|
Reasons Newsletter - 2009 - January/February
The Naturalist’s MultiverseBy Jeff Zweerink From the cosmic battles between good and evil in Star Wars to the simulated realm of The Matrix, the happenings of other worlds intrigue countless people. The scientific interest in the multiverse parallels this widespread fascination and greatly expands our idea of how vast the creation may be. However, many Christians remain wary of the multiverse, often asking “Isn’t the multiverse a threat to our faith—or at least to our apologetic efforts?” It is important for believers to differentiate between multiverse models that advocate strict naturalism and those that promote the Creator. In order for a strictly naturalistic multiverse model to provide an adequate explanation for the universe and our existence, it must meet a number of requirements. First, any naturalistic multiverse model must be self-contained. It cannot exhibit a beginning or true design because each requires an external agent—a Beginner or a Designer. Any proposed model must explain the apparent design acknowledged by the scientific community without allowing any aspect of the model to reflect actual design. Second, a successful model must account for all relevant observations and data. In other words, any proposed multiverse model must naturally produce a region that looks like the observable universe. In addition, since any multiverse would, by definition, lie forever beyond the reach of observation, any model must make predictions about what scientists will detect in our observable universe. Otherwise, no scientific tests can verify or falsify the model. Third, the model must provide a mechanism that produces a sufficient variety (for probability’s sake) of universes. Unless a model meets this requirement, it cannot explain the fine-tuning observed in the known universe—specifically in the laws of physics, the fundamental constants, the characteristics of the Milky Way Galaxy, and the features of the solar system’s Sun, Earth–Moon system, other planets and moons, and more. Fourth, our universe must be one of the possible universes in the model. Fifth, for a naturalistic multiverse model, life must be solely physical. Although this requirement flows from the first, it bears separate mention. All naturalistic multiverse models I have encountered so far implicitly make the assumption that life is completely physical. However, if human life possesses a nonphysical component, such as the image of God, then no amount of tweaking the laws of physics and rearranging the stuff of the universe will produce a human being. While this list of requirements may seem impossibly daunting, a number of scientists have nevertheless attempted to build completely naturalistic multiverse models. Will these models bring a new hope for naturalism? Or will they suffer the same fate as the Death Star? RTB’s latest booklet, Who’s Afraid of the Multiverse?, explores this theory and explains its impact on biblical creation models. See how current models stack up against these requirements in Who’s Afraid of the Multiverse?
Average Joe’s Guide to ApologeticsBy Joe Aguirre It’s no surprise that Darwin “merchandise” seems to be ubiquitous these days. Global celebrations marking milestone anniversaries of the renowned biologist’s birth and of his landmark book have been well-publicized. A shopper can order buttons, books, magnets, shirts, car emblems, and other gifts from various websites promoting Darwinian evolution or atheism. Some are funny, if irreverent, while many are caustic or anti-Christian. A T-shirt that reads “Right Wing Christians: Proof that Evolution Works Backwards Too” can elicit the temptation to respond with a similar insult. However, a more fruitful, rewarding approach involves “tooling up” for the important work of helping people to discover what the facts really say about the topic. Tough economic times can put a damper on an apologetics budget, but Reasons To Believe (RTB) offers some valuable resources that cost nothing but the time invested in getting equipped. Whether you prefer materials on paper, online, or on your iPod, RTB’s tools are user-friendly. The only danger they pose is an occasional paradigm shift. For print resources, make sure you keep receiving the monthly equipping letter personally written by Hugh Ross or another scholar team member. Their on-the-road and in-front-of-hostile-audiences experiences have spawned useful ideas. Stay abreast of trends with Reasons, RTB’s bimonthly newsletter. Here the scholar team offers fresh apologetic insights in bite-sized portions. You’ll learn of new resources and equipping events in your area as well. New Reasons to Believe (formerly Connections) has doubled in size to feature more scientific discoveries that support creation, and more philosophical and theological grounds for such belief. Plus, you’ll find more-obvious connections from science to the Bible, and even a lay-friendly column. If you’re more likely to learn on the Internet, then bookmark reasons.org or even set it as the home page. There you’ll find a daily resource, Today’s New Reason to Believe, among other timeless articles, including magazine archives and academic essays. In fact, you can spend hours learning how to respond to skeptical challenges or prepping to discuss hot topics. Finally, you’ll notice icons for several podcasts on RTB’s website. Listen at your convenience to headline-grabbing discoveries, sound reasoning, excerpts from new RTB books, and answers to intriguing questions, your questions. There may be no such thing as a free lunch, but an apologetics tool kit that doesn’t cost a dime comes pretty close. To get on the mailing list for New Reasons to Believe, call customer service at 800-482-7836.
Addressing Resurrection Alternatives (Part Five)By Kenneth Samples Only in a world familiar with substance abuse, mental illness, and reports of paranormal experiences would the possibility of a “group hallucination” be entertained even momentarily. But that’s our world today. Thus, it’s no wonder some individuals have proposed the notion that Jesus’ grieving disciples merely hallucinated Christ’s post-crucifixion appearances. The “Hallucination” Hypothesis As for the disciples, the Gospel narratives suggest their primary emotion as they gathered after Jesus’ death was fear rather than grief (John 20:19–20). And because Thomas was not with them for that initial encounter, Jesus appeared a second time, focusing all his attention on Thomas, and yet observed and heard by the entire group (John 20:24–28). Then, on the day they went fishing, the disciples were preoccupied with their catch—or lack thereof—when a man they did not recognized called to them from the shore. They didn’t even recognize his voice at first. This interaction with Jesus, which involved cooking and eating and conversation, could hardly be described as brief (John 21). Adding Up the Numbers
Feedback“A friend and I are leading an adult education (Sunday school) class at our church using The Bigger Picture on Creation materials. It’s wonderful! Thanks to the RTB team.” “As a physician and part-time scientist, [I can say] your ministry is by far the best thing that has happened to my life. You have strengthened my faith immeasurably.”
Stewardship: Virtual TourWishing you could attend an RTB event with Fuz Rana as he discusses science insights or sit in the radio studio as Hugh Ross responds to a hot science-faith topic? Message of the Month (M.O.M.) members will enjoy opportunities like these every month as they “virtually travel” with our scholars as they go across the country for speaking and teaching events. Join this group of dedicated Reasons To Believe supporters today and receive monthly equipping messages, great lectures, and updates via CD or MP3 file. You can become a M.O.M. partner today by signing up with the enclosed brochure.
|
