The trouble with Einstein
A few months ago I borrowed a book called Introducing Einstein from my local library. It was more than a little discouraging that I didn't understand it very well. I think I could cope with the prose, on the whole, but it was punctuated with complex sums and formulae with unexplained algebra. So, I think I got the broader themes without understanding to the point of being able to see the sense of it. If I understood the formulae I might have understood/agreed the more nonsensical bits within the prose.
As I understand it, the potentially relevant bit that Einstein says is that time slows down with motion, and the higher one's speed the more time slows down, until at the speed of light time stands still; and potentially beyond the speed of light time starts to go backwards. If you get into a space craft and fly off into space at very high speed and come back after what seems like a few days you might find that years have passed on earth. (Something like this happened in the film Flight of the Navigator)
-
It sounds quite loopy but it seems to be generally accepted among those who know anything about science which makes me think there must be some logic to it. Also, they put an atomic clock (I think) onto a space shuttle which was synchronised with one on the ground. When the space shuttle returned the on-board clock was marginally behind the other one. This is said to have proved Einstein right. That also points to it being logical, the fact that Einstein could predict it.
-
Einstein also said that mass increases with speed. The faster one travels the higher the mass until at the speed of light mass is infinite; which would preclude the possibility of going faster than light. (Presumably photons have zero mass or else they would crush us) The increase in mass seems to corellate with the slowing down of time. As mass increases, so time slows down until at infinte mass time stands still.
-
It seems to me that it's not so much that time slows down as that with increased mass at high speed phsical processes slow down. ie. a clock ticks more slowly. I suggested this to a more enlightened former housemate, he said (in the case of the space shuttle experiment, above) they probably would have put the clock into a vacuum which would counter physical effects. I don't really know whether an atomic clock has physical workings anyway but presumably, if it has a readable display that changes, there must be some physical process going on. (I'm puzzled about this, does the vacuum make any difference? Isn't space a bit of a vacuum anyway? Is 'a bit of a vacuum' the worst ever description of space?)
-
The other point I might make is that the illustration seems to assume the that the space ship was actually away for the same amount of time, it's just the people on the ground experienced that same quantity of time differently from those on board the space ship. Einstein, as far as I know, remained a thiest throughout his life, one of his most famous quotes is, 'God does not play dice'. Presumably, an objective observer (such as God) could see that while the the Earth orbitted the sun a few times the space ship flew off for a few laps of Uranus, Pluto, Jupiter and Saturn, and wherever else, and returned to the earth. From the objective observer's point of view the time was the same.
-
One of the conclusions that I came to in my essay is that time is a feature of God's being and this time is 'objective time'. In this, I thought I was agreeing with Isaac Newton although I don't know his theory in any detail. (see paragraph on time without beginning) Einstein is said to have disproved Newton's theory that time was objective. It certainly seems true, given the experimental evidence that time can be exprerienced differently. But I might still contend that, if there is a God, then he/she stands in a position to say what the time actually is.
-
Presumably, we can also say that by being very still we can speed up time. This might explain why I can never get enough sleep, as soon as I lose consciousness the planets whizz around to their morning/afternoon/evening position when I need to be up again. Of course, I can't be entirely static, my heart continues to beat, and my mind is active (hopefully), and I'm sat on this planet that's hurtling through space on its unending course around the sun. On the earth, we generally experience 1 second per second, but that's not objective time is it? Perhaps the best position from which to assess time is an absolutely static one from which 1 earth day passes in a second, or possibly all of time passes in an instant. If this is the best position from which to measure time then it suggests that God is static and possibly, therefore timeless.
-
But if this is so, how can God be conscious or aware of anything? Consciousness and awareness suggest, to me at least, dynamism. And presumably, the more conscious and aware one is, the more dynamic too.
-
The alternative seems to be to go to the opposite extreme and say that God's frequency is lightspeed. If this is so he/she observes all of human history in super-super-sllllooooowwwwww-motion. (I saw a documentary once about flies, which beat their wings 100 times per second, It showed a flies view of the world as one of slow motion, which might explain why it's difficult to swat them, they react too quickly for us at our lower frequency) This assumes that lightspeed is the limit, why could God not exist at an even higher frequency? Lightspeed might be a very arbitrary limit for a super-natural being abiding beyond our physical universe.
