Church

For many people the community aspects of religion are crucial. In fact, I know plenty of Christians for whom the community aspect is the main and most important part of Christianity. By community aspect I mean by going to church an individual is part of the community and has friends/support networks/etc and so on.

For most of my life this community or body aspect of church was foreign to me, despite attending weekly.

Growing up, I didn’t make friends at church, I didn’t really talk to others. I would go and listen to the sermon or sleep or think about games/books. I would sometimes take part in religious discussions there, even on occasion being a very active participant, but that was all.

When I returned to church (not Christianity, I never left Christianity) in the middle of graduate school, I began to appreciate three more components. The first of these was worship, was singing and praising as the body of Christ. The second was being inspired, as I came to very much appreciate pastors who could inspire me for the coming week to work to improve my life for the better. The final, and relatively illformed for me compared to the first two, was service. I didn’t lead or play a significant role in service to the community, but I did occasionally play a bit role and I found that that was also important and valuable component of church. I also found a camaraderie in service.

But I still struggled with the community aspect. Part of this is just a fundamental difficulty with socializing that I also find with physics conferences and the like, and my behavior at receptions is often similar. But at church I would take part or leave. Sometimes I tried to force myself to become part of the community by staying but I would just stand in a corner awkwardly. Sometimes I would have in mind to go greet someone, but that would be over quickly and then what? So the community aspect of church was foreign to me.

The last couple of years I began to understand, to internalize, it a bit more. For the first time, that became the most significant component (at times) to me of church and not worship or inspiration or it being a set aside time to rest. This was because I had children, and involved them in the children’s programs. They loved being involved with the other kids and I followed them.

So now, for the first time and as we can no longer worship together in person, I find myself wanting the community part of church.

The Economist (the virus is accelerating dechurching in america) posited that people would find other sources for what they got from religion after going away. I have also heard concerns about this from pastors who I know and admire.

It is true that the habit has been broken. But inspiration and praise are available remotely and online, and all forms of community, not just religious community, are missing at this time. People need community (especially those with families) and will return to them or renew them when they are able to.

So no, I don't think that the there is going to be a significant increase in dechurching, beyond that which has been going on the last two decades and at least partially originates in the alliance between evangelical christianity and the Right in the United States.

The simulation Test

I propose a Simulation Test based on the Simulation Hypothesis. The test is this, is a given purported supernatural event reasonable within the Simulation Hypothesis. Namely, is the purported supernatural event reasonable if you assume we exist in a simulation and the supernatural event was caused directly by the Simulator ‘interfering’ with the simulation.

For example, resurrection can pass the simulation test since it would be easy for the Simulator to take information from one place in the simulation and copy it to another. This type of interference, which is similar in some general sense to feeding the multitudes, is easy to explain and to motivate in our experience with simulations. Healing, where disease leaves the body, would also pass the simulation test as it would be easy for the Simulator to delete certain information through various memory states.

Let’s consider other purported, now considered absurd, supernatural events. Such as lightning strikes. Or the seasons each year. Or rain, however frequent it is. Is it reasonable, even ignoring our natural explanations for such events, for the Simulator to make so many repeated and structured modifications to the simulation? Or would such repeated events be included in a model or routine which is called at many points in the simulation (and so we would probably classify as natural and not supernatural)? So a miraculous hypothesis for such events would not pass the Simulation Test.

For a test to be useful, it needs to be applicable to a current point of discussion (even if one that some people feel is absurd). So let’s consider the interpretation of the biblical story of creation that many Young Earth Creationists hold. In this interpretation, the simulation behaves in a completely different manner in each of what should be called the first seven days and even though the simulation on the seventh day has some surface similarities to the simulation observed now, that it was still fundamentally completely different. Not only that, but that all of those changes were made by interference by the Simulator.

This seems implausible. It might be plausible for the Simulator to start a simulation at an interesting point or to start one simulation, stop it and make fundamental changes to the simulation, and then restart from the point the previous simulation had stopped. But in the Young Earth Creationist interpretation, either that the physics we observe now was the same physics during creation and that the 7 days were defined by continual supernatural events which have no impact on the universe we observe now or that radically different physics exists on each of the 7 days which have no relation to the physics that we observe now or the physics of the previous days, fails the Simulation Test.

Other interpretations of supernatural events in Judaism/Christianity might fail this test. I think the sun standing still for Joshua could be explained by a supernatural event changing the index of refraction and not by the failing interpretation of repeated supernatural events causing the Earth to change its rotation with no other impact other than the change of the Sun's observed movement in the sky.

Thoughts on SuperGod

One of the blog posts that I have wanted to respond to on this blog for a long time is that of god and supergod by Noah Smith.

First I wanted to address the notion of SuperGod. Obviously, that might be pretty important for someone whose belief system is centered on Classical Theism (a Christian philosopher's take on classical theism). But for many of us Christians, the reason why we worship and follow God is not just because He is the Classical God. Rather, it is because of what He has done for us. If you look at the history of Abrahamic religions, our place in the relationship has been consistently reacting to what He has done for us.

