![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rj_andersonFirst, let's watch a video. No worries, it's short. If you haven't seen it before, trust me, it's well worth watching; and even if you have seen it, I think it's worth watching again.
Right. Is your mind officially blown? I know mine was, when I first saw this and realized just how unimaginably huge VV Cephei is compared to… well, basically everything else in the clip, and yet how that single star is only one among countless others in this vast universe. I mean, space is big. Really big (thank you, Douglas Adams).
Which leads me to another video narrated by Carl Sagan entitled "Pale Blue Dot", which many have found to be similarly astounding and moving:
(Or if you're tired of watching videos you can just read the text of the monologue instead.)
What interests me about Sagan's monologue is that so much of it is undeniably true – and yet there's one crucial point on which I would have to disagree. Sagan, as many others have done before and after him, looks at the sheer inconceivable size and scope of the universe and comes to the conclusion that it is simply too big, and we are simply too small by comparison, for us to believe that our lives have any higher purpose, or that there is a God who cares about us.
To which I say, wait, what?
Of course, many people wouldn't go quite as far as to insist that there is no God, but they would say that the sheer scope of the universe proves the absurdity of believing in a personal deity. They would argue that the nature of God is so far beyond anything we can imagine that it is not possible to have any kind of understanding or communication with such a being -- and there is no reason to believe that this being would care about us or have any interest in what we do or how we live.
But what is that argument actually saying? That the bigger you get, the more intelligent and powerful you get, the less you are capable of noticing or caring about things that are smaller, stupider or weaker than you? Certainly we human beings often find it so when considering ourselves in relation to ants or amoebae, but the analogy is flawed at best.
We humans are imperfect, limited, and finite; we can only keep a few ideas in our minds at once; we can only be in one place performing one action at any one time; and we are easily misled by appearances (such as the illusion that size = importance, or that the microcosm inside a single cell of our bodies is any less vast and awe-inspiring than the macrocosm of the universe in which we live).
Moreover, we didn't actually create the ants and amoebae, nor are we aware of every single action they perform, every sensation they experience, every moment of their lives from birth to death. We don't know them intimately; we can't identify with them; we can't even communicate with them in any meaningful way.
But according to the Bible, God is not merely infinite, He is omnipresent. He is separate from His creation – that is, material things do not make up His substance or His essence in any way – but at the same time He is present with it: He sees the sparrow fall, can number the hairs of every man and woman on earth, and knows all the stars by name. And less we be tempted to believe that His knowledge of these things is merely academic, not sufficient to enable him to really understand what it's like to be human, the gospels record how the infinite-personal God Himself took human form, and for thirty-three years walked among us visibly experiencing the effects of hunger and thirst and fatigue, poverty and neglect, grief and loneliness, betrayal and humiliation – and even death.
So even though the Bible affirms that the scope of God's knowledge and power are utterly beyond our grasp or comprehension, it also insists that we are not beyond His notice or care. Rather, because He is so much greater than we are, He is capable of more understanding, more compassion, more awareness of our needs as individuals, as families, as nations, and as part of the mass of humanity than we could ever be. Indeed, if not for God's greatness we would have no concept of love or goodness or justice to begin with, because every positive emotion and good desire that we have as human beings – including the very kindness Carl Sagan advocates – were instilled in us by Him.
Of course, this is sometimes hard for us to understand when we see so much suffering and wrongness in the world – and the problem of evil is a very serious and complicated one, too serious to be dismissed in a few lines here. However, I would like to suggest one point for consideration: if the God of the Bible is real, then His infinite and all-knowing nature means that He is aware not only of every current event on earth, but how that event is connected to every other event which has taken place in the past and will take place in future, as well as all the consequences that would result if any event in that sequence were to change.
Therefore, with that concept in mind, it is at least theoretically possible that the situation in our world – messy and even disastrous as it may often appear – may actually be the best of all possible outcomes under the circumstances, or at least be leading toward such an outcome. That there may actually be a reason for events, including even the worst and most horrific events, to unfold as they do and have done; it is possible that had God arranged certain local matters to our personal human satisfaction, the ultimate ramifications for the planet and everyone on it could have been unspeakably worse. That if we could perceive the whole vast equation as God perceives it, and explore all the possible alternatives, we would soon be forced to acknowledge that there truly was no better way.
