\n<\/p>\n
Jared\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n You\u2019re listening to Faith for Normal People, the only other God-ordained podcast on the internet.\u00a0<\/p>\n Pete\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n I\u2019m Pete Enns.\u00a0<\/p>\n Jared\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n And I\u2019m Jared Byas.<\/p>\n Intro\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n [Intro music begins]<\/p>\n Pete\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Hey, folks, it\u2019s just me on the podcast today. But before I get started, I wanted to give you a final\u2014that means last\u2014final reminder about our July summer school class called \u201cHeaven and Hell and Black Theology: Discussing Heaven and Hell Through the Lens of the Oppressed,\u201d and it\u2019s going to be led by Dr. Eboni Marshall Turman, who is a brilliant scholar, and we\u2019re so excited to learn from her. Now, it\u2019s happening on July 26th from 8-9:30pm Eastern Time. But don\u2019t worry, if you can\u2019t make it live, you can still buy the class during the pay-what-you-can window\u2014which is about to end, by the way\u2014and you\u2019ll get the recording to watch afterward. Okay, so we\u2019ll take care of you. Now, if you want access to all of our classes for just $12 a month, you can join our community called the Society of Normal People. And for more information and to sign up for summer school, go to TheBibleForNormalPeople.com\/SummerSchool.\u00a0<\/p>\n Well, folks, I\u2019m really excited about this conversation today on Faith for Normal People<\/em>, because this is something I\u2019ve been wanting to talk about on the podcast for a few years now. And I am finally getting to do that with a really great guest. And my conversation today is with Hans Halvorson, and we\u2019ll be talking about God and the cosmos. Now, Hans is a professor of philosophy at Princeton University. He\u2019s written extensively on things like the foundations of quantum physics, the philosophy of science, a bunch of other stuff. Very nerdy guy, and as you\u2019re gonna see, very relatable, and just super, super clear about stuff. So I just find that so valuable when philosophers can speak plainly. And I\u2019m not being funny, right? Sometimes they can, but sometimes they can\u2019t. Hans is one of those who\u2019s really clear. So, also, don\u2019t forget to stay tuned at the end of the episode for Quiet Time, where Jared and I are going to reflect on this conversation with Hans. Alright, folks, let\u2019s get into it.<\/p>\n [Music begins and leads into this episode\u2019s preview]<\/p>\n Hans\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n [Teaser clip of Hans speaking plays over music] \u201cIn a metaphysical sense, I do think it\u2019s true that God is a necessary being. There would be no universe without God, there really is a sense in which the universe, creation, etc. is unintelligible without the notion of God. On the other hand, I think it\u2019s possible, just talking about logical consistency, I think somebody can have a consistent set of beliefs where there\u2019s a universe and God doesn\u2019t exist in it.\u201d<\/p>\n [Intro music begins signaling the start of the episode]<\/p>\n Pete\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Hans, welcome to the podcast, it\u2019s great to have you.<\/p>\n Hans\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Thanks a lot. Happy to be here.<\/p>\n Pete\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Yeah, having a real life philosopher who\u2019s interested in science and faith and stuff like that is something that\u2019s gonna resonate a lot with our listeners. And I think one reason why\u2014and you know, you\u2019re more familiar with this than I am\u2014but you know, the science\/faith relationship is one that\u2019s often built on a conflict model where the two are at odds, or at least they\u2019re in tension with each other. And I think I\u2019d love to get to some of those questions with you about how you process the life of philosophy and science and also just the life of some type of faith. So let\u2019s begin with this; Just catch us up on everything that\u2019s happened that\u2019s been important in the last 100 years of science. You\u2019ve got one minute.<\/p>\n Hans\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n [Laughing] Yeah, okay.<\/p>\n Pete\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n No, but pertaining to our understanding of the universe, really.<\/p>\n Hans\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Yeah. So it\u2019s\u2014We are very much at the tail end of an absolute revolution in our knowledge of the physical world. So\u2014and I believe it was 1900, right around there\u2014the famous Max Planck said, \u201cWe are within a decade of completely understanding everything in the universe.\u201d And then like a year or two later, he was the guy who said, \u201cOops, there\u2019s this new thing, a quantum sort of thing that I\u2019m trying to understand,\u201d and it took them, you know, 30 years to figure out everything we thought we knew before about physics might have been wrong. But actually at the same time\u2014so this all sort of starts with 1905\u2014Einstein was trying to figure out, there was a sort of fundamental tension in classical, the story of how particles interact with each other on the one hand, and then the new theory, from the 19th century, electromagnetism. So that describes electromagnetic waves.\u00a0<\/p>\n And Einstein was trying to figure out how these hang together, it seemed like inconsistent, and he comes up with special relativity, which was incredibly radical, because the key move was to say, \u201cWhat we thought we knew about time, the very essence of time, we were mistaken about.\u201d So is this the first of many upheavals, the special theory of relativity. Then Einstein himself again, only 10 years later, he really wanted to make his new special theory of relativity consistent with gravity, what we knew about the forces of heavy bodies attracted each other. And it wasn\u2019t, it wasn\u2019t consistent because the gravitational theory developed by Newton, it has action at a distance. So Newton says, for example, the Earth orbits around the sun because it\u2019s heavy and there\u2019s this gravitational attraction law. But Newton had no story about what was pulling the earth toward the sun.\u00a0<\/p>\n So Einstein, again, revolutionizes things by saying space and time is curved so the actual mechanism that holds Earth in orbit is actually curvature of space and time. That\u2019s step two of three huge steps. The next step, which was sort of the longest in coming, was quantum theory. And that\u2019s where everything gets explosively controversial, because in many ways, we still really don\u2019t understand what the lesson of quantum theory is. And let me mention one last thing, this sort of actually wasn\u2019t noticed when it first happened, because it also took a long time. And that\u2019s right after Einstein came up with general relativity in 1915, he said, \u201cOkay, I\u2019m not done yet, I\u2019ve got one more thing I want to do. I want to explain the history of our universe, I want to explain the large scale structure where, sort of, how it\u2019s developed.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n So 1917, Einstein comes up with the first rigorous model of physical cosmology, so sort of the origin of the universe. Oddly enough, his first model was a universe without origin, it was a universe that was infinitely old. And that in the next 20 years got undermined, so that we, you know, over that process, we got the current Big Bang model of cosmology. So all of this stuff is within the past 100 years. So it\u2019s an absolute revolution in our knowledge of the nature of physical reality.