Men of God and party politics

Father David Epps's picture

In the 1980s I became very active politically. I joined a party, supported candidates, attended party meetings, served as a delegate — and also learned how bitter politics can get, even at the local level.

After months of being on one side of a power struggle within the local party, during which time some people were hurt, others deposed, and some driven away, one woman looked at me and said, “How, as a man of the cloth, can you even be involved with this?”

I had no reply for her. She was right. I was out of my element.

It’s been a long time since I have been involved with the nuts and bolts of party politics and quite some time has elapsed since I endorsed a candidate. I still will take a strong stand on moral and biblical issues either in sermons or in writing, but I have come to the conclusion that it is unwise for me to denigrate the office of priest/pastor by engaging in the mud-wrestling that is politics.

For all the good that the Rev. Jeremiah Wright may have done for the poor and for people of color, he will forever be remembered for the caustic and controversial remarks made from his pulpit — remarks that would likely have remained unknown had he not be prominent in supporting a candidate for president.

Likewise will Father Michael Pfleger be linked to a sermon that some have characterized as sexist and anti-white. Again, the Catholic priest was active in supporting a particular candidate for President of the United States.

On the other side of the political battlefield, two prominent clergymen are finding that the world-wide attention they are receiving is not the kind to which they are accustomed.

Catholic League president Bill Donahue has said that the Rev. John Hagee “... called my religion ‘The Great Whore,’ the ‘apostate church,’ the ‘anti-Christ’ and a ‘false cult system.’” Pastor Hagee’s remarks became widely known after he endorsed a candidate for president.

Pastor Rod Parsley, during a 2005 sermon, called Islam “the greatest religious enemy of our civilization and the world,” claiming that the historic mission of America is to see “this false religion destroyed.” Parsley said, “The fact is that ... America was founded in part with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed. After Parsley endorsed a candidate for president, his remarks were broadcast around the world.

Both Hagee and Parsley are mega-church pastors and television evangelists who, like Wright and Pfleger, have now discovered that when the Church gets into bed with politics, the Church nearly always loses.

On the other hand, the Rev. Billy Graham and Mother Teresa of Calcutta both had great influence with world leaders, even daring to rebuke them if they believed such an action was necessary.

Graham only once allied himself closely to a candidate and later felt betrayed by that man’s lack of integrity. While he was available as a spiritual counselor to many leaders, he never again compromised his role as a man of God by stooping to play the political game.

Billy Graham and Mother Teresa both have a lasting legacy of positive good, and will be remembered for being people of Christ-like character and faith. It now remains to be seen whether Wright, Pfleger, Hagee, and Parsley may have exchanged their own spiritual birthright for a “savory meal” as did Esau in Genesis 27.

It is one thing to contend for the faith and to speak out on biblical issues. It is another thing to render unto the political Caesar of the moment that which belongs only to God.

In the end, politics is not likely to be reformed and purified by the endorsement of the ambassadors of Christ. Sadly, these men and women of God run the real risk of being corrupted by a worldly and vicious system and compromising their witness, ministry, and integrity.

As the lady said, “How, as a man of the cloth, can you even be involved with this?”

login to post comments | Father David Epps's blog

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Mon, 06/09/2008 - 2:18pm.

Are you there?


gratefuldoc's picture
Submitted by gratefuldoc on Mon, 06/09/2008 - 3:10pm.

hello Jeff

"Picture a bright blue ball, just spinning, spinnin free,
Dizzy with eternity.
Paint it with a skin of sky,
Brush in some clouds and sea,
Call it home for you and me.
A peaceful place or so it looks from space,
A closer look reveals the human race.
Full of hope, full of grace
Is the human face,
But afraid we may lay our home to waste."

"once in a while you can get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right"
"listen to the thunder shouting, "I AM, I AM, I AM"

;>} Have a grateful day ;>}


JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Mon, 06/09/2008 - 5:57pm.

This morning a letter from Shalit was delivered to our Ramallah office and we forwarded it to his parents. Hamas announced this afternoon that they would allow us to forward a letter back to him from his mom. The contents are private with his family but he is alive and well.

(BTW: John Perry Barlow)


gratefuldoc's picture
Submitted by gratefuldoc on Tue, 06/10/2008 - 3:36pm.

Is he in some kind of danger or something? Please let me know as I have not heard anything and can't find anything on this.

"Picture a bright blue ball, just spinning, spinnin free,
Dizzy with eternity.
Paint it with a skin of sky,
Brush in some clouds and sea,
Call it home for you and me.
A peaceful place or so it looks from space,
A closer look reveals the human race.
Full of hope, full of grace
Is the human face,
But afraid we may lay our home to waste."

"once in a while you can get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right"
"listen to the thunder shouting, "I AM, I AM, I AM"

;>} Have a grateful day ;>}


JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Tue, 06/10/2008 - 6:06pm.

No I just recognized the poem. Didn't mean to alarm you.

My post as about the Israeli solider captured by Hamas and who has been held for the last two years.


Submitted by sageadvice on Mon, 06/09/2008 - 2:06pm.

No one can judge Billy Graham's heart.

