How Does Nothing Become Something

The current best-selling atheist writers have something in common. They seem angry or frustrated that Christians DARE PRESUME that mankind is the center of the universe. They retort vigorously how unimportant we are in the grand scheme of things, how indifference reigns in the universe, how unimaginable are the distances of space with billions and billions and billions of galaxies.

“My goodness,” the atheists will exclaim, “don’t these dimwits of pompous believers know there is no center within an infinite number of stars? How stupid can they be? We are less than dust of dust of dust in the cosmic unendingness. We are nothing but temporary passengers in time. On the scale of 3000 miles that reaches from California to New York, the total existence of mankind is less than 20 yards. What is the significance of driving from coast-to-coast, and when all that mankind has ever done is back out of the driveway?

“Consider the insignificance of our lives. We do not control where or when we are born. Our existence is on a fragile balance with bacteria and viruses that could wipe us out with the most minor change in the environment. When we die, our atoms will scatter throughout the universe. And someday the universe will continue to expand until everything freezes, or the universe collapse into an apocalyptic conflagration. We are NOTHING. To pretend we are is unqualified arrogance.”

There are two implied features of the above evangelium of the Prophets of Insignificance that are ironical. One is size, and the other is meaning. Let’s briefly consider these.

How big does something have to be to be truly important; or, conversely, how small does something have to be to be truly insignificant? Is an elephant more important (significant) than a fly; they must be because they live longer, have much greater mass, and eat more. An adult must certainly be more significant than a baby.

“No, no, no,” responds the atheist. “You are missing the point. Your arguments are absurd because the examples given are biological units which we can readily perceive. What is being discussed is beyond our imagination … spaces so vast that we have to make up illustrations to get a feel for them … galaxies and black holes so large that our entire solar system could be swallowed thousands of times over. Even our Milky Way could be swallowed up and not particularly be noticed. We are talking BIG.”

Atheists and many scientists are talking as if “Big” has just been discovered! C’mon, guys, you know the history of science better than I do. “Big” has been around for centuries. Ptolemy stated in his Almagest that the size of the earth was a mathematical point in comparison to the distance of the stars. (A mathematical point is a concept and is infinitely small.) Boethius wrote in The Consolation of Philosophy in Book VII, “The whole of this earth's globe, as thou hast learnt from the demonstration of astronomy, compared with the expanse of heaven, is found no bigger than a point; that is to say, if measured by the vastness of heaven's sphere, it is held to occupy absolutely no space at all.” That sure sounds like they understood what big and little were. The concept of infinity was around for centuries before either one of these two men. Surely we are not pretending that our understanding of infinity is better or more expansive than those in centuries before, are we?

Big is a relative term that simply means larger than something else. Without question there was an enormous amount that the scientists in previous centuries were ignorant of. Current atheist writers enjoy pointing out that the theologians of the Middle Ages would be simple ignoramuses today. Let’s be fair. If Galileo were suddenly transported to our current age, he too would be an ignoramus. Newton would be lost (for a bit) with relativity, particles, and black holes.

It seems that when “Big” escapes quantification and becomes a concept, then that is when it is really, really big. Again, the concept of really, really big (infinity) has been around for centuries. Our telescopes and Hubble’s only give us better pictures of big; that’s all. Infinity is no more beyond imagination and wonder than it was in 400 B.C. I too marvel at the pictures of Hubble, but I also marvel at an orchid. There are wonders that I’ve seen in my travels that take my breath away as much as “the Pillars of Creation” (http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap070218.html).

In conclusion on my first reply to the Prophets of Insignificance is that “Big” does not cause people to be unbelievers. There is nothing inherent in “Big” that causes belief or disbelief in God. Infinity has not been rediscovered. It is as unfathomable now as it was 2,500 years ago.

My second argument begins with a question. If it is true that the universe is as Richard Dawkins wrote, “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference,” then why do we care (or seem to care) that meaning or good is important?

Why do we try to find out what things mean? Why do we seek to do good? Here is the difficulty. We are products of the universe if there is no God. If the universe has no meaning, purpose, or notion of good or evil … then why do we? The brief interlude that we experience called either the human race or our individual lives are a part-and-parcel of this meaninglessness, purposelessness, and amorality.

This is a colossal problem. If we, as humans, truly have meaning, then the universe has meaning … because we are part of the universe. I’m puzzled why telescopes and microscopes are used, and the conclusion from observation is, “There is no meaning”; yet, we look at each other and conclude, “We need to seek new meaning from science, and we need to do good.”

If, on the other hand, there is no real meaning, purpose, or good, then what we are experiencing is an illusion. There is no more right or wrong for a group of atoms that form a meteor to smash into the group of atoms called Jupiter than it is for the group of atoms called my hands to strangle and “kill” the group of atoms called a baby. There is no “killing” or “death.” There is only a rearrangement of atoms and transference of energy.

