountain, is the best light in which to understand creation.

Read More...

N. T. Wright on the Resurrection of Jesus

"I regard this conclusion [the early Christians' encounter with what appeared to be the risen Jesus] as coming in the same sort of category, of historical probability so high as to be virtually certain, as the death of Augustus in AD 14 or the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70." - N. T. Wright

This summer I read (most of) N. T. Wright's book The Resurrection of the Son of God.  After exhaustively examinating the idea of resurrection in ancient Judaism, Judaism of Jesus' time, the writings of Paul, and the Gospels, Wright concludes that belief in Jesus' bodily resurrection was a startling new "mutation" from within Judaism.  While it came about in the context of Judaism, there are numerous reasons why it cannot be explained away as an invented story.  If you're interested, read the last few chapters of the book - the gist of Wright's argument is that if the story were invented, the early Christians would not have acted as they did or written the Gospels they did.  The only conclusion that remains is that the earliest Christians really did experience what they believed to be the risen Jesus.  Did they experience a delusion, or could it really have happened?

Read More...

Stephen Hawking on God, Gravity, and the Question of Existence

In his new book The Grand Design, which will be available Thursday (September 9), Stephen Hawking states,

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist...it is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going."

To be fair, I have not read Hawking's book, and perhaps my questions are answered there.  What I have written here is only a response to the little I do know of Hawking's worldview.

As an aspiring graduate student in physics currently working towards my PhD at Penn State, and hoping to focus my research in the area of cosmology, I am fascinated by Hawking's suggestion that gravity could play such an important role in the origin of the universe.

But it seems to me (if I am wrong, someone please correct me), that something is wrong with Hawking's reasoning, at least in this excerpt.  Hawking claims to have found "the reason there is something rather than nothing."  But look at the premise behind this reason: "because there is a law..."  Hawking assumes the existence of something (gravity, in this case) in order to explain the fact of existence.

Now, there is nothing wrong with reducing the question of why the universe exists to the question of why gravity exists (that is, of describing the universe, on a solely scientific level, in terms of gravity), but when Hawking claims that this is why anything at all exists, his reasoning (or at least his language) becomes a bit circular.  Where did gravity come from? [1]

Gravity, presumably, either (A) does not count as something real, or (B) exists necessarily.  Case A seems problematic to me - it may be what physicist and priest John Polkinghorne calls an "abuse of language."  In response to the idea that the universe pulls itself into existence from a quantum vacuum, Polkinghorne writes "only by the greatest abuse of language could such an active and structured medium be called nihil [nothing]...in quantum theory, when there is 'nothing' there, it does not mean that nothing is happening" (The Faith of a Physicist 75).  In other words, there isn't really nothing there.  Maybe Hawking attempts a similar language trick in order to reduce the reality of gravity to nothing.  He certainly seems to do in this sentence by saying that the universe comes from "nothing"...but by means of gravity.

Case B is more promising.  Perhaps what seems to be great complexity in the universe can actually be reduced to a few or even just one simple and elegant law.  Perhaps what appears to be a contingent universe that could have turned out differently is really part of a larger physical reality that is necessarily generated by one simple and necessary principle: gravity.  This one basic principle is logically or mathematically necessary - it could not possibly have been other than it is.

But I ask, is gravity alone really so self-evident, so necessary that it should exist instead of nothing?  By itself, is it so great a thing that it can exist actively and of its own accord, rather than being caused to exist?  Is this basic mathematical/physical law really so self-sustaining, so powerful in a sense, that it can and must bridge the infinite gap between reality and nothing?  Wouldn't nothing at all make more sense than one basic law? [2]

The self-existent foundation of all reality must be something truly great.  It must explain itself to some degree, as an alternative to nothing.  In my view, gravity alone doesn't have that kind of explanatory power.  Do you ever have moments, as I do, when you glimpse for a brief second that, instead of nothing at all, there is a reality?  If we are careful not to take existence for granted, but instead to recognize it for the shocking and troubling and mysterious and wonderful fact that it is, we may not be content to say, "ah, gravity - that explains why anything should exist."

Hawking, like other philosophically-minded scientists, has used the word "God" to describe the laws of physics.  He is definitely on to something here.  Believers may be afraid of deifying mathematics or the laws of physics, preferring to think of them as entities created by God.  But there is nothing wrong with supposing that this basic principle (perhaps gravity) is part of God's own divine nature, that is, in saying that while God is more than the necessary laws of mathematics or physics, he might not be less.  This is perfectly consistent with traditional ideas of God.  The Christian idea of the Trinity, for example, implies that number is inherent to God's very being (see "A Theology of Mathematics"), and if mathematics, why not necessary mathematical laws?

