Rue’s Noble Lie does not appear to solve the notion of absurdity.  Why should one sacrifice self-interest for a fiction?  The Noble Lie is the greatest placebo that accomplishes its feat of illusion.  Rue’s problem, as for anyone who constructs any Noble Lie, is that he values deeply personal fulfillment and wholeness.  This would include objective values, which according to his philosophy do not exist.  The Noble Lie option thus affirms what it denies and so refutes itself.[3]

1. Lao Tzu

   The founder of Taoism outlined all the tenets of his globally beloved philosophy in the Tao Te Ching sometime between the 6th and 4th centuries B.C. — and some even debate whether or not he was a real or apocryphal individual. In his most influential (to put it mildly) work, he touts the concept of the Tao, an invisible structure which drives all things, and believes enlightenment comes from attaining oneness with the surrounding universe. Harmony with nature as opposed to working against its will forms the crux of this religious and philosophical approach, making it ideal for anyone hoping to reduce stresses in their lives.

Continue reading…

First Exception: Initial Contraction (H_avg<0) … (The average rate of the Hubble expansion is less than zero)

An example of this would be found in de Sitter cosmology. In mathematics and physics, a de Sitter space is similar to Minkoswkian spacetime.  It is maximally symmetric and has constant positive curvature. Assume that a spatially infinite universe contracted down to a singularity and then bounced into our present expansion.  In such a case, the universe cannot be said to be, on average, in a state of cosmic expansion through its history since the expansion phase, even if infinite, is canceled out by the contraction phase.  Though this is permissible under the BVG it is not a viable or popular option.

George Ellis, one of the world’s leading cosmologists, has two objections:

The problems are related: first, initial conditions have to be set in an extremely special way at the state of the collapse phase in order that it is a Robertson-Walker universe collapsing; and these conditions have to be set in an acausal way (in the infinite past).  It is possible, but a great deal of inexplicable fine-tuning to take place: how does the matter in widely separated causally disconnected places at the start of the universe know how to correlate its motions (and densities) so that they will come together correctly in a spatially homogenous way in the future? …. Secondly, if one gets that right, the collapse phase is unstable, with perturbations increasing rapidly, so only a very fine-tuned collapse phase remains close to the Robertson-Walker even if it started off so, and will be able to turn around as a whole (in general many black holes will form locally and collapse to a singularity)… So, yes, it is possible, but who focused the collapse so well that it turns around nicely? (Personal comments to William Lane Craig, Jan. 25, 2006).

Another problem this raises is that this requires acausal fine-tuning.  Any attempt to explain the fine-tuning apart from a fine-tuner is left bereft of any explanation.

Theologian

More about his theology:  McGrath is considered one of the leading developers and proponents of scientific theology. There is a long tradition within Christian theology of drawing on intellectual resources outside the Christian tradition as a means of developing a theological vision.  This approach is often referred to by the Latin phrase ancilla theologiae (a ‘handmaid of theology’).  The evolution of thought and method from Newton to Einstein vitalized scientific theology.  Scientific theology argues that the working methods and assumptions of the natural sciences represent the best—or the natural—dialogue partner for Christian theology.[1]

Here too logico-deductive argumentation from static concepts and mechanistic systems are rejected.  There is another reorientation of man’s knowledge leaving epistemic and cosmological dualism behind in operations that have to do with the unity of form and being.  Scientific theology is concerned with the discovery of appropriate modes of rationality or cognitive instruments with which to enter into the heart of religious experience; and therefore with the development of axiomatic concepts with which to allow interior principles to be disclosed, and in that light to understand the rational structure of the whole field of God’s interaction with man and the world.[2]

Scientific theology takes Einstein’s knowing and being and his understanding of reality as a whole and applies this method of theology in Christian theology.  If the world is indeed the creation of God, then there is an ontological ground for a theological engagement with the natural sciences.  It is not an arbitrary engagement, which regresses back to Newtonian engagement, but it is a natural dialogue, grounded in the fundamental belief that the God about whom Christian theology speaks is the same God who created the world that the natural sciences investigate.[3]

Overcoming this alienation and the notion of absurdity, primarily objective absurdity, can only be done so by a divine telos.[1]  It does seem that man lives his life as if he does have an ultimate meaning, incentive, value, and purpose.  However, if God does not exist, then the absurdity is not only subjective but it really is objectively absurd.  The existence of a divine telos enables man to live a consistent life of meaning, incentive, value, and purpose.  There is a reconciliation of man to himself, others, and God by overcoming this absurdity.

Man exists in a state of alienation.  He is alienated from himself, from others, and from God.  Alienation from the self creates a subjective absurdity (this will be explicated later).  Because of his own nature man cannot stand in agreeable terms with himself.  His epistemic warrant is not always at ease.  He doubts.  He questions and is lacks sufficiency in his capacity to function in an ideal manner.

His alienation from others is subjective and experienced by the individual as well.  It too is a result of man’s nature and state of being.  It is at this level of alienation where man often attempts to create his own teleology.  He will construct an artificial and arbitrary teleology based on other alienated persons.  Man’s alienation from God is irreconcilable by man’s initiative.  Man cannot act outside of his closed system; thus, he requires an outside agency to overcome this alienation–Jesus Christ.

