Why I Wish I had Monstrous Metaphorical Leaping Legs

         The other day my friend and I were doing a survey with a girl on campus about her spiritual thoughts. She was an atheist, born and raised, and found no evidence that a Creator or God exists. She told us that last year she came to an event that RealLife (Cru at OSU) and other Christian ministries held, where a professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at MIT, Cullen Buie, came to talk about why he is a Christian. Her response was, "I thought it was very interesting but I don't get how he rationalized his beliefs. It seems like religion should be something you feel or experience, not rationalize."

         This is a thought that I've heard frequently in conversation with college students. Another really pervasive thought in our culture is that no belief system that an individual might hold is wrong or less valuable than another. This sounds like a great thought, but I frequently ask, "Do you think there's a way to determine which belief system more accurately describes the world?" Unanimously, I've heard the response, "No."

         How confusing! This means that most people would say that since every person has such different ideas about the world, there is no reliable way to decipher reality. And further, most people would say you should not or cannot use rational thought to determine personal beliefs. So why hold to any belief system at all if everything is arbitrary?

           The thing is, even though people say that this is how they think about spirituality, I don't think anyone practically functions that way.

      
My Thoughts

          I agree that regardless of which belief system to which someone might hold, it requires some leap of faith. But I know that there are ways to test the world around us to determine what is true of our reality. As an exaggerated example, if someone were to say, "I believe that I am dead," there are ways to test whether or not the person is dead based on their vital signs (or, like, the fact that they're speaking). We can discover beyond a shadow of a doubt whether or not that person is dead. If they are not dead, we can say definitively that that person's belief that they are dead is wrong. It might offend them to say that they are wrong, but such is life--sometimes what we believe is wrong.

         What about the questions for which we cannot test to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt? How did the Universe begin? Does God exist? If God exists, what is he/she/it like? How do we know what is good and bad?

          For these kinds of questions are we resigned to randomly pick and choose what we want to believe, maybe based on how we were raised or where we live? Can we base our choices only on how we feel or are there real evidences on which to base them?

        Here are my thoughts on determining reality in pictures...


Pretty Pictures

        Take two contradictory beliefs. My favorite example is God exists vs. God does not exist. 

       The square in the middle represents a person who is probing the world for truth. The dots represent different evidences that exist in the world, in the culture, on the internet, etc. that either suggest that God exists or suggest that God does not exist.

       Over time, the seeker will collect pieces of evidence within their reach and begin to build bridges either in the direction of belief that God exists or belief that God does not exist. Some evidences are better than others, and based on a person's influences, scope of seeking, and culture, their bridges will be different in size and reach.

         Ultimately, when it comes to the question of God's existence, no one has proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that God exists or that God does not exist. Some people have very short metaphorical faith legs and require a lot more evidence to build their bridge before making that faith leap. Some people have monstrous metaphorical faith legs and make decisions of faith without requiring much of a bridge at all. And ultimately, based on our will, we can leap in either direction regardless of the size of bridge we've built on either side.


Mustard Seeds

          I have legs the length of mustard seeds. Faith is hard for me. I searched far and wide building bridges in both directions before I made a faith decision and my goal was to require of myself as little faith leaping power as possible. And even today I spend a lot of time sifting through the evidences with which I've built my bridges, breaking them down and building them back up. But I've made my faith decision and I truly understand now what Paul meant when he said, "If Christ has not been raised... we are of all people most to be pitied." I am all in and if it turns out I'm wrong, then nothing I've done up to this point in my life makes sense.

         There is a tiny bit of truth in our culture's idea that "any belief is legitimate". The truth is that we can never be 100% certain with no shadow of a doubt what is true about the questions for which we have no proof. However, it cannot both be true that God exists and God does not exist at the same time--reality exists objectively some way and it is up to us to discover what that objective reality is. I think it would be a tragedy to live all of life floating in the middle. If God exists it has pretty wild implications for our lives. If God doesn't exist, it has pretty wild and different implications for our lives... the directions we leap determine the trajectories of our entire lives.

         My personal diagram looks like this:

          I could make a pretty decent argument for atheism, but overall I think there is significantly more and better evidence that God exists than that God does not exist, so that's the direction I leaped.