<\/p>\n Pete\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n So Einstein felt that there wasn\u2019t really a beginning to the cosmos?<\/p>\n Hans\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Yeah. And people historians have conjectured about why did Einstein\u2014So in one sense, Einstein really thought that wouldn\u2019t make sense. So he was really concerned about there being stability of the sort of structure of the universe. He wasn\u2019t a dynamical thinker, he thought, the way things are now should be the way they always weren\u2019t. So some historians have wondered, was that almost a quasi-religious thing that Einstein thought in sort of eternal nature of the universe? And it was actually, so I would say, my own sense is, I don\u2019t know that Einstein was that philosophical, I think that\u2019s the conclusion he arrived at. And I\u2019m not sure he, even himself would have said, \u201cI have very good reasons for this conclusion.\u201d But I think it was the model that he thought made most sense with his general theory of relativity. What Einstein wasn\u2019t aware of\u2014and this is also an amazing experimental fact\u2014is he wasn\u2019t aware of the fact that we can see that the universe is expanding, so we can actually look, you know, with telescopes, and we see that stars are receding away from us. So there actually is change on the large scale of the universe.<\/p>\n Pete\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n So we have Einstein telling us that time isn\u2019t constant, that arrow of time isn\u2019t constant.\u00a0<\/p>\n Hans\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Yeah.<\/p>\n Pete\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Gravity isn\u2019t really a force? Maybe I\u2019m overstating here\u2014but it\u2019s not really a force, but it\u2019s due to bending this space time fabric?<\/p>\n Hans\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Yeah.\u00a0<\/p>\n Pete\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n I\u2019m a layperson. Feel free to talk down to me. [Chuckles]<\/p>\n Hans\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n No, no, I think the thing is-<\/p>\n Pete\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n I just love this stuff.<\/p>\n Hans\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Yeah, it\u2019s a thing- And also, one thing I love about this, too, is\u2014and this is why I do what I do is because\u2014this stuff gets philosophical very quickly.\u00a0<\/p>\n Hans\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Like you say, you know, \u201cIs gravity a force?\u201d And actually the truth, I think, we\u2019d say, \u201cWell, yes and no.\u201d [Laughs] So it\u2019s like we revised, we figured out better what we meant by \u201cforce.\u201d And so it is a force. It\u2019s just, it\u2019s sort of, it\u2019s a force, it\u2019s mediated by something local. And that\u2019s where the debate really takes off. Because there\u2019s some people who think we\u2019re talking about space and time is like a thing that has effects on physical objects. And there are others who are like, \u201cNo, no, you\u2019re reading too much into the theory. It\u2019s just a sort of description of this relationship between different physical objects.\u201d So things get very philosophical very quickly.<\/p>\n Pete\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n It\u2019s hard to avoid that, yeah. And so you\u2019ve mentioned quantum theory, of course, and that\u2019s the big one. So could you\u2014again, this is an unfair question to ask, because we want to get to the issues of faith and all that\u2014but what did quantum theory do to upset everybody?\u00a0<\/p>\n Hans\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Yeah.<\/p>\n Pete\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Or some people.<\/p>\n Hans\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n The crazy thing is\u2014is Einstein himself\u2026So actually, in one sense, Einstein is one of the fathers of quantum physics. He\u2019s the guy who came up with what\u2019s called the Light Quantum Hypothesis. So he said, \u201cWhat if light is not a wave that actually comes in these little packets?\u201d But then later, Einstein became deeply uncomfortable with quantum physics, because it looks like, on the face of it, quantum physics is the first physical theory to just say there are things that happen that don\u2019t have any explanation or cause. They just are random. And this of course, for physicists who sort of, in general, that, you know, the physicists are the guys who explain stuff, right? They make sense of the universe. So for physicists to say \u201cWe\u2019ve discovered that there\u2019s stuff in the universe that we can\u2019t explain, that doesn\u2019t make sense, that\u2019s random,\u201d is a very hard thing for physicists to swallow.\u00a0<\/p>\n So there\u2019s that on the one hand, and then in a way things get all the more intense in the past 50 years, because around 1963, there was this premonition that the early people in quantum physics had that something new is happening here with things that are far away from each other having\u2014and this is where again, it gets very philosophical\u2014either they affect each other somehow very rapidly, or they have some sort of like, affinity with each other, so they sort of know what each other is doing. And that became very sharp in 1963 with a physicist named John Bell who said, I\u2019m going to explain what you would see if the world didn\u2019t have sort of spooky, non-local stuff and that will give a prediction for what we\u2019ll see in the laboratory and then we\u2019ll go do the test. And Bell was right, that actually, the test shows that you can\u2019t explain what we see in the laboratory with the sort of classical understanding of causation\u2014happens just between things that sort of run into each other, things that are locally in contact. So now, in one sense, the big lesson of quantum physics seems to be a sort of non-local connectedness of things in the universe.<\/p>\n Pete\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n You\u2019re talking about entanglement\u2026?<\/p>\n Hans\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n That\u2019s absolutely right. Yeah.\u00a0<\/p>\n Pete\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Could you take another minute or two and just explain that?\u00a0<\/p>\n Hans\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Yeah, yeah.<\/p>\n Pete\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Because this is one of these truly weird things that, to be honest with you, Hans, this is the thing that made me stop and realize, if I don\u2019t understand the universe, my understanding of God is going to be affected as well.<\/p>\n Hans\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Yeah. So\u2014and I liked the way you put that, because I actually think in a certain sense, this is a really wonderful thing about modern physics. I know I have colleagues who don\u2019t agree with me on this at all, for sure. But I actually think that to find out about our ignorance, to find out that things are, that there is a deepness to the universe is a really wonderful thing for intellectual humility. And yeah, I think, again, with like theology\u2014I\u2019m no theologian\u2014but the thing is, like, wow, if the physical universe is hard [Chuckles], what if we try to talk about, you know, something even bigger?