-
Why am I so obsessed with this subject? Please help me somebody.
-
-
One more little aside.
The book that I partially read about Einstein used the illustration of a car travelling at 50mph. When that car switches its lights on, the light still travels at the speed of light, not the speed of light + 50mph. This, it said, was evidenced by the fact that when you see a car travelling at night the glow of light eminating from the front of the car stays same distance from the front of the car. I can go along with that although it hurts my head to think about it. But what I don't understand is why. If photons have zero mass, why should they be limited to lightspeed?
Static vs. Process view of time, revisited
Looking again at my essay, two years on, I see more and more to correct or qualify. On the static view of time I was getting quite desperate to find a decisive argument the day before the deadline. Fortunately for me, William Lane Craig enumerates four in his reponse to the other authors' criticisms. Unfortunately, the following is quite typical of his arguments:The static theory entails perdurantism, the doctrine that objects have
spatiotemporal parts, a view that is metaphysically counterintuitive, is
incompatible with moral accountability and entails the bizarre counterpart
of transworld identity. (William Lane Craig, in God and Time: Four Views, p.180)
I asked a few lecturers about this sentence but none had much more idea than I about its meaning. Hence, I came up with the illustration of the cricket bat. Thinking about it now though, I don't think my illustration takes it any further than saying it's 'the view of common sense' - although it does help me to understand it better. But I think the atemporalist would just view time as the fourth dimension of space and overcome it that way. I still don't agree though.
God and Time: Biblical Evidence, re-worked
I think I could have made the section on Bilical evidence clearer - if I had more clarity of thought that is. I could also have made it a lot longer but I think the essay was meant to be based mainly on reason not exegesis.
In many parts of the OT God seems to interact with people. It's impossible to truly interact without time. So, Atemporalists are forced to say that these sections are anthropomorphic presentations of God or else find another explanation. It seems true to me that there are instances when the OT presentation/understanding of God is anthropomorphic, or possibly just a bit odd. For instance, in the Garden of Eden:
Gen.3:8 They heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in
the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the
presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden. 9 Then the LORD God
called to the man, and said to him, "Where are you?"
Or after Jonah's amazingly successful preaching:
Jonah 3:10 And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not. (I wouldn't normally favour the KJV but, in this case, I think, it best preserves the untamed language)
Are these passages really anthropomorphic or do they reflect the author's understanding of God? I suspect the latter.
In the genre of allegory/fable/metaphor it's easy enough to present God as one with a body walking through the Garden of Eden. (The popular Footsteps does something similar) But surely, if the author of Genesis 3 were a Calvinist it would look quite different. I don't think anyone brought up with the fundamental assumption that God is totally omniscient could portray him/her as one who really doesn't know what's going on around about him/her. Of course, it's possible to say that God was just pretending not to know where Adam and Eve were but that imposes our view onto the text. And if the author was trying to make God understandable to the his/her audience, why confuse them by suggesting that God might not be omniscient if he/she knew that God really is omniscient all along? By the same token, why use the word 'evil' about God's proposed actions if one believes God to be incapable of evil?
But what of the numerous accounts of prophets who seem hear and interact with God. (I'm far too lazy to list them right now) God calls: 'Samuel, Samuel'. Obviously, it takes twice as long to say the same thing twice, you need time. How can God do this without time? Paul Helm suggests that all apparent manifestations of God within the realm of time and space are written-in to the fabric of the universe from eternity. (I read this about two years ago, he probably didn't use such pretentious language - I'm not sure how he explains Jesus) Basically, knowing from eternity all our questions, requests... God's responses are preprogrammed and so it's not true interaction. This seems to make all of history, sacred and secular, into a bit of a pantomime. I can't disprove it but I choose not to believe it.
So, I think the OT writers generally thought of God as one inside time, or at least, it probably never occurred to them that God could stand outside of time - such categories of temporal/atemporal are probaly quite alien to them. God's temporality, nevertheless, seems to be assumed by most of them but I wouldn't use this alone as the basis for my thinking on the subject. The idea of existence without time seems to come later with the Greek influence. Pretty much as I concluded before.
