What exactly do you mean by God? (There are many god concepts, and many are ill defined. This is an honest question since I'd have to know what the proposition is before being able to believe it. Specifically, there is a vast difference between a deist god and any particular theist god.)
Response: Philosophically “God” means “the ultimate Creator”.
There can only be 0 or 1 “ultimate Creator”s and deism, theism etc.. are theories about God not descriptions of different Gods.
Follow-on: On what basis do you evaluate these different theories about God? In other words, how is Christianity more plausible than other options?
Response: There is, and can be, no algorithm.
You just have to use your judgement and decide.
One not unreasonable heuristic: if God exists then God is presumably not incompetent so one of the major universal theistic religions is likely to be broadly true.
Narrows it down to Christianity or Islam, and for me at least this is an easy choice!
Sunday, 21 October 2012
Biblical inconsistencies, Herod, and water into wine
For many years I was a Christian, but always with some doubts. I attended an Alpha Course and was recommended to read the Bible. This I did, but found a text full of inconsistencies and downright implausibility's. To give two examples; one of inconsistencies ( topical for this season ) and one of implausibility.
Matthew 2, says that after Jesus Christ's birth he was taken to Egypt to escape Herod's men. Now Herod, like all autocrats of his time, was no doubt very bad, but I do not think there is any evidence, historical or archaeological, that there ever was a massacre of children in Bethlehem ?
But Luke 2, says that after eight days Jesus was taken to the Temple in Jerusalem, where old Simeon was, in order to fulfil the prescribed Jewish rituals after a birth etc.
Now I think the Matthew story is a fabrication to make it appear that an Old Testament prophesy was being fulfilled; "Out of Egypt have I called my Son" ?
Then there is the story about changing water into wine, John 2. Now water is hydrogen and oxygen yet wine contains carbon and nitrogen etc, elements synthesised in stars, and one wonders how these elements got into the water or how the conversion took place without incinerating the neighbourhood !!! The Alpha people say the laws of nature must have been suspended ! But I do not believe this because then we are into myth and magic and anything goes.
If the above, somewhat trivial, stories are fabrications what about the serious stuff in the Bible, such as the resurrection ? And how can this be believed with any degree of confidence since the accounts were written by the same people ?
I would really value your opinion about the above issues and about miracles in general, since I find that many other religious people have a very poor knowledge of the workings of the physical world / universe and have little facility for critical analysis, hence they tend to believe anything and are not at all convincing.
Response from NB: Thank you for your email – which I will pass on to John with this preliminary response.
The gospels are essentially verbal portraits of Jesus and his life. Portraits, even if painted from life, don’t usually agree in every detail. Of course in the ancient world they knew all about inconsistent testimony, and if the evangelists had been trying to fabricate accounts of Jesus’ life they would no doubt have coordinated to avoid these minor inconsistencies. But you get the strong sense, especially with Luke and (in a different way) John that they are each wrestling with their data and doing their best to make sense of it – so for example they don’t remove serious criticisms by Jesus of all the then leaders of the Church.
On the whole therefore I think it highly likely that both these events were historical. But even if they aren’t, and the evangelists have made a mistake, that doesn’t really undermine the essential veracity of the gospels. Jesus lived, taught the most wonderful teaching, lived an exemplary life, was put to death and then his disciples were convinced that he had risen from the dead, and went on to “turn the world upside down”. We can be quite certain that neither the Jewish nor the Roman authorities could produce Jesus’ body. All the rest is, in a sense, incidental detail which falls into place around the central fact.
John adds:
Matthew 2, says that after Jesus Christ's birth he was taken to Egypt to escape Herod's men. Now Herod, like all autocrats of his time, was no doubt very bad, but I do not think there is any evidence, historical or archaeological, that there ever was a massacre of children in Bethlehem ?
But Luke 2, says that after eight days Jesus was taken to the Temple in Jerusalem, where old Simeon was, in order to fulfil the prescribed Jewish rituals after a birth etc.
Now I think the Matthew story is a fabrication to make it appear that an Old Testament prophesy was being fulfilled; "Out of Egypt have I called my Son" ?
Then there is the story about changing water into wine, John 2. Now water is hydrogen and oxygen yet wine contains carbon and nitrogen etc, elements synthesised in stars, and one wonders how these elements got into the water or how the conversion took place without incinerating the neighbourhood !!! The Alpha people say the laws of nature must have been suspended ! But I do not believe this because then we are into myth and magic and anything goes.
If the above, somewhat trivial, stories are fabrications what about the serious stuff in the Bible, such as the resurrection ? And how can this be believed with any degree of confidence since the accounts were written by the same people ?
