Quantum physicists tell us the Universe emerged from thought! (Page 15)

I admit my knowledge of quantum physics is sorely lacking … is this statement accurate? If so, what exactly does it mean? I know what it means in “The Secret” context, but what does it mean in the world of quantum physics (if anything)? (I’m not trying to be a smart-ass by the way, this is a serious question!)

I’ll post some thoughts on the content of The Secret as I get farther in the book. For those who haven’t heard of the book, it’s basically the best-selling New Age repackaging of the 1952 book The Power of Positive Thinking. Available via Amazon, eBook version from eBooks.com (this is the version I got) or your local bookseller. I’m reading it because I’m writing one of my research papers on it. My initial impression is that the power of positive thinking stuff is generally good, but the “thought magnet” stuff and the implication that thoughts create reality is simply unnecessary at best. [Edit: As I read further into the book, I'm becoming more increasingly concerned. I think this book could actually be harmful.]

I’m slightly disappointed so far with some of Dr Jones’ responses, though. One of the main things that annoys me so far is the logic given to assume a naturalistic worldview. [EDIT: As Preston himself (!) points out in the comments, he does not support Gaffin's view, and in fact does support a view similar to the one I expound later on in this post. Probably the format of the dialogue made it difficult to get his view out in the open fully in the book.]

Now, I’m probably oversimplifying this, and Dr Graffin could probably kick my ass (in both the physical and intellectual arenas) but nonetheless here’s how I understand the argument:

1. Empirical observation of the universe is the ‘sum of all truth’. (cf p.43 of Jones and Gaffin’s book)
2. Therefore, the only way to know the truth about God is to use the same methods used to study naturalistic phenomena.
3. Since there is no proof of God observable in this way, God does not exist.

Now, while I disagree with point #1 (this seems to be a self-refuting argument; how can you prove this statement is true by empirical observation?) and also with point #3 (see for example What about natural theology? which suggests that we can know some things about God via observation), I’d like to comment briefly on point #2.

The idea that the same methods used to study naturalistic phenomena (that is, the physical things in our own universe) can be used to study God (who is outside of, not limited to, our physical universe) is to me a faulty assumption. I’ll try not to repeat what I’ve already posted on this blog, so see my post Knowing God for a fuller explanation, but the gist of it is this: “I am suggesting that rigidly applying the same methodology used for studying mundane things would be in some sense deficient when considering divine things.” If God is in an entirely different category than physical things, we cannot “study” Him in the same way we study physical things, so therefore concluding that God does not exist because He cannot be empirically studied is a faulty assumption. This doesn’t prove that God exists, it only suggests that the naturalistic reasoning like that given above is not sufficient to conclude that God does not exist.

Further reading:

• Lessons from a Punker Ph.D. – Preston Jones reflects on his conversation with Greg Graffin.
• Finding Faith – Brian McLaren’s book (in particular pages 102-104) were the inspiration for my line of thinking on this subject.
• Is Faith Just a Psychological Crutch? – I hear this all the time: “You may need God, but I don’t.” Implicit in the statement is “You believe in God because you’re weak”. Besides being fallacious reasoning, I don’t think this charge is true.

56k: Just Stop and Think Video (Small)
Cable/DSL: Just Stop and Think Video (Medium)
T1/Fast LAN: Just Stop and Think Video (Large)

The reaction to the video in the PyroManiacs thread seems mixed, but generally positive. I thought the video was well-done, although it only presents part of the story; don’t miss the Questions page on the same site.

Further reading:

• Story: “I hated Christians.” – The story of the man who “upon hearing the word ‘Jesus’ would throw up”.
• Jesus? I want to know more – Who is this ‘Jesus’ anyways? (He’s probably not like you expect.)

Robertson has given us no reason to believe that he is [a prophet] – especially given the poor track record of his past prophetic utterances. … When we use God’s name, we should evaluate whether it will bring God honor or ridicule, whether we have the proper authority to use it.

http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2007/01/speaking_for_go.html

This is really, IMHO, an example of using God’s name in vain (Exodus 20:7), as Melinda also notes in her article. I don’t doubt that prophecy is still possible, but that doesn’t mean it is in any way frequent. Sometimes when we read the Bible (which by nature records uncommon, atypical events) we get the impression that miracles were, and should still be, happening on a continuous, almost daily basis. But that is not the case; the incidents of prophecy and miracles were recorded precisely because they were the exception to the norm.

