Texts for 3rd Week of Epiphany

Jonah 3:1-5

God is not dependent on our persistence.  Rather we are dependent on God’s.  Jonah is called to Nineveh, determines not to go, and is “rerouted” by God.  Now He calls the prophet “the second time.”  The only message he proclaims is law.  This does suggest that the law can, indeed, create repentance.  Although at this point there is now “salvation,” per se, for the people of Nineveh have nothing in which to place their hope.

1 Corinthians 7:29-31

An exceedingly short reading dealing with the end times.  In other words, now.  A lot of ridiculous paradoxes: married people living as though unmarried, those dealing in the world as if they weren’t.  All because the present “form” of this world is passing away.  A suggested translation of 7:31 is “those using the world as not abusing it.”  This life is only a dress rehearsal, a small shadow of a greater life being prepared for us.  What kind of lives should we live, knowing that our current life is a fleeting and temporary thing?

Mark 1:14-20

This pregnant time has now come to its fulfillment.  Repent, and believe the Gospel.  This is the driving force behind our lives in this present age.  Jesus takes those involved in the mundane tasks of this world, relieves them of that work, and gives it a new meaning.  Andrew and Simon, John and James become “fishers of men.”  Simon and Andrew are called immediately, John and James respond immediately.  There is urgency to this work.  Have we lost our sense of urgency today?  John and James are in the process of preparing their nets, but even so they abandon their work to follow Jesus.

Posted in Lectionary | Tagged , | Comments Off

You Can’t ‘Prove’ God

An interesting quote from Dean L. Overman’s Evidence for the Existence of God (Rowman and Littlefield: 2009):

There are real limits to any formal reasoning system attempting something in the nature of a mathematical proof.  Science and faith share a common belief that what we see as normal reality is not actual reality; the observable has something more fundamental hidden behind it.  This may be part of the reason a compelling proof of God’s existence or non-existence may not be possible.  Certainty in this world may not only be unknowable (to use Chaitin’s term) but is also unavailable.  This does not mean that an argument cannot be rational and plausible, but perhaps it cannot compel one to choose in a certain direction.

The result of these deeply embedded undecidable fundamentals in mathematics and all formal reasoning systems is that everyone has to make Pascal’s Wager or Kierkegaard’s leap of faith.  There are no exemptions.  Because abstention is a vote, agnosticism is not a real option.  Everyone lives and dies with a faith, whether the faith is theistic or naturalistic.  This is the way our reality appears to be structured, and everyone ultimately makes a choice, whether that choice is passive or active. (p.183)

Overman bases a good chunk of his argument on concepts of mind and consciousness related to quantum mechanics, and to the ideas derived from Godel’s incompleteness theorem in mathematics.

Posted in Apologetics, Philosophy, Science | Tagged , | Comments Off

Quantum Physics: Illusion or Reality?

What is it about quantum mechanics that has drawn the attention of so many normally not interested in hard science?  Physics professor Alastair Rae explains in this short book.  Rae describes, first, the experiments which have verified the essentials of quantum theory.  These basic principles with their associated experimental demonstration include:

Heisenberg’s “Uncertainty Principle,” that the product of the change in position and the change in momentum of a subatomic particle will always be greater than Planck’s constant divided by 4 times pi.  In English, one can know the position of a particle but only by sacrificing any knowledge of its momentum, or speed,

Wave-particle duality, or the notion shown through experimentation that “photons” of light can behave either like a particle or like a wave depending on whether an attempt is made to observe the individual particle,

Schrodinger’s wave equation, describing the specific quantized “wavelengths” available to the electrons of an atom in order for it to be stable,

The Einstein-Podolski-Rosen (EPR) effect, sometimes referred to by Einstein’s colloquial phrase “spooky action at a distance,” which implies either nonlocality (a fancy way of saying the particles are behaving in a way well outside of classical interactions), or the existence of some as-yet-undiscovered hidden variable, which led to

Bell’s Theorem, an attempt to determine whether the heretofore unexplainable behavior of subatomic particles could be governed by some as-yet-undiscovered “hidden variables.”  Experiments testing what are now known as “Bell-type inequalities” have born out conventional quantum mechanical theory and ruled out hidden variables, and

The Copenhagen Interpretation, which is the view that the quantum world does not have any true physical reality; physical reality is established by macroscopic measuring apparatus interacting with the microscopic world.

