A Pot of Tea is Boiling
Crossposted from my blog :
Last week my six-year-old asked me if there was ever a negative year. I wasn't sure what he was asking. He was wondering when the earth was made and if that was a negative year. I explained that there were no negative years. As you go back in time, you go from 1 A.D. to 1 B.C. and then keep counting upwards. "So when was the world made?" he asked. I had to wiggle a little but responded that we don't know exactly when the world was made.
Then today he asked, "Were Adam and Eve and the dinosaurs alive at the same time?" I said that we don't really know because the Bible doesn't talk about dinosaurs. Without any hesitation he suggested a solution to this lack of knowledge: "Just look it up on the internet." I explained that scientists who study dinosaur fossils, etc. think that they lived millions of years ago. "So that would be before Adam and Eve," he said. I agreed and again emphasized the problem that the scientists who study dinosaurs can't really study anything about Adam and Eve and the Bible that tells us about Adam and Eve doesn't really address dinosaurs. Then he said, "Wouldn't it be funny if they found Adam and Eve's bones?!?"
Both of those questions (year the earth was made and did dinosaurs live with Adam and Eve) were actually asked of Lisa, but her response is "Go ask you dad."
There's an interesting interview on Salon with John Haught, author of the forthcoming book "God and the New Atheism: A Critical Response to Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens ". He uses the metaphor of a boiling pot of tea to explain how he reconciles faith and science:
...I approach these issues by making a case for what I call "layered explanation." For example, if a pot of tea is boiling on the stove, and someone asks you why it's boiling, one answer is to say it's boiling because H2O molecules are moving around excitedly, making a transition from the liquid state to the gaseous state. And that's a very good answer. But you could also say it's boiling because my wife turned the gas on. Or you could say it's boiling because I want tea. Here you have three levels of explanation which are approaching phenomena from different points of view. This is how I see the relationship of theology to science. Of course I think theology is relevant to discussing the question, what is nature? What is the world? It would talk about it in terms of being a gift from the Creator, and having a promise built into it for the future. Science should not touch upon that level of understanding. But it doesn't contradict what evolutionary biology and the other sciences are telling us about nature. They're just different levels of understanding.
At the end of Haught's interview, he's asked whether or not as a Christian he believes the resurrection actually happened. He doesn't give a straight answer. Instead, he argues that science is not adequate for addressing questions of such importance. When pushed, he admitted that he does not believe that a camera would have captured anything when Jesus visited his disciples after the resurrection. That answer seems like one that would be unsatisfying to most Christians and atheists alike.
Haught is a big fan of Jesuit paleontologist named Pierre Teilhard de Chardin . Coincidentally, I recently listened to a Science Friday segment featuring the author of a recent biography about Teilhard de Chardin.
I read JDM's post and part of the interview with Haught. I was most captivated by the statement that a camera would have captured nothing when Jesus visited the disciples after the resurrection. Without having read the blog, this had also been on my mind yesterday afternoon and this morning, after finally!!! finishing Kueng's book (see other blog entries). Towards the end, he seems to state (and i need to re-read this), that Jesus' resurrection is a mostly transcendental affair that can (or must?) be seen separate from the mythology and legends (not sure i am paraphrasing correctly here) of the scriptural Easter experieince. I was very startled. Then I went back to Rahner - no definitive answer there, either. Back to the Catechism - no definitive answer either. I will keep asking around, but it seems to me that a prominent view among theologians is that the resurrection stories describe a transcendental reality (hope i get the wording right here), and may not be meant literally but convey a larger truth behind simple stories. Not sure how much i buy this, though. i may be interpreting them wrong, too. they may simply mean that it is immaterial to the content of faith whether this or that particular physical aspect was literally true or not. time to go to my spiritual director, i guess. (correction to original post: re-read Rahner and found proper place dealing with the resurrection experience. this makes it likely that the resurrection accounts deal with a one-of-a-kind experience that, if discussed in a shallow manner, can give rise to wrong impressions. such as mine above, where i wrote that theologians meant it was not to be taken literally, and which i hereby retract. all is well.)
otherwise, i agree with Haught on his views re: Dawkins, Dennet et al. they seem to be opening issues that were laid to rest when Nietzsche was answered.
anyhow, i would like to get together with you guys to figure out how modern "barking" atheism can be opposed in ways that open the door for conversion, rather than refutation.
blessings
peter
PM,
Sounds like you forgot to check scripture regarding the resurrection. Recall that the church places scripture first, magisterial documents (like the Catechism) second, then private revelation. Theologians are fourth, at best, when it comes to teaching the faith.
JPII proposed that we study Aquinas as the best example of a theologian history has to offer.