\u00a0<\/p>\n So, but yeah, entanglement. Here\u2019s the classic kind of example. So actually, in a sense, Einstein\u2014once again with Einstein, he is often the guy who saw things before other people\u2014in a sense, Einstein saw it already in 1935. He described an experiment, where he said, \u201cImagine we have two particles. And these particles, they are correlated in such a way that their distance is always the same.\u201d So here\u2019s what that means: You measure the one particle, and then if you measure the other one, it will always be the same distance. So you made the first particle, you may find it anywhere. Let\u2019s just, sort of for simplicity, imagine, everything\u2019s restricted to one dimension.\u00a0<\/p>\n So we\u2019re really talking just about, you know, along a line. And assume this. So the one particle, we measure it, we find where it is on this line, the other one will always be say, let\u2019s say one foot to the right. The strange thing is, the first particle, we find it all over the place. Some days, we find it way down the line to the left, some days, we find it way down the line to the right, but always the second one is just one foot away. It\u2019s sort of like these things, it\u2019s almost like they\u2019re connected. But at this stage, right, so far, the fact is, it doesn\u2019t make us to upset because we think, \u201cWell, maybe the first thing the first particle is there, before we measure it, we just don\u2019t know.\u201d But then actually, Einstein pointed out, he said, \u201cAccording to quantum theory, the same two particles can also have a perfect correlation in their velocity.\u201d So in other words, whenever you measure how fast the one is traveling, the other one is traveling just as fast, say in the opposite direction. So they\u2019re also perfectly correlated in their velocities.\u00a0<\/p>\n And then sort of the final blow is when you realize that according to quantum mechanics, if one thing has a precise position, it can\u2019t have, I mean, it just can\u2019t have a precise velocity. And that actually is an extension of the uncertainty principle. So the uncertainty principle, we\u2019re told, if you measure the position of something, you can\u2019t simultaneously measure its velocity or you disturb its velocity. But it actually is much worse than that. It\u2019s that, the theory says, if it has a precise position, it just, its momentum is indeterminate. Its velocity is indeterminate. It\u2019s just something- And the worst is the other way around. If something\u2019s velocity is determinate, it doesn\u2019t have a location at all, full stop. Which is mind boggling. But the strange thing about entanglement is you have these two things, in one sense, neither of them has a definite situation but their relation is nonetheless definite. So in other words, whatever happens to the one will happen to the other despite the fact that we would go wrong to say we know, I mean, we can\u2019t know what the one particle of the pair, what it\u2019s like.<\/p>\n Pete\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Just to clarify, this can\u2019t be explained on the basis of, let\u2019s say, conventional classical physics.<\/p>\n Hans\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Yeah. And that\u2019s exactly the thing I was mentioning about John Bell, is John Bell said, if it could be explained by classical physics\u2014and this was just absolutely brilliant\u2014he said, \u201cI\u2019m going to describe an experiment, I\u2019m going to tell you exactly the numbers you\u2019ll get.\u201d And he was right. Everybody agrees. He has a logically rigorous derivation. If classical physics can explain this, here\u2019s the numbers you\u2019ll get in the lab. And it took them about 20 years to actually test this very precisely, and they did and they got numbers that would not be possible according to classical physics.<\/p>\n Pete\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n So for all intents and purposes, it\u2019s been sufficiently scientifically demonstrated that this weird stuff happens on the quantum level? Okay.\u00a0<\/p>\n Hans\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Yeah.\u00a0<\/p>\n Pete\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n So\u2026 Oh, well, so much for knowing what\u2019s happening out there, right?<\/p>\n Hans\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Yeah, yeah. And I\u2019ll say this, I mean, that\u2019s why there are people with job descriptions like mine. So I do sort of philosophy and physics intertwined. And the thing is, there is a search, you know, there\u2019s a search for intelligibility. And I think those of us who work in this area, we have various degrees of discomfort with what we know right now. And some people are sort of like, \u201cOkay, look, we just have to admit, there\u2019s just a part of reality, we\u2019re never going to get a grip on, we just have to sort of come to terms with that.\u201d And then there are other researchers who are like, you know, \u201cWe\u2019re not\u2026 We haven\u2019t tried hard enough. It\u2019s not going to be just like classical physics. We know it\u2019s not going to be, but it\u2019s going to be more intelligible than what we know today.\u201d And they\u2019re working hard on that project.<\/p>\n Pete\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n We needed another Einstein to come along, I guess. Right?<\/p>\n Hans\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Yeah. I think that\u2019s sort of the feeling. It\u2019s almost like- [Chuckles] Not to overexaggerate this. But I do think we\u2019re sort of almost in like a prophetic period, right, where people are looking for the breakthrough to come in the future.<\/p>\n Pete\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Or maybe we\u2019re waiting for a Hans Halvorson, too?\u00a0<\/p>\n Hans\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n [Chuckles] Yeah, I do like to believe that philosophers are\u2026 So we live in a day and age where, honestly, most\u2026 Let me put it this way is people in the humanities, in general\u2014and I\u2019m including in this theology, Biblical studies, philosophy\u2014it\u2019s a time of discouragement, because it does feel like the intellectual burdens these days are being carried by empirical scientists. It feels a lot like our day is passed, you know, it was like 500 years ago, 300 years ago.<\/p>\n Pete\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Oh, right.\u00a0<\/p>\n Hans\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n But actually, I am firmly committed career-wise, like I actually think conceptual thinking, pushing the boundaries of what we understand and what we don\u2019t is why we need philosophers, and actually, I\u2019ll say theologians, because I think that empirical science is very specialized. And I think for the most part, empirical scientists don\u2019t get professional permission to think about the sort of harder philosophical questions.<\/p>\n Ad Break\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n [Ad break]<\/p>\n Pete\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Right, and sometimes they step into that, which is probably as annoying to some philosophers as when philosophers or theologians more often pontificate, right, on like, how quantum physics can\u2019t be true. But they can\u2019t do the math.