God and Time
This was the first essay of the second year, as I remember. I worked on it for a few weeks and, at the time, was going around the college asking other students and staff what they thought. Most people, with a few exceptions gave the traditional Christian answer, which I found frustrating because I found (and still find) myself at odds with the traditional answer.The essay is a bit weak in places and I might have to reconsider a few things if I were to fully understand Einstein. The lack of any reference to relativity might be one of the essays weaker points although it wasn't really argued that way by anyone I read. Anyway, we can just say I ran out of space because I was already 200 words over the limit. Footnotes came with it when I cut and pasted the file and I've added the bibliography too.Glossary (I hope I'm not being patronising now but there really is a lot of jargon around this topic)Anthropomorphism - attributing human characteristis to non-human beings - in this case GodHellenist - Greek, of Greece/Greek thought/cultureTemporalist - One who believes that God is inside timeAtemporalist - One who believes that God is outside of timeSeptuagint - An early Greek translation of the Old Testament thought to have been used by NT authorsDeuteronomist - Theoretical author(s) of a large section of the OT (Deuteronomy-2 Kings[ish]) with a distinctive theologial viewCacophony - An ugly disorganised noiseImmutable -
Unchanging
Omnipotent - One with no need for viagra, oh, and all powerful
Omniscient - All knowingOntologically - by nature, basically, in essence
Read, review and research around the topic of the following title:
God and Time – four views.
Introduction
The Cornish comedian Jethro once joked that he had just purchased a ‘microwave fireplace’. He said that using the device he was able to sit in front of the fire all night in just 20 minutes.[1] The humour of this is rooted in the paradoxical nature of the statement. The church has traditionally upheld something similarly paradoxical by asserting that God lives outside of time in what has been termed, ‘the eternal now’.[2] Is that an eternal instant, or an instant eternity? Can such a paradox be defended? More recently, many Christian thinkers and philosophers have questioned this view and have argued that God is inside time, which in turn raises questions about some of the conventionally accepted attributes of God and the nature of his being.
Biblical EvidencePaul Helm states, “The language of scripture about God and time is not sufficiently precise so as to provide a definitive resolution of the issue one way or the other.”[3] Nevertheless, Nicholas Wolterstorff and William Lane Craig use scripture to back up their respective views. Wolterstorff points out that there is much material in the Old Testament that depicts God as one who acts in time.[4] Helm argues that such texts should not be taken literally but should rather be understood as anthropomorphisms.[5] William Lane Craig tentatively uses three New Testament verses that all contain words to the effect of ‘before time’ to support his view that God was timeless before creation but is now inside time.[6]
Interestingly, Craig also notes that the Septuagint’s interpretation of Proverbs 8:23 is at variance with extant Hebrew versions.[7] Where standard translations say, “Before the world began”[8] the Septuagint reads, “Before time”. New Testament authors rely heavily on the Septuagint,[9] St. Paul often quotes from it and C Cranfield even suggests that he was as comfortable (if not more so) thinking in Greek as he was in Aramaic.[10] This looks like evidence of Greek influence on the writing of New Testament redactors and therefore, where they say ‘before time’ it would seem better to read ‘before creation’, which may not be the same thing. Temporalists have often asserted that Augustine formulated his eternalist view under the subtle influence of Greek philosophy.[11] Could it be that the influence of Hellenism goes further back than that, back to the Septuagint? It would have been very difficult, if not impossible, for someone to write in the Greek language without being influenced by the pervasive Greek culture.
However, even if any apparent biblical allusions to timelessness are found to be due to Greek influence, that does not mean it is wrong. Furthermore, even if the Greek influence is seen as a negative thing that does not negate the possibility that narratives that represent God in time may simply be anthropomorphic. The Deuteronomist, who appears to assume that God acts in history,[12] could just be describing God, as he understands him to be; in a humanlike way. Whether God is inside time or outside of time was probably not the central issue for biblical authors and their writings most likely reflect the prevailing belief of their social context on the issue. Bearing all this in mind, it seems that the matter should be decided by what is more reasonable rather than by what appears to be more canonical.
