TOE
physics is in search of one. right now newtonian mechanics (needed to get a spaceship to the moon) and a refinement of that - einsteins relativity (needed to keep satellites for your tv in orbit / sync) describes everything big; and quantum mechanics describe everything really small. quantum mechanics says things like - one photon went through two physical slots - unless you observe it and then "the wave equations will collapse" and you'll be able to tell which one it really went through. combining these however, this leads to macro-paradoxes like schrodinger's cat, alive and dead at the same time until observed. there really is no reason one set of rules holds true for one set of conditions - and another set holds true for another. when you do the math and try to combine these - you get a divide by zero. and those suck.
fundamentalism could use a TOE as well - but i'm not certain they’re looking for one. fundy's insist upon a certain way to think, to look at truth, to see the world. while they remain convinced that this approach gives them security and keeps them grounded - there no consensus / agreement as to what the specifics (i.e. facts) are - only that there are, for sure, specifics. i have come to think of fundamentalism as a religion all its own (ht: john austin) - regardless of its roots be they in christianity, islam, or mormonism. divide by zero.
evangelicalism has a softer version of this "In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty". still, who defines essentials? the very existence of the word "denominations" encapsulates the telling failure of a holistic and consistent understanding that ascribes to this view. like in physics, there really is no reason one set of rules holds true for one set of conditions (denominations) - and another set holds true for another. divide by zero.
the emergenting (i'm still gonna get you for that Tony!) church should be in search of a TOE as well, i think... although i do think its a bit early for one to have fully emerged (who among us could predict a honeycomb by examining one or even several bees?). i'm really thankful for peter rollins work - far and away i think he is presenting the most cogent thoughts representing (vice describing) the emerging church and how to/we think. however, i believe we have our own divide by zero waiting, lurking - not unlike the issue in physics. while our thinking does operate in the realm of high dimensionality (allowing for seemingly mutually exclusive things to be simultaneously true / with a better understanding of point-of-view), i think we have been unable to offer a cohesive theory of how, statistically speaking, God doesn't hate brown people. what i mean by that is - if we understand that the path to heaven lies within Christ/Christianity - and statistically speaking brown people are not exposed to Christianity - how do we account for salvation outside an understanding of Christianity? assuming we believe the new heaven isn't comprised of balding middle aged white men. um, because i would hafta rename that place ;-)
while i have my thoughts on the subject (my four longtime readers might even guess how i would put that together) - i think there are a few ways to get there... and, i'd love to hear others. there might not be enough room in the comments - but i'd love a link to your blogpost!
tag!
Labels: dividebyzero, toe
posted by P3T3RK3Y5 for meltingearth
20 Comments:
I took a tiny swing at it, Pete.
(I really love those thoughts about fundamentalism as religion, too.)
(oh, and I love that poster!)
"quantum mechanics describe everything really small."
Trouble is, quantum mechanics, just as such, only describes what can be observed and measured that's really small. The rest, like the collapse of the wave function and the Schrodinger's cat paradox are actually to do with inerpretation. Even though physicist often give the impression that these are problems with the observable experimental results themselves.
Whereas there is, in particular, one well worked out non-paradoxical but much maligned alternative to this indeterminate Copenhagen type interpretation, which is called Bohmian mechanics.
But then physicists don't really know what to do with Bohm's account since it doesn't seem to lead anywhere. Whereas my own conclusion is that this quantum mechanics leads to a wholly different kind of general theory to sny that physicists have seriously contemplated. This being an account that, amongst other things, explains how the universe is in its presently observed form despite the action of the fores.
Whereas physicists still believe that a theory of everything can be developed while assuming just the action of the known forces by themselves.
mike - good thoughts man. thanks for the link!
merlin - thanks for stopping by and commenting. good clarification - quantum behavior, if viewed at the macro level appears absurd.
i'm not familiar with bohmian mechanics - but at first brush, it appears to be a resolution of our understanding... particularly of (non)locality. which i dig. i find entanglement particularly compelling. however bohm and copenhagen appear to be, yeah an interpretation of our understanding of quantum mechanics - not really a resolution. which brings us back to...
i agree with your conclusion - that there is a different kind of general theory waiting for us that will turn our head inside out. be that string theory or an exceptionally simple theory of everything or something else. and yeah - how do we work backward to find that? its like we have symptoms - we need the causes. is this the difficulty you’re suggesting? its a brilliant take on the issue.
