Genesis, a Cup of Tea, and the End of the World

by Kenneth Francis (September 2017)


The Astronomer, Johannes Vermeer, 1668


 

In an epic hit-and-miss essay on America losing its mind, in a recent edition of The Atlantic magazine, Kurt Andersen writes that Americans believe—“really believe”—in a story of life’s instantaneous creation several thousand years ago.
 
If Mr. Andersen is referring to the age of the universe or life, he is exaggerating. All Americans don’t ‘really believe’, although some do, in instantaneous creation several thousand years ago. From the Belgium Catholic priest, astronomer Georges Lemaitre (1894-1966), to astrophysicist Stephen Hawking, some 13.7 billion years seems to be the duration in time since the universe began, according to Big Bang cosmology. And most American Christians and atheists—again, not all—believe in this and an old universe/earth. As for life: it didn’t just pop out of nothing uncaused, a concept that is religiously neutral.
 
However, Christianity, which is in fact the most science-friendly belief system amongst the world’s religions, says nothing about the earth’s age. As for human creation: The story of primordial beings, Adam and Eve, is infused with metaphor and symbolism. The Hebrew for Adam is ‘Man’, and Eve is ‘Living One’. There was no talking snake, but a metaphor symbolizing Satan (serpent). However, this is an inhouse discussion amongst fellow Christians and subject of another essay. But back to creation: Stephen Hawking, although most of his views on astronomy are sound, is dismissive of the biblical account. He also rejects a creator.
 
About seven years ago, during a talk on Hawking at a university, I raised my hand and criticised comments he made in his then latest book, The Grand Design, which he co-wrote with Star Trek screenwriter Leonard Mlodinow.
 
My question was, “why did Hawking write such a nonsensical idea that the universe created itself because of gravity?” (In order for the universe to create itself it would have to have existed before it exists, and gravity is part of the universe). I also asked why did Hawking write “philosophy is dead” at the beginning of his book (a self-refuting statement, as it’s philosophical), while constantly philosophising throughout the entire book?
 
There was an awkward silence in the lecture hall and the speaker looked at me in what seemed like a confused expression. He said, “Did he really say that?” (He hadn’t read the entire book). I told him the page numbers where he could find the quotes. I wasn’t criticising Hawking the man (a man enduring a severe neurone disease that has paralysed him for decades), but Hawking the scientist.
 
But, as the speaker looked at me with what seemed like an expression of disbelief, to my rescue came a distinguished astrophysicist on the panel, who stood up and said, “Kenneth is right; Hawking did write those things”. The subject was quickly changed in a ‘move-along-nothing-to-see-here’ kind of way. Because Hawking is an atheist and doesn’t believe the universe was created by God, his views on the origin of the cosmos generally go unchallenged by secular academics and the mainstream media who are generally hostile to Christianity.
 
And he’s not alone in this view. The likeable atheist philosopher Daniel Dennett also denies that the universe has any theological importance. Although he says that the universe has a cause, he thinks its cause is: ‘Itself’ (WHAT?). Yes, he calls this the ‘ultimate bootstrapping trick’ (is this a non-existing universe, sometime in the finite past, pulling up a non-existence ‘itself’ by non-existence bootstrings? Where do these metaphorical bootstrings come from? Not to mention ‘Itself’!) Not only is this logically incoherent but, in the words of Oxford University’s mathematician, John Lennox, nonsense remains nonsense regardless of who says it. Nonsense, because in both Dennett’s and Hawking’s descriptions, a first state of the universe is beyond scientific explanation: it is outside of Naturalism, where there are no physical laws; therefore, the cause must be an eternal, uncaused, immaterial, personal, all-powerful and ultimately divine entity, i.e. a non-physical Mind: God.
 
Then there’s the late celebrity scientist Carl Sagan, another likeable atheist, who also didn’t accommodate the divine or a creator. He was also no stranger to contradictions and the odd, daft statement about the origin of the cosmos. He once said: “One of the great commandments of science is, ‘Mistrust arguments from authority’. (Scientists, being primates, and thus given to dominance hierarchies, of course do not always follow this commandment.)”
 
What he seems to be saying is, ‘don’t trust what I’m saying’, as he and all the other scientists are hairless apes prone to error. He added: “The cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be.” Really? Whatever happened to the Big Bang and the Second Law of Thermodynamics (SLT)?
 
