Three Minutes of the Beginning

I recently read two great books that deal with the beginning of the universe. One is a book of science and one a study in ancient hebrew texts.

 The First Three Minutes 

The First 3 Minutes is a fascinating walkthrough, by Steven Weinberg, of some of the observations and discoveries that explain to us the movement and expanding of the universe and also it's temperature.

With these observations established he explains how the first 3 minutes of the universe probably took place. A mass of energy, quickly moving, and incredibly hot. From that first minute that mass of energy expanded and cooled.

Those cooling atoms began to connect and form the lightest of molecules and, as they became cooler and slower, combined to become the heavier of molecules.

For most of the reading of this book, I could not help but think, "What a fascinating idea about the beginning of the universe."

The argument seem reasonable and likely.

My only disappointment was Weinberg's start and end of the book. He started describing religious creation myths and cited, as an example, the Viking cosmic cow myth. He then went on to explain that we can toss those ideas aside because of observations of heat and speed of the universe.

It is an unfair to use such a straw man for "myths". Not to mention that he explains in the middle of his book that he is not able to talk about the very beginning of the first 3 minutes. He does not know where the energy came from. This seems like a poor time to throw out some of the more reasonable "myths"

 Genesis Bound

My second book was John Sailhamer's book Genesis Unbound. Sailhamer, an imminent Hebrew scholar, does a slow walk through the first two chapters of Genesis (the Christian/Jewish creation "myth").

He sought to address some of the confusion present in the interpretation of the Genesis creation story.

Many interpreters have difficulty and misunderstanding trying to make sense of the 2 chapters and also speak coherently in a scientific manner.

It was particularly elucidating to read that the Hebrew vocabulary, often translated heavens and or earth, is better translated sky and or land. This frames the 6 days of creation as, actually, a week of preparation of a land that would be a major character throughout the rest of the Torah (first five books of the Bible).

He seeks too press into the ancient text to answer the questions the text sought to answer. He, as a result, is faithful to the text and does not need to resort to anti-intellectualism to make sense of the text.

Sailhamer did not reject the idea that the Judeo/Christian God created the entire universe. For him, that particular truth was relegated to Gen 1:1-2 and the preparation comes after that. He does not speculate how the universe was created or how quickly.

I found, with his explanation, the thrust of Genesis and the next four books becomes even more clear and thrilling as a narrative. And, unlike as it had been for me in the past, the first two chapters were no longer disconnected thematically from the rest of the Torah.

With these two books put together I can see a possible explanation for how God created the entirety of the universe: with a massive, hot, and quick ball of rapidly expanding energy. And also a further description of the intimacy of God who prepared a particular land so that he could pursue a people to love.

I have an incredibly creative and close God. One who can make a universe, in all its wonder, and pursue a people and individuals for real relationship with him. And because it is true. I don't have to dispose of reason to have a whole picture.

I will continue to seek and understand and I am glad to have read both of these books as they both endeavored to fill in a piece of the picture.

I would highly recommend both of these books in the conversation of cosmos.

Details

Details are hard. They take time to read. Sometimes the fine print is confusing or the technical terms are not readily known. Often times it takes a wealth of subject understanding to be able to use the details. And yet, I see time after time a detail or statistic or fact about some massively complex issue being cited as reason for outrage or fear or worry.

1 in 10,000 babies die from disease x

23 Million people will drop from health care coverage

There is a 1 in 5 chance a major earthquake will happen in the next 50 years

All of these statements can be causes of fear or anger when cited as a headline. But none of them give the ignorant reader the context to understand.

The first: 1 in 10,000 makes a mother think of her ONE baby and many people are not able to see that number as essentially 0 (.000001). This is just an example but you get the idea.

I can't tell you how many statistics of death or serious diseases I had to walk through during my wife's recent pregnancy. Each was presented as a reason for great alarm and ceasing some activity or consumption of a food or beverage.

The second headline: can we all just admit there are few people that actually understand health care coverage completely and one quick sentence cited in our favorite media outlet is a poor source for informing our opinion on a 200 page document? Or am I the only one that has frustrating conversations with my health insurance provider about the definition of “Maximum Out of Pocket Expense"? I have had to apologize too many times about my tone after talking with the customer service representative.

The third: the Big One… the fabled earthquake coming our way. I’m not even sure what to do with that information. Can we actually mitigate that? In 50 years? It sounds so catastrophic we should be praying to God for mercy.

I have only heard the stat used as justification to have earthquake valves installed on your gas meters. Because a residential gas leak is going to be a major concern if the Willamette Valley is flooded by a Tsunami.

Madison said in the Federalist Papers that "knowledge will always rule over ignorance." The lesson is two fold. If you want to rule, gain knowledge. Secondly an admonition, if one has knowledge a wise and kind person will wield it over the ignorant with grace and consideration for their good.

I was a service tech for an HVAC company for 5 years. I know the details of a gas furnace and it's inner workings far more than I want to. I am an expert. But every day I would simplify my explanation and give people the information they needed to make a decision about the heating source of their home. I explained what was needed for safety and effectiveness. And I never said in an alarmist fashion, “Your furnace is a metal box filled with multiple nozzles pouring burning gas and fumes at 1,950 degrees and your only protection between the deadly flue gases and you is several millimeters of aging steel.” It is true but it was not helpful. I know many people for whom that would have only caused them to lay awake at night or shut off their furnace for fear of death.

Instead, everyday, I knew it was my responsibility to educate for their good. Not my sale, not an added accessory. For their good. That is a hard task and one any leader, educator, writer, or influencer should take as a heavy load.

I am not asking us to avoid details but I would have us explain them and educate our listeners rather than propagate a fact that sounds like something worth clicking. Unfortunately, the ones that would listen to this plea are not the problem.