Redeeming the Time While Shrewd as a Viper

In my experience Christian theologians don't do enough to learn about current cultural phenomenon including nuances of science, genetics, foreign policy, economics, sex, racial theory, etc to properly engage the current world. I agree with Mark Nolls assessment in the Scandal of The Evangelical Mind. That is why I'm still constantly studying the world, studying new science like CRISPR tech, studying the beliefs of gender fluidity proponents, studying the errant racial socialist philosophy like CRT. Even my liberal friends will acknowledge that I've always tried to be balanced in my assessments. It's why I am still a Quality Engineer dealing with China daily. Its why I still acknowledge that, at heart I'm still the good ole boy that listens to Metallica and Iron Maiden and throws iron.

I learned the way the world learned and then later in life I learned the nuances and details of the Christian faith. In doing it this way I have the scientific and logic base provided by the world. I know pretty much how the world functions and thinks. Although some of its thinking processes and logic are at times horribly flawed I still understand where a godless culture comes from. The inverse is that I understnad where my proper theology engages and intersects with it. This point of transfer is critical to my method of  evangelism.

Instead of trying to hammer the square peg in the round hole I minimize the interferences and show how they can in fact both work together by shaving edges and making the square world peg more into a slimmed down triangle that will be able to integrate with the linear and level theology of the Bible.

We're to be shrewd as vipers and peaceful as doves. We're to go out into the world and engage it, but not become it. Paul when arriving in a new town would go to their synagogues first to engage the people 'where they were at' basically. Show he was one of them yet teach the Gospel. He was different but not above or better. He did those things that allowed him to related to them but not become them through sin or unrighteous behavior. The Unknown God speech at the Areopogus/Mars Hill is a great example of this. This is why I do what I do and how I do it.

We need to go out an engage the world where they are at, not jsut remain in cloistered sanctuaries. It is like the Parable of the Talents.

Matthew 25:14-29 “Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his wealth to them. To one he gave five bags of gold, to another two bags, and to another one bag, each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey. The man who had received five bags of gold went at once and put his money to work and gained five bags more. So also, the one with two bags of gold gained two more. But the man who had received one bag went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master’s money. “After a long time the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them. The man who had received five bags of gold brought the other five. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘you entrusted me with five bags of gold. See, I have gained five more. “His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’ “The man with two bags of gold also came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘you entrusted me with two bags of gold; see, I have gained two more.’ “His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’ “Then the man who had received one bag of gold came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. So I was afraid and went out and hid your gold in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.’ “His master replied, ‘You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest. “‘So take the bag of gold from him and give it to the one who has ten bags. For whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them.

If you just take the gift you're given and sit on it (bury it) and do nothing you have not utililzed the resources God gave to wisely. When the man came back, he gave rewards to those who increased the coins he lent them. But he took the coin away from the person who hadn’t tried to increase it. We only have so much time to do what God wants us to do with our gifts. We need to utilize the time we're given in this life to best effect (Ephesians 5:16). Time is a gift from God in this life and when it is gone in this world...it is gone forever. There are no second chances (Hebrews 9:27-28).

The Improbable Nature of Mathematics and Probability

Mathematics is a part of what should be considered beauty. Centuries ago, the great astronomer Johannes Kepler (d. 1630) found that math enabled him to predict the relative distances between the various planets and the sun. This finding made him feel “possessed by an unutterable rapture,” bedazzled by “God [thereby] signing his likeness into the world,” symbolizing “all nature and the graceful sky” by “the art of geometry.” Modern scientists, such as the pioneer quantum physicist Paul Dirac, were similarly struck. “The fundamental physical laws are described in terms of a mathematical theory of great beauty and power.... One could perhaps describe the situation by saying that God is a mathematician of a very high order and He used very advanced mathematics in constructing the universe.”