<\/p>\n Hans\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Yeah, it\u2019s true. And I\u2019m grateful that I have met some intellectually humble scientists now. And the truth is, you know, honestly, our educational system is set up so that scientists often don\u2019t get a chance to be exposed enough to philosophical thinking, and so on. And it\u2019s not hostile on their part, it\u2019s just they don\u2019t know better. They don\u2019t understand that, for example, it\u2019s sort of commonplace among philosophers, like we all know, all of us who\u2019ve been through the curriculum, that there\u2019s this thing, the problem of induction from David Hume, that basically, inductive inference, you know, inferring from cases to a general law, can\u2019t ground itself. Like it would be circular. And so we have no really good rational reason to believe that induction is true, it\u2019s not sort of self-affirming. So in any case, this is something that most scientists just aren\u2019t aware of and so I\u2019ve heard many times over, scientists say things like, you know, \u201cour method is based on induction.\u201d And I think if they had been to a philosophy class, they would not make this assumption. So.<\/p>\n Pete\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Right. And that\u2019s why I mean, this interdisciplinary process, I guess, that we have for us and seeing more conversations happening, perhaps, between scientists and philosophers, and I would say theologians also, insofar as theology can be a historical study. How people have processed these things in the past and\u2026 Yeah, I don\u2019t think of theology as the higher science that has an immediate connection with God or something like that. It\u2019s itself an academic discipline, as is Biblical studies, looking at historical criticism and how these texts were used. And I think those kinds of conversations\u2014one reason why I really was excited to have you on here, Hans, is that that\u2019s the conversation I know many people want to have, but they lack the vocabulary or the background to do it, because this is a huge undertaking.\u00a0<\/p>\n Hans\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n That\u2019s right.\u00a0<\/p>\n Pete\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n So this is impossible for one person to really handle so to have these conversations is very important, I think.<\/p>\n Hans\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n No, I completely agree and I think honestly, it\u2019s a bit of a social dilemma that, in one sense, our universities are not addressing because, you know, we\u2019re still feeding into traditional disciplinary channels, right? So we\u2019re educating people to be physicists, there\u2019re very few people, I mean, very few people who will plan to have a career in the humanities. But, you know, these are basically separate tracks. And so I completely agree, we should all be aware of this. I think it\u2019s one of the biggest things is, we can\u2019t be like thinkers were 300 years ago, when the body of knowledge was so much smaller than it is today. That is true. It\u2019s just beyond human capability. So if we\u2019re really going to make forward progress, it\u2019s gonna have to be a conversation.\u00a0<\/p>\n And this is also I think, actually where like, you mentioned history, like I mean, there are people out there of course, who say, \u201cLook, the humanities, philosophy, history, their day is over. It\u2019s the day of the triumph of science,\u201d and in general, people who say this are people who don\u2019t know history, [Chuckling] because, you know, they\u2019ll see that actually, people have said these sorts of things before. You know, it\u2019s like, we have to know our own history, even our own scientific history to know what to do next. And in any case, my sense is what to do next is to just to realize, a human thought, it\u2019s an interdisciplinary thing in its nature and we\u2019re all just going to have to get used to the fact that none of us knows everything.<\/p>\n Pete\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Because, not only has our body of knowledge increased considerably in the last 300 years, you said, but what has been discovered is unsettling.\u00a0<\/p>\n Hans\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Yeah.<\/p>\n Pete\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n And I mean that in a neutral sense, like I don\u2019t lose sleep over this. I\u2019m more in awe and in wonder and curious about this. But it does unsettle questions like what is real? What do we mean by reality? All these things, and that\u2019s\u2014maybe we can get into this stuff now a little bit more of the religion based or philosophically based or theologically based stuff\u2014but how do you understand how science can or should or doesn\u2019t, or whatever coexist with an understanding of God? That\u2019s a huge question. Forgive me for asking it that way.<\/p>\n Hans\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n For me, it\u2019s an ongoing journey. I mean, I sort of, I would say, I\u2019ve like had stages. Let me just start by just saying like, in a sense, for me, this has been the driving question for me, sort of career long, in the sense of like, I always sort of felt there was this tension to be addressed. In one sense of, sort of super general tension between faith and reason. And then more specifically, this tension between faith and modern science as we know it. And I\u2019ll just be honest, that I grew up in a sort of pretty strictly evangelical community, where the big issue was evolution and creation. And that, for me, was a very sensitive issue, a very upsetting, troubling issue as a child as a young person. How do I make sense of this? Which team do I join? Because it seemed like you had to join a team and there\u2019s dangers on all sides, and so on.\u00a0<\/p>\n And then I would say, as I started to\u2014so in one sense, why I got into philosophy of science was for this reason. I would say there\u2019s been a lot of positive insight for me since then. First of all\u2014actually I\u2019ll start with saying, like, historically\u2014so I\u2019ve noticed that our contemporary crises, so to speak, our faith and reason crises, our science and faith crises, these are not new, these crises go back a long time. There are different things, different topics, different focus areas, I mean, you can go back to the Middle Ages, and there was the big debate about is the universe infinitely old or not? Then again, in the early modern period with physics, Newtonian physics, so it looks like a clockwork universe in which there couldn\u2019t possibly be miracles, that was itself a big faith and science crisis. So these things sort of keep coming back and going\u2026So that\u2019s helped me a lot to sort of think, \u201cOkay, I can relax, take our current situation with a grain of salt, and step back a little bit.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n And then the other thing is, I\u2019ve come more and more to appreciate\u2026I\u2019ll explain that there\u2019s a little danger here, because one could accuse me of just engaging in a certain sort of retreat, and I\u2019ll explain that. But so, I would say one thing that\u2019s really helped me to see is, I think, the really important role for in one\u2019s mind, the relationship between science and God is, I see a theological mindset being actually extremely important for motivations for doing science. I see this both historically, and I\u2019m actually convinced, a bit philosophically. I mean, I just think that I don\u2019t think there\u2019s any in principle conflict between a very rich, theistic worldview and an incredibly deeply scientific attitude. Both in the sense of like wanting scientific rigor, and then the sort of characteristically empirical side of science, like, go out and discover, go out and find out, because I think that actually has good theological grounds. I think that\u2019s a very theologically proper attitude we should have as human beings.