« A visit from an old friend: the sparrow

A Valentine’s Day cheat sheet for romantically-challenged men »

VOICES

Christians, leave the credibility of the church to God

By Daryl E. Witmer, Special to the BDN

Posted Feb. 12, 2011, at 8:03 p.m.

Some years ago, a news story related the account of two elderly women who became lost while driving through Florida. Not wishing to appear old and out of touch, they refused to ask for help or consult their map. Eventually they ended up in a remote tract of orange groves. When their car ran out of gas and the air conditioning quit. With no water, they quickly became vulnerable to the extreme heat. A terrible crisis was upon them.

Is this a picture of what is happening to the church today? The Bible lies unopened or generally is disregarded, the result of competing priorities and-or an unwillingness to identify with teachings the world calls antiquated. Even evangelicals, who traditionally have championed a bold stand for Scripture, have begun defecting.

One of the leading religious stories in 2010 involved Bruce Waltke, a noted evangelical scholar who for years was regarded as a stalwart defender of the authority of the Bible. But then he made the following statement:

“If the data is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution, to deny that reality will make us [Christians] a cult … some odd group that is not really interacting with the world. And rightly so, because we are not using our gifts and trusting God’s Providence that brought us to this point of our awareness.”

The operative line in Waltke’s statement is his warning to Christians about being considered a “cult” or “some odd group.” The real shocker isn’t Waltke’s belief in Darwinian evolution. It’s his appeal to reputation as the basis for such belief.

How should the church decide what to believe about anything, anyway? Is its doctrine to be based on what the Bible says or on what the world thinks? This is the critical issue facing believers in the opening years of this third millennium.

The BioLogos Foundation is a relatively new entity which also happens to endorse Darwinian evolution. It encourages all Christians to do the same. Many of its key leaders identify themselves as evangelical. But here again, in making the case for believers to follow its lead, BioLogos threatens that otherwise they “may end up marginalized,” which would be “a great tragedy for the Church.”

In a recent two-page full-color ad, InterVarsity Press, a leading evangelical publisher, featured a prominently positioned endorsement from The New York Times Book Review for a book by one of its authors. No problem there. But this reference happened to be for a text that disputes the long-held biblical doctrine of a historic Adam. Now there’s a rub. Is a secular endorsement to usurp Scripture as the determinant of orthodoxy?

Emergent church leaders consistently have disparaged doctrine in general — and the doctrines of hell, absolute truth and the exclusivity of Christ in particular — lest postmodernists be turned off. So, in order to reach postmodernists, must the church become postmodern? Is that it? Must Christ now be made acceptable to men? Is this the new Gospel?

What if Martin Luther had worried about him and his fellow reformers being culturally or ecclesiastically marginalized? What if, instead of sola Scriptura, their charter had been populus sententia? What if Jude had exhorted the church to contend for Nielsen ratings instead of “the faith once delivered”? (Jude 3)

And what’s the big deal about the church being labeled a cult? From its beginnings, the church was denounced as an unregistered and “secret” cult. Did that ever compromise its influence?

Still, seriously — shouldn’t Christians work to maintain at least some degree of credibility in this world if the Gospel of Christ is to receive a hearing? The answer is no. The credibility of the church is not the church’s charge, and the world’s perception of the church is not the church’s worry.

Christ’s commission to his church is straightforward — preach the Gospel, teach the whole counsel of God, disciple the brother, and contend for sound doctrine. Christians are not told to contend for the church’s reputation. God will handle public relations and take care of his church. “Against it the gates of hell will never ultimately prevail.” (Matthew 16:18)

Finally, a word to those who do not claim to be followers of Christ, lest you dismiss this piece as totally irrelevant. Consider this: The moment the church ceases to base its doctrine on Scripture, it becomes a mere channel of human opinion. And when no one is left in this world citing any authority but human opinion, which humans will decide which human opinions will be binding on which other humans?

Will it be the richest? The most violent? The majority? But why the majority? On what basis will democracy be held virtuous or social convention authoritative? Who will be metaphysically empowered to overrule the individualist, the socialist, the fascist, the nihilist or the radical Islamist? In such a world, on what basis will polygamy be forbidden? Or pedophilia? Or infanticide? Or rajm? Who will say who may not call right wrong and wrong right?

If the nation’s historic Judeo-Christian infrastructure of morality is auctioned off to the highest bidder or the leading poll, who will put what in its place?

In this sense, all of us have a stake in whether the church will humble itself, look once again to Scripture alone, and regain its bearings — or, fearing the world’s ridicule, wander on, lost and imperiled, dragging America with it.