This is all a little over my head but is it possible for a TOE to be a little reductionist?
Very interesting stuff. I'll have to see if my pea brain candle it.
I doubt it.
Thanks!
- Steve Martin San Clemente, CA
cori - good question. btw, i really liked some of the hesitations croghan included in his response - dont' miss those.
i dont consider a toe to be a reduction. i see it as an abstraction - a more general case... from which can be derived specific instances.
for instance, if a rule works only with a set of very specific conditions - we understand there is a problem somewhere.
pick your issue that works given a specific set of conditions: "love your enemies". some of us believe that, unless they're islamic. or gay. or you know... find your exception. then we can bomb them. or torture them. or just be general dicks to them. so if we have an exception to our rule then i would argue we have a problem in our theology at that level and there is a more general rule that we must adhere to. (just so were clear, i would argue ultimately loving your enemies isn't a distillation - its a more general case. and its always true - they're aren't exceptions for this, at least in my theology. hopefully in my practice as well.)
in my blog example, i argue we have a problem with our theology if our theology would lead us to believe the demographics of heaven are biased in one direction or another because i.e. god is not a respecter of persons. (btw, i bet there is some hindu dude in india right now asking this same question - "um does god hate white people?" lol)
in physics: the gravity we experience at our scale should create a black hole at every point where there is a particle. a black hole is a divide by zero. but obviously that doesn't happen. so what is going on? we don't know. there is a problem. Our understanding is not complete.
so simply, how does your (christian?) theology account for a normal distribution of demographics in heaven :-)
Hiya Pete. I hope you don't mind me having a little go, despite the fact that most of what you said was like pearls before swine in my mushy toddler-focused brain. I'm at onediaperatatime.blogspot.com.
oh, snap! Greta calls out iPete for his acceptance of a fishy 4th century Greek philosophical construct on this (otherwise) innovative post! That's my girl Greta-- she is such a badass.
Mike,
If heaven is "a fishy 4th century Greek philosophical construct", then would you please explain to me what you think Revelation 21 means. As a side issue, it seems like in your comment you use the term 'innovative' to denote something good. I just want to point out that things that are innovative can be either good or bad; calling something innovative should be derogatory at times.
Pete, maybe you can answer the above question for me since it seems like you and Mike have a similar understanding.
I didn't intend to call you out. I'm not really a badass, just not terribly couth. But don't tell mike... I have a rep to protect.
Yo, Caleb.
How's about you give ur interpretation of Rev chapter 10 first? Or chapter 13. Or 17.
Ah, Scripture. If only thoust wast written by themst Swedes who doest write for IKEA.
Tim, Thanks for such a serious answer.
If I knew that's the kind of answer I was going to receive I would've kept my mouth shut.
Hopefully someone else will engage me a little differently then Tim.
Caleb - I'm sorry. Genuinely.
You don't know me, and I came across as glib, when I truly didn't mean to be glib. There's over six year's worth of struggle forming the backdrop of my engagement with your question. Here's a little more unpacking...
Of all the 66 books you could have picked to pit against the idea that heaven could be a fishy construct - you chose arguably the most mysterious in the entire catalogue. I was entirely serious in grabbing at some other chapters that, when I read them, I'm left with a big 'uh? woh?'.
Anyway - please forgive my carelessness.
And iPete - please forgive my doing so on your turf. And hello, by the way - we haven't met, but I'm Greta's husband. Not that she felt particularly proud of that when she read my prior comment.
iPete - this too may come across as glib, but it's anything but. May I ask what you think about the idea that the pursuit of a TOE for Christians lends itself to idolatry? Reason I ask... I recently had to stop 'seeking God' as to His master plan for 2 main reasons: 1. cos I needed to get on with my work, and 2. cos I figured that bringing all things back to Himself was His business, not mine, and if I caught a sniff of how He was going about the job, then I'd make up my own mind as to the best way to get it done. So, I divided by zero.