You might ask, why make God more than this basic law?  Doesn't that explain things well enough?  In my view, it does not.  The world may be built on physics, but it is more than that.  Beauty, moral truth, purpose, love...these are objective realities that cannot be fully accounted for by scientific explanations* (see "Dawkins, the God of the Gaps, the Domain of Science, and the Question of Existence").  Only ultimate Love and Beauty at the foundation of reality can adequately account for these deep and moving realities.  Only ultimate goodness and power can account for our confident and reasonable intuition that there is a good purpose for human existence.

*Although they may in part: see "Evolution as God's Instrument."

Hawking says there is no need for hypothesizing a personal God.  If you're only looking at the world on a physical, scientific level, this is true.  But if you open your eyes to the whole of reality, which is far greater than the sum of its parts, you might wonder whether gravity alone can explain it all.  We need all of God, not just part of him (and the law behind gravity might be that).  Hawking invokes gravity instead of God to "set the Universe going."  I would rather invoke them both together: gravity to account for things on a scientific level, and God as the greater reality and context within which we can understand the existence of gravity - and everything else we experience - in better light.

[1] The obvious question for the believer is "where did God come from?"  When I ask where gravity came from, I only mean to imply that it cannot explain its own existence.  In my view, God does have this kind of explanatory power.

[2] Again, the related question the believer must face is "wouldn't nothing at all make more sense than God?"  Our answer must be that God, if we were able to comprehend him as he is, would clearly be more self-evident and more obvious than nothingness.  Gravity is not the whole picture - God alone is so great that he explains his own existence.

Read More...

Does God Need Creation?

...Let's investigate this remarkable doctrine of creation. What does it mean for God to be Creator, and for the reality we know to be created? If we are careful to think about God in the right way, we may find unexpected beauty in this simple idea of creation.

It is often stated by theologians that God does not need creation in any way. He is just as well off in a reality where there is nothing but himself - just as happy, content, complete in his divine glory, etc. This is true - it is simply what it means for God to be God. A "God" who depends on things other than himself in order to improve his state of being (whether through emotional satisfaction with creation or in some other way) is not the God that Christians have believed in for millennia. No, the God we worship, the God portrayed in the Bible, the God whose face we glimpse in Jesus Christ, is perfect and complete in himself, lacking nothing.*
*Cf. Acts 17:24-25, "The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything."

If we are not careful, it will seem as if we are forced to say that God cannot take pleasure in his creation. But this is at odds with nearly every page of the Bible, according to which God clearly loves, cares for, and delights in his creation.* But if God does take pleasure in creation, does he not receive something good from it that he would not have otherwise? Even if God was ultimately joyful in himself, without creation, would he not be even more joyful with the additional delight of loving his creation? And does he not therefore need creation in order to "better himself"? It would seem so.
*The Old Testament prophets like Hosea and Jeremiah describe a God who feels compassion for his people, delights in being close to them, and laments their suffering (Hosea 11, Isaiah 62:4). The New Testament describes a God who loved humanity enough to give himself for their redemption (John 3:16, Romans 5:8, Ephesians 2:4).

Let me pose another question before giving a possible answer. What do we mean when we say that God created us for his glory? The theme of God's glory saturates all of Scripture - the whole of human history is being drawn into the larger purpose of God's honor and glory and praise. But this praise can only come from creatures. If so much glory and honor comes to God only through his creation, would he not be diminished if we did not exist to praise him?

It seems, then, that God depends on creation in order to increase his joy and bring himself greater glory. How are we to make sense of this conundrum? (It is the same question stated in two different ways - God's glory and joy are inseparable and overlapping.) The answer to this conundrum lies, I think, in a proper understanding of who God is - in a theology that is rich and deep and strong, both imaginative and accurate.

First, it seems to me that these questions make a rather audacious assumption, namely that creation is basically on the same level as God, that whatever joy or glory God derives from creation is really the same kind of thing as the joy or glory he has in himself. But God is on a level of existence unutterably and unfathomably higher than that of creation. Are we to presume that anything we as his creatures can give him through our existence could even be compared to all that he is in his self-sufficient supremacy? A raindrop adds to the ocean because it has some finite volume of water - while vastly different in quantity, it is the same kind of thing. But the goodness of creation is not the same kind of thing as the goodness of God. We must remember Who we are talking about. A million lines cannot be stacked up to make a plane - a plane is a different kind of thing, in a higher dimension. In the same way, creation cannot add to what God has in himself. He exists in a dimension of being, as it were, that cannot be shared with creation. The difference between God and creation is immeasurably greater than the difference between the ocean and a raindrop.