\u00a0<\/p>\n So yes, there I was going to say some people might accuse me of sort of retreat is because I think I just, in many ways, I\u2019m just agnostic about specific issues. So one thing that a lot of people want to know is like, what I think about quantum physics and theology, and they\u2019ll be like, \u201cdon\u2019t you think that quantum physics and the discovery that there\u2019s this sort of randomness in nature,\u201d and they want to know, \u201cDo you think either that\u2019s, like really good for theology? Like now we have room for freedom, or maybe room for God\u2019s intervening?\u201d Or vice versa: Is that really bad? Because now it\u2019s like God doesn\u2019t have control or something? Like how can that be a universe created by God? And I think in a certain sense I\u2019ve become more agnostic, where I just think I just don\u2019t know, I don\u2019t know what to think. So I think in a way, on the one hand, I\u2019ve become more robustly theist and thinking in a certain sense, I think science needs God as a sort of guiding principle. On the other hand, I\u2019ve become kind of like, I don\u2019t think the idea of reconciling in details, you know, \u201clet\u2019s look at a particular thing that\u2019s happening in physics right now, let\u2019s ask how that fits with our theology right now,\u201d I just think, often what I\u2019ve seen historically, is people get worked up about the details only to find out later, the details were different than they thought, so maybe it was not the best use of their time to get worked up about that.<\/p>\n Pete\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Right. Yeah, people do get worked up about this sort of thing, too. That\u2019s for sure. So. Alright, let me ask this question, then. You\u2019ve already suggested that, you know, God is worthwhile positing for scientific inquiry. Do you think God is necessary for the universe to have come about?\u00a0<\/p>\n Hans\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n So um\u2026 [Huffs]<\/p>\n Pete\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n You know, and feel free to be honest here.\u00a0<\/p>\n Hans\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n No, no-<\/p>\n Hans\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n I think I have, strangely enough, a sort of double opinion in the following sentence. So here\u2019s the first thing is; I actually do think, I mean, I am sort of, like\u2014Put it this way. In a metaphysical sense, I do think it\u2019s true that I think God\u2014and this is gonna sound awfully like Greek philosophical, not maybe Christian or biblical theological\u2014but you know, God is a necessary being. There would be no universe without God. I also think in a metaphysical sense, there really is a sense in which the universe, creation, etc, you know, the beginning, is unintelligible without the notion of God. I do think that\u2019s true. On the other hand\u2014so what makes my view a little bit delicate and light on the other side is\u2014I think it\u2019s possible to be consistent, I think one can have a consistent set of beliefs\u2026 Now consistent in a looser sense than like, you know, I think ultimately, it doesn\u2019t make sense. But I think just talking about logical consistency, I think somebody can have a consistent set of beliefs where there\u2019s a universe and God doesn\u2019t exist.\u00a0<\/p>\n And what I mean by that is, I don\u2019t think some of the traditional arguments, like sort of simplistic arguments, like everything has a cause, the universe therefore has to have a cause. I don\u2019t think those are convincing. I mean, I just think there\u2019s always a way to dance around those. And so I\u2019m not motivated to go to colleagues who are not, you know, don\u2019t have theistic inclinations, and say, I\u2019m going to catch you out, because I think they\u2019re always going to have some special logic trick up their sleeves, where they\u2019re going to maintain consistency, they\u2019re always going to find a way to defend the internal workings of their system. And actually, in a way, it\u2019s funny, because I grew up on this sort of stuff a little bit too and so I, you know, I remember being taught as a young person, sort of apologetic things. It\u2019s like, you can have these sort of like clashing worldviews, right? Where in some sense, they\u2019re internally consistent, then what do you do if you want to sort of convince somebody with a clashing worldview, that they ought to have a worldview like yours? And I think that\u2019s just a dilemma in the sense of, I\u2019m not going to be able to convince somebody who doesn\u2019t have God in their picture that they need to have God in their picture, to have a consistent science of the early universe.<\/p>\n Pete\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n I think a lot depends, too, on what we mean by God, which, you know-<\/p>\n Hans\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Oh, yeah, yeah-<\/p>\n Pete\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n And it gets a little bit tricky, but\u2026<\/p>\n Hans\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n That\u2019s a whole nother interesting thing, because it\u2019s one thing\u2014that\u2019s a really great point, because I myself would find it far, then, from satisfactory just to do some long, long argument to end up with, there has to be some abstract creator. You know, I think that\u2019s still infinitely far away from the biblical God. Right? So it\u2019s like, to go from our universe to there needs to be some very, very powerful type creator, maybe even omnipotent is one thing. Why would we land at the Christian God, is a whole nother stretch. And that\u2019s actually a point that the philosopher David Hume made a long time ago, Hume said, you know, \u201cWhat\u2019s this extra step that people take from a creator to the Creator, we, you know, call God from the Bible?\u201d<\/p>\n Pete\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Right, a specific religious system, or religious tradition, rather than just a general theistic argument. Yeah, because those two things. I mean, it\u2019s hard. How do you jump from one to the other? I think you\u2019re probably leaving the world of philosophy, then, is my guess.<\/p>\n Hans\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Yeah, it\u2019s true. It\u2019s- I mean, there are philosophers who\u2026 So this is, it\u2019s actually interesting. I think it\u2019s largely a semantic question, in the sense that I\u2019m not sure there\u2019s a very sharp definition that everyone agrees on, sort of \u201cWhat\u2019s the domain of philosophy and what\u2019s beyond?\u201d There were people you know, who thought, like, \u201cHere\u2019s philosophy, here\u2019s reason, and then there\u2019s faith or something.\u201d But it is, let me put it this way, there\u2019s some thinkers who think, I can give you logically rigorous arguments that are going to take you all the way, not just to God, but beyond specific, you know, biblical truths to maybe like reliability of the Bible or something like that. And I think just methodologically, I mean, I think I\u2019ve just been convinced by people I talked to that\u2014that\u2019s, you know, overall, not necessarily the best strategy to, [Chuckles] to approach these things with, is like, that\u2019s just sort of statistically speaking, one of the rarest cases of somebody having true realization, so to speak. So.<\/p>\n Pete\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n I think there\u2019s a humility in feeling like you can\u2019t push things too far. And maybe just living with some of the ambiguities and you know, if there\u2019s ambiguity in the created order, as Christians sometimes say, maybe there\u2019s ambiguity in the Creator as well, and we just have to learn to live with our human limitations. And I sleep better at night thinking that way, than feeling like I have to have a handle on it all. You know, I can\u2019t find my car keys half the time, I\u2019m not gonna be able to figure out the nature of the cosmos.