What does it mean to be timeless?
Boethius defines eternity as “the complete possession of an endless life enjoyed as one simultaneous whole.”[13] Paul Helm’s primary reason for holding his atemporalist view is on the basis of preserving the fullness of God’s life. If God is in time then his past is irrevocably past and cannot be brought back, “the uniqueness of the present moment is forever lost when that moment becomes past.”[14] Is such a “never passing instant”[15] a preferable and more perfect life than one in time where each unique moment is replaced with another unique moment eternally? It seems that without time God is frozen in a moment and is powerless to change or escape. Grace Jantzen argues, “A living God cannot be static: life implies change and hence temporality.”[16] This, it may be argued, is overly anthropomorphic; God does not need to breathe and he does not have a heartbeat and so change is not necessary for his life. So how is such a God alive? Helm rejects the ideas of Stump and Kretzmann of what eternity is like as incoherent and concludes that it is only possible to say what eternity is not like, for God is incomprehensible to human minds and no analogy can ultimately explain the nature of timeless life.[17] Padgett asserts that such a “changeless being… ‘lives’ only in a very stretched sense of the word”[18] The impoverished nature of a timeless life is perhaps best illustrated by Wolterstorff’s argument that a timeless God’s appreciation of music must be limited to either one chord ringing eternally or all the music that has ever been made squeezed into one endless cacophonic tone.[19] It is hard to imagine such a changeless God having personality.[20]
Static vs. Process view of time
Most see the static view of time to be a necessary postulate for a timeless God because if the process theory of time is true then God is supporting different life forms at different times and is thus changing.[21] Padgett argues that the process theory of time is persuasive because everyone experiences processes and this is the view of ‘common sense’;[22] it is certainly the easier to believe of the two but this is not a compelling argument. Anthony Kenny asserts:
The whole concept of a timeless eternity, the whole of which is
simultaneous with every part of time, seems to be radically incoherent… on this
view the great fire of Rome is simultaneous with the whole of eternity… while I
type these words, Nero fiddles heartlessly on.[23]
Moreover, on the static view, something like a cricket bat that is made of wood, and is later burnt is simultaneously part of a living tree, a dead object and also a pile of ashes. The static theory of time demands that matter should be in two or more places and forms at once. This appears to be an indefensible paradox.
Time without beginning?
Is time part of creation?[24] Presuming creation ex nihilo, either: time began with the big bang or time has no beginning. If time started with the big bang then God must transcend time in the same way that he transcends space as the creator. There are two main objections to the idea that time has no beginning. Firstly, it is often asked, ‘Why did God create the universe when he did?’[25] Craig gets around the problem by suggesting that God was timeless before creation and so choosing a time to start is not an issue. However, Padgett cogently argues that without time there is no possibility of change and so, how could God change to a state of temporality if he was previously timeless?[26] Helm also criticises this view pointing out that timelessness cannot have a temporal relationship to time.[27] Still on the issue of why God created the universe when he did, Ganssle states, “It seems as though any point in the infinite past is as good as any other”.[28] If this is the case then God could not have chosen a better moment in which to begin his creation.
The second objection is related to the Kalam cosmological argument.[29] According to this argument everything that begins to exist has a cause, and an actual infinite cannot exist.[30] Ganssle believes that time cannot have an infinite past so it must have a beginning. However, not many have any problem with the idea that God has no beginning or cause. Padgett tries to escape this problem by proposing a ‘nonfinite’ rather than ‘infinite’ period of time before the first change in God and without change there is no metric for time so in effect no time passed before the first change, it was instead 'pure duration’ or ‘relative timelessness’.[31] Nonetheless, what is the practical difference between ‘infinite’ and ‘nonfinite’? This still involves time without beginning. The simplest way out of this seems to be to take the step that Padgett is unwilling to take, i.e. to say with Isaac Newton that time is a feature of God’s being and thus God has been eternally changing.[32] Otherwise, to assert that a God who changes existed for an indeterminate time without change would suggest that he was dormant for a while. The question of what God was doing before creating the universe is a matter of speculation but it is not necessary to believe that the universe is the sum of his work.
