Is Gandhi in hell? Itโs a question that should puncture religious chauvinism and unsettle fundamentalists of every stripe. But thereโs a question that should be asked in turn: Is Tony Soprano really in heaven?
A couple of rhetorical questions posed by Ross Douthat, who does us all the favor of reminding us how certain ideas that would otherwise be too ugly and despicable to be shared among polite society become perfectly respectable under the rubric of religion. (Via Steve Mirsky on the twitters.) In this case, the idea is: certain people are just bad, and the appropriate response is to subject them to torment for all time, without hope of reprieve. Now that’s the kind of morality I want my society to be based on.
The quote is extremely telling. Note that the first question is never actually answered — is Gandhi in hell? And there’s a good reason it’s never answered, because the answer would probably be “yes.” Hell is an imaginary place invented by people who think that eternal torture for people they disapprove of would be a good idea. And it’s the rare religion that says “we approve of all good people, whether or not they share our religious beliefs.” Much more commonly, Hell is brought up to scare people away from deviating from a particular religious path. Here’s the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
Jesus often speaks of “Gehenna” of “the unquenchable fire” reserved for those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe and be converted, where both soul and body can be lost. Jesus solemnly proclaims that he “will send his angels, and they will gather . . . all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire”, and that he will pronounce the condemnation: “Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!”
Do you think that, at the end of his life, Gandhi decided to believe in Jesus and converted?
The second question is equally telling, because even Douthat can’t bring himself to use a non-fictional person as an example of someone who deserves Hell. He’s trying to make the point that “we are defined by the decisions we make,” and if there is no way to make bad decisions then making good decisions is devalued. Which is a fine point to make, and many atheists would be happy to agree. The difference is that we don’t think that people who make bad decisions deserve to be tortured for all of eternity.
This enthusiastic stumping for the reality of Hell betrays not only a shriveled sense of human decency and a repulsive interest in pain inflicted on others, but a deplorable lack of imagination. People have a hard time taking eternity seriously. I don’t know of any theological descriptions of Hell that involve some version of parole hearings at regular intervals. The usual assumption is that it’s an eternal sentence. For all the pious musings about the centrality of human choice, few of Hell’s advocates allow for some version of that choice to persist after death. Seventy years or so on Earth, with unclear instructions and bad advice; infinity years in Hell for making the wrong decisions.
Hell isn’t an essential ingredient in humanity’s freedom of agency; it’s a horrible of invention by despicable people who can’t rise above their own petty bloody-mindedness. The thought of condemning millions of people to an eternity of torment makes Ross Douthat feel good about himself and gives him a chance to indulge in some saucy contrarianism. I tend to take issue with religion on the grounds that it’s factually wrong, not morally reprehensible; but if you want evidence for the latter, here you go.
“I, also, am partial to those religions that have a sense of humour built in to them.”
wow…i hadn’t thought of that before. Is anglo-saxon christianity the only religion without a sense of humor? In Islam may sufi teaching stories are humorous, and and of course my beloved Mullah Nasruddin stories.
Coyote in Navajo mythos is a good example and Loki the trickster in Norse mythology.
Any other suggestions?
Perhaps all Ross Douthat needs is a sense of humor.
We could take up a collection.
wa alaykumus salaam Matthew
yes, al-Islam is a consensus religion, and the practice of Islam is proscribed by the Generous Quran, a manual for being a good human. The Quran is interpreted by islamic jurisprudence aka shariah law. Some past interpretations are “fixed” by hadith and sunnah.
The hadith and sunnah enforce a sort of memetic hygiene against mutation.
I think this is particularily important for arabic texts….for example there are 77 words for different kinds of love in arabic. This is also why the Quran is reguarded as untranslatable, indeed there is an injunction against translation– to preserve the original meaning inviolate.
Namaste shams.
re: humour in religion. Yes, I was thinking also of Sufi here (just <3 Rumi cbuh–I have a picture of a quote of His that I found etched into a beach in WA state), Zen Buddhism, Judaism, Discordianism, Church of All Worlds and the Church of the Subgenius. Way too much of WASP religion doesn't have that sense of humour :3 Just look at the USA's reaction to September 11th…instead of dealing with the actual issue, an orgasm of trying to make the whole world completely safe…which is a fool's game.