All of these, summed together, suggest that the behavior of particles on the subatomic level changes under observation.  Now one can see where the ears of theologians and philosophers might perk up.  So after establishing the basic physics, Rae explores how some have chosen to deal with this current state of physics. There are some, such as Sir Karl Popper (a philosopher) and Sir John Eccles (a Nobel-prize winning neurologist) who see in these ideas some evidence for a soul, or at least a distinction between the mind that observes the world and the brain by which it is observed.  Call this the “Consciousness Interpretation” of quantum mechanical theory.  The universe exists because conscious entities observe it.  Rae has difficulties with this interpretation, but does present it fairly well.

There are, obviously, those who would rather keep theology out of physics altogether.  Many in this group hold to the “Many Worlds Interpretation” of quantum observation, the idea that each observation spawns a universe in which every possible experimental outcome occurs simultaneously.  While this has the benefit of getting around talk of God, souls, and consciousness, it is (in Rae’s oft-quoted phrase) “cheap on assumptions but expensive on universes.”

The view which Rae prefers is that proposed by Ilya Prigogine, and flows from the concept of time’s arrow, or the notion that certain types of occurrences are  observed to happen in one direction only.  Watching Humpty Dumpty fall from the wall into a state beyond repair is easy to visualize.  We do not, however, observe broken eggs reassemble themselves to be re-situated in a state of high potential energy.  French scientist Henri Poincare suggested that this “arrow” of time was in fact an illusion, since subatomic processes do not see to be bound by this same restriction.  He suggested what is now known as a Poincare recurrence, the concept that given sufficient time the Second Law of Thermodynamics will be observed in certain cases to have been merely a suggestion.  We might call this the “Hebraic Model,” where the universe asks us to accept it as fundamentally dynamic and not static.

Prigogine proposed that in fact is it the seeming reversibility of subatomic processes that are the illusion.  The universe is less something that “is” and more something that “is becoming.”  In fact Prigogine’s book on the subject is called “Being and Becoming.”  Certainly this idea has its own philosophical and theological implications which are worth exploring.

Rae, Alastair.  Quantum Physics: Illusion or Reality?  Cambridge University Press: 1986

Posted in Science | Tagged , | Comments Off

Unity in Multiplicity

It occurred to me the other day, reflecting on Christmas, that Christian theology is one of unity brought out of multiplicity.  We tend to see, for example, God’s triune nature – three persons and yet one being – as unique and somewhat disconnected from the rest of our theology.  Yet it reveals something that is essentially in that it repeats itself in creation and again in salvation.

Genesis 1:26-27 is a poetic statement of how the Creator imprints his image within his creation.  Man is made in the image of God.  Yet man, the unity, exists in two genders: male and female.  Together, they are human.  And so the man and the woman come together and form one flesh.  Even Augustine saw this as a manifestation of God’s triune nature within creation when he analogized the Trinity as “the Lover, the Beloved, and the Love between them.”

Jesus’ incarnation reveals another unity in multiplicity.  He is one person, yet having two natures.  He is both fully divine and fully human, yet one.  Jesus does not marry a single woman, however, because his desire is to marry the One Woman who is His Church.  That One Woman is herself made up of many members.  So all who are in Christ become One New Woman, married to Christ, who then unites this One Woman with God through Himself.

Sin takes that which belongs together and separates it, forcing us to see the Other as a figure of opposition rather than as a compliment that with us makes a unitary whole.  Marriages that are meant to be the reflection of God’s unity separate.  Churches schism because members forget that they are members, and some attempt to set themselves up as heads in distinction to Christ the True Head.

God is the one who delights in making one out of many, because God is one in many Himself.

 

 

Posted in Theology | Tagged | Comments Off

Christmas at Memorial

A little video I put together reminding us all of what Christmas is REALLY all about.

Posted in Worship | Tagged , | Comments Off

Joyeux Fete de St-Nicholas!

Saint-Nicolas

“Par la grâce que vous êtes sauvés par la foi. Et ce n’est pas votre propre fait, c’est le don de Dieu.” Ephésiens 2:8 (ESV).