If mathematics has impressed many of its greatest theorists with its beauty, many scientists have been equally struck by the peculiarity of its ability to map nature with acute accuracy. The Nobel laureate physicist Eugene Wigner wrote a celebrated essay about how the ability of math to tell us about nature is “unreasonable.” Einstein said that our ability to make sense of the universe with mathematics is a “miracle,” for a universe arising from randomness would not be expected to be so rational as to correspond with such precision to the precise system that mathematics is. In his book The Mind of God Paul Davies registered his surprise at this correspondence. “Much of the mathematics that is so spectacularly effective in physical theory was worked out as an abstract exercise by pure mathematicians long before it was applied to the real world . . . and yet we discover, often years afterward, that nature is playing by the very same mathematical rules that these pure mathematicians have already formulated.”

Is there a link between the beauty of mathematics and its description of nature? There is—in music. Millennia ago, the Greek philosopher Pythagoras noticed that musical tones are in harmony if their tensions arc ratios of the squares of small whole numbers. These rules, translated into frequency, state that notes sound good together if their frequencies arc in ratios of small whole numbers. He was the first major thinker to see the connection between nature and music through the medium of mathematics. This “music of the spheres,” which Pythagoras thought was created by the harmonies among the sun and moon and planets, is the same “heavenly harmony” that Kepler described. The physicist Wilczek said they were on to something profoundly true. Atoms, he wrote, are tiny musical instruments. “In their interplay with light, they realize a mathematical Music of the Spheres that surpasses the visions of Pythagoras, Plato, and Kepler. In molecules and ordered materials, those atomic instruments play together as harmonious ensembles and ordered materials.”

So, mathematics links the world of nature and our minds by a kind of music. But do we comprehend it because we have created mathematics? Is it just another artificial human construct that we have imposed on the world? We have already seen that the fit between mathematics and the world is so close and precise that artificial imposition is unlikely. In fact, there is something about mathematics itself that suggests it has a life of its own completely apart from its use to describe nature. In other words, it seems to have its own existence and nature, quite removed from the physical world. 

As particle physicist Peter Bussey argued, mathematics is not physics, even though physics depends on math. “Mathematics seems to have a life of its own.” Musician and science writer Kitty Ferguson told of the day when it dawned on her that mathematics has an objective reality apart from its use in science. “I remember clearly when it first dawned on me those human beings might have discovered mathematics, not invented it; that it might lie waiting in nature; that mathematical truth might be a part of independent reality. It wasn’t in mathematics class, but in music theory, when I studied the harmonic series. It seemed to me that this pattern could not be a human way of sorting things out. It would have existed even if human beings had never existed.”

Astrophysicist Roger Penrose also noted that mathematics has a transcendent, objective character. “There often does appear to be some profound reality about these mathematical concepts, going quite beyond the mental deliberations of any particular mathematician. It is as though human thought is, instead, being guided towards some external truth—a truth which has a reality of its own, and which is revealed only partially to any one of us.”

Once again, then, we are faced with oddities. This world seems to have been fine-tuned not just with one or two parameters but with many. If a few or perhaps even one of them were different, we would not be here. These corroborations of fine-tuning are strange enough, but the fact that there is beauty at the deepest physical levels of the universe, and that it has been noticed by agnostic and believing scientists alike, is also odd. Why would a randomly formed universe be beautiful? Furthermore, why would the beautifully rational system of mathematics so perfectly describe the way this world works? If this world is finally irrational, which is what one would expect from a cosmic accident (as it is said to be by atheists such as Richard Dawkins), then one would never expect a rational system like mathematics to fit it so closely and usefully.

A Clockwork Universe: A Finely Calibrated Reality

As a Quality Manager having spent three decades helping to regulate, balance and run companies I realize how hard it is to keep things running smoothly, efficiently like clockwork. Things like complex or even simple systems need to be within certain ranges, weight, measurement and continuity to have them run optimally. This implies design and fine-tuning. It also assumes that there is active maintenance on said systems. This is not indicative of the tenets of atheism. It isn't commensurate or compatible with a deistic worldview. It is indicative of a creation with an intelligent designer who is actively interfacing with his design. 