Here are a few of the pieces that make up my bridge:

• The Anthropic Principle and ubiquity of fine-tuning in the laws of physics
• The Big Bang
• The origin of life
• The life and marriage of my parents
• The Cambrian Explosion
• Answered prayers
• People from different cultures that I've seen making a faith decision in the same direction even though they did not grow up being taught as I was
• The webbed nature of the metabolism
• The pervasive existence of morality in human history
• The pervasive existence of religion in human history
• The historicity of the Bible
• The method by which the Bible was translated
• The life, claims, and death of Jesus
• The gospels providing historical evidence for Jesus' resurrection
• The life and martyrdom of Jesus' disciples
• The durability of the Christian church
• The selfish nature and desire for good in people
• The contrast in the lifestyles and overall satisfaction in life between people who believe in Jesus and those who don't along with Jesus' claim to provide life in abundance
• Experiencing peace during times of situational pain
• Human desire for relationship

Which direction do you leap?

7 Worldviews that Attempt to Answer the Questions: How Did We Get Here and Why?

This is certainly not an exhaustive list, and there are people who would place themselves under one of these categories as advocates but believe differently than I've described. But I did my best to summarize simply some of the most common beliefs about the origin of the Universe and the purpose of human life. If you've known me for very long at all (or read any of my other blogs), you probably know which perspective I would advocate, but as a scientist I'm a fan of testing. Start the conversation: which worldview do you find most reasonably describes our world?

1. Hindu Creation Story:

There are several different stories that describe the origin of the Universe and of the world. One describes the Universe as we know it being created by Lord Brahma, one of three gods that make up the triumvirate (Vishnu who sustains creation and Shiva the destroyer of evil). In this origin story, Lord Brahma wakes every morning to create a world, which he destroys when he goes to sleep at night. One day for Brahma is equivalent to 4 billion earth years, so that the world is being created and destroyed in a cyclical fashion every 4 billion years (although this time period is also described simply as an unimaginable period of time, and some interpretations describe the Universe as being destroyed/recreated in that time). Then, when Brahma has lived 100 years, the universe is destroyed by Shiva, to be created again 100 years (for Brahma) later. After each universe is destroyed, there is left a vast ocean on which a giant serpent carries a sleeping Vishnu. From Vishnu’s navel springs a lotus flower from which Brahma arises to create a new Universe. The purpose of human life is to offer right sacrifices to gods in order to keep the order of the universe (dharma), and to realize that all life is illusory, or maya, and that everything, including the self, is simply part of the eternal Oneness, called Brahman.

2. Naturalism:

The beginning of our universe occurred approximately 13.8 billion years ago. Multiverse theory suggests that by combining the laws of gravity and quantum theory, universes can appear out of nothing “with many possible histories and many possible states of existence”. One of these universes (ours) contains just the right physical laws and situations so that advanced life can exist on our planet. People came to exist via evolution over the history of earth’s approximately 4 billion years after life was formed by the random workings of the natural laws of physics. There exists no teleological purpose for human life and all life can ultimately be explained by the interactions of energy, matter, dimensionality, and the physical laws of the universe.

3. 6-Day Creation Interpretation of the Christian Bible:

The Universe was created by God, whose character and acts are described in the Bible. His creation of the Universe and of the world is described infallibly in the first chapter of Genesis; each day described is a literal 24-hour day and the genealogies in Genesis have virtually no gaps, making the Earth approximately 6,000 years old. God created specifically every specie on earth and created man in his image to fill the earth and manage all of life (as opposed to evolution). The purpose of human life is to know God relationally through his incarnate Son, Jesus, which is possible by being cleansed from sin due to his defeat of sin and its consequence--death--via his crucifixion and resurrection.

4. Intelligent Design Interpretation of the Christian Bible:

The Universe--time, matter, and energy at the moment of the Big Bang--was created by God, whose character and acts are described in the Bible. His creation of the Universe and of the world is described infallibly in the first chapter of Genesis and throughout the Old Testament; each day described in Genesis can be interpreted as an epoch of time with a beginning and an end. Thus, the universe is approximately 13.8 billion years old and God created life on earth. It is contested within this perspective whether God used evolution to create all species and man (theistic evolution) or created each species by intervening in nature millions of times to create each new species and man. The purpose of human life is to know God relationally through his incarnate Son, Jesus, which is possible by being cleansed from sin due to his defeat of sin and its consequence--death--via his crucifixion and resurrection.

