aldenswan.com

“My gut feeling, and it’s nothing more than that,” he says, “is that there’s a 20 percent chance we’re living in a computer simulation.”
- Nick Bostrom, another brilliant Oxford Prof.

Check out the NYT article. Bostrom’s “gut feeling” is that there’s a 20% chance we’re merely virtual. John Tierney, who authored the piece, thinks the chances are better than even. Well - doesn’t that change the odds of Pascal’s Wager.

Now, this isn’t a new thought, obviously. We’ve had movies like The Matrix and The Thirteenth Floor, and I’m sure the concept has been around since before then. Michael Ende explored similar subjects in The Neverending Story. What I want to know is, what are the odds that the guy who thinks he is running this simulation is actually himself in a computer simulation? And, what are the odds that his mother will make him shut down and go to bed? What are the chances that the simulation is running on Windows and it will blue screen?

Hmm… let’s see: Red pill, or blue pill?

I ran across an interesting post this morning that discusses Eugene V. Koonin’s recent article in Biology Direct entitled, “The cosmological model of eternal inflation and the transition from chance to biological evolution in the history of life.” (Catchy title…)

Rather than trying to figure out how RNA came to exist by our universe’s rules, he proposes a different set of rules, under a multiverse theory. It’s all rather interesting. More interesting, however, is the following quote from the post:

…last year Nature recognized that the multiverse hypothesis is unfalsifiable and “isn’t science.” Nature then affirmatively quoted anti-ID physicist Leonard Susskind stating, “It would be very foolish to throw away the right answer on the basis that it doesn’’t conform to some criteria for what is or isn’t science.”

Well, okay then…

The other day I posted about the so-called New Perspective on Paul. It seems the hubbub is partially due to the Presbyterian Church in America’s recent statement that the New Perspective is not in conformity with the Westminster Standards. Now, I’m sure that the Westminster Standards (the Westminster Confession of Faith, The Westminster Shorter Catechism, The Westminster Larger Catechism, and The Directory of Public Worship) are nifty documents. However, at the risk of offending a few people, I just want to remind everyone that they are not Holy Scripture. They’re just an outline of Reformed (Calvinist) theology.

I’ve come to understand a lot of things about the Church over the years. One thing I’ve never been able to understand is the kind of allegiance people have to Reformed doctrine. Seriously, it amazes me. It’s like you don’t really need the Bible anymore, because you’ve got a systematic theology.

Most people who are upset with the NP appear to be from Reformed camps. Apparently the NP upsets the fine balance of the Reformed theological system, which apparently is “irreducibly complex;” you remove one piece, and it crumbles. The argument against the New Perspective actually goes like this: If the Jews didn’t rely on the Law of Moses for salvation (justification), then Paul’s teaching of “grace, not Law” means something different, and we’ve lost the Gospel (way oversimplified, but you get the idea). Not having a Reformed bone in my body, I don’t have the same issues. I instead find that NT Wright’s version of the NP actually expands the understanding of justification, and I see the Gospel firmly in place.

Christianity Today has an article this month by Simon Gathercole titled What Did Paul Really Mean?, which is an interesting look at the issue. One major flaw in Gathercole’s article (my opinion, of course) is that he lumps all of the NP folks together, so that his criticisms are way too general to really be effective. However, it’s still an interesting piece for anyone who likes to actually study the Bible, rather than just rely on a theological system.