Didn't he once get himself on tape in Nixon's office, agreeing that the Jews were dangerous in the USA for controlling the media?

yardman5508's picture
Submitted by yardman5508 on Sat, 06/07/2008 - 2:57pm.

that is the problem, not the influence of religion on politics if that makes sense. For example, as a Christian, I am required to live my life based on principles that Jesus laid out for all who follow Him. That includes His views on the poor, aggression toward other human beings, etc. I feel we are called to hold government accountable to reflect those beliefs. While that would, make us, arguably, a Christian nation, it would not mean that we require all others to adhere to those same principles. Jesus knew that, being men(meaning mankind), we would have free-will and would sometimes choose a path that would take us from Him. His efforts centered around trying to show us why His way was the "true" way, just as we are required to point out to the government when we feel it is not reflecting those beliefs.

Even a dead fish can go with the flow.


Submitted by sageadvice on Sat, 06/07/2008 - 4:27pm.

We (whoever "we" is) should point out to the government... (whatver "the government" is.
Makes no sense!
You are stuck with the "government" until the next election if you voted wrong the first time!
Why, a government must have at least 300 types of religion serving there in the USA, don't you think?
Now Iraq and Iran only have one but they have split it three ways already and don't get along even when "the church" or a Mullah, is the boss!

Submitted by sdforsb on Fri, 06/06/2008 - 8:53am.

The Rev. Dr. Greg Boyd, in his book

    The Myth of a Christian Nation: How the Quest for Political Power Is Destroying the Church,

makes a compelling case for the church staying completely out of politics. He shows that every time the church gets involved in politics or political issues, it is a disaster for the church. This includes right to life and sanctity of marriage issues.

Submitted by Jamie-Mac on Fri, 06/06/2008 - 10:51am.

Okay, I will take a bite at this:

The separation of church and state was to be to where the government could not tell you how us how we can worship.

Who is Dr. Greg Boyd? I have never heard of him?

Please give me your source in written form where he says this and the source.

I did google Dr. Greg Boyd, not familiar to me, maybe to some, I did find a youtube on him and Rick Warren.

I think you are not correct about separation of church and state.

Example: Our money says "In God We Trust" are we going to throw our money away because it says that?

Our Pledge Of Allegiance says: "One Nation Under God."

Both of these examples has to do with the government. "Our Pledge of Allegiance, Our money."

Since it says this on it on in it should we just either throw it away or just not say "The Pledge".

I look forward to your response. Very interesting.

If Dr. Greg Boyd believes this he must have a different bible than Rick Warren, Billy Graham does with the issues you talked about above.

A church can not tell you how you should vote or who to vote for. I have never had a pastor tell me this. I have had pastors tell me to pray and take time to hear from God who I should vote for. We have never had a disaster by doing that. I have never heard of a disaster because the pastor told you to pray about who to vote for. Have you?

Submitted by sdforsb on Sun, 06/08/2008 - 3:31pm.

It was not my intention to enter a dialog but simply to point out one scholars view.

Greg Boyd is the pastor of a mega church in Minnesota and formerly taught at a Bethel Seminary, also in Minnesota. I believe most scholars would consider Boyd's exegetical work first class. I learned of him while attending seminary and was assigned to read and comment on some of his writings. His book, titled The Myth of a Christian Nation: How the Quest for Political Power is Destroying the Church, was written as a response to the 2004 election politics. Boyd lost 20% of his congregation as a result of his views.

On page 11 Boyd gets into the thesis of his book but starts by listing some of the church's political actions that he opposes. The next two paragraphs are verbatim out of the book, page 11.

"For some evangelicals, the kingdom of God is largely about, if not centered on, “taking America back for God,” voting for the Christian candidates, outlawing abortion, outlawing gay marriage, winning the cultural war, defending political freedom at home and abroad, keeping he phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, fighting for prayer in the public schools and at public events, and fighting to display the Ten Commandments in government buildings.

I would urge that this perspective is misguided, that fusing together the kingdom of God with this or any other version of the kingdom of the world is idolatrous and that this fusion is having serious negative consequence for Christ’s church and for the advancement of God’s kingdom."

Greg Boyd is a serious theologian and his writings are worth reading if only to appreciate an opposing view.

Personally I find his historical arguments fairly compelling but at this time I am not fully convinced. Jesus did not get involved in politics; perhaps that is an example for the church. The only election I am aware of in the Bible elected Matthias; a guy we never hear about again (Acts 1). Note: Boyd believes people should be involved in politics but not as claiming to represent the Kingdom of God (or the Church of Jesus Christ).

Submitted by skyspy on Sun, 06/08/2008 - 6:26pm.

I was forced to take one of his theology classes back when Bethel University was still Bethel College.

He was way ahead of his time back then, and now it seems. He is a great man with some very profound and thought provoking ideas. Muddle reminds me of him.

Wow, to think he made the discussion of a small town GA newspaper. If you met him in person you would be very tempted to believe in a living God.

muddle's picture
Submitted by muddle on Sun, 06/08/2008 - 6:43pm.

Sky! You were at Bethel? Really? When? I taught for several years just down the road from there at St. Olaf ('91-'97). And I had several friends who taught at Bethel. And a friend of mine graduated from there, probably some time around 1986 or '87.


Submitted by skyspy on Sun, 06/08/2008 - 7:00pm.

It's good to hear from you. You really do remind me of Prof. Boyd. Very thought provoking. I love that. He always made us think, just like you do.

I have been thinking of you alot lately. I hope you and Lynn are doing fine.....considering.

It is a small world we live in. It sounds like I was classmates with your friend. I was still in MSP in 91.

Git Real has my e-mail so does Kevin, they can give it to you, or whatever, I know you may be busy... and don't need to meet alot of strangers ...