5. Buddhist Description of Reality:

There is no metaphysical explanation of the universe because all is eternal and in flux. So, similar to the Hindu idea of the universe being constantly created and destroyed, the universe goes through cycles, but has always existed in some form or another and will always exist in some form or another. There also exist countless heavenly realms into which people can be reborn. The purpose of human life is to escape samsara (or suffering) produced by the false idea that anything is permanent. People can achieve Nirvana (or escape from the constant cycle and illusion of life) either through salvation offered from buddhas or bodhisattvas, or through meditation and rejection of desires.

6. Ancient Chinese Religion:

Deities exist within the world or universe as mountains, rivers, the sun and moon, etc. and when people die, they can also reside in the world as deified spirits. The purpose of human life is live harmoniously within human society and within the order of the spirit world.

7. Agnostic or Relativistic Worldview:

The agnostic perspective suggests that the origin of the Universe is either unknown, unknowable, or not worth seeking, and a truly relativistic perspective suggests that reality is shaped by what people believe. For example, if I believe that God exists, then He does objectively exist for me--in a sense we can change and even create reality by believing it. So people can decide however they want the Universe to have originated and decide whatever purposes they want for their lives.

Resources:

http://www.ancient-origins.net/human-origins-religions/hindu-sacred-texts-about-human-origins-0066

http://www.reasons.org/about/faqs

https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the-earth/how-old-is-the-earth/

http://www.innovationslearning.co.uk/subjects/re/information/creation/hindu_creation.htm

http://www.budsas.org/ebud/whatbudbeliev/297.htm

http://www.patheos.com/Library/Chinese-Religion/Beliefs/Ultimate-Reality-and-Divine-Beings.html

Why the Second Law of Thermodynamics Doesn't Prove that God Exists

"But we don't live in an isolated system." This is always the response I hear when a Christian tries to argue that the Second Law of Thermodynamics proves that Evolution doesn't work.  The idea of the argument is that things go to disorder and evolution means that more order is introduced into the world. It's usually accompanied by a metaphor about leaving your room to sit for twenty years and how if you came back it would be in a more disordered state than when you left it.

The Problem

There's a few problems with this. One, I would say the Second Law of Thermodynamics doesn't really speak to evolution... I think it has more to say about the origin of life. More on that in a second. The second problem is the one that people are so quick to point out--we don't live in an isolated system.

The thing is, it is true that entropy must increase in an isolated system from irreversible processes. Say what? This means that disorder/randomness in a space that is not exchanging mass or energy with its surroundings increases. So basically things naturally get messy. But see, the world is not an isolated system. There is a constant flow of energy into our atmosphere from our beloved Sun. 

Life and Equilibrium

Another thing about entropy is that it doesn't necessarily increase for processes already in equilibrium. And life is not in equilibrium. When you die, your mass and energy dissipates, reaching equilibrium with your surroundings. That's why people can look at the world, thriving with life, and say, "Wow, look at all this order."

So what I'm saying is, life, almost by definition, doesn't have to obey the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The earth, and life, because they are not isolated systems all require a constant input of energy to stay ordered and far away from equilibrium. If they get that input of energy, they can maintain or even increase in order. This is why we eat. Om nom nom.

But Wait...

But life requires one more step: a way to put that energy to work. (This moves away from the topic of thermodynamics into kinetics) If the sun shone on me all day, all I'd get is a sunburn. Not exactly life-giving. But some living things have systems that can take light from the sun and put it to work changing molecules into forms they can metabolize. We then eat those things, and there are systems in our bodies that break down those molecules and build them back into something we can use. It's beautiful, really. All this is possible because the Sun is providing our world with energy.

So let's talk about how this wonderful system came into being and how, at some point in time life came out of non-life. What did we need? We needed:

1. Energy... enough not just to hold the system at a distance from equilibrium, but enough to take something that is already in equilibrium, and build that system from scratch, which leads us to...