But the secular academia and ‘intelligentsia’ would rather believe celebrity scientists than The Bible’s account of creation. This rejection of Genesis is where ‘intellectual’ pride gets you. In 2 Corinthians 11:19, St Paul said: “For ye suffer fools gladly, seeing ye yourselves are wise.” But not all non-believers are hostile to Scripture.
 
In his book, The Genesis Enigma, Oxford evolutionary biologist Andrew Parker wonders how did the writer of the first chapter of Genesis get it so scientifically correct. Parker is taken aback by the order of creation described in Genesis, which follows the order of geologic and life evolution as science understands it. He writes: “Either the writer of the creation account of Genesis 1 was directed by divine intervention or he made a lucky guess.”

Parker isn’t alone. Other agnostics, theists and atheists marvel at the fine-tuning of the universe and its beauty. In his book The Universe: Past and Present Reflections, British astrophysicist Fred Hoyle wrote: “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”

The opening line of Genesis is historically the first to mention the Big Bang by another name: "In the beginning . . . " For the ancient Greeks and Eastern religions, the universe was/is eternal, but The Bible proved otherwise when a hint of the SLT debunked such unscientific notions. This law began to emerge again in the early 19th century and became widespread and fully developed in the 20th century, estimating the age of the universe at approximately 13.7 billion years old.
 
But it’s not just the beginning of the universe that The Bible got spectacularly right and went against general accepted teaching of the time. For The Bible, there was never a flat earth. Isaiah 40:22 mentions "circle of the earth," and in Job 26:10, God inscribed a circle on the surface of the waters. And what supports the earth? According to The Bible, it’s not an infinite number of turtles all the way down, but space. God "hangs the earth on nothing" (Job 26:7). For the earth to be unsupported would have been regarded as absurd in the ancient world. Then there is the expansion of the universe. According to The Bible, the universe has been "stretched out" (Isaiah 40:22). Just imagine how ridiculous this sounded to our ancient ancestors that the seemingly ‘static’ heavens that they saw in the night sky was in fact expanding.
 
There is much more on how astronomy confirms The Bible, but back to thermodynamics. To the ordinary person outside of the fields of science, the SLT might seem complex. However, the great philosopher, JP Moreland, gives a good ‘coffee’ analogy. But to borrow from JP, here’s my ‘tea’ version of SLT: Imagine boiling a kettle to make a cup of tea. You pour the boiling water into a cup, place it on the table, and walk away. Twenty minutes later, you return to the cup and place your finger into the water, which is no longer hot but cooling down until it reaches the point of chilled. This is what is happening on a cosmic scale to the universe: everything is winding down to a uniform state; the lights and heat turned off resulting in heat death of the cosmos: from Big Bang to a pathetic whimper (you’ll never look at a cup of tea in the same way again!). The philosophy writer PJ Zwart describes such a cosmic state:
 
. . . according to the second law the whole universe must eventually reach a state of maximum entropy. It will then be in thermodynamical equilibrium; everywhere the situation will be exactly the same, with the same composition, the same temperature, the same pressure etc., etc. There will be no objects any more, but the universe will consist of one vast gas of uniform composition. Because it is in complete equilibrium, absolutely nothing will happen anymore. The only way in which a process can begin in a system in equilibrium is through an action from the outside, but an action from the outside is of course impossible if the system in question is the whole universe. So in this future state of maximal entropy, the universe would be in absolute rest and complete darkness, and nothing could disturb the dead silence.

This is a major headache for atheists, as the beginning of the universe demands a first cause; in other words, a Creator, while the end of the universe, if there is no God, is cosmic ‘curtains’ with everything everyone ever did throughout history, ultimately becoming undone and in vain. In his book, A Free Man’s Worship, atheist philosopher, Bertrand Russell, bleakly laments:
 
That man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man's achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins—all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul's habitation henceforth be safely built.

Russell, who criticised people who were certain of their beliefs, was certain of this depressing outcome. But one must commend his profound command of the ramifications of a Godless universe. But there is a God because something caused the universe and science points to a First Cause.

Even the world’s most famous atheist, Richard Dawkins, gets confused on this question. During a TV debate in Australia a few years ago on the origins of the universe, Dawkins claimed something can come from nothing. He said: “Of course common sense doesn’t allow you to get something from nothing . . . SOMETHING [yes, you read that right] pretty mysterious had to give rise to the origin of the universe.” Dawkins also said supernatural claims for the universe should be “ridiculed with contempt.” Does that include the Big Bang, which was a supernatural event? Or freedom of the will? Or the laws of logic, aesthetic judgments, love, morality, mathematics, all of which transcend Naturalism?  
 