I would really value your opinion about the above issues and about miracles in general, since I find that many other religious people have a very poor knowledge of the workings of the physical world / universe and have little facility for critical analysis, hence they tend to believe anything and are not at all convincing.
Response from NB: Thank you for your email – which I will pass on to John with this preliminary response.
The gospels are essentially verbal portraits of Jesus and his life. Portraits, even if painted from life, don’t usually agree in every detail. Of course in the ancient world they knew all about inconsistent testimony, and if the evangelists had been trying to fabricate accounts of Jesus’ life they would no doubt have coordinated to avoid these minor inconsistencies. But you get the strong sense, especially with Luke and (in a different way) John that they are each wrestling with their data and doing their best to make sense of it – so for example they don’t remove serious criticisms by Jesus of all the then leaders of the Church.
On the point about the Massacre in Bethlehem, you need to
remember first of all that there are almost no contemporary written records from
that period, apart from the Dead Sea Scrolls and even they span over 2
centuries. The one non-biblical history of that time comes from Josephus
writing around AD94 (though the earliest manuscripts are 9th-10
century) and pretty much everything we
“know” about Herod outside the Gospels comes from Josephus. Herod
executed his wife and several members of his family because he thought they
were a threat to his throne, and would certainly have had no scruples in
putting 20-30 little children to death. There is no reason why Josephus
would have recorded this and since infant mortality was anyway high in the
ancient world there is no reason why there should be any other historical
record.
However the Protoevangelium
of James of c.150 AD does refer to it as does Macrobius (c.
395-423) who is one of the last Latin non-Christian authors. Macrobius was a
very learned antiquarian and this is a
quote he attributes to Augustus.
It’s clear from the account that the Magi visited Herod a year
or so after Jesus’ birth (hence all the children under 3 were killed) so there
is no conflict between this and the circumcision. There is no reasonable doubt
that Jesus was circumcised on the 8th day – that was a basic duty
under the Law.
On the water into wine, if we assume that wine is a solution of
Ethanol and Water then “all God needs to do” is to turn Oxygen into Carbon
which is physically quite possible (from an energetic PoV) and indeed powers
Carbon Cycle stars. We don’t know how to make this happen in aqueous phase at
room temperature (no-one has tried), but God presumably does. The reaction
emits alpha particles which may be why Jesus told the servants to “stand back”
a bit while the transformation was taking place. I’d like to think that
while God was at it He’d have made some CO2 so that the wine was more like
Champagne. (I haven’t done the calculation to see how much energy is
released by this, and how much of this energy would go out with the Alpha
particles, why don’t you have a go and email me?). Now of course it may be that
God did this by quite other means – remember how little we know about what the
universe is made of – but at least we can say that this miracle is not
“physically impossible.”
On the whole therefore I think it highly likely that both these events were historical. But even if they aren’t, and the evangelists have made a mistake, that doesn’t really undermine the essential veracity of the gospels. Jesus lived, taught the most wonderful teaching, lived an exemplary life, was put to death and then his disciples were convinced that he had risen from the dead, and went on to “turn the world upside down”. We can be quite certain that neither the Jewish nor the Roman authorities could produce Jesus’ body. All the rest is, in a sense, incidental detail which falls into place around the central fact.
John adds:
- While there is no independent account of the massacre of the innocents, the story is entirely consonant with what we know about Herod’s ruthless and paranoic character.
- On miracle, God is not condemned never to do anything radically new, but theologically believable miracles are not celestial conjuring tricks but windows into a deeper reality than is discernable in the everyday – ‘signs’ as John’s gospel calls them. On the central Christian miracle of the Resurrection see, for example, by Science and Theology in Quest of Truth Chapter 5.”
- There is the extraordinary incident of “what have I to do with you, woman?” This very sharp remark by Jesus to his Mother would never have been made up by the early Church.
- The detail of the vast quantity of wine produced (120-180 gallons) would again be very unlikely to be made up. There is a theological point to the 6 water jars but not to the size of each!
- Almost all great miracles make a theological point by showing God doing quickly what he does more slowly in the natural world. Normally God turns water into wine through the medium of vines and yeasts – God cuts out the middle man. Conceivably John could have made this up but he couldn’t possibly have known that…
- Normally God turns Oxygen into Carbon in stars and that is what needs to happen to turn water into alcohol. The process emits radiation which is only dangerous at very short range, so it’s quite safe to do it with people present provided it is done inside a stone jar {I’m sorry I had the idea that he told the servants to stand back but I must have been woolgathering it’s not in the text} but it would not be a good idea to do it in a wineskin that people might be holding.
death before the sin of Adam and Eve
I read your article in the Saturday Evening Post Sept/Oct 2011 entitled 'God vs. Science.'