Lovings to all from across the Atlantic.
Tim, thanks for your gracious response. And I did think of the point you were making after thinking about the question I posted and I agree that there are much clearer passages that point to my understanding of heaven. It sounds like you've done a lot of thinking about this and that's why I am trying to find out from someone like you why you think (as I am assuming) that heaven is "a fishy 4th century Greek philosophical construct".
About your comments on a Christian TOE...I definitely agree with you, and I definitely agree with iPete. I may be wrong, but I think you two are speaking to two different issues. I agree with iPete that God has given us 'abstractions from which can be drawn specific instances', and I agree with you that God doesn't tell us what all those 'specific instances' are. He has given us principles, but he has not spelled out how those principles play out in each and every 'specific instance' and we shouldn't "seek God's master plan" because that almost always involves trying to determine his will in the specific instances.
In love,
Caleb
thanks for the excellent dialogue guys. i'm really enjoying it.
thanks to all the new commenter’s here. greta - its ok if you’re a badass. even one in mild mannered disguise ;-) i'm really a sensitive guy in disguise - i just try not to let that get out 'cause likewise it'll ruin my image ;-)
i'm also really glad i asked the question first before answering it myself! what i'm observing, is that people are holding on a lot looser to a theology of salvation than i anticipated. and maybe that is really good. for a number of the reasons indicated in these comments as well as in the individual own posts.
i am a little surprised by this though. i guess i thought people had pretty specific ways of thinking about things - about explaining things. so perhaps my post is really for those of use, like me, who readily tend to build constructs in our minds. coincidentally some of us just heard Tom Wright talking a few weeks ago - and we got to see him tip toe at a significant distanced around this very issue. i wonder what his resolution would be?
caleb, also appreciated your clarification in your last paragraph.
would love to hear more if they're out there!
Dear Caleb--
You make a great point about my pejorative use of the term 'innovative'. I'd say that generally (but not always), it is good for people of faith to be forward-looking, rather than only trying to go back to some point in history. And I was teasing my friend Pete, who in spite of all of his wonderfully innovative thinking and linking of theologic and scientific thinking, still seems to think of 'heaven' as a place where people go when they die (I tease him, because I know he doesn't actually think this, but he still seems to have the artifact in the language that he uses).
To wit, in re-reading Rev. 21, I'd say it seems to describe 'heaven' as God's realm which comes to earth, rather than earthlings going up to heaven.
Thanks for the response Mike. Your comment reminded me of a talk I recently listened to relating scientific inquiry and discovery to theological issues. It was a lecture given earlier this year by Millard Erickson called Can Theology Learn from Physics
I agree that Rev 21 shows God's realm coming to earth. From statements like: "Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away..." it seems like this is a place that is spoken of so I still don't see how you can agree with Pete that heaven isn't a place. I agree with your description of this place (and that popular descriptions and ideas of heaven are far from how the Scripture describes it), but it is an actual place nonetheless. Unless one believes that humans cease to exist when they die and nothing happens after death, I find it hard to swallow that heaven isn't a place. And now I wonder why you seem to think that while you say what you said about Rev 21.
Great points, and completely logical, Caleb.
So where is heaven, then?
So where is heaven, then?
To answer that question I would need to know when you are asking about.
If you are asking about right now, then the only answer I can muster is "where Jesus is bodily". Other than that and I don't know what else to say. I refer to this as the intermediate heaven because it is not ultimate, meaning, it is not as it will be.
If you are asking about the future (I am thinking of time after the resurrection of the dead, after the judgement -- in other words, after the consummation), then I would say that heaven is located where the new earth is located. Before I read Graeme Goldsworthy I thought that God would create some new earth, but after reading Goldsworthy and learning more about Biblical Theology I think that the new earth is the earth we now know re-created (made anew, all things brought back to the way they should be, etc.).
Does this make sense? Do you agree?
More likely, what is different in your thinking than what I expressed?
Oh yeah, I also want to encourage anyone who enjoyed the scientific leaning of this blog post to listen to the lecture I referred to in my last comment, I thought it was really interesting.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home