False Argument #7: Omnipresence Incompatible With The God Of ScriptureA traditional definition of God includes the characteristic of omnipresence, or the ability to be in all points in the universe at once, while simultaneously existing independent of the universe. The standard argument has always been, "How can one being be both completely separate from, yet thoroughly immersed in, the universe?" These two traits are apparently contradictory and seemingly cannot coexist coherently within one being.
The subatomic particles that result when atoms and atomic nuclei get fissioned display a peculiar characteristic known as "nonlocality," and the strange ability to be at once corpuscle and wave. The original EPR experiment (Einstein, Boris Podolski, Nathan Rosen) shows conclusively that particles which at one time shared the same system of coordinates remain instantly and enduringly correlated. (*the atomic condition, not the general use of the word) This nonlocality is completely irreverent of space-time, and it exists whether the time that separates the particles is measured in fractions of a second or billions of years of time, and it exists whether the particles are separated by millimeters or light-years of space. Students of world religions may notice the striking similarities to the Vedic concept of the Akashic Records. Since science now generally claims the universe was once a singularity, does it not stand to reason that every particle in our universe might have once shared the same system of coordinates, and as such may remain enduringly correlated in a way that is accessible to God?
The nonlocality ascribed to quantum phenomena may or may not extend beyond our universe or be characteristic of God, and it can by no means be considered proof of any scripture because science cannot verify a religious claim. But does it not stand to reason that if God created the universe, that God might remain correlated to the particles created, i.e., might not God exhibit principles strikingly similar to nonlocality? Are not the terms omnipresence and nonlocality at least loosely interchangeable?
In my opinion, the argument that omnipresence is incompatible with the God of the Bible is not a very strong argument, if a remotely similar concept can already be found in nature.
SpiritThe concept of a spiritual plane is a universal notion that has found expression in all cultures from antiquity to modern times. Goethe referred to it when he wrote, “I have a firm conviction that our spirit is a being of indestructible nature…” and Manly P. Hall echoes this sentiment with the following: “There are many levels of life which we cannot see and know, yet which certainly exist…” Indeed, our world scriptures speak of celestial beings including the Bible, the Bhagavad-Gita, the Koran and many others. The assertion that the true reality behind life is unseen or spiritual is a common one, and the Hebrew scriptures in particular contend that a human is a tripartite being consisting of body, soul and spirit.
Even if she is the most ardent skeptic, a truly objective scientist is forced to admit that the existence of spiritual phenomena is, at a bare minimum, possible. Open-minded scientists know that the idea itself is in accord with several lines of indirect evidence, both newly emerging and classic. I find it fallacious and closed-minded to assume that all we can experience empirically is all there is, mostly because the number of phenomena we can detect empirically grows in accordance with our technology and knowledge. Due to an unhealthy interpretation of the scientific method as the ultimate test of truth, modern society has conditioned itself to believe mainly in what it can see, experience and reproduce, and it is a very limiting proposition to frame reality in the context of orthodox naturalism.
Human perception is a wonderful servant but a horrible master. Scientifically speaking, normal limits exist regarding the physical senses such as hearing or sight, evidenced by a dog’s ability to perceive audio frequencies too high in pitch for a human to perceive. That is why those little whistles drive dogs absolutely crazy yet have no effect on humans. Just because we can’t hear those whistles doesn’t mean the frequencies they emit are not real. Just ask the dog! In similar fashion, the human retina is only able to perceive roughly five percent of the electromagnetic light spectrum. The rods and cones of the human eye are tuned to perceive energy only within the narrow range of 800nm to 400nm. Anything outside of this energy frequency goes undetected by the human eye. In other words, about ninety-five percent of the energy that surrounds us is visually imperceptible to us. Who is to say that spirits are not simply beings composed of higher or lower frequency energy that we cannot detect with our extremely short range of visual perception?
Exploring the religious or mystical side, the key words used to denote the spirit are ruach and neshemah in Hebrew and pneuma in Greek. Both words have strong connection to the ideas of ‘breath’ or ‘air.’ It is also interesting is that across the board, death is accompanied by a cessation of breath, and a cessation of breath is accompanied by death. We literally, "give up our breath" the moment we expire. Indeed a human being is a conglomeration of chemicals and elements that can be weighed and measured, but there is also an integral impetus that pushes these non-living chemicals into a progressive and life-unfolding organization. Like the proverbial Prometheus, we can cup this fire in our hands and dispense it in lesser increments. In the blink of an eye this deeper impetus halts its operation of the body, and upon that moment the same exact bundle of chemicals and elements that was just teeming with molecular dynamism begins an corollary process of entropic decay. The plight of all physical life in the current earthly sphere is disintegration into dust, which is in accord with Genesis 3:19.
