BLOGGING
Theories on the Origin of the Universe
Feb 27th
Cosmologist and Theoretical Physicist Sean Carroll is trying to figure out how we got to where we are. In the process, he is making as many arguments for intelligent creation as he makes for natural formation of the universe. I don’t think he means to do this and, frankly, I’m not into looking for opportunities to say “gotcha” every time a scientist has a question about our origins.
I actually love to hear about new theories and new areas of study about how we got here. God gave us these brains for a reason and I don’t think he has any problem with us saying “How did this happen?” or even “Why did this happen?” However, as physicists and cosmologists study the universe, it becomes more and more difficult to explain how things came to be in the absence of some “outside force”. I think one major flaw in the current scientific climate is that whenever scientists bump up against this reality, they simply throw out that theory and look somewhere else. In other words, they work on a theory just up to the point where it requires input from an outside force because they have determined that there are no outside forces acting on the universe.
What if some of these scientists decided to actually continue pursuing one of these theories? What if instead of trying to explain the origin of the universe without action by an outside and/or creative force, they simply tried to figure out what that force was? What if the thing on the other side of the Big Bang was not simply a nice, balanced, symmetrical “other universe”, but was actually a force far greater – one that, once discovered, would open up to an entirely different understanding of the universe and of our existence in it. It seems like that should be interesting enough for someone to look into.
However, the scientific community and the faith community have a common fault. By and large, they have dismissed each other out of hand. The “intelligent design” folks stop listening as soon as they hear the words “Big Bang” or “evolution”. Likewise, the “big bang/expanding universe” folks stop listening when they hear the words “intelligent design” or “creation”. I can’t help but wonder what would happen if people like Sean Carroll got together with people like N.T. Wright and actually tried to discover where theology and science intersect. I believe that together with one another, we would discover deeper truths about science, nature and God than we ever will apart from one another.
I’ve included a 2 part talk from Sean below which gets a little heady at times (and a little “out there” at times) but which captures his current theory and study. Then, I’ve included a very short video of N.T. Wright discussing the power and depth of the Genesis text.
SEAN CARROL PART 1
SEAN CARROLL PART 2
N.T. WRIGHT
Lessons from Lucy – Ep. 1
Feb 26th
This is a post I’ve been meaning to write for a long time. As a matter of fact, I could probably write “Lessons from Lucy” Episodes 1-30 by now. Over the past 3 months, I’ve learned so much from my baby girl and I know I will continue to learn from her for the rest of my life.
You see, in so many ways, she’s so much closer to what we are created to be than I have been in a very long time. At the same time, so many of her actions remind me of the things that seem to be hard-wired into us that simply defy logic. Today’s lesson:
I OFTEN FAIL TO IDENTIFY MY ENEMY
It seems silly to think that an infant would have any enemies. After all, the only people that Lucy has extended contact with are her mom and me. And yet, Lucy does have an enemy. This enemy picks on her, scratches her face, steals her pacifier and blocks her bottle from getting to her mouth. This enemy pulls the blanket off of her and removes her socks so she gets cold. This enemy even goes so far as to poke her in the eye from time to time.
The enemy, of course, is a baby named Lucy. She is her own worst enemy. Over the past three months, Lucy and I have had a running conversation about this issue. “Lucy,” I tell her, “if you wouldn’t pull that pacifier out of your mouth, then you wouldn’t get upset.” (I don’t think she’s listening.) “Baby,” I say, “if you didn’t kick your socks off, your feet wouldn’t get cold.” (She does it anyway.) “Sweet girl,” I beg, “please get your hands out of your face so papa can get the bottle into your mouth.” (This one makes her really mad!) No matter how many times we have the conversation, she just doesn’t seem to get it. Now you may say, “Adam, she’s only three months old. She doesn’t know any better and she certainly doesn’t have the ability to understand what you’re telling her.” Hogwash! My baby is brilliant! Haha.
Seriously though, Lucy doesn’t have the ability to understand my very logical explanations of her self-torment. However, I should be able to understand the concept, right? At 32 years old, surely I could recognize if I exhibited similar behavior. But, alas, that is not the case. I (like so many of you) have spent my entire life being my own worst enemy.
When you’re 3 months old, it means you pull your pacifier out of your mouth. When your 20 or 30 or 50, it means you pull away from friends when you are hurting and need them the most. When you’re a baby, your hunger for that bottle causes you to put your hands in your mouth (blocking the bottle in the process). When you’re an adult, your hunger for “the good life” and for stuff causes you to get yourself in over your head financially, which ultimately makes you a slave to debt and drags down your quality of life.
