For me, in my physics hat, and I suspect for quite a few others, there is another possibility: The event that appears to be uncaused might be one that we just haven’t identified the cause. How would anyone be able to tell that an event was truly uncaused, and not just that the cause hadn’t been observed? Or are you using the term “uncaused event” in a very different manner from which I am interpreting that to mean? And what does “uncaused cause” mean? is a “cause” a special subset of events? I do know that, in this universe, there can be a chain of events, each event causing some other event to happen subsequently. But “uncaused cause” seems to be something that doesn’t have any real meaning, just adds confusion to the terminology.
Who said an infinite number of universes is impossible? Is this a presumption just because the speaker couldn’t count that high, or is there a proof based on observation of all possible universes outside of the one which we can really see?
I have no idea what you mean by “fairness and desert are seen as coequal.” Does this have anything to do with this discussion, or should we take this to private messaging for clarification?
How did they come to be? If not instantaneously all at once, then a progression, and if a progression, then there will never be an infinite number of them. That is merely conceptual, not real, because it is always in the future, and you’re never there. Like donuts – even if you had an infinity of time to make them, there would never be an infinite number of them. All you would ever have is how many had been made at that particular time, not sometime in the infinite future.
As has been noted already and agreed upon. That’s the dilemma with every event to which the cause is unknown. If the event must have a cause, then that cause may be observable and therefore in need of a cause or the cause may be necessarily unobservable. Don’t ask me how to tell the difference, I’m just an arm chair philosopher.
An uncaused cause is unobservable. And I would totally get the look of disbelief, if it were not for your ability to act without being caused to. It’s kind of ironic how we are left to ponder and talk about this in an apparently deterministic universe.
Can an infinite number of universes be formed through successive addition, or do they exist like this as a brute fact?
No worries. We can put a place holder there for now.
I think the point is more along the lines of something Roger Sawtelle said in another thread, that the point of an infinite number of universes being possible means that the number is not limited. If the number is not limited, then there can be a progression that is unlimited. Note that I am not arguing that this is absolute truth, just that, for those of us who believe that God created the universe, we must not try to pretend that God left proof in Her universe that He exists, when it is possible, as I believe it actually is, that God had at least one reason to leave the question of whether He exists as a question without a definitive answer.
The point is to understand what a universe or universes proceeding to infinity means. As a future set of events that’s easy, but what does this mean when the past set of events also proceeds to infinity, which it may reasonably and empirically do.
Actually, for me as a physicist with a basic understanding of what Einstien’s relativity theories imply about time as we experience it being a dimension of the universe, it’s equally easy to think of a series of events extending without limit, either before or after in time. As I noted above, I personally do not believe that this is what “really happened.” However, in order to be honest with myself, and with anyone with whom I am discussing this, I am careful to note that this is something which certainly cannot be known at this time, and may never be able to be known.
The real underlying point is that we Christians undermine our credibility when we insist that we have objective proof that God exists, when the fact is (for me, for sure!) that my personal proof that God exists is subjective. So why would God not leave absolutely clear, objective (independent of observer) proof of Her existence in His universe? Long ago, in an ARPAnet chat group on AI, an atheist commented that he would grovel if God revealed Himself, but would not grovel if God would not reveal Himself to the atheist. It suddenly struck me: If there were absolute proof of God’s existence, some of us would grovel, out of fear. And the immediate follow-on: That is not the relationship the God I believe in wants with any of us. I believe He wants me, and all others, to love Him, not that we grovel in fear and trembling.
Back to the topic of this thread: If you want to turn off an agnostic scientist, claim that you have objective proof of something when what you really have is a large amount of subjective evidence. And I have to just wonder a bit whether God might have a valid reason for doing something different from what I would expect Her to do.
I think I was clear that this is not what I am saying. Let’s review:
If an event happens without cause, then it is unexplainable. Events that happen do not ever become infinite in number. The immediate effect of an uncaused cause will appear to be uncaused. An uncaused cause may be aware, unaware, or not yet aware of its action.
Apologetics will not open the spiritual eyes of the sadducee nor soften a heart that is stony towards God, but someone who already is a Christian or the lost sheep that the Good Shepherd is seeking will be encouraged and strengthened by such accounts.
I agree completely with this sentiment. I think that being aware of this as the reality of the situation should color how I talk with an atheist (or agnostic), especially one who is a scientist, and is heavily inclined towards rational thinking. I do believe the evidence is more believable if it is not presented as “proof”; and then it may become possible to discuss other aspects of my belief as well. And a part of this discussion seems to me to be listening, to understand what particular aspects of religion, or ideas about God, are involved in the person deciding to believe that God does not exist.
It is not irrational to believe that the sovereign God of the universe is behind, say (as I always do ; - ), the “practically impossible” probability (per ChatGPT) of Maggie’s sequence of five ‘lottery wins’.
But if your worldview includes the presupposition (isn’t it prideful presumption, really?) that the spiritual realm does not exist, then there will always be ‘another explanation’.1 The providential timing and placing will not be explained away as fiction by those whose lives are changed forthwith, not to mention subsequent supporting evidence, supporting factual evidence, of God’s interventions into the life experiences of his children.
1 ‘Another explanation’ …or merely denialism, not unlike those in the parable who "will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.” Luke 16:19-31
I also believe this to be true. The problem in talking with someone whose worldview does not presume the existence of the spiritual realm is that we need to be aware that our believing this does not make it true, or false; and at least hope that the other person will accept that his/her believing something different does not make their belief true, or false.
