Archive for June, 2008

Multiverse Musings - John Wheeler and the Level III Multiverse

Wednesday, June 25th, 2008

by Jeff Zweerink

Photo of Jeff ZweerinkRichard Feynman

Level III multiverse

Kip Thorne

Wormholes

Hugh Everett

Black holes

The man representing the common thread linking these influential scientists and important scientific concepts, John Archibald Wheeler, passed away on April 13th, 2008, at the age of 96. During his scientific career, John Wheeler worked on topics ranging from nuclear explosions to quantum mechanics to black holes and the nature of space-time. He collaborated with Albert Einstein, Neils Bohr, and many other influential scientists. Additionally, he supervised the graduate research of many (Feynman, Thorne, and Everett) who would become leaders in their fields.

Wheeler’s scientific legacy demonstrates his willingness to address hard questions—even ones that he found philosophically uncomfortable. His encouragement of Everett’s work in quantum mechanics provides a great example.

Unlike the everyday “classical” world which we experience, the quantum mechanical world operates in a bizarre fashion. A thought experiment by Erwin Schrödinger, among the earliest to study quantum mechanics, demonstrates the strangeness. Imagine a cat confined to a box. A scientist puts one undecayed atom of a radioactive material inside the box. This material has sufficient power to kill the cat when the atom decays. At any given time, there is some probability that the atom has decayed and some probability that it has not. All this makes sense in a classical picture.

However, according to quantum mechanics, the atom exists in a state described as a combination of its original state and its decayed state. While that may make sense for the atom, the condition of the cat depends on the state of the atom. The cat also exists in a combination of a live state and a dead state! Yet when someone observes the cat, it will either be dead or alive. How the quantum world gives the observations of our “classical” world has been debated for nearly one hundred years.

The argument advanced by Hugh Everett forms the basis of the Level III multiverse. Briefly, observers will see the cat in one of two possible states—dead or alive—with some probability associated with each outcome. Everett argued that whenever a quantum event has multiple possible outcomes, each outcome actually occurs, resulting in new universes that never again interact!

Many arguments exist for and against this “many worlds interpretation” (MWI) of quantum mechanics. The MWI does present challenges to RTB’s model. However, like Wheeler, RTB scholars hope to address challenges head-on. Research into this difficult issue provides avenues to better understand how God created the universe and as well as additional tests to validate and refine RTB’s cosmic creation model. Based on its track record, we expect our creation model to pass these quantum challenges with flying colors.

The Distinctiveness of Protestant Christianity, Part 4 (of 4)

Tuesday, June 24th, 2008

Kenneth Richard Samples

Photo of Kenneth SamplesWhat are the unique doctrinal features of historic Protestant theology?

Early Protestants held three doctrinal positions that have come to be known as the defining characteristics of Protestant Christianity. Here are those uniting points enumerated:

  1. Justification by faith alone (sola fide)
  2. Scripture as the supreme authority in faith and practice (sola Scriptura)
  3. Priesthood of all believers

In part two of this series I discussed the Reformation cry of “Justification by faith alone.” The third part addressed the topic of Scripture’s unique authority, known as the principle of sola Scriptura. In this final installment of the series I will tackle the third doctrinal trait of historic Protestantism.

The Priesthood of All Believers

The priesthood of all believers is a unique theological feature of Protestantism. As a movement, Protestantism needs to be understood as reflecting a strong reaction to certain theological beliefs of the medieval Roman Catholic Church.

The Reformers rejected the Roman Catholic hierarchical distinction between clergy (priests) and laymen. Roman Catholic theology makes the priesthood (or holy orders) one of its seven sacraments of the church. Protestants believe that all men have direct access to God through Jesus Christ, and not through a sacerdotal system that makes priests essential mediators between God and man.

The Reformers viewed all believers as constituting a “holy priesthood” (1 Peter 2:5). Each Christian is a priest under the Great High Priest Jesus Christ, who is the believer’s one and only mediator before God (1 Timothy 2:5). The priesthood of all believers also makes it possible for each Christian to serve in the role of a priest to other believers.

