Home » Cosmology, Intelligent Design, Philosophy, Religion » Can there really be a Theory of Everything? Wouldn’t it really be a theology of everything?

Can there really be a Theory of Everything? Wouldn’t it really be a theology of everything?

July 1, 2018

Posted by News under Cosmology, Intelligent Design, Philosophy, Religion

1 Comment

Spread the love

From John Saxbee at Church Times, reviewing Keith Eyeons’ The Theology of Everything: Renaissance Man joins the 21st century:

… Yet scientists continue to pursue a theory of everything, and this irony is not lost on Eyeons, who sets out to reclaim this territory for theologians in general, and for Christian theology in particular.

The subtitle channels Renaissance Man (sic) as the archetype of a mindset committed to a comprehensive and all-embracing account of reality. Modern dualisms that attribute what is physical or spiritual, objective or subjective, religious or scientific to separate silos need to be roundly challenged — especially when they are then co-opted to support atheism as the only respectable option for people today. More.

People who insist on a theory of everything that doesn’t include the mind of God tend to behave like the guy with a hammer who thinks everything is a nail. Once we include the mind of God we are out of our depth but, let’s face it, we were anyway.

See also: How string theory can be a theory of everything

Post-modern physics: String theory gets over the need for evidence

Dusting off a 1970s Theory of Everything could be bad news for supersymmetry

Can a theory of consciousness help us build a theory of everything?

and

Post-modern science: The illusion of consciousness sees through itself

One Response to Can there really be a Theory of Everything? Wouldn’t it really be a theology* of everything?*

1

bornagain77July 1, 2018 at 6:34 pm

as to this quote from the article:

,,, These are found to be positively influential but ultimately inadequate, notwithstanding the achievements of the Renaissance and Age of Science respectively.

The ‘Renaissance’ is Whig history or “New Atheist Bad History”

In the following articles, an atheist scholar of medieval history (Tim O’Neill), admits that secular humanists have tried, because of their bias against Christianity, to rewrite history

Why Are the Middle Ages Often Characterized as Dark or Less Civilized? – Tim O’Neill, M.A. in medieval literature and has studied most aspects of the medieval period for many years:
Excerpt: The idea of the whole Middle Ages as a “dark age” therefore actually comes from the early modern Renaissance and humanist movements and their denigration of their immediate forebears and idolization and idealization of the Greeks and Romans. Thus, the period between the Romans and this idealization in the early modern era became called the medium aevum—the “ages in the middle,” or the Middle Ages. They became traditionally characterized as a backward step, where art became “primitive” (because only realistic art could be “good” art), architecture was “barbaric” or “gothic,” and innovation was stagnant.
These false ideas are still current partly because historians have only begun to revise our understanding of the Middle Ages quite recently and this is taking some time to seep into popular consciousness. But the prejudice against the Middle Ages is also driven by some strong cultural currents in our own time. Those with an animus against Christianity in general and the Catholic Church in particular like to cling to the old idea of the Middle Ages as a “dark age” because it suits their preconceptions about religion and forms a neat little fable where modernity is “good” and the medieval period is “bad.” Historians avoid these simplistic value judgments and reject the assumptions on which they are made, but simple pseudo historical fairy tales are hard to budge.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/quo....._less.html