What of God's attributes? - Immutability
A timeless God is by definition immutable, it is impossible to change without time. A temporal God is necessarily ever changing because he is constantly experiencing the unfolding of history and supporting new life. So what happens to the doctrine of immutability? Since the time of Aquinas theologians have been comfortable with the idea that God’s omnipotence is limited to what is logically possible. For instance, God cannot make a truly square circle or act in a way contrary to his character.[33] Can the doctrine of immutability be qualified in a similar way? Not all change implies becoming any more or less perfect. Neither is it necessary that if God is in time that he is developing in any way nor that he is subject to entropy nor that his character changes in any other way. Wolterstorff looks at biblical evidence concerning immutability and correctly concludes that it does not necessarily imply absolute immutability. He instead argues that God is immutable in resolve rather than that he is ontologically immutable.[34] This seems to be a back-to-front way of dealing with the issue and Helm is quick to point out that if this is the case then God may change his mind and decide to lie.[35] Padgett’s suggestion seems to be more sensible, that God is immutable in that his basic character does not change but that he does different things at different times.[36]
Omniscience
Many argue that a timeless God cannot be omniscient because he cannot know tensed facts or what time is now. However, there does not seem to be much mileage in this when most atemporalists adopt a static view of time in which all times are ontologically the same, from God’s point of view there are no tensed facts. Nonetheless, the atemporalist would argue, this does not mean that God cannot see that the Battle of Bosworth is earlier than the Battle of the Somme in the same way that he can see that Bosworth Field is in a different spatial location to the Somme River. Furthermore, 'now' is relative to one’s own frame of reference; someone in London may say it is midnight and at that same moment someone in Chicago may say it is 6:00pm. Surely, if any fact is relative then God’s view must be the standard of objectivity. Moreover, if someone were to ask God, ‘What time is it now?’ then God, knowing that person’s temporal and spatial location, can say 'For you the time is 7:14am precisely' and this is true for that person but not for God.[37] [Although a timeless God cannot truly respond to anything]
Helm counters claiming that omniscience is equally a problem for the temporalist. If God is inside time, and he has not determined all events, then he cannot have perfect knowledge of the future.[38] However, if one takes a process view of time then the future does not actually exist yet, and unlike the past never has existed, so it is not reasonable to expect God to know it completely. Nevertheless, God with his complete knowledge of the past and present knows all possible future outcomes and probabilities and this, some would argue, is more impressive than simply knowing about things that have, for all intents and purposes, already happened; Craig describes such knowledge as “mind boggling”.[39] Thus, the issue of omniscience only results in deadlock.
Conclusion
In summary then, when investigating the issue of God and time the Bible gives no absolute answers as some scriptures can be interpreted to fit various views, and others appear to give conflicting evidence. The issue of God’s omniscience similarly does not really get us any closer to an answer, as the temporalist argument that a timeless God cannot be omniscient is really a case of ‘nit picking’ that does not really have any bearing on God’s knowledge. On the other hand the atemporalist’s claim, that a God without complete foreknowledge is not omniscient is equally unfounded, as this requires God to know things that are not so. The main issue in this area is whether a timeless existence is preferable to a temporal one; in my judgement, it is not. It seems that a timeless God is what Padgett terms, “God in a box”.[40] The static theory of time, which is necessary for timelessness, is also incoherent in my view. The doctrine of immutability does not really suffer from this providing it is sensibly interpreted as pertaining to God’s character rather than in absolute terms. Finally, if time is seen as a feature of God’s being then the idea of time having no beginning is no more a problem than the idea of God having no beginning.
At the heart of this discussion is a trade-off between God’s personality and the extent of his attributes. If one is persuaded that God has complete foreknowledge and that he is absolutely immutable, then one’s decision will almost certainly be that God is outside of time. However, if one is attached to the idea that God has personality then one will likely conclude that he is inside time, this is where my bias lies.
[1] Jethro (1995).
[2] Ganssle (2001) p.12.
[3] Helm, in Ganssle (2001) p31.