Anyway, you strike me as being well ahead of your time also. Prof. Boyds class was successful in dropping me off of the dean's list....to say the very least. He was great as a teacher, I just wasn't into the class.

I don't understand many things, but you are a good person with a good heart and mind.......somehow this will work to your benefit. I do believe in karma....I have seen it work too many times not to believe in it.

Let me know if you need anything, like I said you can reach me through Git Real or Hack....You have touched my heart more than you will ever know.

muddle's picture
Submitted by muddle on Sun, 06/08/2008 - 7:08pm.

Thanks very much.


Submitted by skyspy on Sun, 06/08/2008 - 8:24pm.

I read your answer to Cy. I'm sorry I hope this is the last trip to Emory for a long time.

Ask your friends about art prof. Dale Johnson, great person, I learned so much from him as a person. Things that can't be taught in a text book. Great man, very inspiring. You remind me of him also.

Right now you remind me of Job.

I wish for you safety, health and happiness. You are in all of our prayers. You have touched more people than you know.

Cyclist's picture
Submitted by Cyclist on Sun, 06/08/2008 - 6:47pm.

How's Lynn?
-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.


muddle's picture
Submitted by muddle on Sun, 06/08/2008 - 7:10pm.

Thanks for asking.

The short answer: I'm sitting next to her in her Emory hospital room as I write. Been here a few days and hoping to go home soon.

Awesome sunsets over the ATL skyline from this 11th floor window, though!


Cyclist's picture
Submitted by Cyclist on Sun, 06/08/2008 - 7:17pm.

I'm sorry to hear. Please let us know if you need anything. You both are on my prayer list.
-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.


yardman5508's picture
Submitted by yardman5508 on Sat, 06/07/2008 - 8:46pm.

the "separation of church and state" as created (implicitly} by "The Establishment Clause" deals only with what GOVERNMENT may do in the area of religion. "The Free Exercise Clause" deals with what we, as individuals, may do in the area of religion. But then I am sure you knew that already, just disremembered it. Keep the faith

Even a dead fish can go with the flow.


Submitted by Jamie-Mac on Sat, 06/07/2008 - 6:52pm.

I have waited more than a day for your answer to my questions.

No response means you don't know. Next time pick something you know something about.

yardman5508's picture
Submitted by yardman5508 on Sun, 06/08/2008 - 7:20pm.

how many days it takes you to reply to THAT...or can we assume from you lack of response that you don't know? Keep the faith.

Even a dead fish can go with the flow.


simpleton's picture
Submitted by simpleton on Sat, 06/07/2008 - 7:59pm.

The mustache just fell off of your "incognito glasses".


Git Real's picture
Submitted by Git Real on Sat, 06/07/2008 - 10:14pm.

That was funny.

________

"That man was Griffin Judicial Circuit District Attorney Scott Ballard".

CLICK HERE FOR THE REST OF THE STORY


Main Stream's picture
Submitted by Main Stream on Sat, 06/07/2008 - 10:23am.

"The separation of church and state was to be to where the government could not tell you how us how we can worship."

ummmm, okay. Did you take typing from bpr? Care to explain this again?

If you're going to post, try posting coherently.


AF A-10's picture
Submitted by AF A-10 on Sat, 06/07/2008 - 6:54pm.

I'd bet you a pay check we have snakes in the grass here trying to wear camouflage. No one else can write like this!!!!

Kevin "Hack" King


Submitted by Jamie-Mac on Sat, 06/07/2008 - 7:02pm.

MIND your own business. I don't ever recall talking to you.

Since I am new on here and before I posted. I think all of you people that are on here for the most part are weird.

Talk to anyone else, if I choose to talk to you I will. Keep your nose where it belongs and leave my business alone. Got it?

hutch866's picture
Submitted by hutch866 on Sat, 06/07/2008 - 7:12pm.

"Since I am new on here and before I posted". I guess he/she will have to work up to coherence. Got it?

I yam what I yam....Popeye


Submitted by sageadvice on Sun, 06/08/2008 - 8:33am.

Well she did vote for it before she voted against it!

AF A-10's picture
Submitted by AF A-10 on Sat, 06/07/2008 - 7:41pm.

P s Y c H o S i S i S a S p S y C h O s I s D o E s

Kevin "Hack" King


Submitted by goal_keeper on Sat, 06/07/2008 - 8:01pm.

What does this mean?

hutch866's picture
Submitted by hutch866 on Sat, 06/07/2008 - 9:04pm.

Excuse me for relpying to you, I could tell you what it means but it wouldn't be appropriate.

I yam what I yam....Popeye


Git Real's picture
Submitted by Git Real on Sat, 06/07/2008 - 10:18pm.

Evil

________

"That man was Griffin Judicial Circuit District Attorney Scott Ballard".

CLICK HERE FOR THE REST OF THE STORY


AF A-10's picture
Submitted by AF A-10 on Sun, 06/08/2008 - 9:19am.

Laughing out loud

Kevin "Hack" King


hutch866's picture
Submitted by hutch866 on Sat, 06/07/2008 - 6:58pm.

When's your golf playing Dad coming back to town?

I yam what I yam....Popeye


AF A-10's picture
Submitted by AF A-10 on Sat, 06/07/2008 - 7:36pm.

You will know Eye-wink

Kevin "Hack" King


yardman5508's picture
Submitted by yardman5508 on Sat, 06/07/2008 - 8:50pm.