<\/p>\n Hans\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Yeah, I know, you know, from my own background, I think it\u2019s it\u2019s good to be decisive but it feels to me like there often has been sort of messages sent in maybe evangelical Christian communities that like, pick your side and be very clear about it, you know, either you have a totally intelligible Christianity, like your system has worked out, you know, you know how God works, or just kick it away, right? If you can\u2019t have that, because you\u2019re gonna have to have total clarity on one side or the other. And I think for many of us who grew up these ways, or you know, we\u2019re educated these ways, it\u2019s like, it\u2019s a really important and very difficult thing, to be able to accept gray areas and to say, like, it\u2019s a little bit of intellectual humility. Now, I mean, I\u2019m very well aware we, it\u2019s a judgment of wisdom. Where do we say humility and where do we say boldness, right? Where do we say humility, and where we say, \u201cAnd yet we stand\u201d about something? That\u2019s really difficult.<\/p>\n Pete\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Exactly. And that\u2019s a good way to get yourself into a good bar fight with Christians I think.<\/p>\n Hans\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n [Laughs] Yeah.<\/p>\n Ad Break\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n [Ad break]<\/p>\n Pete\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Given your background, and then your training in philosophy, and your knowledge of science, and of course, you intersect with theology personally, and maybe professionally as well. Boy, I hate this question when I get it. But I\u2019m gonna ask you anyway, because I have you here. Talk about what you think God is.<\/p>\n Hans\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Yeah, yeah. So, you know, actually I<\/p>\n Pete\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n -By the way, there\u2019s no right answer. So, go ahead.<\/p>\n Hans\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Yeah, no, no. And I do think I\u2019m getting a better answer and it\u2019s actually a difficult answer for me, because it sounds like the kinds of things I would have thought are wishy-washy. But you know, I do think God is infinite love, is the first thing. And that\u2019s hard for me, because it\u2019s not philosophically clear. You know, it sort of like subtracts a bunch of other things that we think are crucial, you know, God is law-giver, or you know, God is creator, right? All those things. But I think for me, starting there is the really important part because of its effect on me, where I think the first thing I should do when I think of God, is I should think of what it means for me. My relationship to God. It\u2019s not an abstract theoretical thing\u2014it is that, but beyond that\u2014what kind of meaning does should my life have. And there is where, I think that, first of all, this miracle that we\u2019re created, but then the sort of second miracle that we are loved, despite everything- I mean, all of us who\u2019ve ever done some serious introspection, knowing what kind of garbage is inside of us. [Chuckles] And knowing that God continues to love us, and I, that\u2019s just such an incredible miracle that one can, every day, be humiliated by it, but also uplifted by it. So that\u2019s been really, really important for me through sort of rough seas, so to speak, of doubts, of thinking, you know, the Christianity I grew up with, I don\u2019t recognize it anymore, I don\u2019t understand where I came from, where I should be going. So I think that, for me, is the important thing. And it also is something sort of my most trusted fellow travelers, who I speak to about these things, who I even trust more than myself to say what they think and this is the sort of things the directions they\u2019ve led me in. And it feels like, despite the lack of understanding I have, it\u2019s a direction I\u2019m still willing to go.<\/p>\n Pete\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Right. So it is a journey, in that sense, and not a scientific conclusion or something like that, I guess. Yeah. So I have to ask you this, too. But I mean, I agree with you personally, you know, God is infinite love. That\u2019s a great starting point, and how that works itself out, and how we live and how we choose to live, so it\u2019s not simply an abstraction, but it\u2019s something that\u2019s very grounded. But the question everybody will ask and has been asking since the Babylonians, \u201cOkay, why does bad stuff happen?\u201d The God of infinite love, and yet we have a universe that has, death is all around us, you know, cosmologically things, you know, stars explode, and new ones form, and then life comes from that and for many people\u2014and understandably\u2014so it\u2019s hard to reconcile a universe that is not just random, but has a lot of violence in it, as if that\u2019s almost the way of it. So you\u2019re a philosopher, and you get to solve that for us. [Chuckles]<\/p>\n Hans\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Yeah, yeah. And so the first thing I\u2019ll say about this\u2014no, I think, here\u2019s the thing is\u2014philosophers, throughout history, often they feel like their goal is to take the mysterious and make it intelligible, to take the mysterious and make it make sense. And here, I think, with this issue, the issue of evil and suffering. I think this is one place where philosophers, the first thing they should do before they begin any further discussion is to tell themselves, this problem must not be minimized. I mean, I think the worst thing we possibly can do as thinkers, as philosophers, is to come and tell people, \u201cThis problem kind of doesn\u2019t really exist. Let me explain why. So I\u2019m going to explain to you why this all actually makes sense.\u201d Because that denies a reality that I just think should not be denied. I mean, I honestly think in a certain sense\u2014and listen, these are hard words\u2014I honestly think it would be a better thing for a person to run away from God, recognizing this horror in our world, then to deny the existence of it. Because I think if you deny the existence, you aren\u2019t really\u2026 I mean, I do-<\/p>\n Pete\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Well, you\u2019re not authentic.<\/p>\n Hans\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Yeah, I think you\u2019re not being authentic- I think, let me put it this way is, if God exists, I think the very fact that this stuff is there, that the word is so horrible, is something God wants us to struggle with. And that- It\u2019s a horrible thing to say, like I just think, \u201cI don\u2019t understand, I don\u2019t understand,\u201d but I just think we can\u2019t deny it. So in my life, I\u2019ve actually faced, relatively, compared to the world\u2019s masses, and even people I know very closely, I\u2019ve faced very little direct horror and suffering. I\u2019ve had a couple cases where I really\u2014as I think all of us have had\u2014at least a couple cases where you just think this cannot be true that there\u2019s a loving God, this just doesn\u2019t fit. And obviously, you know, in those sorts of cases, all the philosopher stories ever aren\u2019t- They do nothing for you in that sort of setting.