The apostle Paul put it so succinctly in Romans 7:15
I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do.
Yeah, Paul, me too, buddy. Me, too.
The Manipulative Leading The Blind
Feb 18th
This post is in reply to “Coming Out Religious” by my good friend Randy Bohlender. It began as a comment on his blog, but became way too long, so I thought I would post it here. Check out RandyBohlender.com for the original post.
My friend Randy Bohlender, in his post “Coming Out Religious” discusses the way that politics and religion seem to collide on the campaign trail. On the one hand, politicians want to be seen as men and women of faith, of strong moral character and of deep conviction. On the other hand, they’ve been conditioned to get as many votes as possible at any cost. The result, as Randy points out, is a “total separation between church and mind”.
I’ve always thought these kinds of “I believe [fill in the blank] but it won’t affect the way I govern” statements were silly. I understand that someone may hold a certain belief but not feel like that belief should be legislated onto others, but I don’t think anybody really felt like Mitt Romney was going to legislate that we all become Mormon. I get why a politician would want to distinguish between personal faith and national legislation, but to say that something as central as one’s faith has no bearing on the decisions that an individual makes day in and day out is ridiculous. Equally as ridiculous are the ardent supporters (be they on the right or left) who will justify those kinds of comments from their candidate, yet flog the other side’s candidate for similar remarks. Conservatives and many Christians tripped over themselves during the primaries to explain to us why Mitt Romney was a great candiate “even though he’s Mormon”. Not that there’s anything wrong with standing up for a candidate (and I believe that someone can be a strong leader and govern effectively even if I disagree with their theology) but I have a hard time believing that these same conservatives would be as willing to let the whole “he’s a Mormon” thing slide if Mitt had been a Democrat. As a matter of fact, it would have probably been a central talking point on Fox News and talk radio for months. (See every “Is Obama a secret Muslim?” discussion.)
You see, the problem with politics is that it has become way too WWE and not nearly enough DIY Network. Politicians and those who support them are so focused on painting themselves (or their candidate) as the the “good guy” and the opponent as “the bad guy” – or better yet, “the incarnation of evil and all that is wrong in the world” – that they’ve lost site of the work that is supposed to be done in Washington. They’re pointing fingers and yelling, threatening to pull out the metal chair and smash in each other’s head. Meanwhile, our home is in disrepair and in need of a little DIY fixing. On one had we find the “separation between church and mind” and on the other hand, the “unbalanced application of rage”. In the end, whatever your guy says is evil, twisted and manipulative and whatever my guy says is good, honest and pure.
In reality, we’re talking about politicians. And every politician I know of is a human being (except maybe the Governator). And every human being I know fails to be 100% pure anything. We are all partially right and partially wrong, part good and part bad. Therefore, to offer our allegiance to a person or party or even a set of ideals without allowing ourselves to question or challenge that person, party or set of ideals is to walk blindly into the future. It is, in essence, a robotic life controlled by a political machine – a machine that has become very good at picking out “one issue voters” and playing to them, a machine that has discovered the power of even the slightest nod toward a particular group, cause or belief and a machine that can nuance a message so that people on both sides of just about any issue will feel like they’re being heard and that this candidate might change something in their favor.
I would love for politicians to let their “yes” be “yes” and their “no” be “no”. But until then, I determine to read between the lines and refuse to be pandered to by the crafty salesmen on the right or the left who think they can manipulate me into following them blindly.
The Discipline of Documenting Discipline
Aug 27th
When I began this little adventure, I understood that I was asking a lot of myself. I was injecting a massive dose of discipline into a very undisciplined body, mind and soul. I knew it was going to be hard and I expected to fail, to slip up, but to get back up and go for it again.
What I didn’t anticipate was how much discipline it would take to document the process. I mean, I knew that I would have to be dedicated to do it. What I didn’t anticipate is having the same kind of feelings about blogging that I have about going to the gym.
Over the past couple of days, I have done all the stuff I was supposed to do – exercised mind, body and soul. (In full disclosure, I skipped my workout today to allow a little inflammation in my right ankle to subside.) But each night, I sat in my living room debating with myself whether or not I was going to blog about it. It wasn’t that I didn’t have anything to say. I just didn’t feel like typing it out.
Well, here I am, typing it out – documenting my process. I enjoy it most of the time and dread it on occasion. I think it’s that way with a lot of things in life, especially those things that make us better.