The Rev. Daryl E. Witmer is founder and director of the AIIA Institute, a national apologetics ministry, and pastor emeritus at the Monson Community Church. He may be reached at AIIAInstitute.org or by e-mail at AIIAInstitute@aol.com. Voices is a weekly commentary by Maine people who explore issues affecting spirituality and religious life.

Similar articles:

Anonymous

The more I grow in Christ and learn about the Holy Bible, and the more I interact with others, the more I believe what the Rev. Billy Graham once said about 70 percent of those that call themselves Christians will most likely not get into Heaven. 70 percent have been fooled into believing that their eternity is secure. 70 percent that have been deceived by Satan.

Too many churches and Christians have closed their Bibles and gone their own way, just so they could fit in. It’s sad, but oh, so true.
Anonymous

Pastor Witmer, you stated: “Christ’s commission to his church is straightforward — preach the Gospel, teach the whole counsel of God, disciple the brother, and contend for sound doctrine.”
That is the answer to post modernism, the only answer. While the postmodernist fights to deny absolutes, expository preaching hits them squarely between the eyes. Its the job of the Holy Spirit to change the heart.
Keep up the good fight!
http://mainereason.blogspot.com KKemerait

Daryl,

You seem to make the same assumption as many evangelicals, namely that without some type of supernatural authority to direct our actions we will be lost at sea, unable to discern right from wrong or moral actions from immorality and this is simply not the case. I am quite capable, as an atheist, of making moral determinations without consulting a guide book or heavenly overseer. As to societal norms or expectations, our moral compass, so to speak, should be that our decisions help to create a flourishing human society where both reason and compassion reign supreme, one that supports both individual growth and respect while not losing sight of the greater good.

The second area where I think you are standing on a partially sawed off limb, is when you presume that only a rigid, verbal plenary interpretation of the scriptures are valid in order to be considered a Christian. Bruce Waltke was correct in his assessment, believers and unbelievers alike, cannot be found in a position of rejecting scientific truths if they want to be taken seriously. Evolution is a scientific understanding of the development of life. It doesn’t contradict the true account in Genesis because we don’t have a “true” scientific account. In Genesis, God was not trying to write a science text book.

The overall question about Biblical contradiction goes back to the basic nature of the text. What sort of text is it? Is it a Sunday school book? A science text book? A history book? And how does inspiration work? The question about the nature of inspiration is the most crucial. This is because the basic notion of the fundamentalists is that of verbal plenary inspiration. If we assume that this is the only sort of inspiration than we have a problem. One mistake and verbal plenary inspiration is out the window. The assumption that every verse is inspired and every word is true comes not from the Church fathers or from the Christian tradition. It actually starts with Humanists in the Renaissance and finds its final development in the 19th century with people like J. N. Drably and Warfield.

Verbal plenary inspiration assumes that God uses authors like we use pencils or like businessmen use secretaries, to take dictation. But why should we assume that this is the only form of inspiration? Only because we have been conditioned by American Christianity to assume that this must be the case. This comes from the Reformation’s tendency to see the Bible as epistemology rather than as a means of bestowing grace. Why should we approach the text with this kind of baggage?

Moses, the OT prophets and the NT writers were not fundamentalist preachers, but rather, they experienced God in their lives through the transformative power of the Spirit and their writings and redactions are a reflection of this experience. That being the case, we should have no problem with finding that the mythology of Babylonian and Suzerain cultures are used in Genesis, with the view toward standing them on their heads, or that some passages are idealized history that reflect a nationalistic agenda. But the experiences of God come through in the text in spite of these problems because the text itself, does bestow grace and does enable transformation.

According to traditional Christianity, the Bible is not the Perfect Revelation of God to humanity, Jesus is that perfect revelation. The Gospels are merely the record of Jesus’ teachings, deposited with the communities and encoded for safe keeping in the list chosen through Apostolic backing to assure Christian identity. For that matter the Bible as a whole is a reflection of the experience of transformation and as such, since it was the product of human agents we can expect it to have human flaws. The extent to which those flaws are negligible can be judged by the ability of that deposit of truth to adequately promote transformation. Christ authorizes the Apostles, the Apostles authorize the community, the community authorizes the tradition, and the tradition authorizes the canon.
Anonymous

What is the atheist view on plagiarism?
Anonymous

KK – You are a perfect example of too much human thinking and not enough faith. You come across very knowledgable about a lot of things religious; however, you have injected far too much of your human self into the equation. It’s not that you don’t understand the simple truth; it’s that you don’t want to understand it. You appear to be afraid of the Truth. So afraid that you’ve logically, at least in your own head, torn it to shreds. Intelligence without wisdom is dangerous.