\u00a0<\/p>\n So anyways, that\u2019s just the preface to say it, I don\u2019t really- I do\u2014now to sort of become much more sort of sober and down to earth about it\u2014I can\u2019t remember who, I think a few different historical theologians have said this. And I know a few recent theologians and philosophers have sort of repeated this sort of idea of soul making. And that actually does resonate a lot with me, this sort of profoundly interesting thing that this sort of once again, miracle that God could create free creatures\u2014and let\u2019s take that really seriously, right?\u2014God really could create creatures who are participants in the creative action and who are actually really becoming individuals through their lives. And I think, I don\u2019t necessarily want to say suffering had to be there, evil had to be there, but let me put it this way, it\u2019s definitely true, I think, that the wrestling with the suffering, the wrestling with the evil makes us more, right? The process makes us more. And you know, I hate to say like, you know, \u201cOkay, my theory is God knew this, God knew that to make souls, there would have to be a bunch of suffering, and so on,\u201d like that, that gets us in a very tough theoretical weeds. But I will say, I think that\u2019s the best answer. I think the best answer is, the suffering is allowed to be there because it is so valuable to God that there be created souls who can be in relationship with each other and with him.<\/p>\n Pete\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n [Hums] Yeah, we have time for one more question here. And I really am interested in this, given your own faith background, and how you were raised, you have sensitivity, I think, for religious people who struggle with science. And they struggle with the relationship between their faith and their science. So for those people of faith, who are maybe just beginning to engage with science, they see its value. Right? They love it, they say \u201cThis is fantastic. I\u2019m so curious.\u201d But they\u2019re concerned about just having a severe crisis of faith. How might you respond to someone like that? What would you say to them?<\/p>\n Hans\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Yeah, so I would love it if I could just launch straight in and say, like, take courage to yourself, because the thing is, you know, actually, in a way, it is really good for you, right? It\u2019s really good for your faith to put yourself into these sorts of tests and so on. And actually, I do think that\u2019s all very true. And I actually think that I do believe that it\u2019s very important for young people to not think\u2026I think there\u2019s a huge temptation to think the best way to live a life of deep faith and integrity is to do something professionally or whatever that\u2019s very closely related to your faith, like, to go into ministry or something like that to be a missionary, stuff like that. And not to denigrate those at all. I mean, as they\u2019re incredibly important callings. But I actually think that God has a lot of lessons for probably the majority of us in much different callings. And I think to work out our faith in those very specific callings is really what\u2019s needed. So I mean, I myself, I\u2019ve had a strange career, because I am not a scientist, per se, I do philosophy of science. I still think though, it actually was like a really, really great thing that happened that I ended up doing what I was doing, because some of the tests I\u2019ve been exposed to have strengthened me\u2014I actually do think, truth be told, my faith is much stronger now than it was when I was young. It\u2019s changed in some ways, for sure. But I do think it\u2019s much more robust.\u00a0<\/p>\n Pete\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n It\u2019s matured.<\/p>\n Hans\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Yeah, it\u2019s matured. And I think the fact that I was sort of thrown out into deep waters in a context where I was a minority of my belief and so on, was really, really good for me to have to see it from these perspectives. That\u2019s one thing. On the other hand, I did- The one thing I did want to say is, I do think for everybody to journey, and I think that it\u2019s perfectly\u2026 We should be okay, also, with being afraid, so to speak, like with saying, you know, \u201cLook, I\u2019m nervous about what could happen to me,\u201d and I think that\u2019s a very fair thing. I mean, look, to give a down to earth example, and Soren Kierkegaard gives this kind of analogy\u2014he was the master at the analogy of our relationship to God with relationships with other people. And he points out that you know, when, for example, you get in a long term romantic relationship, or even you know, you get married, you don\u2019t know what that\u2019s going to do to you. It\u2019s a huge risk. I mean, because you don\u2019t know who you\u2019re going to become in your relationship with this other person. And I can testify as a guy who\u2019s been married for over 25 years, like, that\u2019s totally correct. Like, I mean, it\u2019s really interesting, you never know where you\u2019re gonna end up.\u00a0<\/p>\n And so I\u2019d say the same thing here is like, life is full of really, really big risks, especially for young people as you shape your life. And I think what I would say is, first of all, have faith. Also have an open mind, because there\u2019s a lot of myths and misinformation going on and I would say about science, especially. You know, unfortunately, we live in a culture where, in one sense, the majority of\u2014there\u2019s different statistics here\u2014but in one sense, a majority of people in science don\u2019t have faith of any sort and there\u2019s a lot of very vocal people in science, who act as if, you know, well, this is like a choice, either or choice. It\u2019s science or faith. And I\u2019ll just say flat out, misinformation. I mean, it\u2019s misinformation historically. It\u2019s misinformation about the origins of science. And it\u2019s misinformation\u2014if I can speak, anecdotally\u2014just in my experience, it\u2019s like, you learn a lot about faith in scientific settings and you learn that actually, it\u2019s much less in tension than you might have thought when, say, you\u2019re a high school student. It\u2019s just, science is much more cool and interesting when it gets more advanced. And that cool and interesting includes more gray areas. It\u2019s not like, you know, \u201cOh, science shows that miracles are not impossible,\u201d that just is- I mean, if you get into the real nitty gritty of science, it\u2019s more like when you get to the nitty gritty of science, we don\u2019t even know we\u2019re talking anymore about like-<\/p>\n Pete\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n That\u2019s right [Laughs].<\/p>\n Hans\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Everything now has gotten really, really murky and mysterious and beautiful and interesting. So I\u2019d say on the far side of it is a sort of beauty that these vistas that open up\u2014and actually let me give one little shout out to a friend of mine, who showed some of this to me. And he has a book that came out recently, maybe a year ago,\u2014Andrew Steane, who\u2019s at Oxford University. He\u2019s a physicist, very, very sincere Christian, a wonderful example to me. And he\u2019s written some incredible things about his experience as a physicist at the cutting edge, and how it\u2019s built his faith. And actually, he\u2019s a guy who didn\u2019t grow up Christian. So anyways, he is an example to me. And I\u2019m just very grateful for the other examples I met, who told me, \u201cDon\u2019t be afraid, things work better on the other side.