You were quoted as saying about death before the sin of Adam and Eve, "It may not be in the Bible, but the evidence is everywhere else."
I would sincerely be interested in hearing more about this evidence, and look forward to hearing from you at your convenience.
Response: Not only are there many fossils which clearly pre-date the first hominids, but we are now beginning to understand enough about biology to see the wonderful way in which God has created us “from the dust of the earth” in a bit more detail, and to see that physical death is an essential part of the way in which we come into being with the capacity to be free to choose to love.
Of course spiritual death is another matter. The adverse spiritual effects of death are indeed a function of sin and our turning away from God. As always, the Bible considers spiritual reality to be the most important, and speaks of spiritual truths, not scientific detail.
You were quoted as saying about death before the sin of Adam and Eve, "It may not be in the Bible, but the evidence is everywhere else."
I would sincerely be interested in hearing more about this evidence, and look forward to hearing from you at your convenience.
Response: Not only are there many fossils which clearly pre-date the first hominids, but we are now beginning to understand enough about biology to see the wonderful way in which God has created us “from the dust of the earth” in a bit more detail, and to see that physical death is an essential part of the way in which we come into being with the capacity to be free to choose to love.
Of course spiritual death is another matter. The adverse spiritual effects of death are indeed a function of sin and our turning away from God. As always, the Bible considers spiritual reality to be the most important, and speaks of spiritual truths, not scientific detail.
creatio continuo, and comments re Islam?
I want to thank John Polkinghorne and yourself for running this marvellous and informative website. For me it is unquestionably one of the finest online resources for the science and religion debate. Certainly, it is a very helpful resource for those of us who want to combat the shockingly naive attacks on religious put forward by the so-called "new atheists", Dawkins and Hitchens, etcetera.
If you don't mind, I have a couple of unrelated questions. In his published work, Prof Polkinghorne seems to hold the theological view known as "creatio continuo", or continuous creation. As far as I am aware there are certain recent christian philosophers who would deny this doctrine (Richard Swinburne comes to mind). My question, then, is this: what reasons does Prof Polkinghorne have for believing in continuous creation? And why does he think it important to affirm?
My other question is briefer: I'm wondering if Prof Polkinghorne has made any comments regarding Islam, especially the Qur'anic conception of God (Allah)?
Response from JCP: The long evolutionary history of the universe and of life on Earth, show us that the past was very different from the present in many respects and that God did not bring into being a ready-made world, but one whose potentiality has been explored and brought to birth over long periods of time. Hence the concept of continuous creation in which the Creator acts through the unfolding of the divinely ordained processes of nature. I have written about this in (e.g.) Theology and Science in Quest of Truth and there is much discussion in the writings of Arthur Peacocke.
All three Abrahamic faiths see God’s Mind and Will behind the order and fruitfulness of the world and so share much in common in their understanding of how scientific and religious insights relate to each other.
If you don't mind, I have a couple of unrelated questions. In his published work, Prof Polkinghorne seems to hold the theological view known as "creatio continuo", or continuous creation. As far as I am aware there are certain recent christian philosophers who would deny this doctrine (Richard Swinburne comes to mind). My question, then, is this: what reasons does Prof Polkinghorne have for believing in continuous creation? And why does he think it important to affirm?
My other question is briefer: I'm wondering if Prof Polkinghorne has made any comments regarding Islam, especially the Qur'anic conception of God (Allah)?
Response from JCP: The long evolutionary history of the universe and of life on Earth, show us that the past was very different from the present in many respects and that God did not bring into being a ready-made world, but one whose potentiality has been explored and brought to birth over long periods of time. Hence the concept of continuous creation in which the Creator acts through the unfolding of the divinely ordained processes of nature. I have written about this in (e.g.) Theology and Science in Quest of Truth and there is much discussion in the writings of Arthur Peacocke.
All three Abrahamic faiths see God’s Mind and Will behind the order and fruitfulness of the world and so share much in common in their understanding of how scientific and religious insights relate to each other.
Differences between Ward's dual-aspect idealism and your dual-aspect monism?
Recently I've been trying to delve into Keith Ward's new book 'More Than Matter: Is There More to Life Than Molecules?'
Like yourself and John, he rallies against the philosophies of materialism and reductionism. However, he proposes the view of 'dual-aspect idealism', which I admit I'm somewhat confused by. You yourselves advocate dual-aspect monism, and yet he seems to believe that your position is a variation of non-reductive physicalism, citing John's statement on structural reductionism as indicating the belief that everything that exists is part of the physical world.
