An adequate synthesis?

[shernren]

I was reading Peacocke's Theology for a Scientific Age. Part I dealt with the sciences, and Part II dealt with God and the world. They were good - indeed, I'd recommend them for anyone here, if not for the third part. It had to do with human being and becoming, and inevitably it dealt with the Incarnation.

And it did so in an utterly anti-supernaturalist manner. So, too, did it deal with the resurrection. There were some extremely important and pertinent points for me to think through:

- What can it possibly mean for Jesus to be both "fully human" and virginally conceived? For the Virgin Conception to be historically accurate, either God miraculously and instantaneously created a sperm that fertilized Mary's ovum, or God miraculously and instantaneously created a fertilized zygote in Mary's womb. Can Jesus be then said to be completely human if He did not completely share our human origin?

- What can it mean to insist that "Jesus' resurrection involved some kind of transformation of Jesus' [physical] body", to make the empty tomb and absence of corpse the historical nexus of the resurrection experience? After all, the atoms that make up our bodies, or anybody else's body, or even Jesus' body, were not specially labeled or isolated to be transformed into their respective resurrection bodies. Nothing prevents the oxygen I'm breathing in right now from formerly being the carbon dioxide exhaled from Jesus' body. Clearly our conscious experience cannot be closely identified with the exact atoms of our bodies - does that then mean that Jesus' conscious existence, the ascension and return of His nature into God's, must necessarily be accompanied by some physical reanimation and dematerialization of His corpse?

I find these to be powerful and important questions. And in fact the first even vindicates an example I've infrequently used here - what can it mean for God to knit me together in my mother's womb, with obstetrics, gynecology and developmental biology? They also show that much of the interface between science and Scripture is really independent of creationism, and that they simply don't have a fundamental place in considering that relationship - the question of Jesus' zygote needs an answer regardless of whether we evolved from apes or were molded from dust.

But I'm frustrated by the inherently anti-supernaturalist attitude that Peacocke (and others, I suspect) bring to the table. I am not willing to accept a priori that miracles are off-limits from the start - to abandon the horse-sense of the Scripture simply to look good to the elite.

Have any other recent theologians looked at it this way? Is there anyone who has been able to pull together a synthesis of science and spirituality without abandoning the miracles? Surely there must be some smarter than me who agree with me!

 

[Mallon]

These questions are hard. Can we speculate on the whereabouts of the ark instead?

 

[Melethiel]

In my view, the Incarnation and Resurrection fall in the same boat as the Sacraments..."too complicated - just leave it a mystery and don't think about it too hard."

 

[shernren]

You guys are no fun.

 

[Melethiel]

I'm Lutheran...we're not supposed to think about mysteries too hard.

I'm plenty of fun once you get me talking about pipe organs or chemistry though...

 

[Digit]

I was reading Peacocke's Theology for a Scientific Age. Part I dealt with the sciences, and Part II dealt with God and the world. They were good - indeed, I'd recommend them for anyone here, if not for the third part. It had to do with human being and becoming, and inevitably it dealt with the Incarnation.

And it did so in an utterly anti-supernaturalist manner. So, too, did it deal with the resurrection. There were some extremely important and pertinent points for me to think through:

- What can it possibly mean for Jesus to be both "fully human" and virginally conceived? For the Virgin Conception to be historically accurate, either God miraculously and instantaneously created a sperm that fertilized Mary's ovum, or God miraculously and instantaneously created a fertilized zygote in Mary's womb. Can Jesus be then said to be completely human if He did not completely share our human origin?

- What can it mean to insist that "Jesus' resurrection involved some kind of transformation of Jesus' [physical] body", to make the empty tomb and absence of corpse the historical nexus of the resurrection experience? After all, the atoms that make up our bodies, or anybody else's body, or even Jesus' body, were not specially labeled or isolated to be transformed into their respective resurrection bodies. Nothing prevents the oxygen I'm breathing in right now from formerly being the carbon dioxide exhaled from Jesus' body. Clearly our conscious experience cannot be closely identified with the exact atoms of our bodies - does that then mean that Jesus' conscious existence, the ascension and return of His nature into God's, must necessarily be accompanied by some physical reanimation and dematerialization of His corpse?

I find these to be powerful and important questions. And in fact the first even vindicates an example I've infrequently used here - what can it mean for God to knit me together in my mother's womb, with obstetrics, gynecology and developmental biology? They also show that much of the interface between science and Scripture is really independent of creationism, and that they simply don't have a fundamental place in considering that relationship - the question of Jesus' zygote needs an answer regardless of whether we evolved from apes or were molded from dust.

But I'm frustrated by the inherently anti-supernaturalist attitude that Peacocke (and others, I suspect) bring to the table. I am not willing to accept a priori that miracles are off-limits from the start - to abandon the horse-sense of the Scripture simply to look good to the elite.

Have any other recent theologians looked at it this way? Is there anyone who has been able to pull together a synthesis of science and spirituality without abandoning the miracles? Surely there must be some smarter than me who agree with me!