Thank you for the information on Islam and the Koran. I view there being a difference between a consensus and being monolithic — something that is monolithic would mean that there is only One True Interpretation of something, which everyone MUST follow (well, everyone can only follow because that is the only interpretation). There are lots of varieties of consensus…like Sufi is different from Sunni etc etc, and there are sub-sects within each group.
And I think the only way to get the original meaning would be to not have people involved in reading it. Because as soon as we read something, it becomes ours — the words, which are meaningless by themselves, dead, get their meaning when observed by something with a neurology like ours and, from that, actions. I think that religions like Judaism and Christianity have already gone through this stage (and the current mutant strain of American Fundamentalist Protestantism, the one that takes the Bible literally, is mellowing out…)
I like to look at a sacred text and look at the usages of each word and try to think of them all being true at the same time, or plug in a different usage and see how that changes things, how much or how little.
But I understand all of what you are writing, all these mechanisms that try to maintain a social cohesion of an ideal that requires people to perpetuate it. Especially ones that can guide people away from their own role in the creation of such things as meaning and the world because, I guess, people can’t be trusted with that much power.
wallah, that is very perceptive.
That is why quranic recitation is so popular, because arabic is an oral tradition language ….spoken before it was written.
In order to become an islamic scholar the first step is to memorize the Quran and recite it.
It is like passing the bar for islamic jurisprudence.
“look at the usages of each word and try to think of them all being true at the same time, or plug in a different usage and see how that changes things, how much or how little.”
In al-Islam we speak of mutawatir, it means still sending, still in continuous transmission. For example many scholars believe the directive to cover has stopped sending, is no longer in mutawatir. But some don’t, our fundamentalists, they resist that. In a consensus religion it takes a long time to change.
The uncreated, revealed Quran is outside spacetime, so it must incorporate all the necessary meanings across spacetime.
But only trained scholars can say if the translation we are using is still in mutawatir.
That’s brilliant! I can just imagine an Islam scholar who also happens to be a Physicist who believes in the Many Worlds Interpretation.
Perhaps you could clarify this for me. I’ve heard that there is and has been a kind of civil war going on in Islam, between two groups who are vying for dominance?
Shams, thanks for sharing. I wasn’t aware that there was a strain of Islam that teaches postmodernism and cultural relativism. I’ve actually been having conversations with some fundamentalist Chrstians recently who rely heavily on moral and cultural relativism to excuse some of the stuff in the Torah.
salaamu aleykum Matthew
“I can just imagine an Islam scholar who also happens to be a Physicist who believes in the Many Worlds Interpretation.”
Can you imagine that Imam Ghazali postulated Many Worlds theory as a response to Aristotles eternal universe a full 400 years before the catholics tried to burn Galileo ? lol!
Do you mean the Sunni/Shi’ia schizm?
and salaams to you too Dan.
Muhyyiddin Ibn Arabi once said
“Beware of confining yourself to a particular belief and denying all else, for much good would elude youโindeed, the knowledge of reality would elude you. Be in yourself a matter for all forms of belief, for God is too vast and tremendous to be restricted to one belief rather than another.”
The Sufi Poet-Saint Manzar-Jan-i-Janan said
“You should know that the Merciful Being, in the beginning of creation, sent a book named Ved; this is apparent from the ancient scripture of the Indians. This book is in four parts [Rig Veda, Sama Veda, Yajur Veda and Atharva Veda] [and is] meant to regulate the duties of the people in this world and the next through the instrumentality of the divine Brahma, who is omnipotent. Now it must be borne in mind that the Koran states: ‘And there is not a people to whom a warner has not been sent’ [35:24]; and further, ‘To every land we have sent a warner’ [25:51] Hence there were prophets in India as in other countries and their accounts are to be found in their books. How could God, the Beneficent, the Merciful, have left out of his grace such an extensive portion of the globe?”
And Dan, do not think of Sufis as muslim light, we are muslim l33t. mutawatir is part of all islamic jurisprudence. Islamic jurisprudence (shariah law) is true for all muslims. To me, westernculture seems almost willfully ignorant of Islam. Do you think that this is because of the scholarly tradition of orientalism or because of 9/11 ?
salaams Yoav Golan
“Why is it all-too-often that physicists mistake themselves for philosophers?”
Dr. Carroll is obviously a third culture intellectual.
An avatar of a new class of philosophers.
Have you not read the book?