I’ve always puzzled why all atheists demand good ethics; yet, why should we care in a meaningless universe. Why should I care if that set of energy called Katrina rearranged billions of atoms in that insignificant piece of cosmic dust entitled New Orleans? Nothing “good” or “bad” happened, for there is, ultimately, not good or evil, only “pitiless indifference.”

One of the main criticisms of the Bible is the “cruelty” of God. But cruelty only exists if good and bad are real; otherwise, it is no more than an inconvenience for one set of atoms compared to another set of atoms. If there is no good or bad in the universe, then all that ever occurs is an action and reaction of matter and energy … nothing else. Why pretend there is more?

Any “meaning” that we ascribe to events is illusion if there is no meaning in the universe, that is, real, true, genuine meaning. If humans experience true meaning, then the conclusion is that meaning exists in the universe, not merely among humans. Christians are constantly criticized for being inconsistent. What is fair for one is fair for all.

So, does meaning exist in the universe? Either it does or it does not. Humans are part of the universe, regardless how small they may be. We believe and act as if there is meaning and good. Either it is illusion, or it is real. Which is it? If the statement by Dawkins is true, then meaning and good are illusions. A mother is no more “good” for raising a child than another parent is “evil” for eating her child. (Aren’t there a lot of animals that eat their young? Are we not a product or result of those animals? What’s the problem if we eat our young? Swift thought it could solve Ireland’s hunger problem. Surely there isn’t a meaningful difference between the group of atoms called humans and the group of animals called non-humans … is there?)

The irony of all this baffles me. The Prophets of Insignificance have made their own arguments insignificant. Atheists will readily admit that the arguments for morality are “problematic.” That is a nice way of saying there is no good argument, no real reason for being good boys and girls. Regardless how these Prophets will give arguments for the good of all, working together, being pragmatic, whatever, they leave out something critical every time.

What they leave out is this: if there is no meaning or purpose or good in the universe, then that includes all of us boys and girls, no exceptions. All that is really happening is a rearrangement of atoms and transference of matter to energy and energy to matter. Ahh, the wonders of the conservation of matter. A person “savagely” murdering a family is no more significant than a black hole swallowing a galaxy. (Actually, the person’s act is insignificant because it is so small. If there is a “bad guy,” it’s that big, Big, BIG black hole.)

My guess is there may be a lot of repulsion for this second argument. There shouldn’t be any. Christians believe in ultimate consequences. There is good and bad. What we do now affects the souls of others. The second argument should have no affect on them. Atheists should not be repulsed either. A person who is indifferent to good and bad is only reflecting the universe of which he is a part. There is no “savagery” anywhere in the universe. There is only action and reaction.

Either there really are meaning and good, or we are deluding ourselves. If the door is cracked open … even an inch … then there is an immaterial reality. Furthermore, if humans are the only ones who have this reality, then how do we avoid the conclusion that humans are the center of the universe … not in space, but in meaning?

Without question atheists have excellent arguments that marshal our skills and abilities to respond, but one of those arguments is not the massive size of the universe. That argument is not the “pitiless indifference” of the universe. Actually, size and indifference can be excellent arguments if the atheists believe in the same consistency that they demand of Christians. The arguments for ethics are not “problematic,” but they are impossible if there is no true meaning. If there is meaning, then there is something that transcends matter and energy. Something does not come out of nothing; that includes meaning and good as well as matter and energy.

What's It All About, Alfie?

The song, Alfie, was popular around 1966 and did very well on the charts in England as well as in America. The first two lines of the song are What's it all about, alfie [sic]? Is it just for the moment we live? The song was written for the movie, Alfie, starring Michael Caine and is rated in the top 50 of all British movies.

Essentially, Alfie confuses sex with love and moves from woman to woman gathering pleasure as a bee does nectar. Through heartache he comes to realize that he needs to commit himself but is himself cuckolded and wonders, "What's it all about, Alfie?"

Is there any more to the purpose of life than to stay alive? Certainly the struggle to say alive is phenomenal. The brutality and starvation that have been forced upon others, becoming emaciated to skeletons wrapped in skin, yet, going on from day to day enduring the hardships. Why is there such a push to stay alive?

It can be a puzzling question for Christians. Several times I have had brushes with a severe accident, which probably would have killed me. After the incident was passed I thought, "Wow, I'm glad that's over, and I made it." But I still come back to my question, "What's it all about?"

Hamlet said it well in Act 4 Scene 4:

"What is a man, If his chief good and market of his time Be but to sleep and feed? a beast, no more."

A criticism that I've read about Christians concerns this very idea. Summarizing several arguments from unbelievers, "What is so special about Christians. They worry about the same things that we do. They complain about their lot in life just like the rest of us. They moan and groan about the drudgery of day-to-day survival. We can't tell any difference. When they have a brush with death, they talk like we do, 'Whoa, that was close. Sure am glad I'm still alive.' What? I thought heaven was a wonderful place; yet, they sound as though they lucked out to stay in this world of toil. They don't have anything more than we do than less sleep on Sundays."