An excellent deliberation of these concepts is afforded in the book Grand Illusions, author Little.
False Argument #1: Science Is Incompatible With ReligionThe word science comes from the Latin scientia, which translates literally "to know," and humans want to know the answers to the fundamental questions of our own existence: Who are we? Why are we here? Where are we going? How did we get here?
Inherit The Wind: A Case Study In Intellectual PolarizationIt seems to me that America is becoming an increasingly divided country. Ostensibly the land of plenty, many struggle amidst deep socio-political and economic rifts. This division manifests through a series of false intellectual dichotomies: Republican vs. Democrat, scientist vs. religionist, pro-life vs. pro-choice, peace vs. war, activist vs. apathetic, traditional vs. progressive, etc. The situation has deteriorated such that one can’t even mention God in class or utter the name of Darwin in church without somebody getting all up in arms. What might have contributed to this odd social phenomenon?
List Of Notable Religious ScientistsAt the thought of perusing any list of religious scientists, the question may immediately arise: Why are we told over and over again that the Church was an impediment to science? Confusingly, the answer is because it was. Be it religious, scientific, political or otherwise, bureaucracy is notorious for clinging to tradition in the face of challenge and it has long been noted that power structures tend to favor any course of action that will preserve power. Almost all of the following science pioneers were independent thinkers that were barred from the orthodox churches and universities of their day. The pattern is one that repeats throughout history. The dominant power structure establishes the status quo, and anybody who dissents is labeled a heretic, ostracized or worse yet – executed.
BibleThe Bible claims for itself to be a recording of the creator’s interaction with the creation, specifically the ancient Hebrews or Israelites, the predecessors of our modern day Jews. The word ‘bible’ comes from ta biblia, the Greek neuter-plural form of to biblion, which translates, ‘book,’ or ‘scroll.’ Hence, 'the Bible,' or ta biblia means ‘the books,’ and the plural form suggests that the Bible is not a single work but a small library of books written by many authors. Indeed that is the case with 66 different books in the canon, written by roughly 40 different authors of different backgrounds at different times occurring over a period of almost 2,000 years. The first book ever printed was in fact the Gutenberg Bible in the mid-fifteenth century, so named after the man who invented the printing press, John Gutenberg.
Genesis 1:1Genesis 1:1 reads, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." At the most basic level, the first three words of the Bible are currently upheld by Hubble’s Law. Recorded seemingly by the Hebrews alone, the notion that the universe had a beginning is mentioned again in Psalm 102:25-26. Here is another example where scripture is in reasonable accord with the findings of modern science.
Psalm 102:25-26Compiled long before scientific knowledge was available, this proclamation from David in the context of speaking to God both describes and agrees perfectly not only with Hubble’s Law and the findings of the greatest cosmologists, but also with Carnot’s Principle and the findings of Lord Kelvin and the greatest physicists. Based on observations of redshifts from distant galaxies, Hubble’s Law led to a concept described as the Big Bang that conforms perfectly to this verse from the Psalms and the first three words of Genesis as well. As defined by a universe in decay, Carnot’s Principle of entropy, also known as the second law of thermodynamics, states that in any exchange there is always a loss of energy in the form of irrecoverable heat. Left of its own accord, our entire universe would eventually wear out and reach a state in which zero molecular activity would be occurring anywhere.
The relevant verse reads, "In the beginning you laid the foundations of the Earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment."
Mrs. Piety Versus The Non-PersonsI had already gulped down my horchata by the time she handed me my change. I took my seat and began the wait for what could be called the skateboarders staple, a bean, rice and cheese burrito. Besides, I love the vending machines in this joint. They sell cool stickers with pictures of homies lifting weights and slinging ink and stuff. It seemed like forever until she called my number. I got my grub and went back to my little corner, hoping to have an uneventful lunch all by myself when some commotion across the street piqued my interest.
Selman vs. Cobb CountyIn a controversial decision virtually guaranteed to increase resentment between scientists, educators, fundamentalists and constitutional rights buffs, United States District Court Judge Clarence Cooper ruled against the Cobb County School Board on January 13th that the inclusion of a religiously neutral disclaimer sticker in school science textbooks was an unconstitutional endorsement of religion. Prompted by the ACLU, Georgia Citizens for Integrity in Science Education (GCISE) and even former President Jimmy Carter, the lawsuit, filed by Jeffrey Selman and four other parents, is an ongoing expression of the religio-political battle raging in education, religion, science and civil liberties.