My conversation with an orthodox Lutheran
About a month ago I changed my profile picture on facebook to this image of an atheist billboard:
This inspired a light shower of criticism from some of my facebook friends who felt otherwise. One friend posted this to my wall:
What do you call this place in which we exist? Do you call it “universe”, or what? I want to make sure I use terms you can communicate it.
This facebook friend is still active in the Lutheran organization that I also used to be active in. He is also someone very close to me. Believing discretion to be the best approach, I responded privately by email as follows:
I’m responding to your post to my facebook wall by private email because I’m guessing that it was not your intention to have this conversation in a public forum. If I’m mistaken, then let me know and we can do it out in the open.
In that post you said:
“What do you call this place in which we exist? do you call it ‘universe’, or what? I want to make sure I use terms you can communicate in.”
The answer to your question depends on what you want to exclude and what you want to illustrate. If you literally mean the place in which you and I exist, to the exclusion of all others, then you would simply define the space thusly and leave it at that. By increasingly generalizing the definition, you might call that space “The United States”, “North America”, “the northern hemisphere”, “Earth”, “the solar system”, “the orion spur of the Milky Way Galaxy”, “the Milky Way Galaxy”, “the local group of galaxies”, and so on. This may seem pedantic, but the known extent of that which includes everything has increased throughout recorded history. Our early ancestors believed that it did not extend past the horizon. Now we are in possession of evidence that it extends some 80 billion light years in all directions from Earth, more than is possible to see from our vantage point.
The universe, as I am familiar with its usage, is most commonly meant to refer to all that is, regardless of the limits of our understanding. However, recently physicists have grown increasingly fond of the notion of a “multiverse”, which is composed of multiple, and causally separate, universes. There are several different notions of the multiverse. One allows for parallel universes where the physical constants, or even the physical laws themselves, may be different from what we observe in our own universe. Bear in mind that this is at the edge of modern science. The existence of other universes has not been conclusively determined. To my knowledge it is not even clear that it can be demonstrated since those other universes cannot causally impact our own.
More generally you could simply refer to the mathematical properties of the space we occupy, in which case the notion of space-time or Minkowski space may suffice. If you’re just looking to describe local properties of that space at non-relativistic speeds, 4-dimensional Euclidean space is probably adequate.
Let me point out that I didn’t invent these words or their definitions. They were arrived at variously by cartographers, geographers, physicists, astronomers, and mathematicians as appropriate for their technical needs. Just so we’re clear these are not terms that only I communicate in.
Now, I thought this was a polite and clear response. I could have simply answered his question with “the midwest”, or “early 21st century western civilization”, either of which would have been completely accurate responses. Instead I tried to illustrate that his question did not have a unique answer and explained several possible answers that he could choose from depending on what he had actually intended to ask. I received this in reply:
You are very difficult to communicate with. You cannot define terms in unambiguous words. You seem to deliberately attempt to confuse the issues.Yes, you are mistaken. I want to have a most public discussion with you concerning your religion (your beliefs) as you have gone public with your attacks upon the Bible. I will defend the Bible publicly.I want everyone to see how you seek to confuse the obvious.Now, my question is a simple one to most people: what do you call this place in which we exist, you know, the things we see, hear, touch, sense, in short, the only things you seem to “believe” in as existing. I know you do not include “God” in this category. Please include all that you believe exists in your answer.
You decide for yourself in my original response was obfuscatory. I found it ironic that he accused me of being ambiguous in response to his overtly ambiguous question. I was also overwhelmed by his request that I publicly itemize all of existence. I did, though, agree to discuss this publicly, which apparently means in front of some 100 facebook friends, most of whom don’t care and aren’t paying attention. The result is the following exchange:
[TSL], do you have a word or phrase in your vocabulary the meaning of which encompasses everything that you believe exists? Or, to put another way, what do you call the totality of the place in which we exist? I call it “universe”.
February 9, 2011 at 01:01
Have you checked out http://www.evolutionarychristianity.com ?