“THE DARK AGES” – POPERY, PERIODISATION AND PEJORATIVES – Tim O’Neill – 2016
Excerpt: The concept of “the Dark Ages” is central to several key elements in New Atheist Bad History. One of the primary myths most beloved by many New Atheists is the one whereby Christianity violently suppressed ancient Greco-Roman learning, destroyed an ancient intellectual culture based on pure reason and retarded a nascent scientific and technological revolution, thus plunging Europe into a one thousand year “dark age” which was only relieved by the glorious dawn of “the Renaissance”. Like most New Atheist Bad History, it’s a commonly held and popularly believed set of ideas that has its origin in polemicists of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries but which has been rejected by more recent historians. But its New Atheist adherents don’t like to hear that last part and get very agitated when they do.,,,,,
Concluding paragraph
It should be clear by now that value-laden terms like “dark ages” and “Renaissance” belong to a period of dusty historiography that modern scholarship has long since outgrown. The very early medieval centuries certainly did see fragmentation, technology loss and the break down of long distance trade and an acceleration of the ongoing collapse of learning in western Europe. But to characterise the entire medieval period as a “dark age” because of this is clearly absurd. And while the nineteenth century idolisation of Classical art meant that they were inevitably going to see the art and architecture movement we call “the Renaissance” as “superior” to more stylised and native medieval forms, for anyone post-Picasso or Le Corbusier to do so is fairly philistinic. Anyone with even a passing grasp of history now understands that the Medieval Period was a long and diverse one thousand year span of remarkable change and development, in which Europe went from being a backwater that suffered most from the collapse of the Western Empire, to an economic, technical and military powerhouse that was on the brink of a global expansion.
https://historyforatheists.com/2016/11/the-dark-ages-popery-periodisation-and-pejoratives/

In fact, the false revisionist history of “the Renaissance” and the enlightenment saving us from the dark ages of Christianity is apparently so entrenched in left wing academia that President Obama, in his farewell address, falsely claimed that enlightenment thinking guided the American founders instead of Christian and Biblical principles guiding them as they actually did.

In His Farewell Address, President Obama Misrepresented the American Founding – January 11, 2017
Excerpt: “One thing he said about the American founding was especially troubling. Mr. Obama traced “the essential spirit of innovation and practical problem-solving that guided our Founders” to the Enlightenment. It was that movement, which he defined as “a faith in reason, and enterprise, and the primacy of right over might, that allowed us to resist the lure of fascism and tyranny during the Great Depression” and build a world order based on “the rule of law, human rights, freedoms of religion, speech, assembly, and an independent press.”
This spin is common in the leftist canon, but it is historical revisionism of the highest rank.,,,
The wisdom of the Bible and the clarity of natural law gave the founding generation the guidance they needed to frame a government suitable for an imperfectible but dignified humanity characterized by moral self-restraint and “a firm reliance on Divine Providence.”
The shout of defiance in the President’s farewell address, that man can be made perfect through human cooperation with the “arc of history,” runs counter to the philosophy of the founding of our country and the text of the Constitution.”
https://stream.org/in-his-farewell-address-president-obama/

America Founded Under GOD: A Real History Lesson – video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBnJ6rC5A6Y
David Barton goes into the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and many of the founding fathers. He exposes the true American history and explains America’s Biblical foundation with Congress printing America’s first English Bible.

A more realistic historical account of what ‘enlightenment’ thinking actually led to can be found in, not in America’s founding, but in the The French Revolution and it’s Reign of Terror which launched the first modern genocide aimed at Christians and where 40,000 people were beheaded and 300,000 were butchered.

Solzhenitsyn Mourned Bastille Day. So Should All Christians.
The French Revolution invented radical nationalism and socialism, and launched the first modern genocide, aimed at Christians.
https://stream.org/solzhenitsyn-mourned-bastille-day/

How atheism led to horrors of French Revolution 01/10/2016
Bill Federer remembers words of wisdom from 19th century Yale president Timothy Dwight IV
Excerpt: On July 4, 1798, Timothy Dwight gave an address in New Haven titled “The Duty of Americans at the Present Crisis.” In this address, he explained how Voltaire’s atheism inspired the French Revolution and it’s Reign of Terror, 1793-1794, where 40,000 people were beheaded and 300,000 were butchered in the Vendée:
“About the year 1728, Voltaire, so celebrated for his wit and brilliancy and not less distinguished for his hatred of Christianity and his abandonment of principle, formed a systematical design to destroy Christianity and to introduce in its stead a general diffusion of irreligion and atheism.”
http://www.wnd.com/2016/01/how.....KBO9Ttb.99