Hey Shernen,

Just in response to your first question, I've also wondered about how fully human Jesus could have been. Yet I guess, if scientists of our day can use artificial insemination, to create a child, does that mean that child is not fully human? I think it is as human as the rest of us.

Cheers,
Digit

 

[gluadys]

But I'm frustrated by the inherently anti-supernaturalist attitude that Peacocke (and others, I suspect) bring to the table. I am not willing to accept a priori that miracles are off-limits from the start - to abandon the horse-sense of the Scripture simply to look good to the elite.

Have any other recent theologians looked at it this way? Is there anyone who has been able to pull together a synthesis of science and spirituality without abandoning the miracles? Surely there must be some smarter than me who agree with me!

I'd recommend Faith of a Physicist by John Polkinghorne, the physicist turned Anglican priest & theologian.

He does come at these events from what he calls a "bottom up" evidence-based point of view, but he is very far from rejecting miracles a priori.

 

[theIdi0t]

For the Virgin Conception to be historically accurate, either God miraculously and instantaneously created a sperm that fertilized Mary's ovum, or God miraculously and instantaneously created a fertilized zygote in Mary's womb. Can Jesus be then said to be completely human if He did not completely share our human origin

I'm confused a bit by the above. I never considered the virgin birth or the resurrection to be historical, anymore so than I consider the events to be scientific. If I believe something occurred does that necessarily make it historical?

I've always assumed that the supernatural cannot be classified as scientific or historical.

the question of Jesus' zygote needs an answer regardless of whether we evolved from apes or were molded from dust.

Why does it a need an answer? Particularly when none can be found. We can make a 1000 inferences of the supernatural qualities of Jesus in the womb, and all of them would be equally correct, because all would rely on an equal degree of evidence or lack thereof.

If you are looking for the most probable scenario: Jesus was not the product of a virgin birth and writers of the Gospel wrote he was because of a misunderstanding in the reading of Isaiah 7:14, with the correct translation of almah being "young woman" and not "virgin". Perhaps this explains Paul and Mark's silence on the virgin birth.

I'm not saying that I believe Jesus was not born a virgin, but that the most probable scenario will always be a natural scenario. Whenever we are dealing with the supernatural events we are always dealing with the improbable, but we believe that these supernatural events occurred through faith.

I think the questions that you are asking are irrelevant in a sense, because no answer is going to be satisfying. If you are looking for a line between the natural and the supernatural, you are going to be drawing it yourself in the place you feel most comfortable, not necessarily the most reasonable.

 

[Citanul]

Jesus was not born a virgin

I usually don't point out people's typos, but I couldn't let this one go by.

 

[theIdi0t]

I usually don't point out people's typos, but I couldn't let this one go by.

.

what spelling mistake...i don't see no spelling mistake

 

[shernren]

I think the scientific issues aren't associated with Jesus being born a virgin ... but of a virgin.

 

[crawfish]

- What can it possibly mean for Jesus to be both "fully human" and virginally conceived? For the Virgin Conception to be historically accurate, either God miraculously and instantaneously created a sperm that fertilized Mary's ovum, or God miraculously and instantaneously created a fertilized zygote in Mary's womb. Can Jesus be then said to be completely human if He did not completely share our human origin?

Not sure if I understand this. Would a child conceived in a test tube be any less a human? Would that child not "completely share our human origin"? Jesus would certainly have fully shared the human experience by being born and growing up as a normal child.

the question of Jesus' zygote needs an answer regardless of whether we evolved from apes or were molded from dust.

Does it? It is, in my mind, an unanswerable question.

But I'm frustrated by the inherently anti-supernaturalist attitude that Peacocke (and others, I suspect) bring to the table. I am not willing to accept a priori that miracles are off-limits from the start - to abandon the horse-sense of the Scripture simply to look good to the elite.

Have any other recent theologians looked at it this way? Is there anyone who has been able to pull together a synthesis of science and spirituality without abandoning the miracles? Surely there must be some smarter than me who agree with me!

I may or may not be smarter than you , but I do agree with you. To remove the essence of miracles is to remove the ability or desire of God to act in our lives, essentially invalidating the Christian view of a personally involved God.

 

[Deamiter]

I'm Lutheran...we're not supposed to think about mysteries too hard.

I'm plenty of fun once you get me talking about pipe organs or chemistry though...

I built a pipe organ once -- 4000+ pipes (Bethel University in Minnesota has one of the best small performance halls period!). Not that I did all the work, but it was so cool when they started putting it in that I kept showing up and got all the dirty jobs like gluing in tubing and putting in pipes in the back.

On chemistry, the only chemistry I could ever get interested in was physical chemistry -- borrowed a textbook on it once and was rather impressed that chemists CAN do science...

 

[Deamiter]

I may or may not be smarter than you , but I do agree with you. To remove the essence of miracles is to remove the ability or desire of God to act in our lives, essentially invalidating the Christian view of a personally involved God.