Believe like a child.
http://mainereason.blogspot.com KKemerait

Depends,

In academic circles it is frowned upon because it defeats the purpose, which is to learn to research for yourself. In journalistic circles, it goes more to public trust. That said, “from the point of view of the law, it is a non-existing concept. “Plagiarism” is not mentioned in any current statute, either criminal or civil. ” (Wikipedia quote there, just for you.)

The article I wrote took some paragraphs, which I modified, from another writer, the majority of it was my original work. There were no facts being stated which required verification, I was not putting words into someone else’s mouth nor was I appealing to any kind of authority or stating something about which I have no knowledge or background, therefore I felt no need to add citations to the bottom of the article.

Up until the 18th century the concept of plagiarism didn’t exist and people were in fact encouraged to copy from experts and discouraged from coming up with their own ideas, a trend which might eliminate much of the nonsense on here.

This is also an interesting example of the difference between humanism and religious morals in general. You may still believe that I needed a citation, and given a good reason I may accept your criticism and from now on include them in all my writings. The point being my morality, was the result of a conscious and reasoned thought process which can be altered given more information, as opposed to blindly accepting morals from a 2000 year old book and assuming they are always correct in spite of more information.
http://mainereason.blogspot.com KKemerait

Wow, accused of too much thinking! Thanks EJ for illumining so well, the difference between Athens and Jerusalem. Anyone else here care to join the “thinking club”, the more the merrier.

Sadly your ability to peer into my heart and discern my “true” motives are not nearly as refined as your other skills. Perhaps you should leave “explaining other people’s motives” to the “other people”.

On your last statement, I agree, “learning without wisdom is dangerous”, unfortunately what you failed to grasp there is that wisdom does not in any way, shape or form have to equate with “faith”.
Anonymous

Would that KK found himself in the “You almost persuade me to become a Christian.” (AKJV) position as was King Agrippa in Acts 26:28-29.
Anonymous

First, I’m pleased that the BDN finally decided to post this.

KK: I agree with much of what you say except that I’m not an atheist. I’m a scientist and a person of faith and I believe the two are compatible.

Many Christains do not believe that a literalist, word-for-word, interpretation of the Bible is necessary for admission to heaven (aka eternal life). The Bible is neither a science or history text but it is an account of humankind’s relationship with God. The 1st five books were written by at least 4 authors (or teams of authors). Genesis alone is an interpersed account of at least 2 groups of priestly authors who knew their audience knew both creation and other early myths (myths in the sense of oral histories becasue the Hebrew alphabet was not even invented until about 1000 BCE). The Gospels were not written until 40-60 years after the resurection of Christ (they were preceded by the epistles of Paul and most or all of the others). All books in the Bible (and we only see a fraction of “sacred” texts, those approved by mid-4th century redactors) were written for specific audiences in specific times and cultures and it’s a testimony to their expression of faith that they have lasting value into our time and place (as an faithful experience and not as literal).

I disagree that “the Reformation’s tendency [is] to see the Bible as epistemology rather than as a means of bestowing grace”. At least one Reformation (Luther’s) regarded scripture as a demonstration of God bestowing the gift of grace. Your next to last paragraph is spot on.

Rev. Witmer, an absolutist stand on regarding evolution and other examples of rational thinking and research as an enemy of the literal Bible (and therefore of you) will cause your movements to be considered by many to be a cult. Your “church” becomes increasingly like isolationist groups like various churches of the Brethren (termed by Garrison Keillor as “The Church of the Sanctified Brethren”). You say that this view does not bother you but you should be concerned that many thinking and questioning Christians (as well as others) are increasingly unwilling to accept this exclusionary doctrinaire expression of faith. Remember that Christ commisioned his followers to respond to the gift of grace by helping to create the Kingdom of God here on earth. For example, refer to the 3rd line of the Lord’s Prayer, as well as the admonisions to “love thy neighbor”.
Anonymous

Many churches and Christians continue to study the Bible, especially in groups with health and open discussion, often using different translations to attempt to get to the mysteries within. A doctrinaire insistence that a literal acceptance of every word in the Bible is necessary to “get into Heaven” (aka eternal life) is not requirement. This is not “just fitting in” but attempt at deriving wisdom in one’s faith.
http://mainereason.blogspot.com KKemerait