He further claims that things like perceived sound are not "information" or "meaning" attached to particles (which I took as a reference to Questions of Truth) , but can only exist in consciousness.
I wanted to ask for some clarification, as I get the sense Ward may have misrepresented your view. What, if any, differences are there between Ward's dual-aspect idealism and your dual-aspect monism? What of his claim of John's non-reductive physicalism?
Response: I haven't read Keith's book. But we certainly don't think that "everything that exists is part of the physical world" (and I'd be amazed if Keith thinks we do)
Like yourself and John, he rallies against the philosophies of materialism and reductionism. However, he proposes the view of 'dual-aspect idealism', which I admit I'm somewhat confused by. You yourselves advocate dual-aspect monism, and yet he seems to believe that your position is a variation of non-reductive physicalism, citing John's statement on structural reductionism as indicating the belief that everything that exists is part of the physical world.
He further claims that things like perceived sound are not "information" or "meaning" attached to particles (which I took as a reference to Questions of Truth) , but can only exist in consciousness.
I wanted to ask for some clarification, as I get the sense Ward may have misrepresented your view. What, if any, differences are there between Ward's dual-aspect idealism and your dual-aspect monism? What of his claim of John's non-reductive physicalism?
Response: I haven't read Keith's book. But we certainly don't think that "everything that exists is part of the physical world" (and I'd be amazed if Keith thinks we do)
how you would answer a child's question- did God make diseases
Could you tell me how you would answer a child's question- did God make diseases? I've read what you say in your chapter on evil in 'Exploring Reality' but am struggling to explain it in a way that isn't too complex but at the same time is detailed enough to make sense.
Response (from NB, as are all the others unless indicated otherwise) Depends on the age (and intelligence and interests!) of the child. For my elder grandson I might say:
God has made this world so that we can learn to choose to love Him and love our neighbours. Life and death, health and disease, joy and suffering are essential aspects of this. If you always scored a goal how could you ever learn to play football? If everyone’s life was always perfect how could we learn to love?
For my younger grandson I might substitute “If you had an automatic keyboard that played every piece after you’d played the first few notes, how would anyone learn to play the piano”
Not an easy question though! The truth is that the laws of evolutionary biology which make intelligent adaptive intelligent life that is free to choose to believe in God possible also make diseases and death inevitable.
Response (from NB, as are all the others unless indicated otherwise) Depends on the age (and intelligence and interests!) of the child. For my elder grandson I might say:
God has made this world so that we can learn to choose to love Him and love our neighbours. Life and death, health and disease, joy and suffering are essential aspects of this. If you always scored a goal how could you ever learn to play football? If everyone’s life was always perfect how could we learn to love?
For my younger grandson I might substitute “If you had an automatic keyboard that played every piece after you’d played the first few notes, how would anyone learn to play the piano”
Not an easy question though! The truth is that the laws of evolutionary biology which make intelligent adaptive intelligent life that is free to choose to believe in God possible also make diseases and death inevitable.
How did the ascension happen, and where is heaven?
I was referred to John P. because Ravi Zacharias has taken some classes from him. So I thank you guys for what you are doing. I was just wondering if there is any scientific evidence to show that the ascension of Jesus could very likely happen. With the discoveries in quantum physics and such I was wondering if it is not so much an unlikely event anymore. Thanks and blessings.
Response: It’s clear that Jesus’ resurrection body was not subject to normal physical laws in the normal way. How God did this in detail we have no idea, but why should we.
Follow-on Question: Yeah that's what I think too. He was able to eat fish and honey and then go through walls and stuff so yeah I believe that His body functioned differently then we can understand. Could I ask you where you think heaven, or the location of departed saints is? Is it outside the universe or within it? Just wondering. Like where is the actual location of the Revelation 4 place or throneroom.
Response: I don’t think heaven has a spatial location in this universe.
Interestingly the cosmologists are now very comfortable with the idea of multiple universes (far too comfortable in my view).
Response: It’s clear that Jesus’ resurrection body was not subject to normal physical laws in the normal way. How God did this in detail we have no idea, but why should we.
Follow-on Question: Yeah that's what I think too. He was able to eat fish and honey and then go through walls and stuff so yeah I believe that His body functioned differently then we can understand. Could I ask you where you think heaven, or the location of departed saints is? Is it outside the universe or within it? Just wondering. Like where is the actual location of the Revelation 4 place or throneroom.
Response: I don’t think heaven has a spatial location in this universe.
Interestingly the cosmologists are now very comfortable with the idea of multiple universes (far too comfortable in my view).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)