Sorry, it just seemed that for a while there you had forgotten to look at the original source.
Frankly, all this business about a transcendental reality is just theological arrogance derived from those who are unspiritual and wishing to become spiritual by virtue of their intellect - too bad (for them) this is not possible.
Peter, did not the apostle, St. Thomas, place his finger in the side of Jesus? (Personally, I firmly believe that this "simple story" is of material importance because of the marked change in behavior seen in the apostles after seeing Jesus before his assention.) Understanding of the resurrection and the behavior of the apostles after seeing him does not require transcendental introspection - actually the opposite is what is needed -- the faith of a child. I am quite sure that the resurrection and its implications are accessible to the average man without the assistance of a theologian.
I struggle with theologians because Jesus (i.e., the second person of the Trinity and the Word made flesh) did not teach this way.
In the end christianity a) does have to make sense but, b) does not come anywhere near to calling humanity into an intellectual exercise.
js
Joey,
In my view, there is milk and there is meat (I Cor 3).
I agree that the basic facts and message are rather plain and accessible to all. Beyond that, though, there is much meat that can be difficult to chew and in this the theologians have a role.
JS, I disagree (as usual, i guess).
without the theologians, we would not be able to even properly read the old text. the scripture texts themselves are almost unaccessible to the modern mind without predigestion. we don't know what's literal, what's figurative, etc, etc. take the garden of eden story. you want to take it literal? no? then you need to consult the theologians for interpretation.
same with the resurrection experience. these days, i usually read some ratzinger before i go to sleep, and it seems to me that without a thorough grounding in theology you are totally and utterly unable to understand, let alone defend in aggressive discourse, the content of your faith.
theology, to me, is philosophy grounded upon faith. no mentally active christian can responsibly neglect it. in the end, one needs to have the faith of a child, true. but not the intellect of a child.
peace
PM & JM -
I agreeeeeee - augh. I read more of this than I admit to. I just want a little perspective on the theologians that think they are more catholic than popes! Surely, I need a fair amount of both philosophy and theology - like a pie needs a crust.
Personally, I am currently drenched in doctrine - and loving it - and am a good 2000 pages from reaching for a theology text. (Instead I will call PM when I have a question.) (JM - what are you reading?)
PBXVI's encyclical on Christian Hope sold over a million copies from Nov. 30 - ca. Dec. 20. - really want to read this too.
Rather than just talk about theology why don't you give us some benefit of your effort and tell us the difference between Rahner and Kueng? Please tell us what claim they have on truth.
js
JS - sorry for the barbed answer. i have a personal limitation to deal with when it comes to de-intellectualizing the faith (to what i call "pink rainbow ponies faith"), which probably stems from arrogance but that is another chapter. apologies.
anyhow, all the reading really is for two things: a) girding myself against a largely shallow, yapping atheist world with occasional incursions of intelligent, insightful atheists and b) to satisfy my own doubts/questions/uncertainties. while both Kueng and Rahner (and Lewis) have helped immensely, all three raise another bunch of questions. Kueng: on the upside, he demonstrates that it is completely and purely intellectually defensible to believe in God, even more so in the last hundred years than before. his argument is so beautiful and thorough that it moves me to tears (figuratively speaking). he also is a great (in stature) advocate of ecumenism and knows boatloads about other faiths. but on the downside, he obviously has an arsenal of axes to grind with the vatican, which makes him iffy and sometimes toxic to read. Rahner: demonstrates clearly the whole breadth, depth, beauty and appeal of modern christian faith, but is scarce on detail and you always need a translator to understand his stuff. he is also a person of deep faith without being a rainbow ponies guy. like 20th century aquinas. you have to read him, he can't be paraphrased. Lewis, on the other side, gives fantastic insight on the everyday workings of christianity, but subscribes to a seemingly completely naive interpretation of scripture. which is not necessarily bad, but leaves some obvious questions, especially if you're reading modern theologians.
so, i talked to father rick today, and he gave me some pointers to scriptural interpretation (exegesis being the relevant ten-dollar-word here). we'll see how it goes.
my interpretation of the current trends is that the theologians tend to de-god and de-jesus the faith, whereas the priests tend slightly (some more than others) towards "pink rainbow ponies" faith.
please do not be offended by the "pink rainbow ponies" term, but it sticks in my mind, and i mean no disrespect. it's just i cannot personally relate to emotional faith very well...
peace
PM,
I know what you are talking about. I think the issue is one of conversion.
The "pink rainbow" type thinks that he has to lovingly cause his parishoners to change their hearts in order that they experience a new conversion that will cause them to reform their lives.