Which is not to say that the world is just how it ought to be, or that God is pleased with it. That too is a problem that the Bible acknowledges and addresses: not only through the doctrine of the Fall of Man which explains how sin, sickness, death and disaster came into a formerly perfect world, but also through the Incarnation and the Crucifixion, which display the incredible lengths to which God was prepared to go to save and redeem His groaning creation.
So while I view the video about the relative size of stars with open-mouthed awe and a chill running up my spine at the unbelievable immensity of it all, and while I am also moved by Carl Sagan's appeal for human beings to be good to each other because our world is so tiny and so alone, I can't mistake either of these things as evidence that there is no God, or that God is too big to be bothered with the needs and struggles of puny human beings.
Rather, I believe that because God is so great – so vast and complex indeed that the size of the universe is just a tiny picture of His greatness – He is also infinitely capable of noticing and caring about you and me, far more than we humans are capable of noticing and caring for even the people we love best in the world.
Which means I can watch those videos about the immensity of the universe and the apparent insignificance of the Earth and humanity in the cosmic scheme of things, and then, with no sense of irony or self-contradiction, I can tuck my children into bed and sing to them:
Jesus loves me, this I know,
For the Bible tells me so;
Little ones to Him belong,
They are weak, and He is strong.
Amen.
Right. Is your mind officially blown? I know mine was, when I first saw this and realized just how unimaginably huge VV Cephei is compared to… well, basically everything else in the clip, and yet how that single star is only one among countless others in this vast universe. I mean, space is big. Really big (thank you, Douglas Adams).
Which leads me to another video narrated by Carl Sagan entitled "Pale Blue Dot", which many have found to be similarly astounding and moving:
(Or if you're tired of watching videos you can just read the text of the monologue instead.)
What interests me about Sagan's monologue is that so much of it is undeniably true – and yet there's one crucial point on which I would have to disagree. Sagan, as many others have done before and after him, looks at the sheer inconceivable size and scope of the universe and comes to the conclusion that it is simply too big, and we are simply too small by comparison, for us to believe that our lives have any higher purpose, or that there is a God who cares about us.
To which I say, wait, what?
Of course, many people wouldn't go quite as far as to insist that there is no God, but they would say that the sheer scope of the universe proves the absurdity of believing in a personal deity. They would argue that the nature of God is so far beyond anything we can imagine that it is not possible to have any kind of understanding or communication with such a being -- and there is no reason to believe that this being would care about us or have any interest in what we do or how we live.
But what is that argument actually saying? That the bigger you get, the more intelligent and powerful you get, the less you are capable of noticing or caring about things that are smaller, stupider or weaker than you? Certainly we human beings often find it so when considering ourselves in relation to ants or amoebae, but the analogy is flawed at best.
We humans are imperfect, limited, and finite; we can only keep a few ideas in our minds at once; we can only be in one place performing one action at any one time; and we are easily misled by appearances (such as the illusion that size = importance, or that the microcosm inside a single cell of our bodies is any less vast and awe-inspiring than the macrocosm of the universe in which we live).
Moreover, we didn't actually create the ants and amoebae, nor are we aware of every single action they perform, every sensation they experience, every moment of their lives from birth to death. We don't know them intimately; we can't identify with them; we can't even communicate with them in any meaningful way.
But according to the Bible, God is not merely infinite, He is omnipresent. He is separate from His creation – that is, material things do not make up His substance or His essence in any way – but at the same time He is present with it: He sees the sparrow fall, can number the hairs of every man and woman on earth, and knows all the stars by name. And less we be tempted to believe that His knowledge of these things is merely academic, not sufficient to enable him to really understand what it's like to be human, the gospels record how the infinite-personal God Himself took human form, and for thirty-three years walked among us visibly experiencing the effects of hunger and thirst and fatigue, poverty and neglect, grief and loneliness, betrayal and humiliation – and even death.