Sean,
I believe that you are sincerely misguided.
Religion and faith in Jesus CHRIST are different but related things. If you read the Bible you will understand that Jesus Himself made this distinction.
Secondly, it is inappropriate to assume that you have any deep understanding of faith which allows you to form a critique unless you have mastered certain aspects of it.
Simply because the invitation to understand faith is given to all does not mean that all creatures understand it.
Now, if you don’t even understand the difference between religion and faith how is it possible for you to even begin to understand the judgements that follow one who lacks faith?
Moreover, how can you possibly understand the Christian faith, which is especially unique, if you have not let go of the ignorance you so blatantly display?
If I made an equivalent statement in physics, no one would pay attention to me and you’d label me a crackpot. In Christianity, the word sinner has the same connotations as the word crackpot.
If I find a teacher of physics and open my heart to understanding, or at least check that my understanding is accurate, I will no longer be called a crackpot.
Likewise you Sean. If you find a teacher and open your heart to understanding you will no longer be called a sinner but a disciple. Hell will no longer be your destination.
This offer is free of charge, open to everyone. That is to say, the price to enter heaven has been paid. Sadly, most prefer to pay the price of entrance into hell.
Namaste shams,
“Can you imagine that Imam Ghazali postulated Many Worlds theory as a response to Aristotles eternal universe a full 400 years before the catholics tried to burn Galileo ? lol!”
I can believe it! I mean, the Australian aborigines sailed to Australia using sailing technology that wasn’t invented yet. There have been finds in solid rock of things like modern human footprints, or strange writings within geodes. Perhaps time goes in cycles instead of forward?
“Do you mean the Sunni/Shiโia schizm?”
I do.
There seems to be one model that, since this ‘genocide’ has been going on for centuries, with Muslim sinning against Muslim (doesn’t that always seem to be too often the case with humanity, the same species murdering each other? Such a shame and a waste), that was ‘alright’ in the old days, but becomes more problematic when a more global civilization starts, so other countries can not not become involved. Can’t avoid it.
Does that sound familiar to you?
Claver…umm…pardon….but you are proselytizing. Proselytizing was the most successful EGT strategy for more than a thousand years. It was easy to join…all one had to do for membership was accept The Christ.
But not any more. Anglosaxon christianity is no longer the most successful ESS on the planet.
Because anglosaxons are increasingly a global minority.
Proselytizing is how anglo-saxon christianity became the most successful ESS in history, but the new global arms race is human capital. And anglo-saxons are global paupers.
In 20 years one out of four humans on the planet will be muslim.
We have not reached the end of history because we have not reached the end of evolution. Dr. Carroll is a prophet of the next instantiation of human religion.
๐
asalamu alaikum warahmatullahi wabarakatuh Matthew
The Sunni/Shi’ia divide is the continuation of the Real Forever War, the war that is going on in America even to this day. It is the war of Kylon against Pythagoras….the war of the oligarchs and their chattel slaves against free humans everywhere.
Namaste shams,
“The Sunni/Shiโia divide is the continuation of the Real Forever War, the war that is going on in America even to this day. It is the war of Kylon against Pythagorasโฆ.the war of the oligarchs and their chattel slaves against free humans everywhere.”
Ahh dualisms again ๐ The eternal battle between Entropy and Life, between Freedom and Control, between Levity and Gravity, Ignorance and Knowledge.
Pythagoras the mystic, still infecting science. Pythagoras the mystic, exploring His psyche and discovering GEMS and WORLDS and DIETIES.
Kylon the ignorant, murdering that which he cannot control.
So what to do? Whose Islam is going to take over and remake everyone in their image? Or will things continue to be ‘secular’ (whatever that means), and the organized religions will grok their place in the world and stop trying to take everyone else over, but be allowed to exist without killing each other because of their interpretations.
Will humanity ever get over these Crazy Years? I have hope.
@shams,
No, I am not proselytizing. And no, accepting the CHRIST is NOT all one has to do otherwise the faith would not be deep. Though it is acceptable.
As pointed out by CHRIST, when He spoke in reference to Judaism (Pharisees), proselytizing is an unacceptable and insufficient bridge to GOD.
Faith is something much deeper than that. It goes deep to the heart of humanity, it is the solution to human failure.