\u201d<\/p>\n Pete\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Thank you so much for, first of all, those closing comments. Very, very helpful. And just for the time to talk with us about things that are\u2026 Well, we could go on forever talking about this stuff, but just fascinating and important. And just want to thank you very much for being with us.<\/p>\n Hans\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Yeah, absolutely. Thank you.<\/p>\n Ad Break\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n [Ad break]<\/p>\n Jared\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n And now for Quiet Time\u2026<\/p>\n Pete\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n \u2026With Pete and Jared.<\/p>\n Jared\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Alright, so you\u2019ve been thinking about this universe creation thing for a long time. And you wrote \u201cCurveball,\u201d most recently, where I think, maybe the most explicitly you\u2019ve delved into, you know, physics, cosmology, universe stuff. So knowing all that you know about the Bible, after all these, you know, interviews and all this research for your books, what\u2019s your own conjectures now? Definitive, world premiere exclusive.\u00a0<\/p>\n Pete\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Yeah.<\/p>\n Jared\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Pete\u2019s view about the universe and it\u2019s creation-\u00a0<\/p>\n Pete\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Well, you say, I\u2019ve been thinking a lot about it. I think I\u2019ve been trying to learn a lot about it. Right.<\/p>\n Pete\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Because this is just out of my area. But I just listened to what scientists told me to think. [Laughs] I don\u2019t mind saying that either because what do I know?<\/p>\n Jared\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n [Hums in agreement] Yeah.<\/p>\n Jared\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Sheeple.<\/p>\n Pete\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Yeah, no, \u201csheep.\u201d It\u2019s such- No, I\u2019m not a sheep for thinking that. The sheep are those who say they don\u2019t, they\u2019re told they don\u2019t have to listen to what scientists say and then go on with it. So.<\/p>\n Jared\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n But where are you now? What\u2019s your conjecture? Where- If you had to be pinned down? What are your\u2026 What are you lean?\u00a0<\/p>\n Pete\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n In terms of like, where the universe-<\/p>\n Jared\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n The universe and the creation. Where did it come from?<\/p>\n Pete\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n I don\u2019t know. I haven\u2019t the slightest idea. Honestly. It\u2019s just, you know, we\u2019ve gone back to 10 to the negative 45th seconds or something like that and we can\u2019t get beyond that. So\u2026 And is there a multiverse? I don\u2019t know. Like, that just pushes the problem back further. What are we talking about when we talk about God in the midst of all this? When there\u2019s no space or time, what does it mean to think about God? We just don\u2019t have categories for that stuff. So I think for me, I\u2019m just happy leaving it alone and just being curious about it, but just not knowing. So I don\u2019t have the most definitive thing that I feel I can say to myself, as I\u2019m really not sure, I just know that this is very old and incomprehensible to me. Even without a multiverse. Even if we could figure out what happened at the moment of the Big Bang\u2014or whatever we\u2019re gonna call it\u2014I still wouldn\u2019t understand it. It would still be so far from my mind and my ability to comprehend it wouldn\u2019t be\u2026 I could never wrap my head around that.<\/p>\n Jared\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n It just struck me in a new way when you were talking that, for so much of my upbringing, if we could go back and see when the world was created, it would sort of solve all of our theological problems one way or the other. Right?<\/p>\n Pete\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Right.<\/p>\n Jared\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n So I feel like the scientists of my upbringing-<\/p>\n Pete\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n You mean just our planet, even.\u00a0<\/p>\n Jared\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Yeah, like-<\/p>\n Pete\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Let alone everywhere else.<\/p>\n Jared\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n -Scientists in my upbringing would have been like, \u201cWell, if we could see it, then that would definitively prove that there is no God, theologically there\u2019s nothing there. We saw what happened.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Pete\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Right.<\/p>\n Jared\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cIt was it was purely, you know, materialistic, causation,\u201d or whatever. And then the other side would be like, \u201cWell, if we could go back, we would see an Adam and Eve like, we will see the Genesis 1:1 activities happening,\u201d<\/p>\n Pete\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Right. Mhmm.<\/p>\n Jared\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n And that would define it. And it\u2019s just it just struck me when you\u2019re saying that\u2014it had struck me in a new way\u2014We don\u2019t do that with anything else.\u00a0<\/p>\n Pete\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Right. Oh, yeah. Yeah.<\/p>\n Jared\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n There\u2019s nothing else where God is excluded because of the things that go on in our world.<\/p>\n Jared\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Right and it just seems so focused on origins.<\/p>\n Pete\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Right, exactly right. Yeah. Because we\u2019ve had this fight between the Bible and science.<\/p>\n Pete\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Right.<\/p>\n Jared\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n That when we extrapolate it, I don\u2019t know, the problem doesn\u2019t seem so severe.<\/p>\n Pete\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Right. And to think, you know, if we could go back and see the materialistic origins, whichever way you want to put that, I\u2019d say, \u201cWell, yeah, that\u2019s exactly what you see, materialistic origins.\u201d The question then is, what\u2019s the theological conversation between that, and the, quote, \u201cexistence of God?\u201d Which is a term that I have some still difficulty with, like, what does it mean for God to exist? And all that kind of stuff but-<\/p>\n Jared\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Right, right.\u00a0<\/p>\n Pete\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n You know, so I think that brings us to, I think, humility. [Scoffs] You know, dare I say that? That seems like a throwaway line. But it\u2019s not, we just don\u2019t know.\u00a0<\/p>\n Jared\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Right.<\/p>\n Pete\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n You know, we don\u2019t know how things came to be really. We have a good idea about things. But we certainly don\u2019t know or understand the relationship between God and the stuff that happened. You know? And the older view is a God is up there dictating or directing and\u2014we\u2019re conjecturing here\u2014but that, to me seems to make\u2026 I just think that\u2019s false.\u00a0<\/p>\n