The message is soft, not too challenging, and more devotional in nature. The Catholic Church is in a constant state of reform and the current need (as yet unmet) is to transform from a "maintenance" mode to an evangelizing mode. The maintenance mode is about keeping the boat from rocking too much as it is filled with fish.
I don't like the soft messages. Anytime I hear a good message I write the priest an encouraging letter. The priest is getting his ass kicked from two sides - one side from the parishoners who are pained by the truth and one side from his Bishop who wants general administrative peace as he is also suffering from the rants of many.
At the same time I'm not really feeling overly compassionate about the plight of bishops and priests - they have only to follow the truth - when they don't they suffer eternally - I do pray for them very often.
Some people (parishoners) insist on orthodoxy and simply get tough with priests who are always softening the message.
I think the Catholic Church should toughen its message - per PBXVI obvious lead and let the rolls shrink as needed.
Let Jesus prune his tree. The dead branches will be thrown into the fire.
js
quote: "Let Jesus prune his tree. The dead branches will be thrown into the fire."
i was wondering: did you ever look at the cover of the book you're reading? does it say "bible" anywhere? it must be the wrong book. the bible i have is about being nice and people getting saved etc...
love
PM
Interesting site - shows that every bible says this.
http://bible.cc/matthew/7-19.htm
So, did I get you wrong? Because here is a teaching from Jesus. This is anti-pink. You are anti-pink rainbow right?
Jesus says some really tough things - it is not, by any means, a soft message. Yes, it is a message of reconciliation but one that requires action.
Why don't we read Matthew and pick out the anti-pink verses?
js
Thanks for the site referral. cute.
the bible needs to be read in context. taken out of context of the whole message - all of it - a single citation is not particularly meaningful. what the master says there i interpret as follows: >>it is a real possibility to definitively and eternally lose your soul, to be brushed away with the chaff, and to be made void. do no go that way.<<
what he does NOT say is: everybody who doesn't toe the line within a 32nd of an inch IS chaff and therefore WILL be thrown into the fire.
i do not presume to flip the "chaff" bit on anybody. that is explicitely forbidden (judge not lest you shall be judged). have you noticed that the church never puts the "damnation" label on anybody - although the "saint" label is quite frequently attached? god's ways of providing saving choices to even the greatest sinners are way beyond what i can imagine (otherwise i have no hope
).
pinkness according to my definition does not make you ineligible for holiness. it probably is a sign of greater holiness than the intellectualism that i am attached to. for me pinkness is a sign of a faith that is content to adore exuberantly, extrovertedly. typically, people who talk about the "sweet child jesus" are pink in my definition. as i'm an introvert and analytical, that tends to get on my nerves (why do these people talk so much?). for you, pinkness is moral laxity and laissez-faire.
which i agree is bad, but no reason to threaten people with roasting. especially on this forum, unless you want to turn people off. because, really, christianity is about attaining salvation, not avoiding charbroiling. it's like trying to teach people how to drive by constantly reminding them of how to NOT have an accident.
PM,
You are a most excellent brother in Christ. And I greatly appreciate your time in writing this note.
I do have a more lengthly respose (as you might imagine) but I was thinking this morning about just what a blessing you are to me.
I honestly want to explore and refine my thinking with other thinkers such as yourself - critically and honestly.
Many thanks,
js
we might have lunch one of these days, though. maybe something roasty
peace!
pmm
i just finished ratzinger's "spe salvi" encyclical this weekend and promptly gave it to an episcopalian colleague of mine to see what he has to say, it's so cool. it is definitely worth a read, even for non-catholics. he throws a little bit of a curve ball on the last page, where he switches from theology to a petition to Mary.(?) why he does that, i do not completely understand...
I tried to buy it but they didn't have it until 15-Jan. I guess you read it at vatican.va? js
download and print...
The Bible and Fatal Revenant (fantasy fiction)
Next? maybe Simple Church or Mere Discipleship or The Politics of Jesus or who knows what from the big stack
JM - when you read the bible, do you read it with an accompanying interpretation? or do you just "wing" the interpretation?
pm
The daily Bible reading is actually listening (previously on my iPod, now on my phone), while driving back to work or whatever. The purpose of that is to get an unfiltered pass through the whole Bible once a year. Lisa wants to join me in 2008 (like we used to do before kids), so I'll probably both listen to it and read and discuss it with Lisa next year. Anyway, for that no commentary.
When I study more seriously (usually to teach a class at church), I ususually consult a few commentaries and an interlinear Bible as a minimum.
It's admittedly a naive oversimplification, but my tribe tends to place more emphasis on an individual reading and interpreting unfiltered scripture for himself and relatively less explicit emphasis on consulting a theologian or other external authority to tell me what it really means.