Now, religions differ. Religions provide an outlet for humanity to show their more caring side. Naturally, because those to whom we have access live within one’s community we find that religion is most easily expressed to those in that same community – historically, within geographical reach.
Problems tend to arise in that religious activity in one community may be miscontrued by another. Misunderstood – because cultures are different.
This is where wars and strife can arise, amongst the religious. What makes it more difficult is that each community believes in the righteousness of its cause.
I hope you understand this.
@Claver, no you are proselytizing and evangelizing. You are saying yours is better, yours is the only true path. In the beginning there were the Jews. Membership was birthright or bride capture. Then came christians and preaching, all one had to do to join was accept the Christ.
Christians cannot stop proselytizing, eg “spreading the good word”. Islam evolved in the environment where proselytizing was the most successful EGT strategy. So Islam evolved to be proselytization resistant.
“Religions provide an outlet for humanity to show their more caring side.”
This is nonsense and empirically false. Religions offer a membership in a memetic tribe which is a fitness advantage for survival and reproduction.
Masha’allah, Matthew!
“Whose Islam is going to take over and remake everyone in their image?”
Islam is just one evolutionary attempt…umm an iteration… to write the manual for building a successful human. It is just the most recent of the major monotheistic religions so it is currently the most evolved. A successful evolutionary strategy is that al-Islam is a process.
So who can say how long it can continue to adapt and evolve?
I’m very interested in the next iteration on the Manual For Being a Successful Human–the one where we write our own genetic code, pasture the stars, and touch the face of Al-lah.
The one Dr. Carroll is working on.
๐
Namaste shams,
What do you think about something like Buddhism as a way if building a successful human?
salaams Matthew
I think it very comparable to al-Islam, like Shayyk Manzar-Jan-i-Janan says…. “the Koran states: โAnd there is not a people to whom a warner has not been sentโ [35:24]; ”
Siddhฤrtha Gautama Buddha was a warner, like Issa himself.
It is my understanding that prana is similiar to wahdat al wujud and wadat al shuhud.
Namaste shams,
OOO, more stuff for me to look up ๐
It’s also practical, I think, in that someone who is really ‘good’ at it will be able to, say, see someone burn something that they would consider to be sacred and not want to destroy the person or hate the person or even try to stop the person.
It is, really, a science of mind. I just <3 every time I come across a western science article where they find out "Oh my. Meditation WORKS!" and such ๐
That's one of the things that I think has to happen to humanity, to gentle it, not in a thankless effort to try to stop violence completely, but, rather to get people more aware and more in 'control' of those things that they can control.
Like stop giving up responsibility for one's actions to the various 'G_ds' (like money, 'He was evil', capitalism, the various addictions, etc etc).
And the really cool thing is one doesn't have to give up one's religion to practice it. It just helps make one more…aware of how one's mind works and, from that, how their society works etc etc etc.
I think that is one of the reasons why, after September 11, 2001, the Dalai Lama went on a world tour, especially to the US, to GET PEOPLE TO CALM DOWN and STOP BEING SO ANXIOUS. Anxiety kills! ๐
salaams Matthew
“see someone burn something that they would consider to be sacred and not want to destroy the person or hate the person or even try to stop the person.”
well….you must understand that religion is symbolic. Pastor Terry Jones was symbolically burning Islam, and the afghanis that killed the UN/NATO workers were symbolically killing crusaders.
Islamic terrorism is a defense-against-proselytization reflex.
Want to stop islamic terrorism?
Stop proselytizing ie trying to standup/implant/spread/impose/westernstyle democracy in MENA.
It is impossible anyways.
When muslims (in majority muslim nations like Iraq and A-stan, 97% and 99% respectively) are democratically empowered to vote they vote for shariah.
I think what Jones did was a very evil thing. It was the equivalent of shouting FIRE! in a crowded theater an ocean away from where he was safely sitting in his nice free speech fortress.
Namaste shams,
I’m talking about much more than that tiny part of the world. I am talking about globally.
(a ferinstance: there was one time that the AMA went on a witch hunt against an American psychologist for his different views, Wilhelm Reich was His name, and His books were actually burnt. So I am talking about much more)
I understand that everything I think of and communicate is symbolic. When I say “I am going to sit in the chair” that doesn’t mean that there is really something objectively called a “chair” there, it is a term created by people to designate a variety of objects that we all agree on is a “chair”.