Il ya à peine un figure qui est plus représentatif de la période de Noël, outre Jésus Christ, que le Père Noël. Certains chrétiens croient que, y compris l’histoire d’une «vieille nain joyeux” qui vit au pôle Nord et offre des cadeaux aux enfants sages est une partie inoffensive de célébrations de Noël. D’autres excluent délibérément le Père Noël entièrement, faisant de lui un antagoniste du jour férié, un spoiler pour Jésus, qui devrait être la vraie raison de la saison.

Mais il ya un fond solide, historique et chrétienne de l’histoire du Père Noël. Le nom due Père Noël en anglais, «Santa Claus», vient d’un pasteur du 4e siècle grec nommé Nicolas. Nicolas est né vers 270 après Jésus-Christ dans ce qui est maintenant le pays de la Turquie. Ses parents sont morts tandis que Nicholas était encore jeune, et il fut élevé par son oncle qui était lui-même pasteur. Il ya de nombreuses légendes raconté au sujet de Nicolas, et beaucoup d’entre eux ont à voir avec donner des cadeaux aux pauvres ou d’autres qui se trouvent dans des situation désespérées. Au fil du temps, l’idée d’un donateur de cadeau qui visite des maisons en secret s’est attaché à la célébration de la naissance de Jésus.

Tous les chrétiens devraient être en mesure de convenir que tout ce que nous faisons pour célébrer Noël, il doit mettre l’accent sur le Don de Dieu pardessus de nos cadeaux. La raison d’être de donner des cadeaux à Noël est le grand don qui nous est donnée par le Père, notre Seigneur et Sauveur Jésus-Christ. Que ce soit le Père Noël, Nicolas, membres de la famille, ou des amis, personne ne doit supplanter l’objectif réel de Noël, la célébration de la naissance du Christ.

Père, dispensateur des dons bonnes, aidez-nous à Noël à rendre grâce pour le don de ton Fils. Amen.

Posted in Francais, Liturgie | Tagged | Comments Off

Richard Bell on Mind and Matter

Theologian and scientist Professor Richard Bell argues that quantum theory supports the idea that the universe is a representation upheld by and in the consciousness of its inhabitants. This, of course, is an area of research that has long fascinated me and about which there is much more to write. This presentation was given at the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion centered at Cambridge University in the UK. You can give his lecture a listen here.

Posted in Apologetics, English, Philosophy, Science | Tagged , | Comments Off

Lara Eager on Parliament Hill

My sister’s public school choir was chosen to sing at the lighting of the lights ceremony on Parliament Hill.  Here’s a short clip:

Posted in English, General | Tagged , | Comments Off

Kant and Arguments for God

Kant argued that there were only three kinds of arguments that could be made regarding the existence of some sort of God.  He called these the cosmological, ontological, and physico-theological arguments.

Under the cosmological argument type falls all arguments from cause and effect or contingency, arguments to a causa sui which is itself uncaused and unmoved but from whom all cause and movement derive.  But this line of argumentation, according to Kant, is relevant only for those convinced that the universe has some reason for its existence, some purpose.  But then we are contemplating the nature of the universe as it is in itself and not simply as we perceive it.  To move beyond anything tied to perception evaluated by categorical thought, for Kant, is to move into the realm of the unintelligible.  This is one of Kant’s antinomies.

The second line of argumentation, from ontology, attempts to argue for God’s existence from the concept or idea of divinity.  Anselm’s ontological argument is perhaps the best known example of this form of argumentation.  The argument goes like this (quoted from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy):

  1. It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible being that can be imagined).G
  2. God exists as an idea in the mind.
  3. A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.
  4. Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (that is, a greatest possible being that does exist).
  5. But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.)
  6. Therefore, God exists.

Kant’s criticism is aimed chiefly at premise 3.  He argues that existence is not a property of an entity, but a precondition for that entity exhibiting properties.  So one cannot argue that “existence” is a property that makes an entity greater than “non-existence,” because it is not in and of itself a property that can make something greater or lesser.  The American Philosopher Norman Malcolm puts it like this:

The doctrine that existence is a perfection is remarkably queer. It makes sense and is true to say that my future house will be a better one if it is insulated than if it is not insulated; but what could it mean to say that it will be a better house if it exists than if it does not?