Consider the philosopher William Lane Craig’s version of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Here is the crux of the argument: whatever begins to exist, has a cause of its existence. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe had a cause of its existence. And this cause of the universe must be a personal creator.
 
Dr. Craig says the only way to have an eternal cause but a temporal effect would seem to be if the cause is a personal agent who freely chooses to create the universe. Think about it: there was no ‘before’ the universe because time itself was created with space and matter.
 
The term, mentioned earlier above, is ‘ontologically prior’ to the universe. Very few people, with the exception of a handful of philosophers, find God’s relationship with time and divine eternity to be enormously complex. It makes the problem of evil and suffering (theodicy), the greatest problem for most people, seem like a walk in the park. Think about it: God has always existed. However, he entered into time a finite time ago by an act of making a personal, free choice. So, the hard question is, what ‘was’ God doing ontologically prior to the universe? Was he floating around in some transcendent dimension whistling and twiddling his thumbs while waiting to create the Big Bang? Such a state seems absurd.
 
According to Christianity, God is a triune entity (three persons in the one Godhead) and, as such, there is spiritual love relationship within this entity. If God isn’t triune, then His love would have to be self-absorbed love, which is an imperfection, just like a narcissist is deeply flawed. And as God is not some finite, human figure, we cannot know exactly what He was doing or thinking ontologically prior to the universe. As for Time: God also knows the future. This is not to say that we are determined and lack free will. Our actions and potential future actions are decided by us and us alone.
 
As for how the world will end: for the theist, spiritual eschatology is the apocalyptic viewpoint of the Second Coming of Christ. Here is how that event is described in the Apocalypse of John, the last book in the New Testament (remember, The Bible is rich in metaphor and symbolism. The NT text below is translated from Greek):
 
Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. From his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done. And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.” Rev. 20.11-21.3 ESV
 
Eschatology, says Dr. Craig, has also become a branch of physics called: Physical eschatology. It is a sub-discipline of cosmology, which is the study of the large-scale structure and evolution of the universe. Cosmology subdivides into two parts: Cosmogony is the sub-discipline which studies the origin and past history of the universe. Eschatology, by contrast, is the sub-discipline which explores the future and final fate of the universe.
 
William Lane Craig again:
 
Just as physical cosmogony looks back in time to retrodict the history of the cosmos based on traces of the past and the laws of nature, so physical eschatology looks forward in time to predict the future of the cosmos based on present conditions and laws of nature. The challenge for those interested in the interface between theology and science is how to arrive at an integrated perspective on the world's future adequate to the concerns of both theology and science.
 
The key to physical eschatology is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. About the middle of the nineteenth century, several physicists sought to formulate a scientific law that would bring under a general rule all the various irreversible processes encountered in the world. The result of their efforts is now known as the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
 
With all that in mind, why not make yourself a nice cup of tea and don’t worry about the end of the world . . . for now.
 


 

 

__________________________________
Kenneth Francis has for the past 20 years worked as an editor in various publications, as well as a university lecturer in journalism. He also holds an MA in Theology and is the author of The Little Book of God, Mind, Cosmos and Truth (St Pauls Publishing).
 
If you enjoyed this article by Kenneth Francis and would like to read more, please click here.
 
To help New English Review continue to publish scholarly and interesting articles, please click here.

 

Comments
30 Aug 2017
Ken Beiderman
Growing up atheist, there were several events that led me to begin believing. It would have been anti-intellectual for me to deny what I was discovering and anti-intellectual for me to dismiss these things out of hand. I believed intellectually FIRST and struggled with faith. Faith actually came later.

31 Aug 2017
Kenneth Francis
The word 'faith' has been corrupted, labelling it 'blind faith', by those who are anti-religious. What faith really means is faith based on hard reason, trust and facts. No intelligent person who believes in God holds their belief on blind faith.

3 Sep 2017
Harold Burton
What a thoughtful, well written, and well-explained piece. Thank you for writing it. I enjoy reading apologetics and meant to buy the author's book last month, but got sidetracked. I am going right to the website tonight to buy it today.