While God came to Abraham and said go and Abraham went on faith, the rest of the relationship with Israel was based… on the part of Israel… on what God had done in the past (lead Abraham, lead Israel out of Egypt and bondage, give Israel Canaan) and what God promised to do (making Abraham’s children as the stars, giving Abraham’s children the Promised Land, all people being blessed through Abraham’s children (including the gentiles: Isaiah)).

And a Christian here and now should experience God in their lives. Not just as an abstract idea or concept, but an experience of transformation and redemption. God doesn’t just do the big picture stuff of creating humanity, setting laws and dictating the fate of nations. He desires, and is waiting to have, a personal relationship with each of us. And if we have been transformed and redeemed by Him, then we are not only ’saved’ but we also serve as the ‘hands’ of God, bringing about His will on earth.

That being said, I appreciated Noah’s sermon about not abdicating responsibility and saying ‘God will do it’ or ’the free market will do it’ or ’the forces of history will do it’. I just disagree with the ‘it’s all on you’. Rather, 'it's on God, working from within you'.

Didache

Recently I read the Didache for the first time. It is instruction for Christians in the early church and is generally dated to the first century (although some date it to the second century wiki ). I was confronted, again, with the fact that recent versions of protestantism are not a return to some pure original Christianity. Rather, Christianity before Constantine looks a lot more like Orthodox Christianity but with less pomp.

I am interested in understanding early Christianity, not only because I love history, but because I want to understand what the setting was when the canonical books of the Bible were selected. Christians then were a lot like Christians are now (and in the intervening centuries). Some spent a lot of time in study and thought very deeply, but many accepted and embraced the message but were (theologically) simple and their Christianity was acceptable to the disciples of the Apostles.

Reading the Didache has inspired me to again try and intenalize the reality that a relationship with God depends on continual revelation. Also, I have changed my practice to include the Lord’s Prayer every day. Many protestants assume we are sophisticated and truly understand prayer and do not pray the Lord’s Prayer often. The Didache instructs Christians to pray it 3 times a day and, humbly, I am taking on the practice of praying the Lord’s Prayer every day. I might be sophisticated and be drawn to theological sophistication but to grow I need to start simple.

(Didache)

Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven. Give us today our daily (needful) bread, and forgive us our debt as we also forgive our debtors. And bring us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one (or, evil); for Thine is the power and the glory for ever..

Easter

This morning we read the Easter passages of Luke 24 and John 20.

One thing that struck me, beyond the wonder being related about seeing the risen savior, was how Jesus was repeatedly not truly seen until the eyes of the follower were opened.

In John:

14 At this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not realize that it was Jesus.

15 He asked her, “Woman, why are you crying? Who is it you are looking for?”

Thinking he was the gardener, she said, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will get him.”

16 Jesus said to her, “Mary.”

In Luke:

13 Now that same day two of them were going to a village called Emmaus, about seven miles[a] from Jerusalem. 14 They were talking with each other about everything that had happened. 15 As they talked and discussed these things with each other, Jesus himself came up and walked along with them; 16 but they were kept from recognizing him.

And I thought about the Resurrection. In my spiritual journey there was a period of time where, despite not having a critical perspective (doubting biblical miracles), I still doubted the importance of the Resurrection. In some sense I agreed with Serene Jones (christian easter serene jones) that the good news was that God Loved us and that His Love would triumph. Also, that the focus on our future state was emblematic of a wobbly faith. I was challenged by some of the best Christians who I have read: Paul and C.S. Lewis, who both described the Resurrection as the crucial component of Christianity. Many good Christians who I know personally agreed.

My experience with other Christians, particularly those who fall under the Anabaptist (Greg Boyd) and Lutheran umbrella, changed my perspective. I have come to embrace the Christus Victor model and so have appreciated the Resurrection a lot more.

A final comment about the piece about Serene Jones. She sees a reformation or change in Christianity, and I agree. I also have seen that there seem to be roughly 500 year cycles (1000 BC, 500 BC, 0 AD, 500 AD, 1000 AD, 1500 AD, 2000 AD...) of spiritual change. I think the end of this period will be the return of Christ, and, especially if that doesn't happen, I don't pretend to guess what the change will be. I will note that at least right now, despite the increase in non-believers, it doesn't seem like the liberal forces (representing a critical perspective of miracles/etc) of Christianity are ascendent. Rather it seems that they are dying. Of course, a different conclusion would be made 50 years ago.

Interesting links between Daniel 7, Newton and Christology

A couple weeks ago I continued my study of Daniel. While Catholics and Theologians (who generally don’t believe in supernatural revelation) clearly agree that Daniel was written about 50 years before it was used religiously in the Dead Sea community, many religious Protestants (including the denomination I was raised in and am a member of, Adventists, and Newton) are inclined to identify the fourth beast as Rome and the blasphemous little horn as the Middle Ages Catholic Church.

