I'm interested by your statement that time (like space) is 'infinitely divisible'. I have just read that this is an assumption of 'Pythagorean-Parmenidean mindsets where, in order to deny genuine reality to elapsing time, the physical instant is supposed infinitesimal.'
Not being a physicist, I'm obviously not qualified to pronounce on such things, but I have a sneaking suspicion that any given cosmological theory's popularity (whether among scientists or the general public) often has more to do with how provocative or exciting it seems rather than its merits alone. I'm certainly not opposed to a plurality of theories or to debating their scientific merits; I just think there are often ulterior motives involved, whether that's a subjective sense of unity or simplicty or a desire to escape from the unwelcome consequences of (say) quantum indeterminacy or the Big Bang.
I also think the popularity of the multiverse hypothesis owes a great deal of its appeal to the "You're Batman in some alternate universe" angle.
Hi David, let me firstly say how much I appreciate your writings and interviews. It has been a real delight to learn from and contemplate both the breadth and specificity of your ‘digressive’ thoughts. I’m sure it is time consuming, but please know that it is really valued.
This was a great article, and especially enjoyable to have you weave together all the various threads that you’ve previously discussed - the overall portrait of existence that you present is beautiful.
In light of that, however, I have what may actually be quite a bland question. Two comments you make here are relevant to my question:
“God providentially governs the universe towards its final end, of course, but he will not finally bring it to pass without the consent of rational beings who partake of his own Wisdom, Word, and Spirit and stand in the divine council; he will permit this world and every world to take an utterly free course, without any looming determinism or impending interference, until all creation says “Amen” together ...”
And,
“... God is looking for us to synergistically make use of rather than monergistically submit to the grace of the eschaton. God is our destiny, but God is also our journey thither.”
I absolutely love the idea of creation realising its telos only when every free, rational creature arrives at its own willing union with God. But this makes me wonder how to think of God’s interaction in our lives as people of faith who pray for God’s active involvement in our daily circumstances. To what extent does God ‘get involved in our lives’ (pardon the coarseness of such language, but I am trying to think pragmatically here) in the sense of answering our prayers and working in our circumstances in ways which, from our perspective, look like God being the cause of some observable or experiential effect? I ask because I’m unsure how believing in God’s providential guidance of free creatures does not result in a kind of practical deism for us who affirm that creatively freedom and the collective consequences of our actions cannot be ‘overridden’ by God.
I hope that makes sense, and would appreciate your thoughts if you can spare the time.
I'm interested by your statement that time (like space) is 'infinitely divisible'. I have just read that this is an assumption of 'Pythagorean-Parmenidean mindsets where, in order to deny genuine reality to elapsing time, the physical instant is supposed infinitesimal.'
Can you please write a blog on John behrs new book
Not being a physicist, I'm obviously not qualified to pronounce on such things, but I have a sneaking suspicion that any given cosmological theory's popularity (whether among scientists or the general public) often has more to do with how provocative or exciting it seems rather than its merits alone. I'm certainly not opposed to a plurality of theories or to debating their scientific merits; I just think there are often ulterior motives involved, whether that's a subjective sense of unity or simplicty or a desire to escape from the unwelcome consequences of (say) quantum indeterminacy or the Big Bang.
I also think the popularity of the multiverse hypothesis owes a great deal of its appeal to the "You're Batman in some alternate universe" angle.
Why don't you like to platform Joe Rogan?
Hi David, let me firstly say how much I appreciate your writings and interviews. It has been a real delight to learn from and contemplate both the breadth and specificity of your ‘digressive’ thoughts. I’m sure it is time consuming, but please know that it is really valued.
This was a great article, and especially enjoyable to have you weave together all the various threads that you’ve previously discussed - the overall portrait of existence that you present is beautiful.
In light of that, however, I have what may actually be quite a bland question. Two comments you make here are relevant to my question:
“God providentially governs the universe towards its final end, of course, but he will not finally bring it to pass without the consent of rational beings who partake of his own Wisdom, Word, and Spirit and stand in the divine council; he will permit this world and every world to take an utterly free course, without any looming determinism or impending interference, until all creation says “Amen” together ...”
And,
“... God is looking for us to synergistically make use of rather than monergistically submit to the grace of the eschaton. God is our destiny, but God is also our journey thither.”
I absolutely love the idea of creation realising its telos only when every free, rational creature arrives at its own willing union with God. But this makes me wonder how to think of God’s interaction in our lives as people of faith who pray for God’s active involvement in our daily circumstances. To what extent does God ‘get involved in our lives’ (pardon the coarseness of such language, but I am trying to think pragmatically here) in the sense of answering our prayers and working in our circumstances in ways which, from our perspective, look like God being the cause of some observable or experiential effect? I ask because I’m unsure how believing in God’s providential guidance of free creatures does not result in a kind of practical deism for us who affirm that creatively freedom and the collective consequences of our actions cannot be ‘overridden’ by God.
I hope that makes sense, and would appreciate your thoughts if you can spare the time.
So good! I really have a natural affinity for your way of thinking