5 Sep 2017
Send an emailEric MacDonald
Couldn't agree with you more regarding Hawking and Mlodinow's claim that philosophy is dead, and then philosophising throughout their book, especially when, a few pages later, they begin talking about models, which is a philosophical conception. But this doesn't settle the question about creation and the need for a creator. How did the universe come into being? Well, we don't know, do we? So, to fill the gap we say that there must have been something uncreated that began the ball rolling. But what if, with Aquinas or Aristotle, we suppose that being is universal, and that it has always existed in one form or another. This might explain the initial singularity at the beginning of our universe, or there may be, as string theory rather contrary to what seems to be common sense, an infinity of universes existing simultaneously, each beginning as a singularity at the limit of universes. So, our universe began with a Big Bang. Let's just assume that. And the Big Bang began with a singularity, at the edge of, or as the result of an implosion of an earlier universe. At the moment it seems as though our universe is expanding. The Second Law of Thermodynamics predicts that it will not keep expanding forever. Eventually its energy will be expended. Perhaps the conclusion of this universe will be such an implosion, and the formation of another singularity, which will, in turn explode as it must (and the laws of the universe as we know it will not characterise the singularity). And suppose, as we assumed at the beginning, that this is simply a continuation of a process that goes on for eternity, and that it is not something that began to be at a particular time, but evolved as a result of the original big bang at the beginning of the universe, but that the laws that will govern the result of the explosion might be another combination of law governed behaviour, whatever that might be. We can reasonably expect that the outcome of the big bang will not be uniform, since as Democritus supposed, order would begin when one or more particles took, by chance, different trajectory. And so on and so on for ever. Is there a reason here why this could not explain the existence of different laws and structures, and that we just happen to be living in a universe where the laws and structures allowed for the development of life? Perhaps there have been different universes as a result of preceding big bangs which did not have laws which allowed for the development of life. This is all suppositious, of course, but is it any more suppositious than the rather simplistic Kalam cosmological argument, which claims that there was a time when something came to be? What not an eternity of being, and either an infinity of universes or an infinite sequence of them. (Energy being what it is in this universe, it is likely that it follows similar laws in other possible universes.) And, as you note, the biggest problem with the Kalam argument is that the supposedly intelligent being that brought this universe and us into being did not factor in the issue of pain, so that it is literally impossible to account for it simply on the basis of reason.

5 Sep 2017
Kenneth Francis
Eric, your comment is very reflective and you bring up some interesting points. However, I don't agree with them all. I'll go through some of them briefly: 1. A creator being the only logical cause is not God of the gaps; it's based on the most probable, rational, logical reason for the beginning of the universe. 2. Aquinas and Aristotle did not know about the Second Law of Thermodynamics, Big Bang cosmology and much more in scientific discoveries. 3. All the other theories (from string to enternal big-bang-big-crunch ad infinitum) have been debunked (see William lane Criag in conversation with Robert Khun on the Kalam Cosmological argument: 'Closer to Truth series'. 4. The multiverse theory is unproven and, even if it is real, it still needs a beginning (see the Bord-Guth-Vilenkin singularity theorem). 5. Finally, you mention the issue of 'pain'. I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. The study of theodicy explains why God has sufficient reason to create a universe where pain and suffering occur and there's lots of rational arguments for this over the past 40 years (see Alvin Plantinga and Peter van Inwagen). However, outside of academia, the problem of suffering is an emotional one, not rational, and therefore harder to reason with. Finally, it's true we can't 100% prove the existence of God, but we also can't prove 100 the existence of the external world, logic, mathematics, love, beauty, emotions, aesthetics, etc, etc. But they all make sense.