Now, each of us has things that we take to be true and not true, we also have things that are comfortable and are not comfortable to us, different things that we find sacred and different things that we find to be blasphemous. And where do our thoughts and feelings come from? They come from the person who has the thoughts and feelings and the actions that come from those thoughts and feelings also come from the person having the action. There is no magic ‘influencer’ of thoughts, feelings, or actions.
So, everyone who got involved in that violence was responsible for it, because all the thoughts and feelings and behaviours were generated by them and them alone.
It is alright that you think that what Jones did was a very evil thing. That is your belief. And you are the generator of those feelings, what thoughts arise from those feelings, and your actions. No one else is. That is just how our neurology actually works.
So if everyone was taught this and actually practiced it, worked at it, meditated, etc, then they would realize the control that they do have over their own feelings and thoughts and actions. That being offended happens and is a part of life.
To live together, we are all going to have to learn this. Without forcing the other to adopt the other’s worldview, blasphemies, or sense of the sacred. We are a global civilization and we can’t have people hiding in their countries anymore; what one country does, another does. So it behooves people to change themselves to adapt instead of trying to take one over and remake others in their image ๐
This is going to be the challenge with this global civilization. People are going to have to be calm without attributing ‘class’ or ‘race’ or ‘nationality’ to thoughts and feelings and ideas and behaviours which are without boundaries or nationality or religion ๐
I know how islamic terrorism is ‘going to be stopped’ — their numbers are pretty small. There are a lot of good programs going on.
And you DO know what the phrase ‘shouting fire in a crowded theatre’ was really used for, right? It isn’t about dangerous speech, but Oliver Wendell Holmes was using it against this group who was protesting the WWI draft, to shut them up. Here is the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater
Humanity has to drop its tribalisms to be able to survive. G_d, Allah, Krisna, Satan, Astarte, etc etc, are crying that we are still acting this way ๐
Btw, thanks very much for the riffing — I’ve been learning a lot.
Namaste shams,
I think of Jones as a nutter myself ๐
And about Islamic Terrorism: surely it doesn’t come down to just one cause? I mean, couldn’t the Forever War you mentioned have something to do with it? And/or the interpretation of the Holy Book itself? Or the Holy Book itself (this one I don’t believe, but it is possible). And/or Islamic youth not having the old ways to gain purpose from, the old ways dying off, so they seek meaning and purpose…in dangerous things? And/or other things that I can’t think of? ๐
All I ask is that you try to at any time, especially when you feel threatened or have strong emotions, be aware of your thoughts and feelings, and where they come from, stuff like how long they last, where they go, how they change, stuff like that ๐
@Kyle, if Christianity and most modern religions were as primitive as Greek nature religions they could be dismissed with the same minimal level of investigation. They also wouldn’t have flourished (in one case, begun) among educated Greeks and Romans embarrassed by the credulity of ancestors who believed in pantheons long since discredited as absurd. Those mythoi lack much theology of any kind, let alone thousands of years of diverse and often competing educated schools. Comparing the two is like comparing Gibbon to Homer.
@ shams, with all due respect, there’s a surprising amount of proselytizing here for a blog whose creator has no religious affiliation. If religions simply “offer a membership in a memetic tribe which is a fitness advantage for survival and reproduction” you’re entirely right to wonder what will replace Islam as the most successful. Either way, reminders that “Muslims also believe that all humans are born muslim” and approving observations that Caliphate Jews and Christians “just could not convert, preach, build churches or synagogues without permission, or marry muslimahs without reverting” doesn’t support Mr. Saunders argument that Islam is less exclusionary than Christianity. Such a competitive view of existing religions by one member seems like proselytizing, and projecting the religious persuasion of 25% of the planet 20 years from now depends on many uncertain variables (e.g. regional birth rates, immigration and growth of the various religions in the abstract). I’m curious how you derived that stat; the first page of hits when googling the phrase yields:
1) One liberal blog,
2) One Islamic author citing an Islamic scholars 1990 prediction 25% of the world would be Muslim by 2000 (but claiming the actual figure to be 20%) and
3) A host of far right fundamentalist sites predicting Europe will be a casualty in an Islamic World War Three
To be clear, I don’t seek a Christianity vs. Islam debate (I doubt Dr. Carroll would be thrilled by the prospect), but if the Caliphate was more generous to its second class religious minorities (some weren’t even taxed for their beliefs!) than Europe at the time, since the Thirty Years War revealed the full horror of religious intolerance Europe has been far more tolerant of them than most of the Muslim world. The only doctrinal Christian position on non-Christians is dissociation; Church fathers could hardly advocate unfavorable treatment when the dominant government (which they urged Christians to respect as holding authority by Gods sufferance) was itself non-Christian. Christianity is thus no more exclusive than Islam, and far less so than the sects that prioritize descent from Abraham; a distinguishing characteristic of Christianity is INclusiveness.