There was a powerful practical implication to this new Protestant theological perspective. The upshot was that this view of all believers as priests affirmed a common dignity and privilege among all members of the church. It also transformed the Protestant churches’ view of calling and vocation. Believers could carry out their various vocations in life (farmer, blacksmith, carpenter, etc.) and this calling was every bit as acceptable to God as being a preacher or an ordained minister. The priesthood of all believers served to break down the strong sacred-secular distinction that characterized much of medieval Christendom.

The father of the Reformation, Martin Luther (1483-1546), proclaimed:

“Let every man be his own priest.”

The original Reformation churches (Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican, Baptist, etc.) transformed the Western world with their distinctive theological beliefs. The Reformation of the sixteenth century also sparked critical changes in European views of culture, economics, politics, and science. In fact, some scholars argue that the founding of the United States of America was an indirect result of the Protestant Reformation.

As heirs of the Protestant Reformation, evangelical Christians today can learn much from studying their theological roots.

To read about the Protestant Reformation, I suggest beginning with two works by the Yale historian Roland H. Bainton Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther and The Reformation of the Sixteenth Century.

For studies in church history, I also recommend Robert C. Walton’s Chronological and Background Charts of Church History.

Historic Age Debate: Creation Ex Nihilo, Part 2 (of 4)

Monday, June 23rd, 2008

Bio: Dr. Millam received his doctorate in theoretical chemistry from Rice University in 1997, and currently serves as a programmer for Semichem in Kansas City.

Photo of John MillamThe doctrine of creation ex nihilo (“creation out of nothing”) has been firmly and uniformly taught throughout church history and was declared in important creedal statements (detailed in part 1). To understand why this was such a vital doctrine, we need to first consider the contrasting view prevalent throughout the Greco-Roman world at the time of Christ.

Greek philosophers largely held that matter was eternal and uncreated because the notion of a beginning point for everything seemed absurd to them. In this view, matter would have existed in a chaotic and shapeless state until the gods formed it into the things we see today. (Matter was viewed as evil or contemptible, so the gods would not have created it. Its creation was sometimes relegated to the Demiurge instead.) The Greeks’ view ran in direct opposition to the Judeo-Christian view that God alone is eternal and that everything was brought into existence by Him (i.e., creation ex nihilo). So, the origin of the universe was a decisive battleground between Greco-Roman polytheism and Judeo-Christian monotheism.

The first statements of creation ex nihilo can be traced to Jewish sources before the time of Christ. This is not surprising, since this doctrine was as important for them as for the early church. For example, Second Maccabees (a noncanonical Jewish writing, 2nd century BC) states:

“I beg you, my child, to look at the heaven and the earth and see everything that is in them, and recognise that God did not make them out of things that existed.” (2 Macc. 7:28 NRSV)

Other pre-Christian Jewish works reaffirmed this idea (see Robert Bradshaw, Creationism and the Early Church, chapter 2). The Shepherd by Hermas (2nd century) is the first Christian work to outline this doctrine.

“God, who dwells in the heavens, and made out of nothing the things that exist…” (Hermas, The Shepherd, Vision 1.1)

(Two later fathers, Irenaeus of Lyons and Origen, quoted this work in defense of creation ex nihilo.) An even more definitive statement comes from Tatian (2nd century).

“For matter is not, like God, without beginning, nor, as having no beginning, is of equal power with God; it is begotten, and not produced by any other being, but brought into existence by the Framer of all things alone.” (Tatian, Address to the Greeks 5)

Belief that God alone is eternal and uncreated is central to biblical monotheism; hence matter cannot be eternal (lest it be elevated to the status of a second god). In another passage, Tatian states:

“The case stands thus: we can see that the whole structure of the world, and the whole creation, has been produced from matter, and the matter itself brought into existence by God; …” (Tatian, Address to the Greeks 12)

Yet another important teacher of creation ex nihilo is Theophilus of Antioch (2nd century).