[4] Wolterstorff, in Ganssle (2001) pp188-189.
[5] Helm, in Ganssle (2001) pp 214-215.
[6] Craig, in Ganssle (2001) p 131. (2 Timothy 1:9, Titus 1:2-3, Jude 25)
[7] Ibid.
[8] Proverbs 8:23 in the NIV.
[9] Cranfield C. E. B. (1975) p 25.
[10] Ibid. See also Sanders, (1977) pp552-556.
[11] In his article God Is Everlasting in Peterson et al (1996) pp126-127. Wolterstorff argues this point in agreement with William Kneale but has since changed his mind on the matter.
[12] For example God appears to change his mind in response to Hezekiah’s prayer. 2 Kings 20:1-11.
[13] Boethius, in Peterson et al (1996) p 122.
[14] Helm, in Ganssle (2001) p30.
[15] Boethius, cited by Helm, in Ganssle (2001) p36.
[16] Grace Jantzen, cited in Davies (1993) p144.
[17] Helm, in Ganssle (2001) p37-38.
[18] Padgett, in Ganssle (2001) pp61-62.
[19] Wolterstorff, in Ganssle (2001) p73.
[20] Brian Davies discusses whether God should be seen as an acting person or not and concludes that such vocabulary is anthropomorphic and unbiblical. Davies (1993) pp143-145. However, Genesis tells us that God made humans in his own image, how exactly is this true if God does not have the quality of personhood?
[21] Ganssle (2001) p15.
[22] Padgett, in Ganssle (2001) pp102-104.
[23] Kenny (1979) pp38-39.
[24] Wolterstorff’s argument that time and space are not so alike as it is often claimed because space has no parallel to the process theory of time seems to have some force. Wolterstorff, in Ganssle pp208-209.
[25] Ganssle, (2001) p17.
[26] Padgett, in Ganssle (2001) pp168-169.
[27] Helm, in Ganssle (2001) pp163-164.
[28] Ibid
[29] Ganssle, (2001) pp17-18.
[30] Peterson, et al. (1998) pp92-95.
[31] Padgett, in Ganssle (2001) pp108-110.
[32] Isaac Newton, The Principia, cited by Craig, in Ganssle (2001) pp115-116.
[33] Peterson et al, (1998) pp71-72.
[34] Wolterstorff, in Ganssle (2001) pp191-193.
[35] Helm, in Ganssle (2001) p214.
[36] Padgett, in Ganssle (2001) p62.
[37] Helm, in Ganssle (2001) pp41-42.
[38] Helm, in Ganssle (2001) p41.
[39] Craig, in Beilby & Eddy, (2001) pp132-135.
[40] Padgett, in Ganssle (2001) p61.Bibliography
Beilby, J. K. & Eddy, P.R., Divine Foreknowledge, Four views, (2001) Paternoster Press, Carlisle.
Cranfield C. E. B., The International Critical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, Vol 1, (1975) T.&T. Clark, Edinburgh.
Davies, B., An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion, (Second edition), (1993) Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Ganssle, G. E., (ed), God & Time, Four Views, (2001) IVP, Downers Grove, Illinois.
Jethro., The Jethro Junction, (1995) First Independent Films Limited, England.
Kenny, A., The God of the Philosophers, (1979) Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Lewis, C. S., Mere Christianity, (1952) Fontana Books, London.
Morris, T. V., Our Idea of God: An Introduction to Philosophical Theology, (1991) IVP, Downers Grove, Illinois.
Peterson, M., et al, Philosophy of Religion, Selected Readings, (1996) Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Peterson, M., et al, Reason and Religious Belief, Second edition, (1998) Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Sanders, E. P., Paul and Palestinian Judaism, (1977) SCM Press, London.
Heresy in the making
Being an attention-seeking narcissist, as I am, I thought maybe I'd publish a few of my better essays here. Firstly, a selection from my degree, then maybe I'll add some as I go with my MA. I'll probably edit them a bit to save myself looking like a complete idiot.Maybe I'll add some shorter posts with less well thought-out ideas as well.If you're too busy to read any of them, that's okay, if
not, comments would be appreciated.