Even the simplest system with few parts takes enormous amounts of energy and design foresight to maintain. When we start talking about the complexity of genetics, the periodic chart and a myriad of other possible interactions and permutations genetically or chemically, the probability of the universe the way we see it today exponentially drops near zero. In other words, it is statistically impossible. Below I list some of the things that occur in the universe that defy a reasonable explanation other than God.

Water is absolutely essential for life. Yet it is so rare in the cosmos as to be statistically nonexistent. In other words, just as, when doing an inventory of your house, you would not include pennies that accidentally fell between the cushions of the living room couch, so too water is so rare that it wouldn’t make the list in a cosmic inventory. Almost all spaces between stars are too cold for water, and stars are too hot. Only on planets orbiting at just the right distance from their suns is water possible. Its formation depends on the fine- tuning of all the constants in the rest of this list.

Carbon Resonance is required to make carbon, which is the all-essential molecule for life. This resonance is a level of energy required to complete an extremely complicated process of atomic fusion that produces carbon. If the resonance were a fraction of a percent lower or higher, the process wouldn’t work, and carbon would not be created. Life would then be impossible.

The carbon resonance in turn depends on the strong nuclear force, which holds protons and neutrons together in the nucleus. This too is extremely delicate, meaning it would not work to create the possibility for life if it were not at precisely the right value, neither slightly more nor slightly less. If it were just 10% weaker, the basic elements would never have formed. If it were only 4 percent stronger, stars would last for so short a time that life would never have had a chance to evolve.

Even the weak nuclear force seems to have been tuned to just the right level. After the first second following the Big Bang, cosmologists estimate that the ratio of protons to neutrons was six to one. This ratio was necessary for life. If it had been much weaker than it is, that ratio would never have been achieved, and life would not have been possible. A stronger force by a factor of ten would also have prevented life.

Gravity was essential for the development of the present universe and the life it supports. If it had been just a tiny bit stronger than it is, all the matter exploding out of the Big Bang would have been sucked back into a black hole, snuffing out any possibility of life. If it had been just a wee bit weaker, that initial matter created by the primal explosion would have dispersed so quickly that it never would have collected into stars, one of which eventually created an environment for life.

The ratio of the electromagnetic force to the force of gravity measures the relationship of the force that holds atoms together (by keeping electrons in orbit around the nucleus) to the force between atoms. If that ratio had been only slightly smaller, the universe would not have lasted long enough for creatures larger than insects.

The weights of the parts of the atom make an enormous difference. If the neutron were lighter than it is by a fraction of 1%, isolated protons would be able to decay into neutrons, which means they would not be available for the creation of critically important atoms. Life would be impossible.

The overall density of energy and matter in the universe, conventionally the gravitational attraction of the matter and energy would pull the universe back in upon itself. If it were slightly smaller, the universe would expand too fast, and the gravitational pull of the matter would not be strong enough for the formation of galaxies.

Concerning initial entropy, cosmologist Roger Penrose said that just after the Big Bang there was such a high degree of order that matter was spread out throughout its initial volume with an astounding evenness. There are many ways in which this could have been different, but only in this one way was there a possibility for eventual life to develop. This was a fine-tuning that raises all sorts of questions.

A very special planet is needed for life. As we saw in in a previous paragraph, the planet has to be just the right distance from a star to have a temperature that would permit liquid water. It seems to need a large moon to be able to stabilize its rotation and to need a larger protective planet further away to steer comets and asteroids in another direction. It also needs certain plate tectonics to provide both oceans and dry land. No one knows whether other planets in the universe have this combination of features that supports life. But ours has all the right characteristics.

We take air for granted. But the density of the air we breathe is 1027 times the average density' of matter in the universe. “Places in the Universe with a density at least as large as the air in a room are cosmically rare.” We are in this extremely rare location in an unthinkably vast cosmos.

The inference that needs to be taken from this information is that what we see in the universe is not that of random, pointless chance and mutation but rather a calibrated machine that runs like a clock but is vastly more complex.