A nice “middle ground”. (If the “Lutheran” part of your moniker is serious, of course.) I no longer affiliate with any labels whatsoever, but I wonder if you might appreciate these folks. They are quite varied in their “beliefs”, too, which I find refreshing. (ie, not all Christians are like your friend here who takes the first chapter of Genesis literally). – Peter
March 5, 2011 at 01:12
I find it interesting that you express your views openly, yet hide your identity. I know the book you once held highly and now you condemn. As stated by your “friend who you are close to”, you cannot get beyond what you see. You cannot get beyond something that cannot be proven by scientific research. You now have to have “Proof” where previously (before you obtained worldly knowledge in worldly institutions) “Faith” was your primary source of belief. I would venture to guess, you have replaced the Bible with scientific journals, magazines etc. You once studied the bible and seemed to be a firm believer in what it taught. What happened? I ask you, what does the Bible say about the knowledge of this world? You may benefit from the knowledge that the good Lord has blessed you with for a few short years, but as you believed prior to your atheist beliefs, this knowledge will soon be of no use! It’s truly a shame, that you cannot take what God has blessed you with, and use it to build the kingdom of God instead of trying to tear it down. I leave you with a quote from God’s Word – Acts 8:38-39 “And now I say to you, keep away from these men and let them alone; for if this plan or this work is of men, it will come to nothing; 39 but if it is of God, you cannot overthrow it—lest you even be found to fight against God.” Quit fighting God and come back to church. Give thanks and praise to the one who alone, has blessed you in this life! It’s faith that matters – that is a fact!
March 5, 2011 at 10:54
You ask me to abandon my cognitive faculties and believe something that cannot be proven. That same argument can be used to argue for anything that cannot be proven, be it Christianity, Islam, astrology, homeopathy, sea monsters, or Middle Earth. It can even be made the argument for the antithesis of your argument. As Christopher Hitchens said “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
Even more puzzling is why I should believe something that is contrary to evidence, or even logically untenable. So many of the Bible’s claims are either wrong (there was a worldwide flood) or illogical (God is both omniscient and omnipotent). Perhaps you would tell me what drives you to hold such flawed beliefs.
What happened, you ask? I thought about it. Perhaps you should do the same.
March 10, 2011 at 02:14
Your telling me once you were ignorant, but now, after your education, your eyes have been opened. That’s a far cry from the person I once knew! You chose to ignore the proofs that exist in and with God’s creation and God’s Word. Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God as I’m sure you once believed! My guess is you quite reading God’s Word and now you are reaping the effects from that.
You call your site the “Skeptical Lutheran”. I believe the name of your site is misleading and does not reflect your views at all! Your not skeptical nor are you Lutheran. Skeptical means you doubt something is true. You don’t doubt, you truly believe that the Lutheran beliefs are false! Therefore, you should quite misleading people with using the name “Skeptical” and “Lutheran”. I would say a better title for you site would be “The Convinced Athiest”!
How you can not believe in a creator is beyond me! How an educated person can believe that something suddenly was created out of nothing is beyond me. You want proof from me that God exist and God’s Word is true! You would hear from me the same truths you once believed in yourself! All one has to do is walk outside and look around! Nature tells you there has to be a creator. And that’s not rocket science.
I ask you, has science ever been wrong in the past! Is it possible that science could be wrong when it has proven something to be true? Your education has taken you full circle. You have gone from a non-believer, to a believer, and are now a non-believer again. I would not give you two cents for the education you received if the outcome of that education closed the door to my eternal life in Heaven!
You don’t have to answer this, but I’m believing you believe in things that cannot be proven yourself! You make the claim that God’s attributes of omniscient and omnipotent are illogical. I will agree with that. Can you agree that you once believed that God is not under the same rules of nature as you and I are! You were taught that God was the creator. Can it be possible that if a superior creator existed, would this superior creator have far more superior attributes than you or I do? Attributes that we cannot understand because of our limited, inferior knowledge? Are you saying just because our scientist of today cannot prove something, that it does not exist?
You say the claims of a world wide flood are incorrect. You ask what proof do I have? I would say their are more proofs for a universal flood than you will admit to! A world wide flood explains the setiments found throughout the world. It explains why their were fossels of many many different kinds of animals all found lying together in a mass grave. It explains the the formation of canyons like the grand canyon. A universal flood explains why you find fish imprints in fossilized rocks high up on mountains. The flood explains why we still dig up fossels that are not completely decomposed! I believe there is more evidance for a universal flood than their is evidence that their is not! Am I an expert on the subject. No, just from what I have read. But again, I chose to only read and accept what agrees with God’s Word. You see, I put God’s Word first! You have put science first! Your God is Science! And that God will only take you to a fiery hell.