Don’t hold your breath … “KK” was a born-again Christian for 20+ years and an apologist for the faith. He has no desire to go back into that dark cave of irrationality, superstition and ignorance.
Anonymous

I can’t speak for KK but my faith comes from deriving wisdom from a realistic interpretation of the Bible and other works of faith (writings of scholars, hymnody, discussions with other persons of faith, etc.) and not from a doctrinaire, dagmatic, non-questioning approach. I agree, intelligence without wisodm is potentially dangerous per the quote “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing”. Use of one’s intelligence (God-given, correct?) to attempt to derive wisdom is a life-long process and is not achieved with slavish insitence on dogma.
Anonymous

I wonder if Billy Graham still feels the same way about 70%? He recently said that if he could do it all over again he would not become involved in politics the way he did. Time sometimes changes peoples opinions and positions.
http://mainereason.blogspot.com KKemerait

Thank you Gopher,

It would be an interesting discussion to have. While I agree that martin Luther certainly understood and propagated the concept of salvation by grace as opposed to works, It also seems that he along with others of his time, supported the ideas of one of the early Church fathers Tertullian, who uttered these immortal words…“God has spoken, we no longer need to think…”

In regards to science and faith, I agree that they can be compatible, but not the current brand of evangelical conservatism which scoffs at scientific knowledge and tries to supplant it with the musings of iron age goat herders and storytellers.
Anonymous

Here’s another one: Question like a child.

That is the esssence of science.

At the heart of a scientific way of thinking is humility – the humility to believe that anything you might believe, no matter how self-evident it may seem, could be mistaken and should be questioned. Any “thruth” that cannot be questioned has not earned the right to be respected.
Anonymous

Interesting posts.

I love the accusation of too much “human” thinking – and the accusation of “inject too much of your human self into the equation.”

The thing about the Abrahamic religions is that they are SO human. They place human beings at the centre of the Universe (right under God) and contend that the central preoccupation of the creator of the Universe is human morality.

And yet one of the most common religious accusations against the scientific method is arrogance! The arrogance to dare to be interesting in finding out how the world works by actually looking at it.

The arrogance to be able to question one’s most cherished beliefs and preconceptions if they do not fit the evidence. The arrogance to be able to accept that human beings are one of many species living on a small planet orbiting a mediocre star on the outer fringes of an unremarkable galaxy, and if we are going to distinguish ourselves at all it is not going to be by having friends in high places but by the depth and subtlty of our insights and by our ability to build working compassionate societies using moral principles that we can see are right by our own reasoning and empathy, not by fear of punishment after death.
http://mainereason.blogspot.com KKemerait

Steve,

Very well said. I think you of all people so far, might enjoy this video from my blog, and yes, it’s a link from youtube, lest anyone accuse me of plagiarism :)

http://mainereason.blogspot.com/2010/11/atheists-view-of-himself.html
Anonymous

You’re missing the point. All one has to do is believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and they will be saved. Everything else is moot. The trouble with so many new age churches is that they are leaving this most important part out of their teachings. They teach that men wrote the Scriptures so they’re flawed. They teach that men put the Bible together, so it’s flawed. They teach that Jesus was not God. They teach that there is no Hell. They teach that all roads lead to Heaven. They teach that the gay lifestyle, and many of the other sinful lifestyles, are perfectly all right as long as one is a good person. The teach that loving your neighbor is the most important command. All the while dancing around the FACT that without salvation in the shed blood of Jesus Christ, all is for naught.

So go ahead and analyze, discuss, and disect His Word. Just don’t forget that without a personal relationship with Christ, the only destination you’re heading is straight to an eternity separated from God.
Anonymous

With Christ, no cave can be dark. You were apparently misled.
Anonymous

The way things are going, he just might up that percentage a few points.
http://mainereason.blogspot.com KKemerait

Sorry to disappoint your preconceived notions, but no, not mislead.

I understand that if you can “explain away” people leaving the faith then you can feel comfortable and unchallenged in you own beliefs. Their is no compelling reason to examine your belief system because everyone who’s left was obviously either deceived or mistaken.

Hate to break it to you, but it just ain’t the case and all the platitudes in the world won’t make it so.
http://twitter.com/ockhamsbeard Tim Dean

Loathe to comment on a piece about something that is, to me, totally irrelevant, but this line caught my attention:

“And when no one is left in this world citing any authority but human opinion, which humans will decide which human opinions will be binding on which other humans?”