So even though the Bible affirms that the scope of God's knowledge and power are utterly beyond our grasp or comprehension, it also insists that we are not beyond His notice or care. Rather, because He is so much greater than we are, He is capable of more understanding, more compassion, more awareness of our needs as individuals, as families, as nations, and as part of the mass of humanity than we could ever be. Indeed, if not for God's greatness we would have no concept of love or goodness or justice to begin with, because every positive emotion and good desire that we have as human beings – including the very kindness Carl Sagan advocates – were instilled in us by Him.
Of course, this is sometimes hard for us to understand when we see so much suffering and wrongness in the world – and the problem of evil is a very serious and complicated one, too serious to be dismissed in a few lines here. However, I would like to suggest one point for consideration: if the God of the Bible is real, then His infinite and all-knowing nature means that He is aware not only of every current event on earth, but how that event is connected to every other event which has taken place in the past and will take place in future, as well as all the consequences that would result if any event in that sequence were to change.
Therefore, with that concept in mind, it is at least theoretically possible that the situation in our world – messy and even disastrous as it may often appear – may actually be the best of all possible outcomes under the circumstances, or at least be leading toward such an outcome. That there may actually be a reason for events, including even the worst and most horrific events, to unfold as they do and have done; it is possible that had God arranged certain local matters to our personal human satisfaction, the ultimate ramifications for the planet and everyone on it could have been unspeakably worse. That if we could perceive the whole vast equation as God perceives it, and explore all the possible alternatives, we would soon be forced to acknowledge that there truly was no better way.
Which is not to say that the world is just how it ought to be, or that God is pleased with it. That too is a problem that the Bible acknowledges and addresses: not only through the doctrine of the Fall of Man which explains how sin, sickness, death and disaster came into a formerly perfect world, but also through the Incarnation and the Crucifixion, which display the incredible lengths to which God was prepared to go to save and redeem His groaning creation.
So while I view the video about the relative size of stars with open-mouthed awe and a chill running up my spine at the unbelievable immensity of it all, and while I am also moved by Carl Sagan's appeal for human beings to be good to each other because our world is so tiny and so alone, I can't mistake either of these things as evidence that there is no God, or that God is too big to be bothered with the needs and struggles of puny human beings.
Rather, I believe that because God is so great – so vast and complex indeed that the size of the universe is just a tiny picture of His greatness – He is also infinitely capable of noticing and caring about you and me, far more than we humans are capable of noticing and caring for even the people we love best in the world.
Which means I can watch those videos about the immensity of the universe and the apparent insignificance of the Earth and humanity in the cosmic scheme of things, and then, with no sense of irony or self-contradiction, I can tuck my children into bed and sing to them:
Jesus loves me, this I know,
For the Bible tells me so;
Little ones to Him belong,
They are weak, and He is strong.
Amen.
Tags:
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-06-30 02:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-30 03:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-30 03:17 pm (UTC)"That there may actually be a reason for events, including even the worst and most horrific events, to unfold as they do and have done..."
- for me this is where my Christianity aligns with the idea of karma - not the simplistic idea that you have to suffer for the bad things you've done, but the sense that it all needs to balance out, that what you sow is what you reap, good or bad, and that this is how we learn to adjust our thinking and behavior and understanding. It's a simple function of how God has organized the universe, imo.
Thanks very much for this post.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-30 03:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-30 03:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-30 05:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-30 03:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-30 03:32 pm (UTC)That is quite a lovely way of putting it. Thank you.
The other thing that always strikes me when I think about this subject is that, if you really accept that every atom of the universe remains in existence only through an action of God's will, it becomes impossible to suppose that any of it might be beneath His notice or care. If He didn't care, it wouldn't exist.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-30 05:22 pm (UTC)Very well said. I agree.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-30 03:52 pm (UTC)Perhaps by allowing us free agency and the ability to make mistakes and learn from them, God is allowing us, through experience instead of mere theory, to become something much wiser, and much greater, than we would be otherwise.Yes, the fall of Adam brought sin and pain into the world, but knowing about "the magic prepared *before* the dawn of time" (ie, Christ coming to make redemption possible) puts a whole new perspective on it.