Do I have all your answers? No, I don’t now and I never will. Do I belive that their that things can exist without exact proof? Yes I do! 1 Corinthians 1:27 states “But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.” Maybe you don’t feel the shame now because of the hardness of your heart, but you will! And that time of shame will be here soon unless you return to God’s Word and start studying it and turning away from your rejection of God’s Word. Many times, there are two ways to look at something. My suggestion to you would be to start looking at the other side of the coin, because the side of the coin your looking at now, is guiding you to a firey end! An firey end that you will have eternity to think about! Are you 100% sure your right? I mean 100%. I would venture to guess you are not 100% sure.
You are currently experience one of God’s gifts to you right at this very moment. And that gift is that you still have the choice to follow God even thought things don’t seem to make sencse which means trusting in God and his Word through faith, or trust in Man and his infallible ways.
I’m not telling you anything you didn’t once already believe in yourself. Yea, you can find others who deny God’s Word. There will always be those who chose to deny God and His Word. I’ve thought about God’s Word much as you believe in your response that I have not. I think about God’s Word everytime I open my Bible! I take God’s Word with me in my heart each day when I go about my daily activities. Again, I chose to put God’s Word first before anything! And if what I read or hear disagrees with God’s Word, than I reject it! God’s Word is foremost!
I hope someday, you can put aside your worldly so called wisdom, and pick up the book you once held highly, and let God guide your life as you once did! We don’t have a lot of time here on this earth to have the oppertunity to do so. Your life isn’t the only one effected! Your family also needs God and His Word. May the Lord open your eyes once again to His truths. May we both have the oppertunity to once again, come together and worship our Lord together! That’s my dream.
March 10, 2011 at 11:17
To tersely address each of the many points you make:
1) You don’t know how much I read the Bible now, or how much I read it when you knew me.
2) You should look up “skeptic” in the dictionary. While you’re at it look up “irony”.
3) Your proof of a creator is hardly proof at all as I will show in a future blog post.
4) Science (actually scientists) have been wrong in the past, admittedly. But if you believe they are as wrong now as they were then, then you are more wrong than either. See the Isaac Asimov essay I referred my friend to.
5) It is illogical to presuppose the existence of something illogical.
6) Your interpretation of data regarding a world wide flood is flawed. You should look beyond Answers in Genesis.
7) You should start looking at the other side of the coin. You are the one who has presupposed the conclusion.
In general, you are astonished that someone would change their mind about something. I don’t see that this is incredible, particularly when confronted with new data. I did not callously abandon Christianity on a whim, as you seem to think, but made the decision slowly and carefully while considering all the data that are available to me. I think it is incredible that some choose to reject data because it does not support their most deeply held delusions. You are the close minded one.
I will address many of your points in more detail as separate blog posts in the near future.
March 14, 2011 at 09:34
[...] facebook conversation with my friend has continued, but at an increasingly slow pace. I have removed the time stamps on [...]
October 19, 2011 at 10:53
You say that “science” is based on what can be “demonstrated” and “observed”. I agree. “Demonstrated” is subjective. “Repeated observation” is much less subjective, even objective. Yet, you believe, without observation, that the earth’s core is molten. You thus believe it by “faith.” I have the same type of “faith” in regard to God and the Bible. No “repeated observation”, but a lot of evidence.
October 19, 2011 at 11:02
Perhaps, then, you will explain why repeated seismic observations of the Earth’s core do not qualify.
October 21, 2011 at 14:26
Hmmm. My last comment was met with silence. While you’re thinking about that let’s compare my faith in the existence of earth’s molten core to your faith in God.
1. The interior structure of the Earth can be verified at any time by anyone using a variety of methods (seismic sensor arrays, for example). Your God’s existence depends on the word of a handful of long dead prophets and therefore cannot be verified.
2. There is no charge of blasphemy against the Earth’s molten core. Go ahead and mock it if you want. I don’t care and I can’t imagine anyone else does either.
3. If you were to ask a geology professor to prove that the Earth’s core is molten, he would not insist that he does not have to prove it, then kick you out of his university, and call you evil.
corollary: If you have evidence that Earth’s core is not molten you are welcome to present that evidence at geological conferences and in geological research journals. If you’re evidence is repeatable and withstands the rigorous tests any new scientific idea is subject too, then your new model of the Earth’s interior will replace the old one. That the Earth’s core is molten is not dogma.
4. Adherents to the molten core theory do not gather weekly to sing songs and recite poetry about the earth’s interior. If they did, lack of attendance at those meetings would not be considered grounds for ejecting one from the body of molten core adherents.
5. If my parents or children accepted or even publicly argued for an alternative to the molten core theory they would still be (in every sense) as much my family as if they did not. Can you say the same thing about your faith in God?