“For the heavens are His work, the earth is His creation, the sea is His handiwork; man is His formation and His image; sun, moon, and stars are His elements, made for signs, and seasons, and days, and years, that they may serve and be slaves to man; and all things God has made out of things that were not into things that are, in order that through His works His greatness may be known and understood.” (Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus 1.4)

Athenagoras (2nd century), an Athenian philosopher who had converted to Christianity, also testifies to the veracity of the creation ex nihilo concept. In his Plea for the Christians, he wrote to Emperor Markus Aurelius to protest the Roman persecution of Christians. In it, he refutes a number of charges made against Christians, including the absurd accusation that Christians were “atheists.” (This charge likely arose from the fact that Christians didn’t worship the Emperor or the Greco-Roman gods.) In addressing this charge, he writes:

“But to us [Christians], who distinguish God from matter, and teach that matter is one thing and God another, and that they are separated by a wide interval (for that the Deity is uncreated and eternal, to be beheld by the understanding and reason alone, while matter is created and perishable), is it not absurd to apply the name of atheism?” (Athenagoras, Plea for the Christians 4)

Athenagoras points out that Christians clearly distinguished between the true God (who created everything) and temporal matter (such as the statues of the “gods”).

Of those in the early Church who wrote on this subject, they are all unambiguous except for two—Justin Martyr (2nd century) and Clement of Alexandria (3rd century). Both men studied Greek philosophy prior to becoming Christians.

Justin Martyr wrote that God created from “shapeless” matter (First Apology 59). His references to Plato and “shapeless” matter has led some to question whether Justin held to creation from preexisting matter along the lines of the Greek philosophers. However, he most likely held (contrary to Plato) that it was God who created this “shapeless” matter, which He subsequently formed into things during the creation days. That is, God created matter (Genesis 1:1); that matter was initially shapeless and chaotic (Genesis 1:2); and He then formed it into the world we observe (Genesis 1:3-31).1 Thus, Justin held to creation ex nihilo and rejected eternal matter. Further evidence that he believed in creation ex nihilo is that his two students—Tatian and Theophilus—both clearly taught it.

Clement’s statements on creation are likewise sufficiently unclear as to allow speculation that he followed Greek ideas. Looking closer, however, it seems that he did believe in creation ex nihilo. Like Justin, he believed that the Greeks stole many of their ideas from Moses and the Hebrew Scripture and he could, therefore, appeal to the fact that some Greek philosophers did believe in creation. Specifically, he described the universe “as deriving its being from him [the Maker] alone and springing from non-existence” (Miscellaneous 5.14, also known as Stromata). He also argued that matter could not be its own creator on the basis of the law of cause and effect (Miscellaneous 8.9).

Part 3 will continue this exploration of the early church fathers in terms of what they wrote about this critical doctrine.

The information presented here is based on unpublished research. Inquiries regarding it should be directed to the author (kansascity@reasons.org).

Endnotes:

1 In part, Justin erroneously derives the idea that matter was created “shapeless” from a poor Greek translation of Genesis 1:2. That verse teaches that prior to the six creation days, the earth was “formless and empty” (NIV) or “without form, and void” (KJV). The Hebrew here is difficult. A better translation of the Hebrew tōhô wābōhû would be a desolate wasteland (see Whitefield, p. 43-46). In this view, the heavens and earth existed as distinct entities but are not yet ready for habitation.

Further reading:

Robert Bradshaw, “Creationism and the Early Church,”.

Robert Lethem, “‘In the Space of Six Days’: The Days of Creation from Origen to the Westminster Assembly,” Westminster Theological Journal 61, no. 2, (1999), 149-74.

Kenneth Richard Samples, A World of Difference, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2007).

Rodney Whitefield, Reading Genesis One, (San Jose, CA: Rodney Whitefield Publishers, 2003).