Hutch and I have been playing some together and are looking for a twosome we can beat. Keep the faith.

Even a dead fish can go with the flow.


AF A-10's picture
Submitted by AF A-10 on Sun, 06/08/2008 - 9:23am.

I am full up and have even been throwing punches and rolling around with men in funny blue, black, and white kimonos. I'm playing catch up at work, but I hope to be here for some liberal drinking. I'll definitely let you guys know when the strong half of my golf team shows up.

Cheers,

Kevin "Hack" King


muddle's picture
Submitted by muddle on Sat, 06/07/2008 - 9:13pm.

Me and Tiger Woods.

Tiger's great. But not good enough to pull me to victory with him.

(Question: Does it count as a stroke when you swing and get nothing but dirt--possibly breaking the shaft on the driver but leaving the ball intact on the tee? Somehow that just doesn't seem fair.)


Submitted by sageadvice on Sun, 06/08/2008 - 11:28am.

Only counts if you "intended" to hit the ball with the swing, but just was practicing. You can't move the ball--that is a stroke and you cant re-tee.
Golf is a gentleman's game and if you can't be one, don't play. They don't lie.

carbonunit52's picture
Submitted by carbonunit52 on Sun, 06/08/2008 - 11:44am.

Golf is a gentleman's game..

No wonder I always took the money I made by caddying and spent it at the pool hall.


Submitted by sageadvice on Sun, 06/08/2008 - 1:31pm.

I didn't say all who played golf were gentlemen. Some play an alteration of the pure game.
I once played with a Pilot (not on pilots again) and he ignored the fact that he lost fifty cents to me and a friend. He was no gentleman.

JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Sun, 06/08/2008 - 10:44am.

That does not count as a stroke!

I played on that course in the Grand Caymans right on the coral by the ocean with all those fingers of water intruding. On the eighteenth, I counted balls lost instead of strokes.


hutch866's picture
Submitted by hutch866 on Sat, 06/07/2008 - 9:41pm.

You can't underestimate my ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

I yam what I yam....Popeye


hutch866's picture
Submitted by hutch866 on Sat, 06/07/2008 - 9:09pm.

Maybe we can find some little kids to play.

I yam what I yam....Popeye


travisstrickland1's picture
Submitted by travisstrickland1 on Fri, 06/06/2008 - 2:16pm.

I don't think throwing our money away or completely doing away with the pledge are our only options.

"In God We Trust" didn't start appearing on money until around 1861, almost a hundred years after the birth of our nation. So, if you want to make an argument about what the founding fathers thought, this (among other things) could speak to their intentions.

Even more stricking, the "under God" phrase in the pledge didn't appear until 1954!!!

These examples show that religion, Christianity in particular, hasn't also been enshrined on our tender, or in our pledge.

So, to answer your questions to guy who wrote this, we don't have to throw away the money we have, but we could stop printing "In God We Trust" on the new currency. Also, we can still say the pledge and leave "under God" out when we say it. Money and the pledge can exist, and have before existed, without referencing God.


Submitted by Jamie-Mac on Fri, 06/06/2008 - 4:33pm.

Duh! As I didn't know all of what you said? Duh, nor did I agree with you.

I am waiting for the person who brought up the subject of a certain person I have never heard of how he got his source.

BTW- Did God exist before "The Pledge" or our "Currency"? You don't have to answer that I know your answer.

If the person does not respond about who he/she was talking about with proof, I take it like a dust in the wind that went by.

If your going to say something of a person quoted you should have the source to back it up.

JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Sat, 06/07/2008 - 10:02am.

The Myth of a Christian Nation

“If Dr. Greg Boyd believes this….”

Since you just made up a straw man argument which Dr. Boyd has never said, I doubt that he believes it.

It’s a lot easier to refute things nobody said though isn’t it?


muddle's picture
Submitted by muddle on Sat, 06/07/2008 - 4:50pm.

You must forgive J-M's impatience with Greg Boyd. You see, J-M knows that Greg endorses "openness theology," which maintains that, while God is omniscient in the sense that God knows all true propositions and does not believe any false ones, future contingent sentences (e.g., "Obama will win the election") do not have truth value--they are neither true nor false. Therefore, they do not express propositions. and so there just are no interesting truths about the future for even Omniscience to know. Being philosophically sophisticated, J-M likely would urge that all well-formed sentences have truth-value. Future contingent propositions are well-formed sentences, and thus have truth value. Therefore, if God is omniscient, then God also knows the future.

I suspect, however, that J-M would go on to argue that divine foreknowledge is perfectly compatible with even a robust notion of human free will, and to suggest that arguments to the contrary are typically guilty of "Sleigh's Fallacy," which involves carelessness with the placement of the modal operator.


JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Sat, 06/07/2008 - 6:17pm.

I would submit that our existence can be seen as proof that God does not know the future. Whether He can and chooses not to is debatable but consider it from God’s point of view; from the moment the universe is created everything and all is known and all that is left is to watch it unfold. How excruciatingly boring and pointless. What is left? Waiting for the universe to cease expanding then waiting for it to collapse again and another Big Bang which, after a few milliseconds, everything is known again for another hundred billion years? Where is the fun, the drama? A logical outcome, after billions and billions of years of relentless precognition, would be to destroy that universe and create another where the future is not known.

Since we still exist….


River's picture
Submitted by River on Sat, 06/07/2008 - 6:49pm.