Your post makes me think of one of my favorite Rilke poems (translation mine):
Autumn
The leaves fall, fall as from afar,
as if withered from the far gardens of heaven;
they fall with mixed gestures.
And in the night, the heavy earth falls
from all the stars, in loneliness.
We all fall. This hand here falls.
And look at others: it is in everything.
And yet there is One who holds all this falling
everlastingly gently in his hands.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-30 08:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-30 04:42 pm (UTC)It's unfortunate that so many people think that the Christian doctrine of creation is analogous to a man building a clockwork model, winding it up, and seeing how it runs, when in fact creation is happening all the time and the universe only exists, we only exist, because God continuously gives us being. (And if God is infinite, he must include smallness as well as bigness: both categories are inadequate).
I find the little I know about modern theories of physics consoling. I may only be able to understand the Trinity or the Real Presence, or how Christ is both fully divine and truly human in a very inadequate and theoretical way, but the same goes for the nature of light or quantum entanglement. In a lot of ways, what we think we know about the universe now is less of a theological problem than the mechanistic understanding of it which prevailed during the Enlightenment. God isn't a watchmaker, blind or otherwise; he's more like someone weaving a tapestry or a composer conducting his own symphony (not that that's a perfect metaphor, either, but none of them are, if you push them...)
no subject
Date: 2009-06-30 08:14 pm (UTC)Carl Sagan was answered long before he was born
Date: 2009-06-30 07:17 pm (UTC)What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?
(Ps.8.3-4)
The folly of scientists is to imagine that nobody before them had ever realized that the cosmos was kinda big and man was kinda small.
Re: Carl Sagan was answered long before he was born
Date: 2009-06-30 08:11 pm (UTC)Re: Carl Sagan was answered long before he was born
Date: 2009-06-30 08:13 pm (UTC)Re: Carl Sagan was answered long before he was born
Date: 2009-06-30 10:08 pm (UTC)Longtime lurker here
Date: 2009-06-30 07:22 pm (UTC)Re: Longtime lurker here
Date: 2009-06-30 08:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-30 07:49 pm (UTC)I heard Carl Sagan talk back at Cornell in the day (and it's a long-gone day, believe me), and he was very good on the inanity of the continuing arms race. But being in one of the best nutrition departments in the country, and having friends doing PhDs in physics and chemistry, among other science subjects, left one in no doubt that great intellect doesn't always go hand-in-hand with equal amounts of wisdom in all areas of life!
no subject
Date: 2009-06-30 08:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-30 10:07 pm (UTC)YES.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-30 10:06 pm (UTC)It made me think of the computers that ran the Moon Landing (there's a bunch of 40th anniversary articles about, so it was on my mind) that had less processing power than a cell phone, and how it'd be like saying that just because my computer (a modest laptop) is millions of times faster and bigger than those old supercomputers means that it cannot possibly run the same programs. Of course it can. It's just that it can run iTunes and Firefox and Lego Digital Designer at the same time. "Bigger" doesn't just mean "higher up" but also "lower down" and "farther around", and any other qualifying descriptor. "Omnipresent" and "omniscient" mean God knows about every atom just like he knows about every galaxy.
Anything less than that would be a God too small.
no subject
Date: 2009-07-01 02:24 am (UTC)I always find the immensity of creation sort of comforting in an odd way: it's like, if God can handle creating massive galaxies and tiny cells, all of them impossibly intricate and perfect...he's got to have humanity and all its problems covered, yeah?
no subject
Date: 2009-07-05 01:53 am (UTC)Have you read Epic (http://www.amazon.com/Epic-Story-Telling-Role-Yours/dp/B00164GEIQ/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246758785&sr=8-3), by John Eldredge. It gives you a similar sense of scope, although not necessarily in the physical-universe sense. :)