All of that makes it ironic to say, “To me, western culture seems almost willfully ignorant of Islam. Do you think that this is because of the scholarly tradition of orientalism or because of 9/11 ?” I think western culture seems that way to you because you’re taking a rather limited view of it; 911 hasn’t fundamentally altered its very structure and basis in under a decade, and scholarship is not so foreign to it as such a loaded question suggests.
salaams Matthew.
“surely it doesnโt come down to just one cause?”
indeed, it does, if we are discussing islamic terrorism.
9/11 was a response to western interventionism.
OBL junk-punched America in the economic nads.
The Bush admins response was to try to spread/standup/impose/implant westernstyle democracy (with freedom of speech and freedom of religon) in Iraq and A-stan.
This cannot be done.
Shariah forbids proselytization. Freedom of speech legalizes proselytization.
Therefore freedom of speech is incompatible with shariah law.
salaams JOL.
“Iโm curious how you derived that stat”
Pew polling
I cannot proselytize christians or jews.
We all believe in the same Al-lah.
Muslims generally do not care if christians want to believe in the Jesus godhead. Christians and Jews are People of the Book, we all believe in the same Al-lah.
We do care, quite vehemently as it turns out, that christians want to make us believe it too.
๐
“I think western culture seems that way to you because youโre taking a rather limited view of it;”
umm…for example westerners do not understand that freedom of speech is incompatible with al-Islam in its current form.
Or America would not have spent a trillion dollars making more islamic states and more muslim enemies and more islamic terrorists.
๐
JOL
“a surprising amount of proselytizing here for a blog whose creator has no religious affiliation”
I was explaining that many religions are universalist, and that universalism and inclusion are likely to be successful EGT strats (see Maynard-Smith) going forward.
Christianity is NOT inclusive. That was the point of Dr. Carroll’s post. Did you read it?
I used EGT and evo theory of culture to explain that Mr. Douthat is a fundamentalist of a dying religion, and exhibiting fundamentalist behavior (see Scott Atran and Pascal Boyer).
There are more things under heaven and in earth than are dreamt of Ross Douthat’s philosophy.
๐
There was a string of comments about eternity and nothing, so…
While we can conceptualize many things, like eternity and nothing in their truest sense, we cannot actually comprehend many of those things.
Namaste shams,
yes, it seems like it is always the ordinary folk who get caught up in our country’s machinations. It is too sad for words.
“indeed, it does, if we are discussing islamic terrorism.
9/11 was a response to western interventionism.
OBL junk-punched America in the economic nads.”
I heard about that guy, the hardcore Muslim Billionaire who was willing to send himself and his compatriots to Islamic hell making 3,000 odd martyrs.
“The Bush admins response was to try to spread/standup/impose/implant westernstyle democracy (with freedom of speech and freedom of religon) in Iraq and A-stan.”
I was really afraid that they’d over-react and send out nukes. I’m glad they didn’t. But it looks like they got that Muslim Lex Luthor — the USA’s grand poobah made an announcement.
“Shariah forbids proselytization. Freedom of speech legalizes proselytization.
Therefore freedom of speech is incompatible with shariah law.”
That obviously doesn’t preclude Muslims from going online, which is a wonderful American invention, full of freedom of speech and so on and so forth…it is quite empowering…just look at what is going on in such places as Libya and Syria etc etc over the past few months.
So tell me, do you think that Islamic terrorists are ‘radical Muslims’ or do you think they are ordinary? I hope you understand my meaning…
Science posts are way better. This is totally asinine. Son, I am disappoint. I doubt a real theologian would be impressed by this post. I did a few semesters of theology many years ago and you sound like the equivalent of someone who’s read “A Brief History of Time” pontificating about how to interpret quantum theory. I just feel obliged to break the news. I do so with all due respect. Again, your science stuff is great. Peace.