Much more enjoyable than discussing BPR's many aliases.

I've noticed that there are a lot of paradoxes in creation. The paradox between free will and an omniscient God is one of the main ones. The paradox between the randomness and the order in the universe, such as the random way a particular atom will decay versus the steady rate of decay, which is a constant for a particular isotope. The wave-like qualities of light versus the particle-like qualities of the same beam of light.

Perhaps the instant before the big bang was a "zero" state, and everything created in the big bang must be in balance with its opposite, hence all the paradoxes. In mathematical terms, if x + y = 0, then x must equal -y. If the universe equaled zero in the moment before the big bang, then perhaps it still equals zero when all the opposites cancel each other out.

You might think it would be pointless, but the beauty of creation is to take "zero" and make something majestic out of it.


Submitted by sageadvice on Sun, 06/08/2008 - 8:29am.

Yes in that case, x does equal -y.
So that +x, divided into -y, is the final answer!

Everyone knows that!
The problem is that the "universe" didn't exist just before the big bang, did it? So, you can't say it equaled zero just before it existed.

So you can't make something out of zero, can you?
Anyway everything doesn't have to "balance."

Faith, or hoping, that everything will be alright is the best, isn't it? Why should we figure it out when we can't possibly!

River's picture
Submitted by River on Sat, 06/07/2008 - 9:33pm.

I'd be interested in your thoughts on the big bang. You mentioned the theory that the big bang repeats itself over and over again. That's a possibility, however if I'm right and it returns to a "zero" state in between cycles, it might be possible that each "creation" cycle is unique. To stick with the mathematical model, 5 + (-5) = 0, but so does 23 + (-23). As long as the opposites sum to zero, equilibrium has not been damaged, yet universe #5 could be completely different from universe #23. Kind of like the way an electron orbits around a nucleus as a wave function; its exact location is impossible to determine, yet it stays in equilibrium with the nucleus unless some external force changes that equilibrium.

What do you think?

Muddle, I seem to recall that you discussed this previously, saying that the multiple-cycle big bang theory was for atheists, because it avoided the need for a God to kick it into motion, since it had been going on forever. I'm not sure I agree. It seems to me there still has to be a creator.


carbonunit52's picture
Submitted by carbonunit52 on Sun, 06/08/2008 - 8:18am.

will eventually take it's rightful place next to the likes of the flat earth concept. The big bang is another version of the "earth as the center of creation", but instead of the solar system, it has been expanded to include everything. The easiest thing to find is what you are looking for. The big bang was birthed from the inability to explain why the universe was not collapsing: if it is not collapsing, it must be expanding, and if it is expanding, it must have had a starting point, yada yada yada. The "red shift" demonstrates that the universe is expanding, but it is all expanding away from "us", the center of the universe (again). The post I put up about illusions shows that we really cannot be trusted to determine whether two shades of gray are the same, and then we take this same inability and use it to figure out the workings of the universe.


JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Sun, 06/08/2008 - 10:30am.

The universe expanding away from "us" does not put us at the center of the universe. Envision a stationary point inside an expanding balloon (or explosion). As the balloon expands, all points in the balloon move away from the hypothetical stationary point. The expansion of the universe will make it appear to be expanding away from all points within it except for some local phenomena.


carbonunit52's picture
Submitted by carbonunit52 on Sun, 06/08/2008 - 10:47am.

If we are part of the expansion, some points should appear still to us, and others should be headed our way, unless we are at the center.


muddle's picture
Submitted by muddle on Sun, 06/08/2008 - 8:04pm.

No, I really don't believe that contemporary cosmologists are motivated by anything like a geocentric view. To pick up on JeffC's example, imagine a balloon on which you have drawn dots all around with your trustee Sharpie. As the balloon continues to inflate, the dots recede from one another as the balloon grows larger and the surface stretches. The Milky Way is simply one of the dots, and not in any sort of privileged location.

You know what all of this means, don't you? If we ever plan on inter-galactic travel we'd better hurry up, because the longer we wait the farther apart the galaxies are. And once we get there we'd better not hang out too long or we might not be able to get back!


muddle's picture
Submitted by muddle on Sun, 06/08/2008 - 8:05am.

.


muddle's picture
Submitted by muddle on Sun, 06/08/2008 - 8:05am.

Well, I know of two basic lines of argument by people who wish to avoid any apparent theistic implications of the Big Bang.

First, some of the earliest resistance to Big Bang theory was that, in the words of Sir Arthur Eddington, it is "philosophically repugnant." And it is this because, unlike the earlier Steady State theory, it implies that there was a first moment of time, and that the universe began to exist in that first moment. Atheists wish to say with Bertrand Russell in his famous debate with Frederick Copleston, "the universe is just there, and that is all." Big Bang theory complicates this considerably. Indeed, some theistic philosophers have appealed to Big Bang theory in support of premise (2) in the following argument:

(1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe began to exist.
(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

If a cogent argument drops (3) into one's lap, theism is one of the very live options for making sense of there being some transcendent cause of the universe itself. (Of course, if nothing else is said, then (3) might also be explained by suggesting that the Big Bang was the result of the cracking of an egg laid by the Cosmic Chicken.)

The oscillating model has it that, if the universe is sufficiently dense, then the current expansion phase will slow, halt and reverse due to the mutual gravitational attraction of the particles. So it would eventually collapse back on itself. And the suggestion is that perhaps this "accordian" effect has taken place beginninglessly. If this model is correct, then either premise (2) above is false (because here "universe" refers to the entire beginningless oscillation process) or the atheist may simply observe that the cause of this "universe" (our current explansion phase that we observe) is simply a prior universe.