When two people with strongly held, but different, beliefs both insist that they would not believe in something that wasn’t absolutely true, we have set the stage for a religious war.
In my experience, scientists I talk to seem to have the same range of objections to Christianity that the general population does. It is not like non-scientists will never reject Christianity because they believe it conflicts with science. As a result, an article about how to talk about Jesus with scientists to me seems as helpful as an article on how to talk about Jesus to real estate agents. The article also seems to reinforce negative stereotypes about scientists, such as that all scientists are socially awkward, don’t believe in God, or are aloof and incomprehensible to normal people. I am sure that was not the intention of the article and the author seems to be a scientist himself, but the article does not sit well with me. Although I would agree that science fits well into the larger Christian narrative and there are a lot of motivations to do science from a Christian perspective, this article could come off as condescending or objectifying to scientists since it seems to paint a picture of scientists as being a bunch of God-hating weirdos in lab coats.
There’s been a great long discussion on this thread that has veered way off topic. While all this discussion about infinite universes and infinite realities and so on is useful to have, I really think it would be better off on a separate thread.
For what it’s worth, I’ve been thinking a bit more about this subject lately and the kinds of conversations that we can and should be having as Christians with scientists. In particular, I think the best question to ask them is what keeps them awake at night. What do they consider to be the most pressing issues that they believe need to addressed, both by science and by the Church? What would they like us as Christians to be saying and doing to help address them?
I’m pretty sure that the answer you get will not be what most apologists and evangelists expect. I doubt if there are many scientists who lie awake at night worrying about evolution, or whether the universe is infinite or not. As far as I can tell, most of them are concerned with more pressing matters such as man made climate change or how to combat misinformation. Another big one at the moment is artificial intelligence—the release of ChatGPT and its successor GPT-4 is raising a lot of questions even among experts in the field about whether these machines are conscious or are likely to become conscious, and whether or not they are likely to pose an existential threat to humanity either now or in the future. Issues such as these are ones where showing a willingness to listen, to take them seriously, and to consider how we could best do our part in addressing them as Christians will be a far more effective witness than trying to hit them over the head with weaponised Bible verses or loaded questions about assumptions and presuppositions.
This 100%. You’ve put your finger on the button of what was wrong with the article in one word: stereotypes. I’m sure that most evangelists and apologists hate stereotypes of Christians as much as the rest of us do. Well Jesus did say that we should do unto others as we would have them do unto us.
I think you have started heading in the right direction! In reading your post, it finally soaked in to me that we have never identified the reason why we Christians would want to talk with scientists. Is it because we want to convince them to come over to our understanding of religion and science? I think the long discussion that feels like it is off-topic is a demonstration that we aren’t going to convince an atheist or agnostic scientist to convert to Christianity because we have such a wonderful, convincing argument that God exists. A better, and definitely attainable objective, is to try to understand what we Christians can do better by working with scientists, to make our world a better place. And, jammycakes, I am quite sure that coming at the discussion from the direction you suggest will most assuredly come across better, and could really have some productive results, and will quite likely build better relationships.
Good point, and perhaps what we should really be discussing is how does the church effectively communicate and fellowship with those in its congregation who profess Christianity and work in the sciences. There the church in general and the US evangelical church in particular has its problems. I know several who have simply dropped out of organized religion as they felt shunned and ostracized by their fellow believers.
Also with those who have a practical or at least passable understanding of the sciences, so they don’t have to feel it is an untouchable topic among Christian friends and fellow believers. Thankfully I am free to talk about it with my wife especially, and my two closest friends as well, but I wouldn’t know how to broach it at church in a larger group. You can see here how YECs typically respond. I might have to become an Episcopalian. (Speaking of, I haven’t seen @beaglelady recently – I hope she’s okay!)
This is one of the main things that I hammer home again and again and again and again when I’m addressing the subject of science and faith. It’s also the point where the rubber hits the road the hardest for me, because I had to deconstruct a whole lot of bad attitudes of my own towards science simply to progress my career beyond a minimum wage.
As a PhD biologist friend of mine put it on Facebook a few years back, these subjects are our jobs, for which we spent years training and are paid to do. Even if we aren’t actively involved in scientific research, there are many, many careers for which a solid grounding in the sciences is essential.
This is the one thing that I wish I could get through to every Bible-weaponising young earth zealot who thinks that they know more about science than “secular scientists” because they haven’t been “brainwashed” by a science degree. When they berate us for “putting your trust in science,” or make snide remarks about “secular science,” or accuse us of “having more faith in science than in God,” or demand that we lower our standards to accommodate blatantly and mathematically untrue claims in the name of “making science fit Scripture,” they are attacking essential skills and disciplines that we need to understand and apply correctly in order to do our jobs properly. And no, they can’t just hand-wave it away by inventing distinctions between “operational science” and “historical science.” The skills and disciplines that they are undermining are ones that are common to both.
I agree with your full point too but I also think it behooves Christians of any stripe to question the wisdom of using the Bible as a weapon. Damning on God’s behalf is not at all biblical since the Bible advocates leaving the judgement to God. That doesn’t stop YECs from coming after you as a scientist, though it should.
(Speaking of, I haven’t seen