All right. But what about “the former” (the point regarding divorce)? It seems you implicitly accept that it is central to the message of Genesis.
Thanks for clarifying.
If I understand your point, it means that for a couple to divorce, there would be some other male or female that would take the place of a divorcee. Am I correct on this?
Yes.
On the one hand Jesus Christ himself (Matthew 19:3-9; Mark 10:1-12) interprets Genesis 2:24 in the sense that marriage unity and proscription of divorce is central to the message of Genesis.
On the other hand such a proscription makes sense only if there had been “some other male or female that would take the place of a divorcee.”
Nonetheless one should also address the following question:
Had Adam and Eve never sinned, what would have happened to their offspring?
In my view the answer is key to better understanding as well the state when they were “free from sin” and “communed with God”, as the state after sin when they “were placed outside of the garden”.
You comment, if I understand correctly, would require a discussion of freedom, predestination and theodicy (why has God allowed sin and evil). I am interested in these theological matters and would welcome a serious discussion - however if your interest is confined to matters solely on Adam and Eve, I am uncertain on how to answer such a hypothetical.
Yes, you understand correctly. I think a serious discussion as you propose can be useful and would like to know your thoughts on this point.
I suggest that we discuss these matters in sequence. I will commence with a few remarks on how I understand revelation and science, to show these are differentiated. I would prefer that you respond on these points, and/or then you choose the next topic (eg freedom, law, or any relevant topic) and in this way we can work through this methodically. This post is lengthy, and hopefully your response would enable me to come back with a more focussed and shorter response.
To begin, we have knowledge of God because He has chosen to reveal Himself. The importance of Adam and Eve would commence with this point – God was fully revealed and they freely communed with Him. Yet we are now discussing this as sinners, and sin has separated us from God. Thus we cannot reason that revelation may be within a range of phenomena that are human potentialities or of the human senses. We can also ruled out objective-based activities such as found in the natural sciences. Revelation cannot be defined in a way that philosophy or science may argue and consider within the ideas of reason. In making negative statements about the capabilities of human beings I need to show that my arguments are reasonable. My argument must assume reason would sustain the goodness of life and the continuation of life. It is possible for a person to consider the possibility of good in life, and this is usually through experience (à posteriori).
Revelation requires a respond, to reason, and to consider the revelation within the (context of) life. The meaning of God, which includes that of love and concern for all humanity, is provided by revelation and needs to be completely comprehensible. Since I understand all human life and reason to be within the freedom of birth, freedom of life, and freedom of thought (intent), revelation is also understood within freedom. The unreasonable part of the human condition is lack of freedom that finds its ultimate unreasonable condition in death. This argument may be developed into a major premise that equates revelation of the meaning of God with a meaning of, and within, self-awareness-life. Briefly, such meaning is the goodness that God provides to life. This goodness is completely so and is synonymous with the Holy Spirit. In general I believe reason responds via the ideal. This should not to be confused with idealism. Any reasonable person may respond to revelation in this manner. Some may communicate this ideal in almost illiterate ways, while others may communicate this ideal with great elegance. Such a response includes the response to the Word of God, which provides an increased awareness of God and includes the goodness that results in life from God. Such a response is due to the Holy Spirit guiding reason rather than a scholastic analysis of words, even if these words are found in the Bible. Freedom is the framework for the possibilities of goodness to reason on an individual level (thus singular and multiple possibilities) and on the social level (thus general possibilities).
Science understands nature through the application of reason and systematic accumulation of knowledge of the physical world, and this leads to statements that are often discussed as laws of science. This is generally understood as laws of nature and includes outcomes to the human senses (and to reason) from nature’s activities, or phenomena. Observations of nature and hypothesis by scientists are activities of a reasoning human being and cannot be law-of-nature; in that a human being measures, weighs, calculates etc., the human being is ‘active’ in thinking and measuring, and thus his activities are within nature. In this way, it is difficult to differentiate between activities of a human being and those of an object; all consist of activity of matter in time and space, (in motion or in a dynamic state) and thus considered explicable via the scientific method. However, the subject-object or ‘both are in the world’, arises from a human being, not from the world. This actualises into language activity, which leads to a differentiation between the world of phenomenon/dynamics and that of human reality - although it may be reasoned that both are activities and thus explicable in time and space by the scientific method.
