We run our website the way we wished the whole internet worked: we provide high quality original content with no ads. We are funded solely by your direct support. Please consider supporting this project.

CosmicDanceFrtCvr

Roger Olson’s Review of The Cosmic Dance

Today we wanted to share a review of The Cosmic Dance by esteemed theologian Roger Olson. You can check out an excerpt below or you can read the whole review here. You can place an order for The Cosmic Dance here.

The Cosmic Dance is Greg’s (and friends’) attempt to present the case that the best contemporary science supports viewing time as an “arrow” such that an omnipresent being (such as the God of traditional Christianity) would not “already be” in the future or “still be” in the past but would experience the future as not yet and the past as no longer available. In other words, the book argues, using numerous quotations from and references to modern and contemporary physics, that relativity theory, as understood through post-Einsteinian physics, supports an “open view” of the universe and the future in which real novelty and spontaneity characterize events within an overall interconnected whole of reality.

When I read a book I often try to find a key paragraph that sums up its main “big idea” or single most important thesis. Here is my candidate for that in The Cosmic Dance: “In this book we’ve argued that Quantum Theory, Chaos-Complexity Theory and Non-equilibrium Thermodynamics suggest that a fully deterministic description of the world is impossible, and that time and novelty are more than mere illusions. We’ve argued that even Relativity Theory gives a role to time that is very different from space. This all suggests that reality moves from a settled past into a partly open future.” (184) …

I can heartily recommend this book for the pictures if nothing else! Seriously, however, if you are interested in reading a case made from science that time is “for real” and not illusory, and that although time and space are, indeed, inter-related that does not mean an omnipresent being must somehow already be “in the future,” buy the book.

Related Reading

Response to Bruce Ware’s “Defining Evangelicalism’s Boundaries: Is Open Theism Evangelical?”

The following essay was written in response to Bruce Ware’s article, “Defining Evangelicalism’s Boundaries: Is Open Theism Evangelical?” Published in The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, June 2002. Introduction I want to begin by expressing my utmost respect for the high value placed on academic fairness and integrity by the editorial board of JETS.…

Podcast: Can God Be Surprised?

Greg talks heaven and hell in this solid little episode. http://traffic.libsyn.com/askgregboyd/Episode_0394.mp3

What is the significance of Exodus 13:17?

The Lord didn’t lead Israel along the shortest route to Canaan because Israel would have had to fight the Philistines. The Lord wanted to avoid this, “Lest the people change their minds when they see war, and they return to Egypt.” [NIV: “If they face war they might change their minds and return to Egypt”].…

Topics:

Does Prayer Really Change Things?

Many people operate out of a blueprint model where God is viewed as absolutely unchanging, and all that occurs in the world is the unfolding of an eternal divine plan. If this is the case, then the purpose of prayer is to change us, not to change things. While prayer does change us, the Bible…

What is the significance of 1 Chronicles 21:7–13?

The Lord gives David three options of how Israel may be judged. “Three things I offer you; choose one of them, and I will do it to you.” Paralleling 2 Samuel 24:12–16, this passage reveals that the Lord gives people genuine alternatives and then responds to their choices. If the future is unalterably settled in…

Topics:

How do you respond to Jeremiah 1:5

The Lord says to Jeremiah, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.” This verse shows God’s love and plan for Jeremiah before he was born. This does not imply that Jeremiah could not have “rejected God’s…