Let it once and for all be recognised that the absence of God doesn’t imply moral or epistemological relativism or nihilism. To suggest such is to demonstrate a profound ignorance of history, philosophy and reason.

To mention only one point to support my claim: are Christians unanimous in their interpretation of the Bible? If not, then how do they determine which interpretation is correct? They turn to humans.

So even if there *was* a supernatural authority, unless it unambiguously spelt out every prescription for how we’re to behave and what we’re to think in such a way that everyone agreed without dissent, then we already must rely on humans to help inform us about what to believe and how to act. And this doesn’t lead to nihilism or relativism.

The argument that the absence of a supernatural authority is tantamount to nihilism or relativism is ideologically bankrupt, and anyone who employs this argument does themselves and their readers a disservice.
Anonymous

KK,
I appreciate your honesty by stating your problem in the first sentence:
“You seem to make the same assumption as many evangelicals, namely that without some type of supernatural authority to direct our actions we will be lost at sea, unable to discern right from wrong or moral actions from immorality and this is simply not the case. I am quite capable, as an atheist, of making moral determinations without consulting a guide book or heavenly overseer.”
It was Jesus who said in John 14:6,”
6 “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
It’s quite obvious that your problem is not with what Daryl has to say, but instead with that claim of the Lord Jesus Christ.
http://www.infowars.com Pat Riote

God does not dwell in structures made by human hands. Jesus established the foundations of “the church” on Peter.

So then if God does not dwell is houses crafted by human hands, yet established the foundations of a church upon a person, then we know that the “church” is an assembly of people before God.

But… God sends strong delusions to the weak of mind, that they might believe a lie; seeing as how most “Christians” prefer the sweet words of men over the sometimes hard to digest Word of God.

Therefore, churches that do promote evil will continue on in like fashion of those that are not. God lets the sun shine and rain fall on the good and evil alike. It is written in Revelation that “let he who is evil be evil still”, and so it is.

But how will you know what to look for? A corrupt tree brings forth corrupt fruit, and a good tree good fruit. In example by words or works.
Anonymous

I just want to say that I deeply sympathize with your inability to stop yourself from commenting on some of these posts even though it is utterly futile! But when you seem to be surrounded by people insisting that black is white and 2 + 2 = 5 it’s difficult to resist the temptation to jump in, even though you know their minds and ears are closed.

What you say is obviously, self-evidently true. When a religious zealot says something along the lines of:

“We must do what God tells us to do because humans can’t be trusted to make their own moral judgements”, it simply means:

“You must do what I tell you to do because you can’t be trusted to make moral judgements and I can.”

I’m afraid these people are essentially, wannabe totalitarian dictators. The answer to the question that you quoted is, of course, to quote the US constitution “We the people”.
Anonymous

I’m a Southern Baptist. We believe, as a church, that once save-always saved. In other words, Southern Baptists believe that since you claimed to be a born-again Christian at one point in your life, then you still are. However, this is where I differ slightly from the rest of Southern Baptists.

Granted, there is no place in the Bible that says that either God or Christ will ever leave us or forsake us. On the other hand, there is also no place in the Bible that says that we can’t leave Him or forske Him. In other words, I believe that a born-again Christian can sell out Christ and go his or her own way. They do this with the full knowledge that they are striking out on their own. And Christ, knowing that we have free will, allows them to go and, in turn, takes away the once free gift of salvation they were given. Of course, just like the Prodigal Son, they are always welcome to come home if they choose. If they don’t, however, then they will suffer the same eternal fate that the lost will suffer.

Still, there are a lot of people out there that honestly believe they are born-again, when, in fact, they have been deceived by misinformation, mistranslation, and/or the mistaken message of deceived ministers. Several in these threads fall into the latter category. At least, that’s my belief.
http://mainereason.blogspot.com KKemerait

Just curious are you and EJ related or is it simply a fact of life that all Christians think they have this ability to read minds and know the “true” inner thoughts of others?

First of all, let’s remember that you are not quoting Jesus, you are quoting the writer of the gospel of John who is “quoting” Jesus 70 or more years after the event. I am 56 years old, this is like my father, who would be 87 writing a book of sayings, from memory of one of his high school buddies when they were 15 years old…just how accurate do you think those quotes would be? I don’t know about you, but I have a difficult time remembering exactly what it was my wife said yesterday, even though I know that failure to do so will likely get me a poke in the ribs!