Whether the oscillating model is correct turns, first, on the empirical question of whether the universe is sufficiently dense so as to halt the expansion and turn things around. Second, there is a philosophical question of whether it is coherent to speak of a beginningless series of events (in this case, oscillations).

The second way in which an appeal to something like the oscillating model may be thought to help the atheist is in the context of the so-called fine-tuning argument. Contemporary cosmologists have, over the past few decades, discovered that the fundamental constants that govern physical law in our universe are astonishingly fine-tuned in such a way as to make it posible for life to have emerged. The numbers vary from theorist to theorist, but what they all have in common is the staggeringly low probability that we should ever have existed. (For instance, Oxford mathematician Roger Penrose has calculated the probability at something in the range of 1 in 10 to the 10th to the 123rd power. To illustrate, he says that if you tried to write this number out in standard notation, and you used a particle from the universe for each zero, you would run out of writing material.) For obvious reasons, some think the fact of the fine-tuning splendid evidence for design. Philosopher Robin Collins, for instance, offers this argument:

(1) The fine-tuning is improbable on the atheistic single universe hypothesis. (i.e., there is no God and there was only one Big Bang).

(2) The fine-tuning is probable on the theistic hypothesis.

(3) Of any two hypotheses, A and B, if there is an observed phenomenon O, and O is probable on A and improbable on B, then O evidentially favors A over B. (He calls this the Confirmation Principle, and it is an unassailable bit of philosophy of science.

(4) Therefore, theism is more probably true than atheism.

One way for the atheist to resist this argument is simply to reject the "atheistic single universe hypothesis" and argue instead for a "multiverse." And the multiverse comes in two basic flavors. On one theory, an extraordinarily large--perhaps infinite--number of "universes" exist simultaneously. Here, the multiverse might be pictured as an ocean with vast numbers of bubbles that randomly pop to the surface. Each such bubble is a random universe.

The other model for a multiverse is something like the oscillating model.

Of course, the appeal is just this: if there was only one chance, in only one universe, to get the fundamental constants right, and this was all purely by chance, then the fine-tuning does appear to involve an unpalatable "miracle" for the atheist to have to accept. But suppose that there is, or has been, an infinite number of random "universes". Of course, the vast majority of these have never been finely-tuned so as to sustain life--they have collapsed back on themselves before galaxies had a chance to congeal, or whatever. But, given these new odds, it is not so astonishing that some universe somewhere would, by sheer chance, have hit those values just right. We happen to find ourselves in such a universe.

This is basically the same appeal as the ever popular, "If you gave a million monkeys a million typewriters and a million years to bang on the keys, probably one of them would accidentally produce a Shakespearean sonnett. (I happen to think that you would have a million typewriters splattered with monkey poop, but I'll save this.)

Anyway, so there you have it: two potential escape routes for the atheist.


River's picture
Submitted by River on Mon, 06/09/2008 - 11:53am.

Sorry I didn't reply sooner, but I was on the road all day yesterday. I'm in OK now. (so my posts will be less regular from now on)

I disagree with the idea that the universe has to be sufficiently dense for gravity to reverse the big bang. Maybe I misunderstood the explanation, but I believe that Einstein and others have postulated that the universe is not "flat", it is actually curved in three dimensions, much like the surface of our planet is a curved two-dimensional surface. So if a high-speed rocket left the Earth in one direction, it would eventually return to Earth from the other direction, much like an airplane leaving Atlanta and flying east until it eventually circled the globe and returned to Atlanta from the west. If that's true, then the big bang will reverse itself when all the matter travels far enough. The curvature of space will bring everything back into a converging direction.

Even if this is true, and the universe is in an endless cycle of rebirths, there still must be a creator, in my opinion. The mathematical model I mentioned of creating "something" from "nothing" by having opposite particles of matter and antimatter spring out in opposite directions is one possible explanation, but WHY did that happen? Why did "zero" not just stay "zero"?

One reason I don't like the concept of a single big bang is that the universe would keep on expanding forever, and end up basically empty, once the matter was far enough apart. Empty, dark space forever. What a dreary, sad fate! Why would God do that? I don't believe He would.


Submitted by sageadvice on Mon, 06/09/2008 - 1:55pm.

Oh, so the big bang is still going and going out until it eventually circles around and comes back--with another bang, I assume?

How do you know there is an end to the universe? Or, are you saying that sooner or later the gravity will reverse the "outward" plunge?

What difference does it make?

River's picture
Submitted by River on Mon, 06/09/2008 - 7:38pm.

Sage: "Oh, so the big bang is still going and going out until it eventually circles around and comes back--with another bang, I assume?"

That's exactly what I was saying. And no, I don't think that gravity will ever reverse it. If I'm right, it's a cycle, like the seasons.

You're also right that it doesn't really make any difference in our lives, except that it makes our lives a little brighter to take the time now and then to wonder at the beauty of creation.

I don't know the weather in GA tonight, but go look at the stars now and then on a clear night, and remember who to thank.


JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Sun, 06/08/2008 - 10:22am.