2. A way to use that energy.

Who Set Up the System?

Our ecosystem is so incredibly webbed... and the world took less than 800 million years from the time it formed to become teeming with life. That sounds like a lot of time and a lot of energy, but where did the system come from capable of organizing prebiotic material into systems that can metabolize and use energy? We have a system today--the cell. Before the cell, what put RNA together in a code that communicates with proteins--that functions on layered, overlapping levels? Random chance? I don't think so. I think the level of organization in the world suggests an outside source of intelligence. I think it begs for an outside source of intelligence.

I think that's where the argument is.

I have my own complicated perspective on Evolution, but it's more scientifically than theologically based and I don't think "disproving" Evolution is anywhere close to the best way to affirm our faith or break down intellectual barriers to faith. But the origin of life? That's what confirms my belief in God.

The Gist

So to my Christian friends who argue for the existence of God with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, don't be discouraged when your arguments are shot to the ground. And I'm going to be really blunt here: please stop using it in conversations--it's one of the quickest ways to destroy your credibility as a rational believer and lose whatever rapport you've built with someone seeking God. 

To my not Christian friends who believe the answer is as simple as the world not being an isolated system, I have significant questions for you. What is it that funneled that first nonliving material into the brilliantly complex systems we see today? Would it be so impossible to believe that it was an Intelligent Being?

(One last thought I had... is the Universe a closed system? Doesn't it seem strange that the Universe started with an explosion, and instead of going immediately to equilibrium, produced a tiny tiny tiny speck of superbly organized life floating for a quarter of the time the Universe has existed far from equilibrium? How do we explain that?)

#YesAllWomen

Since I only ever blog about super controversial topics, I decided to add feminism to my

arsenal. People have been posting about the recent misogynistic shooting that happened in Isla Vista and I've been seeing #yesallwomen pop up all over Facebook. It's always a tragedy that people are mistreated and my heart breaks for the people affected by men taking advantage of women. Or women taking advantage of men. People kind of suck sometimes.

Maybe I'm ill equipped to deal with this topic because I've been treated incredibly well by men--my dad is one of the kindest men in existence, and my fiance is respectful and gentle and protective. I love the fact that they are leaders and while they honor the women in their life and treat them as equals, they understand that they are looked to as the leader in their relationships. I know that probably sounds horribly old-fashioned on paper (or a computer screen I guess) but it's a beautiful reality when lived out by men like my dad and Jacob. I gladly would give up my plans, dreams, expectations, and comfort in submission to Jacob's decisions. And it's not at all unkind of him to accept that from me because he loves me and desires good for me. He's a man, and I'm a woman, and dear freaking goodness that's okay. 

Anyway. My point really just boils down to this: to the men in my life (grandfathers, uncles, cousins, friends, brothers-in-law, dad, and my fiance) thank you for caring for me and all the other women in your life the way Christ does. I wish all the mistreated women in the world could know men like you. And to all the women in the world, including me at times, shame on us for ever manipulating or withholding grace from the men in our lives who are far from perfect. We are imperfect. They are imperfect. We're all really horribly broken in ways I think we might even find surprising and offensive.

And we all need to be perfectly loved. I think we cling to specific attributes of us in order to convince ourselves that we are deserving of love, but truly I think none of us deserve to be treated well at all. We're all very selfish and demanding and harsh. But I think we're also loved and valued and God doesn't ask us to be deserving of love. He just lavishes love on us. And so even more than I'd give up anything for Jacob, I'd give my existence for Christ. And it's not unkind of him to accept that from me because he loves me and desires good for me. See how that works?

So I guess I don't have a ton of thoughts specifically on feminism. I just think the man-bashing that's come along with it is super unfair. I personally would love to be a stay-at-home mom and cook all our meals and clean the house and write things. I don't think that's the right way, that's just a way that would bring me joy. And I do think there are very real differences between men and women--how they process the world and respond and their needs and desires. But more importantly I think we all need to come to terms with the fact that we're not all that good. And come to realize that we're all ridiculously loved anyway. Wouldn't that change things?