I agree the Bible was VERY poorly written if it was supposed to describe details about theology. It does a wonderful job of leading people to be able to have a relationship with Christ, but it's rather lacking in terms of details -- especially where our advanced understanding of the universe wasn't yet formed.

Anyway, as to this quote, why is this necessary? I'm far from a deist who thinks that God works only through the natural, but what if he did? If God knows everything that will happen (though I acknowledge that some hypothesize that God can't know everything that will happen because much of it is unknowable until it happens thanks to quantum uncertainties) then couldn't God have created the natural universe initially to generate answers to our prayers? I know it's rather counter to our usual understanding of free will but is there any reason that God could not have set each and every "miracle" in motion at the beginning of creation?

Speaking of beginnings, if God is outside of time, does it even make sense to talk about him violating his natural laws since to him it was all done simultaneously?

Yeah, I usually just chalk it all down to 'mystery' too but I'm not as certain as some that a deist God who set each answer to prayer in motion initially (perhaps even setting the universe to produce unique vibrations that resemble spoken word at key moments in history?) is inherently incompatible with a personal and loving God.

That said, I AM more of the opinion that due to the way God designed the universe, he could not have predicted what would happen (though he certainly knew every possibility and at many times forced a certain possibility to come to pass). I'll have to pick up some of my old books by Boyd to see again how he supported these views with scripture though.

 

[Digit]

Hey have you guys seen the film called The Exodus Code? He actually gives scientific explanations for all the plagues of Egypt during the exodus, and it sort of made it lose some of the magic for me. He does present a pretty good case, with everything except the appearance of the ark, but I'm not sure about it.

Digit

 

[Citanul]

Hey have you guys seen the film called The Exodus Code? He actually gives scientific explanations for all the plagues of Egypt during the exodus, and it sort of made it lose some of the magic for me.

I think I may have seen something similar, which was the results of the study of the plagues by experts who looked at each of the plagues as parts of a whole (e.g. looking at how one plague could have resulted in the next). For me it didn't really lose the magic as they did point out that even though that it would have required an extraordinary set of circumstances for it all to work.

 

[Digit]

I think I may have seen something similar, which was the results of the study of the plagues by experts who looked at each of the plagues as parts of a whole (e.g. looking at how one plague could have resulted in the next). For me it didn't really lose the magic as they did point out that even though that it would have required an extraordinary set of circumstances for it all to work.

Yeah that's very similar, not sure what made me think of that. Sorry to derail the post.

Cheers!
Digit

 

[Deamiter]

Yeah that's very similar, not sure what made me think of that. Sorry to derail the post.

Cheers!
Digit

No problem. I do remember losing some of the magic of the Bible as things were explained in terms of natural phenomena. The idea that miracles could be performed through everyday natural laws seemed a bit mundane to a guy like me who spent his childhood reading C.S. Lewis and Tolkien.

Of course, as I learned more about both God and the world I found that it makes more sense and is more amazing that God would use the universe he designed rather than bypassing his design every time he wants something accomplished.

 

[gluadys]

I feel positive about taking away the "magic" of some biblical stories. And not just in regard to events relating to nature.

One of the things I like to discover are the political currents in which the prophets spoke their messages. In a theocracy religious language was often simultaneously political language and the prophets were not all that different from the spokesmen for varying political viewpoints in Judah and Israel.

To me this does not lessen the importance of the prophetic message at all. I find it positively encouraging that God even works through the mess we humans make of political issues.

 

[shernren]

I think I may have seen something similar, which was the results of the study of the plagues by experts who looked at each of the plagues as parts of a whole (e.g. looking at how one plague could have resulted in the next). For me it didn't really lose the magic as they did point out that even though that it would have required an extraordinary set of circumstances for it all to work.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Peacocke did make some good points about miracles and how God can influence the universe. He points out that a lot of times causation is not just bottom-up, but top-down. For example, scientists might inject a particular neurotransmitter into my brain and that would cause me to feel happier - the neurotransmitters, small chemicals, influence "me", something derived from the sum total of those chemical interactions (plus possibly otherworldly stuffing, too). But instead, "I' can think a happy thought, which might make the same neurotransmitters increase in level - "I", the sum total of the chemical interactions, have influenced the chemicals themselves which supposedly interact to make up me. Furthermore, it would be almost impossible to identify any given "point" at which "I" make more neurotransmitters be emitted - is it in the neuron that emits neurotransmitters? or the neuron (or sets of neurons) that thinks the happy thoughts? or the neuron (or sets of neurons) that decides to think these thoughts?

I, as the sum total of chemicals (+ possibly otherworldly stuff) can influence those chemicals top-down. How much more can God, overseeing the entire universe in all its macro-patterns, influence nature! And as it is impossible to determine the causal point, if it is proper to speak of one at all, at which I make myself feel happy, it may well be similarly impossible to determine any "point" at which the laws of nature have been broken.

I just feel as if these theologians have so little faith in the writers of Scripture to have recorded a miracle properly and weeded out stylistic exaggeration from historical recording - especially in the Gospels which appear very much to have been written with the express purpose of historical recording! Or perhaps I'm not being liberal enough.