Then there is are the physico-theological arguments.  In a nutshell, these are “arguments from design.”  This kind of reasoning, Kant wrote…

…always deserves to be mentioned with respect.  It is the oldest, the clearest, and the most consonant with human reason.  It enlivens the study of nature, just as it itself derives its existence and gains ever new strength from that source. (p.66-67, Scruton)

Scruton, however, defines this line of argument as beginning with “the premiss of some good in nature, and argue(s) by analogy to the perfection of its cause.” (p.66, Scruton)  Modern design arguments such as those currently being expounded and propounded by William Dembski, Stephen Meyer and Michael Behe, do not seem have this sort of argument in mind.  First, the modern design argument does not proceed from some observable “good” in nature, but rather from particular features of nature.  Second, the argument does proceed by analogy to a perfect cause, but rather infers to the best explanation for those particular features of nature.

I infer, for example, that the car sitting in my driveway is not a natural product of the laws of nature but required some intelligence to bring it into existence.  But my argument does not depend on whether my car is “good” but rather on its properties.  While modern “ID” admits to God as the possible source of the design observed in nature, it does not claim that a “perfect” being must be the source of the design but simply “an intelligence.”  Critiques of the modern design hypothesis that refer to the supposed “imperfections” in nature are arguing against Kant’s physico-theological type of argument for the existence of God, and not against the modern concept of intelligent design.

 

Posted in Apologetics, Philosophy | Tagged , | Comments Off

Texts for 2nd Sunday in Advent

This week’s “stream of Spirit” on the upcoming texts.

Isaiah 40:1-11

“Comfort, comfort ye my people” (LSB 347).  Israel has received from the Lord’s hand “double” for all her sins.  Does that imply that Israel has atoned for her own sins?  Or a reference to a “double blessing,” that the prophet can speak tenderly to her because she is receiving more good than her evil deserves?

“A voice cries in the wilderness.”  John the Baptist, of course.  Is he a voice crying for us to prepare in the wilderness, or is he a voice crying out in the wilderness?  Both!  Just as he is ministering in “the wilderness of Judea” can imply both a wilderness in the land of Judea, and Judea, the wilderness where God’s people are wandering in exile still cut off from God because of disobedience and covenant infidelity.

“What shall I cry?  All flesh is like grass.”  Isaiah, and then John the Baptist, have no weapon in their arsenal but the word.  John the Baptist performed no miracles, no “signs and wonders.”  Likewise we have only the Word to proclaim to the world – and that is more than enough!

2 Peter 3:8-14

A text that reminds us that Advent is as much about Jesus second coming as it is about his first.  ”With the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousands years as one day.”  The extent to which the Creator of time is himself bound by time is a fascinating question in itself.  Salvation history does seem to suggest the Lord working in “fits and starts,” sometimes in a hurricane of effort (the Exodus, Jesus’ ministry), and then fading into the background for years at a time.

“The heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolve.”  The Last Day will impact the Andromeda Galaxy.  Sin is a problem of cosmic proportions.  An overemphasis on “life-after-death-as-a-spirit-in-heaven” makes these somewhat frightening verses.  How can paradise be destroyed?  It can’t – because creation itself has not been restored, and that is the paradise we await:

“But according to the promise…” Again, the Word is prime.  We do not search for “signs of the End,” despite seeing many signs that we do indeed lives “in the last days.”  These are not signs that the end has come, but signs that the end is coming.  When?  Like a thief.

Mark 1:1-18

Elijah comes bringing only a message and water.  But each year we remember this man not once, but at least twice and sometimes more.  He is the Forerunner, who announced that God’s plan is moving forward in a mighty way – the Harvest is beginning.  This man, utterly dependent on God (locusts, honey, camel’s hair clothes) for everything, cries out in the wilderness for repentance.  Each day we turn a new life, find our mind renewed, and arise to “live before God in righteousness and purity forever.”  The Word is the weapon of the Church.  Do we dare unsheathe it and allow it to do its work?  Will we trust it to do what God says it will do?

Posted in Lectionary | Tagged , | Comments Off