Another explanation for the cause of the Big Bang is m-theory which attempts to unify the many variations of string theory. According to m-theory, parallel universes are stacked beside each other like membranes connected through 12 dimensions. From our three dimensional perspective these universes can be thought of as pages of a book separated by some infinitesimal distance. At some point oscillations in the different universes caused two membranes to collide producing what we perceive as the Big Bang. Atomic particles in out universe are merely three dimensional point manifestations of strings extending through other dimensions through other parallel universes. A very large number of universes exist. We happen to be in one in which conditions are right to support our existence.

Since we exist in 12 dimensions, the “pages of a book” analogy is not correct because it implies a “flat” universe expanding through time. I have changed my avatar to reflect the Calabi-yau representation a possible shape of the universe as “seen” if we could perceive the other dimensions.

Update: Apparently I cannot change the avatar at this particular juncture of spacetime. Here is a link to the:

Calabi-Yau Universe


carbonunit52's picture
Submitted by carbonunit52 on Sun, 06/08/2008 - 1:37pm.

I could be having one of my numerous misconceptions, but I imagine JeffC having his tongue firmly planted in his cheek when he submitted this one.

I like a quote from a contemporary of Leonard Susskind, who when asked to comment on Leonard's high intelligence regarding his work on string theory, replied: "I don't know how smart he is. I don't know what he is talking about". I of course feel the same way.


Submitted by sageadvice on Sun, 06/08/2008 - 1:26pm.

This is as screwy as is the middle east solutions---where you might be an expert.
Stick with the middle east.

All this stuff is why most American people say God created it--it can't be answered!

bad_ptc's picture
Submitted by bad_ptc on Sun, 06/08/2008 - 10:01am.

Multiverse Theory

"This is the most detailed challenge yet to the 40-year-old orthodoxy of the Big Bang. Some researchers go further and envision a type of infinite time that plays out not just in this universe but in a multiverse—a multitude of universes, each with its own laws of physics and its own life story. Still others seek to revise the very idea of time, rendering the concept of a “beginning” meaningless."


Submitted by sageadvice on Sat, 06/07/2008 - 4:54pm.

Now here is a case where I perfectly agree with your Philosophy about the answer!

travisstrickland1's picture
Submitted by travisstrickland1 on Fri, 06/06/2008 - 10:40pm.

You asked if we should throw our money away and/or stop saying the pledge. The questions you posed have nothing to do with the exact words of the author of the book mentioned.

Besides, the guy said the author makes an argument, authors usually use an entire book to make an argument. He wasn't quoting a line from the book.

Slow down, think about what you want to type and then type.


Git Real's picture
Submitted by Git Real on Sat, 06/07/2008 - 12:25pm.

I thought you got banned. Puzzled

________

"That man was Griffin Judicial Circuit District Attorney Scott Ballard".

CLICK HERE FOR THE REST OF THE STORY


samtheman's picture
Submitted by samtheman on Sat, 06/07/2008 - 2:09pm.

Seems like there's a post above mine from someone who was once banned as well??

As we say on the farm, don't throw a rock when your barn amade out of glass Smiling


Git Real's picture
Submitted by Git Real on Sat, 06/07/2008 - 2:18pm.

Make you a deal. I'll tell about by being banned story if you tell us why BPR was banned. OH... BPR and her other alias.......

________

"That man was Griffin Judicial Circuit District Attorney Scott Ballard".

CLICK HERE FOR THE REST OF THE STORY


Submitted by goal_keeper on Sat, 06/07/2008 - 5:54pm.

I take a vacation for two weeks and return to see that you have deemed not only me(incorrectly) and SamTheMan (don't know) as being the spouse of BPR.

I am not sure why. I have read these post for a long time and tend to be an occasional poster. Mainly because of the actions of the 7 or 8 "regulars" that seem to have nothing else to do but take shots at everyone else. I guess they see this blog as their territory and want no one new. What does it matter if someone has only be a member for a day or week. Do their opinions not matter or count. You were new here once.

What's the deal with typos. Does everyone speak perfectly in conversation. No they don't. When talking to someone do you (and other posters here) correct their grammar or stuttering or do you just let it pass because you know what is being said? This is a blog not a graded English assignment. It's informal written conversation.

By the way, I don't know where you get your information. I have not seen anyone publicly banned here since Truth Sleuth. Do you have an inside track with Cal. If you know who has been banned or not, why not let everyone else in on it?

Question: How many aliases do you and other posters have here? How many times have you had to create a new name because the system glitched and you can't access your account?

Git Real's picture
Submitted by Git Real on Sun, 06/08/2008 - 9:14pm.

By the way, I don't know where you get your information. I have not seen anyone publicly banned here since Truth Sleuth. Do you have an inside track with Cal. If you know who has been banned or not,

I do have an inside track. Eye-wink

why not let everyone else in on it?

Can't do it dude. If I told you, then I'd have to kill you. Wouldn't want that to happen now would we. Smiling Plus I operate under a secret project in which I am unable to divulge info about. It's code name is Nunya.

Answers to your Questions:

How many aliases do you and other posters have here?

Git is Git Real since Get Real confessed to also being the Agressive Progressive in which I was using that moniker as a parody in which to have a bit of satirical fun. Get Real & Agg Pro were booted into never, never land.

My current moniker, Git Real, has had a lifespan of well over two years now. With as much as I blog.... who has time for a dual?

As for other posters..... I haven't a clue. Other than Beeper admitted to multiples and there have been others. Grif Guy, Dishonest4Ballard, and one of the Ramsey supporters had multiples. It happens....so what's your point? Are you justifying Beeper?