Nietzsche never denied there being any meaning or purpose.  His qualm was that if Christianity continues without God, which would be meaningless and purposeless.  He understood that there had to be meaning and purpose.  The teleology, for Nietzsche, was a pursuit to overcome those things, which were life denying.  Christianity, God, idols, and false ideas were all life denying and life prohibiting concepts.  Nietzsche recognized the human nature and need for a teleology, but how?  In his pursuit for meaning and purpose he calls for the übermensch to do just that.

In Charles Darwin’s Decent of Man, he argued that human nature is not the result of God but the fact of it having risen by evolution instead of having been placed there by God may give hope for a still higher destiny in the distant future.  The parallel as outlined in The Will to Power is that an aspect of truth was the will-to-power:  “Let us admit to ourselves… how every higher culture on earth so far has begun.  Human beings whose nature was still natural… were still in possession of unbroken strength of will and lust for power.”  The übermensch was the higher state of being.  Darwin attempted to account for teleology by natural means, Nietzsche merely capitalized on that and spiritualized it into a secular teleology.

By combining the empirical warrant (Darwin) and the spiritual or philosophical warrant, Nietzsche’s teleology is complete.  Each contribution would have been inadequate if left alone.  Hardship, suffering, and sacrifice on a scientific level promotes a natural advancement of the animal whereas if hardship, suffering, and sacrifice is combined with a purposive and conscious goal there is an appearance of meaning to the process.

There is an alienation that man possesses within himself and others that Nietzsche does not explicate but is there by implication.  Despite this, man is capable of transcending himself but he needs motivation, goal, a path, and a sense of direction—the übermensch. Science a nature cannot and will not provide what is needed for this transcendence.  Without the transcendence there is no teleology, there is no purpose or meaning in a closed system.  In his writings, Nietzsche affirms Darwin’s scientific account for the biological advancement of man.  In The Will to Power Nietzsche takes the scientific account and capitalizes on it by stating that philosophy should set itself with ruthless courage to the task of improving that aspect of the world which has been recognized as susceptible to being changed.”  In the same work, Nietzsche states that man is a rope between animal and the übermensch—a rope over an abyss.

The abyss is where Nietzsche’s paradox can be found.  He recognizes that he needs meaning, value, and purpose.  Nietzsche dreads the notion of nihilism and he recognizes that it is imminent; it is an abyss that must be avoided.  God could provide that meaning, value, and purpose that is needed.  Nietzsche understands the abyss to be just that.  Nietzsche’s übermensch is what provides the necessary teleology he needs.

Word of the Week:

Definition: Referring to the understanding and interpretation of the ontology of the wave function in quantum mechanics. This involves what link one should use to go from wave function talk to talk of ordinary macroscopic objects.

More about the term:  Because of Einstein’s relativity the Newtonian and Laplacian models have been abandoned.  The present discussion of how God interacts with the world has shifted to quantum mechanics. There are over a dozen interpretations, which mathematically describe the quantum world.  Objections from the principle of conservation are moot in an Einsteinian universe because it is not causally closed.  Even so, certain quantum interpretations reject the principle of conservation such as the Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber (GRW) interpretation.  In a theistic context, GRW makes sense of external causes having an ontological link to the physical world without violating conservation.  See Bradley Monton, “The Problem of Ontology for Spontaneous Collapse Theories,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics (2004): 9-10.  Einstein was at odds with Niels Bohr, the father of quantum mechanics, when Bohr suggested the notion of indeterminism on the quantum level.  This appalled Einstein, which brought the well-known response of, “God does not play with dice.” It is reported that Bohr’s response to Einstein was, “Don’t tell God what to do.”

“Theology is properly distinguished as natural and revealed.  The former is concerned with the facts of nature so far as they reveal God and our relation to him, and the latter with the facts of Scripture.” –Charles Hodge

Theology refers to the all encompassing knowledge of God.

Theology of Nature refers to the Book of Nature as revealed in Scripture (Ps. 19.1-4; Rom. 1.20)  Look at Psalm 19. When speaking of God it refers to his general name (El, Heb., continuous, abundant, universal). Some of the themes are creation’s contingency, Imago Dei, Stewardship, the fall, etc.

Natural Theology refers to the metaphysical implications of, say, intelligent design, the beginning of the universe, the moral law, beauty, etc.

“Some people, in order to discover God, read books.  But there is a great book:  the very appearance of created things.  Look above you!  Look below you! Note it.  Read it.  God, whom you want to discover, never wrote that book with ink.  Instead he set before your eyes the things that he made.  Can you ask for a louder voice than that?” -Augustine

Jesus is the Word, Reason, and Rationality behind creation (Jn. 1).

“I want creation to penetrate you with so much admiration that wherever you go, the least plant may bring you a clear remembrance of the Creator… One blade of grass or one speck of dust is enough to occupy your entire mind in beholding the art with which it has been made.” –Basil the Great

“Any error about creation also leads to an error about God.” –Thomas Aquinas

Why is this distinction so important? There are salvific consequences (Rom. 2.12-16). Understanding theology is understanding God. Just as the heavens declare the glory of God so should we in what we do and who we are.  All of nature glorifies God (Ps. 19.1-4, 96.11-12).  Sinners fall short of the glory of God (Rom. 3.23).  Saints declare the glory of God (Ps. 34.3, 145.10; 1 Cor. 10.31).