That said, I have no issue with anything that Jesus said any more than I lose sleep over the pithy sayings of Confucius. You can believe in Jesus if you like, but don’t expect me to, simply because you choose to exercise faith over reason and believe in the supernatural.
Anonymous

KK-
No, I have no idea who EJ is, but even if I did, it does not change my
observation. If you believed what Jesus said, you’d have no problem
believing the rest and your letter wouldn’t have been written. That’s a
fact! I am not trying to put words in your mouth, I am not trying to tell
you what to believe, etc…
I just know from my 59 years of experience that when a person truly believes
in the Son of God, he has no problem accepting the rest of the Bible as
God’s written Word.
Like someone has so perfectly said, if we believe in Jesus and God’s Word
and die, and there was nothing to it…we still had the best life and if we
don’t believe it and die and find out it is the Truth, we have everything to
lose.
Wishing you the very best…thanks for responding…I think from your
writing that you are a very likable and honest guy.
When it is all said and done…it still comes down to the point, do people
believe in the Christ and who He said He is.
Jerry
http://mainereason.blogspot.com KKemerait

Jerry,

I believe you are referring to Blaise Pascal, it is referred to as Pascal’s wager. Here it is, laid out nicely, let’s examine it.

1. If you erroneously believe in God, you lose nothing (assuming that death is the absolute end), whereas if you correctly believe in God, you gain everything (eternal bliss).

2. But if you correctly disbelieve in God, you gain nothing (death ends all), whereas if you erroneously disbelieve in God, you lose everything (eternal damnation).

The first problem with “perfectly said” proposition, is that it presents a false dichotomy, it is NOT necessarily true that if you believe in God and you are wrong, that you lose nothing. In fact you stand to lose quite a bit, for if you are wrong then you have squandered the only life you will have, chasing after gods that do not exist, you have spent considerable energy convincing other people to waste their time and energy, sacrificing time, energy, money and worship to a non existing entity and depending on the culture or times, possibly even giving your life in defense of your beliefs. So it is obviously not true that you risk nothing by being wrong.

Secondly, it is not a forgone conclusion that you should become a Christian, in fact, since it is based on finding the “safest” path, you should actually believe in whichever god or goddess has the worst punishment or hell. For example I could use the same argument to say that you should follow the teachings of some ancient Babylonian deity, because he has a much worse eternal torment for those who don’t follow than the Christian God. So if you follow him and are wrong, you lose nothing, but if you follow the Christian God and are wrong, you risk an even worse punishment!

Lastly, Pascal is asking the reader to wager or take a course of action which affords the most protection from multiple possible outcomes, but in fact, that is not faith, it is works. If God does exist, wouldn’t He then see through this charade?
Anonymous

Hi. I watched that video. Very good. It reminded me a little of Cosmos – Carl Sagan’s 70′s TV series. I was bought the book when I was a kid and it inspired me to study physics.

I do find these discussion forums on religion strangely fascinating as I don’t really know any seriously religious people so don’t actually get the chance to discuss such things in “real life”! I’m from the UK and it’s interesting that American and British cultures are so similar in so many ways, and share the same cultural routes, yet the US is probably the most religiously observant country in the developed world and the UK is one of the least.

By the way, here’s a quirky but compelling YouTube video on the merits of reason and clear thinking:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI
http://mainereason.blogspot.com KKemerait

Steve,

Thank you, very enjoyable. Since your degree is in physics, I have a question which you could help me to understand. My son is a physics major I was going to pose the question to him, but I’d really rather not wait for him to graduate!

In layman’s terms, in the double-slit experiment, my understanding is that, until observed, the single electron exists simultaneously in all possible positions until observed, at which point the wave function collapses and the electron exists at only one location.

My question is, is the wave function which describes all the possible locations consistent. In other words is the wave function itself deterministic, predictable and independent of an observer?

Secondly, what actually constitutes an “observer”?

If I’ve misstated anything please feel free to correct me as I have no background in physics or math, I just find them fascinating.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

Thanks
Anonymous

Great comments. We, as humans, were given complex brains (by God, if you are a believer; I don’t want to assume anything.) To call scientific interest and inquiry “arrogant” is really missing the point and is an arrogant assertion in itself. God gave us complex brains, not to let atrophy, but to use. It would be quite arrogant to say that God was wrong about that.

Living

Previous story:

Next story:

VOICES

Christians, leave the credibility of the church to God

Similar articles:

BDN Marketplace News

Marketplace Businesses

BDN Marketplace Coupons

BDN Blogs

Let's Coupon!

Culture Shock

Joel Talks Movies

WPC Presents

Bangor Daily News

About Us

Subscribe

Advertising

On the Web