In fact, despite atheists constantly trying to rewrite history, Christianity alone, out of all the worldviews, was responsible for the ‘age of science’:

Jerry Coyne on the Scientific Method and Religion – Michael Egnor – June 2011
Excerpt: The scientific method — the empirical systematic theory-based study of nature — has nothing to so with some religious inspirations — Animism, Paganism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism, Islam, and, well, atheism. The scientific method has everything to do with Christian (and Jewish) inspiration. Judeo-Christian culture is the only culture that has given rise to organized theoretical science. Many cultures (e.g. China) have produced excellent technology and engineering, but only Christian culture has given rise to a conceptual understanding of nature (which enabled the rise of modern science).
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....47431.html

In the article he goes on to state:

“in a cosmos calculated to evolve human beings capable of loving and creative relationships with God, one another, and the world around them.”

Darwinian evolution is an even bigger lie in Academia than the false revisionist history from atheists of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment leading to modern science is. (and seeing as I’m writing this post on UD I don’t even have to cite any evidence to back up that claim)

All is not lost though. He goes on to state this in the article:

By no means least, his focus on reality as a function of human consciousness and, ultimately, the mind of God effectively complements Keith Ward’s The Christian Idea of God. Clearly the ancient philosophy of Idealism is attracting strong 21st-century advocates.

It seems that recent findings from Quantum Mechanics may have made it into his book:

How exactly did consciousness become a problem? by Margaret Wertheim – Dec. 1, 2015
Excerpt: Heaven and Earth were two separate yet intertwined domains of human action. Medieval cosmology was thus inherently dualistic: the physical domain of the body had a parallel in the spiritual domain of the soul; and for medieval thinkers, the latter was the primary domain of the Real.,,,
But perhaps most surprisingly, just when the ‘stream of consciousness’ was entering our lexicon, physicists began to realise that consciousness might after all be critical to their own descriptions of the world. With the advent of quantum mechanics they found that, in order to make sense of what their theories were saying about the subatomic world, they had to posit that the scientist-observer was actively involved in constructing reality.,,,
Such a view appalled many physicists,,,
Just this April, Nature Physics reported on a set of experiments showing a similar effect using helium atoms. Andrew Truscott, the Australian scientist who spearheaded the helium work, noted in Physics Today that ‘99.999 per cent of physicists would say that the measurement… brings the observable into reality’. In other words, human subjectivity is drawing forth the world.,,,
Not all physicists are willing to go down this path, however, and there is indeed now a growing backlash against subjectivity.,,,
when I was a physics student the MWI (Many Worlds Interpretation) was widely seen as a fringe concept. Today, it is becoming mainstream, in large part because the pesky problem of consciousness simply hasn’t gone away.,,,
https://aeon.co/essays/how-and-why-exactly-did-consciousness-become-a-problem

Moreover, the scientific “Theory of Everything”, which apparently was the inspiration behind the title of his book, “The Theology of Everything”, is a lot more friendly, and straightforward, to Christian presuppositions, even to Christian Theology itself, than the author apparently realized:

Copernican Principle, Agent Causality, and Jesus Christ as the “Theory of Everything” – video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NziDraiPiOw

Colossians 1:15-20
The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

Advertisements

Can there really be a Theory of Everything? Wouldn’t it really be a theology of everything?

One Response to Can there really be a Theory of Everything? Wouldn’t it really be a theology* of everything?*

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Share This

Advertisements

Archives

Recent Posts

Sponsored Links

Advertisements

Can there really be a Theory of Everything? Wouldn’t it really be a theology of everything?

One Response to Can there really be a Theory of Everything? Wouldn’t it really be a theology of everything?

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Share This

Advertisements

Archives

Recent Posts

Sponsored Links

Tags

One Response to Can there really be a Theory of Everything? Wouldn’t it really be a theology* of everything?*