That is one way to address the issue. At least as important in our understanding of God as Creator is the idea that it is in his nature to create. Let me explain what I mean and how it is relevant. Responding to the problem that we are considering here, Jonathan Edwards wrote in his book The End for Which God Created the World that God is like a fountain - of life and joy and all good things - and that "it is no argument of the emptiness or deficiency of a fountain that it is inclined to overflow." God creates, says Edwards, just as a fountain overflows - is his nature to create, to express himself by shining forth his light in new things other than himself and sharing his goodness with those new things.*  Creating worlds out of nothing, making people in his image, revealing himself through word and image and story - this is what God does and what he delights to do. Like water from a fountain, new things overflow into existence from God. And this creative part of God does not need to be expressed in order to exist: before creation happened, God was the Creator. Creativity is fundamentally part of who God is.

In a sense, you could say that God "needs" his creation because he needs to create, but this is only because he needs to be himself. To use Edwards' excellent analogy again, God is bubbling over like a fountain - his beauty and glory and love must be expressed. That he is inclined to overflow in creation is no argument to his deficiency without creation.  Think for a moment - how absurd, in a way, this objection is. It demands a God who makes and does nothing, a God who must keep his perfection to himself, a God who withholds existence from countless wonderful things that could be - a sterile God. What a lack of imagination one must have to think of God in this way - as a spring of water that can only attain perfection by being inactive!

We need not worry about the fountain of existence being indebted to that which it brings forth. God gives, creation receives. Because he is good, God shares his own love and joy and beauty with things other than himself. All the richness and beauty of creation is and always has been present in its Maker. Nothing comes into being which is not a reflection or expression of the Creator. Creation is his grand design, his majestic work of art, and it is no argument to the deficiency of an artist that he is inclined to make beautiful art and delight in his work.

This understanding of creation should enrich our vision of God. In recognizing his inherent inclination to create, we can grow in our ability to grasp the heights and depths of God's power, beauty, and brilliant imagination. That God should be so creative and make so much and shine so brightly in his creation is a beautiful truth.

*But we must not let this "fountain" analogy mislead us into thinking that God creates involuntarily, or that he is constrained by something other than himself. God creates because it is in his nature to create, and while we humans may be constrained by our nature because it is influenced by outside forces, God's nature is not influenced by anything outside of God. He is who He is, the I Am. Since God alone is the cause of his act of creation, we can still think of it as a voluntary choice. C. S. Lewis describes God as freely "uttering" creation into existence.

Read More...

The Idea of Creation

The incredible idea of creation is not often appreciated for what it is, even by those who believe it. By creation I mean the idea that God, who is transcendent, eternal, infinite, and self-existent, brought into being something other than himself.

If we take God for granted, this obvious but easily overlooked corollary to belief in God seems almost trivial. If God exists, then of course this world is something other than God - of course God was first (in an ontological if not temporal sense) and then this world was created. That is simply the way things are.

But do you see how unique that way of looking at the world is, how nontrivial it is that this is the nature of reality? Such a sharp divide is made between God and all that is not God. On the one hand, God is the foundation of existence itself: instead of nothing, the Trinity exists.* On the other hand, the universe (and all things that are part of it, including humans) does not sustain its own existence, but is ontologically dependent on God. Take God out of the picture, and everything else loses its very source of being. Take creation out of the picture, and God remains God. What this implies is that God and creation are in two radically different categories of being: God alone upholds His own existence, God alone exists in the active voice of the verb. All else is merely caused or made to exist.

To appreciate this worldview, we must see it in contrast with other philosophies in which reality is not sharply divided into these two different groups. Atheists, pantheists, and many others without a traditional Western view of God, deny that the universe is dependent on something beyond it. It is the universe, not God, that is self-existent and eternal.

The Christian doctrine of creation stands in stark contrast to this view, and just as we must appreciate the idea of God in contrast to atheism, so also we must not take for granted the idea that the universe is a created and thus dependent on something beyond itself. That everything we know is constantly and totally dependent on God in order to exist at all is quite a remarkable idea. Theism and the doctrine of creation are inseparably linked together, and we must take neither idea for granted.

*Where did God come from, you ask? This is a difficult question that I will write more about in the future. Suffice it to say, no light can be shed on the mystery of existence unless there is something at the foundation of reality that explains and upholds its own existence, simply by being what it is. In my view, God alone fits this category of first and greatest thing.

Read More...

N. T. Wright on the Humanity of Jesus

You can watch a brief video clip here of N. T. Wright responding to the question "what do you think is the biggest misunderstanding that Western, 20th century, evangelical Christians have about Jesus?"  Wright makes a crucial point here - we must be careful to uphold the twin pillars of Jesus' divinity and his humanity, as did the early church.  Neither is to be emphasized at the expense of the other.  That Jesus was God incarnate does not mean that he could not have struggled emotionally or intellectually as a man (for example, his wondering in Gethsemene if there was a way other than the cross).  Wright notes a certain "evangelical nervousness" when these questions arise, but we need to recognize that Jesus' fallibility in certain areas (in understanding the world scientifically, for example) as a man is not inconsistent with his divinity.

Read More...