Materialism as myth

Joe Carter renders materialistic cosmology as a creation myth.  Here is the first part, but you should read it all:

In the beginning was Nothing, and Nothing created Everything. When Nothing decided to create Everything, she filled a tiny dot with Time, Chance, and Everything and had it expand. The expansion spread Everything into Everywhere carrying Time and Chance with it to keep it company. The three stretched out together leaving bits of themselves wherever they went. One of those places was the planet Earth.

For no particular Reason—for Reason is rarely particular—Time and Chance took a liking to this little, wet, blue rock and decided to stick around to see what adventures they might have. While the pair found the Earth to be intriguing and pretty, they also found it a bit too quiet, too static. They fixed upon an idea to change Everything (just a little) by creating a special Something. Time and Chance roamed the planet, splashing through the oceans and sloshing through the mud, in search of materials. But though they looked Everywhere, there was a missing ingredient that they needed in order to make a Something that could create more of the same Somethings.

They called to their friend Everything to help. Since Everything had been Everywhere she would no doubt be able to find the missing ingredient. And indeed she did. Hidden away in a small alcove called Somewhere, Everything found what Time and Chance had needed all along: Information. Everything put Information on a piece of ice and rock that happened to be passing by the former planet Pluto and sent it back to her friends on Earth.

Now that they had Information, Time and Chance were finally able to create a self-replicating Something which they called Life. Once they created Life they found that it not only grew into more Somethings, but began to become Otherthings, too! The Somethings and the Otherthings began to fill the Earth—from the bottom of the oceans to the top of the sky. Their creation, which began as a single Something, eventually became millions and billions of Otherthings.

Time and Chance, though, where the bickering sort and were constantly feuding over which of them was the most powerful. One day they began to argue over who had been more responsible for creating Life. Everything (who was forever eavesdropping) overheard the spat and suggested that they settle by putting their creative skills to work on a new creature called Man. They all thought is was a splendid plan—for Man was a dull, hairy beast who would indeed provide a suitable challenge—and began to boast about who could create an ability, which they called Consciousness, that would allow Man to be aware of Chance, Time, Everything, and Nothing.

via When Nothing Created Everything | First Things.

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • http://theobservationtree.blogspot.com Louis

    Materialist naturalism, or whatever its called , can be so – unoriginal.

    Reminds me of the very transparent tactics by the old regime in the DDR – instead of active persecution, they created parallel ceremonies to get the young away from the church – a parallel to baptism, a parallel to confirmation (jugendweihe it was called, I think) etc.

    Copying is a form of lattery, no?

  • http://theobservationtree.blogspot.com Louis

    Materialist naturalism, or whatever its called , can be so – unoriginal.

    Reminds me of the very transparent tactics by the old regime in the DDR – instead of active persecution, they created parallel ceremonies to get the young away from the church – a parallel to baptism, a parallel to confirmation (jugendweihe it was called, I think) etc.

    Copying is a form of lattery, no?

  • Tom Hering

    Wasn’t this Joe Carter piece posted as a topic once before? Or am I going crazy? I can’t find it in the “previous entries.”

  • Tom Hering

    Wasn’t this Joe Carter piece posted as a topic once before? Or am I going crazy? I can’t find it in the “previous entries.”

  • Bryan Lindemood

    I might be going crazy with you, because I was just thinking the same thing.

  • Bryan Lindemood

    I might be going crazy with you, because I was just thinking the same thing.

  • Dennis Peskey

    Note: There are four more paragraphs in the original blog posting. You may want to know the effect of “consciousness” leading to “dispair” and the need to create “belief.” A posting well done.
    Peace,
    Dennis

  • Dennis Peskey

    Note: There are four more paragraphs in the original blog posting. You may want to know the effect of “consciousness” leading to “dispair” and the need to create “belief.” A posting well done.
    Peace,
    Dennis

  • SKPeterson

    I also read this somewhere. Was it here and it just got moved or reposted? I must’ve slept since then.

  • SKPeterson

    I also read this somewhere. Was it here and it just got moved or reposted? I must’ve slept since then.

  • WebMonk

    Louis #1 – “Materialist naturalism, or whatever its called , can be so – unoriginal.”

    Technically Joe Carter is a Christian doing a spoof of materialistic naturalism, putting it into the form of Genesis (sort of). I’m not really sure that the work is supposed to be in any way original, so I’m not sure that deriding it as “unoriginal” is quite fair.

    Also, technically if you think the work is unoriginal, that would be a charge to lay at Joe Carter’s feet rather than those of materialist naturalism.

  • WebMonk

    Louis #1 – “Materialist naturalism, or whatever its called , can be so – unoriginal.”

    Technically Joe Carter is a Christian doing a spoof of materialistic naturalism, putting it into the form of Genesis (sort of). I’m not really sure that the work is supposed to be in any way original, so I’m not sure that deriding it as “unoriginal” is quite fair.

    Also, technically if you think the work is unoriginal, that would be a charge to lay at Joe Carter’s feet rather than those of materialist naturalism.

  • http://theobservationtree.blogspot.com Louis

    Webmonk – you’re right, and as fws & Tom would say, one needs to have your morning coffee before writing here!

  • http://theobservationtree.blogspot.com Louis

    Webmonk – you’re right, and as fws & Tom would say, one needs to have your morning coffee before writing here!

  • Dan Kempin

    Re: Tom, Bryan, and SKPeterson,

    Hey, I read this post before . . . but wait, it’s not there now . . . but maybe it’s just me . . . what’s going on here?

    Thank you, Dr. Veith, for restoring the aura of mystery that I so enjoy!

  • Dan Kempin

    Re: Tom, Bryan, and SKPeterson,

    Hey, I read this post before . . . but wait, it’s not there now . . . but maybe it’s just me . . . what’s going on here?

    Thank you, Dr. Veith, for restoring the aura of mystery that I so enjoy!


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X