6 Sep 2017
Send an emailEric MacDonald
Thank you, Mr. Francis, for your detailed response to my comment. However, I’m not at all satisfied with this response. Let me start at the end, and then work backwards towards the beginning. So, my 1 is your 5, and so on. First. Despite Plantinga and van Inwagen, I do not think it can be rationally shown that God had sufficient reason to create a universe in which pain and suffering can occur. I think a decisive argument against this can be found in the arguments provided by David Benatar that it would have been <i>Better Never to have Been</i>. I won’t provide those arguments here, but it is essential to theodicy that his arguments can be responded to with reason. I do not think they can. The “harm of coming into existence” (the subtitle of the book) is so great that, as Richard Robinson says so bluntly in his book <i>An Atheist’s Values</i>, the best argument for suicide is that life is a trap. This seems sufficient reason to hold that, even were it rational to believe in a God, it would not be rational to believe that such a being is the sum of all good. Second. It is true that the multiverse theory is unproven; but it does not follow that a multiverse needs a beginning, since the Borde, Guth, Vilenkin proof does not apply to any universe. As Valinkin says in response to a question whether the Borde, Guth Vilenkin theorem proves that the universe has a beginning, he “would say that the short answer is “yes”. [But] If you are willing to get into subtleties, then the answer is “No, but ...” So, there are ways to get around a beginning, but then you are forced to have something <i>nearly as special</i> [my emphasis] as a beginning.” Given the complexity of multiverse theory, perhaps there is something nearly as special as a beginning. Indeed, Valenkin himself proposes a beginning of the universe “in a quantum nucleation event,” that is, the universe coming into being through quantum mechanics. And he suggests that taking his theorem as evidence for the existence of God is far too simplistic, adding: “Anyone who attempts to understand the origin of the universe should be prepared to address its logical paradoxes.” In fact, Vilenkin attempts to provide a theory of cosmic origins in purely scientific terms. The point is that anyone who seeks to respond to Vilenkin must be able to deal with some of the math in his original paper, and subsequent attempts to describe a quantum nucleation event (which are beyond my job description, I’m afraid). Third. It is not altogether clear that all other theories have been debunked. Indeed, the Big Crunch theory is still a possibility, depending on the character of dark energy. If Smolin is right (see Smolin and Unger, <i>The Singular Universe and the Reality of Time</i>) it may be that some of the logical paradoxes of physics are due to the evolutionary character of the laws of physics. Fourth. Of course, Aquinas and Aristotle were not aware of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, but this fact in itself does not falsify their assumption of the possibility of the eternity of the universe. That there must be a space-time boundary we can take as a given, but it does not follow that a temporally eternal event cannot be grafted onto (or arise from) a temporal event. It is at least not clear that the space-time boundary is necessarily atemporal. This is, presumably, beyond the limits of provability. Fifth. There is no certainty that the universe had a beginning, but even if it be considered that God is the most rational (I assume reason is logical) assumption for the existence of the universe, in the absence of any other plausible considerations, I do not think that there is enough data to posit God as the most probable cause for the existence of the universe. I know there are some who consider there are Bayesian reasons for suggesting this, but Bayes’ Theorem is based on knowledge of prior data respecting the frequency of events, and there are none.



 

Subscribe

Categories

A.J. Caschetta (3) Alexander Murinson (1) Bat Ye'or (6) Brex I Teer (2) Brian of London (30) Christina McIntosh (810) Christopher DeGroot (1) Conrad Black (250) Daniel Mallock (1) David P. Gontar (7) David Solway (67) David Wemyss (1) Dexter Van Zile (73) Dr. Michael Welner (3) Emmet Scott (1) Esmerelda Weatherwax (8765) Fred Leder (1) Friedrich Hansen (6) G. Murphy Donovan (51) Gary Fouse (47) Geert Wilders (12) Geoffrey Clarfield (300) Hannah Rubenstein (3) Hugh Fitzgerald (20528) Ibn Warraq (7) Ilana Freedman (2) James Como (13) James Robbins (1) Jerry Gordon (2482) Jerry Gordon and Lt. Gen. Abakar M. Abdallah (1) Jesse Sandoval (1) John Constantine (118) John Hajjar (4) John M. Joyce (371) Jonathan Hausman (4) Joseph S. Spoerl (10) Kenneth Timmerman (25) Lorna Salzman (9) Louis Rene Beres (37) Mark Anthony Signorelli (11) Mark Durie (7) Mary Jackson (5064) Matthew Hausman (24) Michael Curtis (377) Mordechai Nisan (1) NER (2515) Nidra Poller (64) Nonie Darwish (3) Norman Berdichevsky (85) Paul Weston (5) Peter McLoughlin (1) Rebecca Bynum (7066) Richard Butrick (24) Richard Kostelanetz (16) Richard L. Benkin (21) Richard L. Cravatts (5) Richard L. Rubenstein (44) Robert Harris (78) Sam Bluefarb (1) Sha’i ben-Tekoa (1) Steve Hecht (20) Ted Belman (8) The Law (90) Theodore Dalrymple (743) Thomas J. Scheff (6) Thomas Ország-Land (3) Tom Harb (2) Walid Phares (23) z - all below inactive (7) z - Ares Demertzis (2) z - Andrew Bostom (74) z - Andy McCarthy (536) z - Artemis Gordon Glidden (881) z - DL Adams (21) z - John Derbyshire (1013) z - Marisol Seibold (26) z - Mark Butterworth (49) z- Robert Bove (1189) zz - Ali Sina (2)
clear
Site Archive