I haven’t yet read Newton’s writings about Daniel or detailed discussions of them, but in the sermon it was mentioned that the 3 barbarian groups which are identified as being extinguished by the early Catholic Church were Arian (and so not Trinitarian). Newton identified Trinitarianism as the great Apostasy and his date for the return of Christ in 2060 was based on the year for a day principle from the point where he identified Trinitarianism as becoming dominant in the Christian Church.

The Millerites, from whom the Adventists descended (along with other denominations like the Jehovah Witnesses and the Church of God (7th Day)), came up with the date of 1844 as the end of Daniels prophecy using the year for a day principle. Adventists were born out of the Great Disappointment when Christ did not return. While the Bahá'í also identify 1844 as the fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy, it isn't clear to me that the interpretation is preferred for any reason other than that it fits the life of the Báb.

Note that while many Adventists are not Trinitarian, most are and I am and was raised Trinitarian. I hope to write a blog post about Trinitarianism at some point in the future.

Psalm of Daniel

This year my church has had a sermon series on Daniel. I decided to reread it, perhaps for the first time in over a decade, and while I didn't get past chapter 7 or so I was initially struck by the praise in Daniel 2. Daniel was a wiseman, one of the educated of his time and in some way the middle eastern antecedent of a scientist, and he praised God for the knowledge that was bestowed on him.

NRSV (Daniel 2:20-23)

“Blessed be the name of God from age to age,
    for wisdom and power are his.
21 He changes times and seasons,
    deposes kings and sets up kings;
he gives wisdom to the wise
    and knowledge to those who have understanding.
22 He reveals deep and hidden things;
    he knows what is in the darkness,
    and light dwells with him.
23 To you, O God of my ancestors,
    I give thanks and praise,
for you have given me wisdom and power,
    and have now revealed to me what we asked of you,
    for you have revealed to us what the king ordered.”

As I have sought knowledge and understanding as a scientist, I have prayed for insight (and occasionally even for wisdom). I feel that in some small measure that I have been given some. I think it is important, as a scientist and a Christian, to acknowledge God's place in my seeking and appreciate finding in Daniel a biblical model to identify with.

Other Blogs

Sometimes you come across someone that has not only done what you wanted to do, but also has succeeded far more in every way. I realized that it was the case for me when I came across Aron Wall's blog a couple of years ago.

I strongly recommend his blog, named UNDIVIDED LOOKING.
Before that, I came across a nice presentation of his about the Fine Tuning argument for the existence of God.

He is a much more successful physicist, a particle theorist (which was my original interest), regularly updates his blog and blogs about Christianity and Physics. We even had some overlap at the University of Maryland, but I think that we didn't meet as I spent most of my time at Jefferson Laboratory starting in January of 2006.

Origins: Science and Faith

http://backreaction.blogspot.cl/2017/11/how-do-you-prove-that-earth-is-older.html

I think this blog post is one of the most relevant to the interplay between science and faith that I have read in some time. While I currently classify myself as someone who doesn’t know how God created the Universe, in the past I was a creationist. I was a creationist in the sense that Sabine presents in this blog post, I thought that God had started the Universe up some 7,000 years ago (because civilised humanity is what He was interested in, it is similar to when I start my simulation at some specific time right before the interesting behaviour starts) but if you ran time backward you would have dinosaurs and so on.

I still think that this is an entirely reasonable position. This is the position that I present as consistent with scientific observations to my creationist family and friends when we discuss origins.

There is a lot of reality out there that is not currently probed by science and there are very solid arguments (The Island of Knowledge) to be sure that a lot of reality can not ever be probed by science, so it is more reasonable than not to have beliefs that science has nothing to say about. And that belief can include a beginning of reality at some t=t_c.

Christian anniversaries

Tomorrow (June 8) is Pentecost. According to Christians, this is the 1971st (or 1973rd) anniversary of the visual manifestation of the Holy Spirit's presence with the early christian church. A bit over a week ago, May 29, was Ascension Day, the anniversary of Christ's return to God to be humanities eternal Lord and Saviour.

As an american protestant, the only Christian holidays which I really knew about were Easter and Christmas. While Halloween (All Saint's Eve) had some christian (Catholic) root, the US celebration is very removed from such roots. I knew that there were other christian holidays, but I thought of them as 'Catholic' and so unimportant to a protestant like myself. I was very surprised by the holidays celebrated in Europe. For example, in very post-christian Sweden, the holidays Epiphany, Ascension Day, and Pentecost were celebrated.

While Epiphany might deserve more study, it doesn't seem to be religiously different than Christmas, a date which appears to have been chosen for other reasons rather than it's significance to christian events. 

The events in a significant portion of all 4 canonical gospels deal with Christ's final days. His death was during the jewish Passover festival and He rose again (Easter) on Nisan 16 (according to the letters of Paul). Forty days after this, according to the synoptic gospels, Christ returned to heaven. Ten days after that, on the jewish festival of Shavuot, the visual manifestation of God being present with the early church occurred as described in Acts.

All of these festivals: Good Friday, Easter, Pentecost, and Ascension Day, are anniversaries of important dates in christianity and, like other anniversaries, are times to remember the past. Tomorrow will be the first time I remember this anniversary.