(BTW, yeah that’s me in the pic above; edited from an old picture taken about 3 years ago.)

Related reading:

• Miracles of Myths? – Greg Koukl takes a look at whether miracles are possible … the resurrection, in particular.
• Petition asking Pat Robertson to apologize – I signed it. (Started by centuri0n.)
• The A-Team Blog’s response to Pat Robertson – Sounds like they agree with me too.

How [is] one to be a true Christian … when the church joins the powers of the world, when luxury and ostentation take hold of Christian altars, when the whole of society is intent on turning the narrow path into a wide avenue … how is one to resist the enormous temptations of the times? How is one to witness to the Crucified Lord, to the One who had nowhere to lay His head, at a time when many leaders of the church live in costly homes, and when the ultimate witness of martyrdom is no longer possible? (Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity)

Sounds like he is describing our current situation in North America, but he is actually referring to the time of Constantine in the 4^th century. This isn’t to say that “money = evil”. The often misused quote actually says “the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil” (1 Tim 6:10), not that all money is evil. But still, our situation here in North America is very different from that of the early church, to which people often wistfully wish to return to, as if that were possible. Maybe this is one reason why Jesus spent so much time talking about money and possessions. He had the wisdom and foreknowledge to know we’d need the advice!

Sinfest, Dec 12 2001

Well, since I wrote about demons last week, I guess I’ll talk briefly about angels today. The popular images of angels with wings and halos began sometime in the 4th century, whereas angels are (biblically speaking) essentially spiritual in nature, not physical. They have no particular physical characteristics, although they may take on human form to better communicate with us. Angels are also not ‘good people who died’, like Clarence in It’s a Wonderful Life; instead, they are a seperate class of created, spiritual beings. Recently there seems to be a resurgence in interest in angels in the media and popular consciousness, although usually they are depicted in a caricatured way, like in the cartoon above. Like demons, I think (this part is my opinion) it’s good to recognize angels exist, but foolish to dwell upon their existence or put too much emphasis on them.

There are two equal and opposite errors into which [we] can fall about the devils. One is to disbelieve in their existence. The other is to believe, and to feel an excessive and unhealthy interest in them. They themselves are equally pleased by both errors and hail a materialist or a magician with the same delight. ~ C S Lewis, The Screwtape Letters, Preface

I just watched “The Exorcism of Emily Rose” so that got me thinking about demons, and I remembered the quote above. The question is: Why do we often see so little evidence of demons nowadays? Is it because they don’t exist and we have outgrown old superstitions? Or is it because demons have become so caricatured by modern culture that their reality and relevance has been lost?

Just for the sake of argument, let’s say demons really do exist. Now, say we’re trying to think like one of these demons, intent on deceiving humankind. What better way to achieve that goal than to convince people demons don’t exist? I mean doing so subtly, gradually. It has been said that this is the greatest trick demons have ever played: convincing people that they don’t exist. Consider, assuming again for the sake of argument that demons exist, that I were possessed by a demon today. What would my family likely do, were I do exhibit similar symptoms to Emily Rose in the movie? Likely I would be taken to the hospital, given drugs (which wouldn’t work) and eventually be hauled off to the nuthouse. Regardless of the evidence, a medical problem would be the only one considered. The demon’s tactics would have worked perfectly, and only due to our society’s insistence on pure scientism.

Note: It’s important to keep in mind that Christianity is not at all dualistic. God and the devil are not equals. They are not at equal ends of a scale: God is the scale. Christians believe that God “will remove all of their sorrows, and there will be no more death or sorrow or crying or pain” when, at the proper time, demons and the devil are defeated. (Rev 21:4, NLT)

Back to the movie, I thought that The Exorcism of Emily Rose was pretty good overall. Although I think I could’ve presented a better argument than the defense lawyer did in the movie … and when the priest was on the stand, I wanted to shout “No! Don’t let the prosecution lawyer get away with that! Answer him back like this!”