How many times have you had to create a new name because the system glitched and you can't access your account?

Never. I used this site for nearly 3 years without a hic-cup. Other than the issue of someone resetting passwords, I have had no problems what so ever. That issue has long been solved by Cal and Company. Are you justifying Beepers multiples because of glitches?

________

"That man was Griffin Judicial Circuit District Attorney Scott Ballard".

CLICK HERE FOR THE REST OF THE STORY


Main Stream's picture
Submitted by Main Stream on Sun, 06/08/2008 - 8:12pm.

"I guess they see this blog as their territory and want no one new."

It's been refreshing to see new bloggers join in, like a few I've been reading recently, that have different perspectives and opinions (i.e. carbon, SOF, simpleton). However, when some of us read a "new" bloggers posts that are eerily similar to specific, disturbed individuals we know, I think you'll continue to see wrath and venom aimed at that blogger.

It's okay to battle wits and opinion here but the bloggers who try to hurt others, attempt and/or succeed in getting people fired, threaten harm or to make a scene in public, will continue to be exposed and ridiculed.


AF A-10's picture
Submitted by AF A-10 on Sat, 06/07/2008 - 7:02pm.

"If you know who has been banned or not, why not let everyone else in on it?"

Goalkeeper, when do you think I'll get the answer back from my shout into the blogging canyon?

Kevin "Hack" King


River's picture
Submitted by River on Sat, 06/07/2008 - 12:41pm.

You're NOT talking about TravisStrickland being BPR. That leaves....
....uhhh, "Jamie-Mac"??

How'd you know?? (hee, hee)


Main Stream's picture
Submitted by Main Stream on Sat, 06/07/2008 - 2:13pm.

I thought the tone of JM's posts were eerily similar to bpr's too. Should we just pretend we don't suspect anything and see where this all goes? Could be interesting... or not.

River... a question. Are you a kayaker? If so, do you know anything about one-person kayaks? I was thinking about getting one for myself but maybe I should rent one first to see if this activity is for me. Do you kayak in the lakes around here? Are water snakes a problem?


AF A-10's picture
Submitted by AF A-10 on Sat, 06/07/2008 - 7:06pm.

My neighbor has a nice one. There are two types: One you sit inside of and one is molded and you sit on top of it, basically. Some have dry wells you can store gear in. REI and Dick's have people who can answer every question you haven't thought of yet. Oh, and water snakes are great when slowly grilled and lightly sprinkled with pepper and tobasco. Smiling

Cheers,

Kevin "Hack" King


muddle's picture
Submitted by muddle on Sat, 06/07/2008 - 4:24pm.

Should we just pretend we don't suspect anything and see where this all goes?

Or just wait for the inevitable public meltdown.

(I'm not Jamie-Mac and you're a liar. Well, yes I am, but it was all just an experiment to show how much everyone hates people with hyphenated names.)


AF A-10's picture
Submitted by AF A-10 on Sat, 06/07/2008 - 7:08pm.

I love you guys. I can always count on a smile when you gents are on.

Cheers,

Kevin "Hack" King


hutch866's picture
Submitted by hutch866 on Sat, 06/07/2008 - 6:41pm.

Don't forget, you know someone with a hyphenated name and you don't think its funny.

I yam what I yam....Popeye


Submitted by goal_keeper on Sat, 06/07/2008 - 5:11pm.

I think we witnessed your meltdown on here as well.

Tug13's picture
Submitted by Tug13 on Sat, 06/07/2008 - 6:08pm.

Muddle's meltdown? I'd like to see that link too.
BTW who is "we."


Submitted by goal_keeper on Sat, 06/07/2008 - 6:16pm.

"We" is everyone who reads this blog.

Tug13's picture
Submitted by Tug13 on Sat, 06/07/2008 - 6:19pm.

I read it. Don't include me. Where is the link?


AF A-10's picture
Submitted by AF A-10 on Sat, 06/07/2008 - 7:11pm.

You are the absolute best! It's great having you on. I always know that when you offer an opinion or idea, it is the epitome of Reasonable and thoughtful.

Cheers, and have an awesome weekend.

Kevin "Hack" King


hutch866's picture
Submitted by hutch866 on Sat, 06/07/2008 - 5:51pm.

When and where would that have been? Could you maybe give a link to that? Muddle got stabbed in the back but I saw no meltdown.

I yam what I yam....Popeye


Submitted by goal_keeper on Sat, 06/07/2008 - 6:06pm.

Take a look in the archives.

hutch866's picture
Submitted by hutch866 on Sat, 06/07/2008 - 6:37pm.

that's the easy way out, gimme a link if you can find one, I really don't think you can.

I yam what I yam....Popeye


muddle's picture
Submitted by muddle on Sat, 06/07/2008 - 6:20pm.

Are you saying I had a meltdown?

Prove that I had a meltdown.

I did not have a meltdown.

Meltdown? Me?

Meltdown? Nope, not me. No meltdown for me.

Meltdown I have had not.

Prove that I had a meltdown.

If you're saying that I had a meltdown then you'd better prove it.

If you say I had a meltdown I'll deny it.

Too confining, too confining, too confining.

I never did.

That was never a meltdown!

Nonsense.

No, No, No.

I could have been having a meltdown in my spare time.

It was just my 19th nervous meltdown.

OK. Maybe I had a meltdown. But I melted down for an experiment to prove that people are mean enough to cause other people to have meltdowns.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.