So, why do we continue on earth. What is it all about?

We are left here as His servants, to obey the Lord, love Him, seek to do His will in every aspect of our lives. Certainly we are not left here to be happy! That is nuts with a capital "N." Difficulties abound. Heartaches and sufferings are everywhere. Why does the Lord leave us here? The answer can simply be stated: To serve Him.

If our lips truly gave thanks to the Lord during all circumstances, if we look upon every day in the world of toil and hardship as an opportunity to share the message that the world is not our home, that there is more than the mix of misery and fun we experience, that there is purpose, a real purpose to life--then our lives would indeed be different.

C. S. Lewis wisely wrote, "Whatever is not eternal, is eternally out of date." If we only live to stay alive, knowing we will die, then whatever we do and the motive for it are out of date. On the other hand, if everything we do or think or desire is to bring glory to the Lord (if not consciously then an attitude that shows it), then what we do NOW will have lasting effects FOREVER.

Christians have a purpose, a mission; and we can make a difference. The world may ask, "What is it all about?" The Christian should be able to confidently answer, "We are here to serve the Lord."

You Choose: Something or Nothing

An atheist/agnostic (AA) has a common argument which he enjoys slapping Christians with. It is said in a number of way, but here is a common one.

"You say there is a God; yet, look at all the suffering in the world. Right now children are starving to death, a teen with a full life ahead of her is dying of who know's what, and I could go on and on. How can an all-powerful and loving God allow such meaningless and innocent suffering? Either God is a monster or God is weak. Please, I don't want to hear the nonsense that 'God works in mysterious ways.' That only means that you don't have an answer." Often we are slapped in the face with glee with this argument as if nothing can be said, and we have to walk off the stage in shame as if we have completely forgotten our lines.

Of course, we don't know why a particular person is suffering, but the Bible does give reasons why suffering occurs. We simply don't know which reasons belong to which incidents. "Ahh," exclaims the AA. "What good does that do?" Well, often doctors aren't sure which medicine to use or how much. So the doctors will prescribe and monitor. Making judgment calls like this aren't limited to Christians. We don't know the exact reason that will give us an answer. As we try a different verse, asking the Lord in prayer could this possibly be the reason, we can still come to peace, much in the same way a medicine will ease a pain, but not remove it.

Furthermore, the Bible is clear when it states that "the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared to the glory that will be reveal in us" (Romans 8:18). We may not know at a space-time moment why such suffering is occurring or why an untimely death occurred; however, Christianity does promise an answer and a recompense eventually.

Sometimes we simply need to slap back. You slap me; I slap you. Here's what I mean. Ask the AA this: "What do you have to offer the child who has died after horrible suffering?" NOTHING.

I find it so ironic that AAs who are horrified over suffering and death demand that there must not be a God who would allow such things. Okay. Let's assume there is not. What is your alternative. NOTHING. I do mean absolutely nothing. The child is gone forever. His atoms will slowly spin off and be rearranged with other atoms (the good ole conservation of matter). His memory is gone forever. His personality is gone forever. His hopes and dreams are gone forever. His atoms will end up like the rest of the universe, either in fire or ice. Since all life will end, no one will be remembered. No relationships will be remembered. Everyone and everything will be forgotten as if they never existed.

If the AA is correct and there is no God, we will all cease to exist, eventually becoming nothing (assuming a re-collapse in which matter as we know it ceases to exist). If that is true, what is the worse we have done? Truly, if there is no God, what have we done? We have taken an awful situation and given hope for the future. If God isn't real, still, isn't a false comfort better than no comfort? Frankly, if God doesn't exist, what does it matter what we say for comfort--eventually everyone will be dead and forgotten anyway!

In contrast to that, the AA takes an awful situation and makes it worse! "See your child in the casket. The body will soon rot away, his atoms join other atoms (perhaps be in a McDonald's hamburger in a few years), and soon be totally forgotten as you will be ... because everybody will cease to exist as if they were never born."

If Christians are wrong and there is no God, it seems the AAs are upset because we give hope; even false hope is better than no hope. If the AAs are correct, there is NO hope.

We may not like the suggestions given in the Bible for suffering. We most probably will not have the slightest idea why this person or that person suffers. The Bible doesn't tell us. It does tell us we will be recompensed because of our suffering, to such a degree that the suffering will be forgotten. Not only will we be remembered, but we will still be aware, growing, learning, experiencing life as never before.

The key difference between the answers of the Christian and the AA is that the Christian answers, though inadequate to many, are SOMETHING, where the AA answers are ... NOTHING.

So, you choose: something or nothing.