It may appear, however, that ‘mega-knowledge’ is sought to enable a human being to attain to a complete understanding of the phenomena and its objects, and this may provide an intellectual perception, or inference, that objects behave according to some principle; or, objects are required to be as they are by a ‘something in their being-ness’. This search for an explanation of everything, or a universal, arises from a human being’s intellectual questioning and doubting. We may reason that the universe is ‘lawful’ because it continues to be what it is, and also we may conclude that there is a finality, or that we may ‘finally’ or ‘completely’ understand it; we may also seek comfort from an ideal, suggesting that the universe and our understanding of it may become one and the same, or everything will finally be totally reasonable. The essential question in natural studies is therefore the intelligibility of nature – how is it that human reason and intellect can access natural phenomena and natures ultimate realities? One response to this question is the attribute often termed ‘image of God’ to humanity. The impact of the vast universe on the human senses, however, may be overwhelming, as we seek to understand its beginning and end. The universe does ‘talk’ to us of God (in its silence). This is shown in Psalms 19:1-14. The writer of this psalm shows us that it is the law of God that he understands, and through the law of God, he hopes to be free from error and those that indulge in error. The universe cannot reveal God. Our senses may be influenced by the silence, and our reason may comprehend the glory of God that the heaven declares. In this way we may understand beauty without feeling we have ‘invented’ it. In this silence, we do not listen to our own feverish mind constantly trying to explain to ourselves all that our senses may respond. Rather, the glory of God proclaimed by the silent beauty may lead us to wish we could share, and be a part of, such splendour. The Universe in all its splendour points to its Creator’s Glory, and similarly to the beauty that is found in the Law of God.
Currently astronomy and particle physics have been popularised and discussions have dealt with the origins of the Universe. The many difficulties faced by evolutionism are at times put to one side by the notion that the Universe is anthropomorphic – i.e. a Universe evolved that was conducive to the evolution of life and human beings on earth. The origins of the Universe appear to have crystallized into the big-bang theory, although others speculate alternate notions. Generally the view has been that God is the cause of causes, or the primal cause; since no-one witnessed the event, we cannot discuss this notion as a verifiable/testable theory– but people may feel this is sufficient, since the Faith teaches us that God can do anything. It is necessary, however, to consider the scientific view point as serious and believe that scientists are interested in obtaining a good understanding of the Universe. The Universe is accessible to human sense, and it appears reasonable to assume that a language such as mathematics would be sufficient when examining the Universe. Difficulties however, stem from a human assumption, in that the origin of the Universe may also be considered as a singular event; in this case physicists cannot dealt with such an event using the laws of physics; i.e. they contemplate notions in which the laws of physics may not apply. Indeed, notions such as “nothing existed” (nothingness!?) are difficult ones for science, and thus it may be inappropriate for science to think it can define a beginning per se.
Many thanks for this stimulating thoughts.
I fully agree to this.
In this respect I would like to stress two points:
-
In the light of Quantum Contextuality (a main theorem of quantum physics) we are better understanding the relationship between God’s omniscience and human free will: God knows all possible choices humans of all times can do, that is, all possible worlds are content in God’s mind. Nonetheless everyone is free to choose her/his own history and thereby realize one of these possible worlds.
-
Accordingly God’s Revelation is dynamic and fits to all possible human histories. This means that in the light of history and science we are led to understanding revealed Scripture more in depth and even discover new contents hidden in it.
On this subject, I would stress the transcendence of God - we human beings are limited to this world, and within it, we are faced with an inexhaustible range of possibilities. Our choices however, are intermixed with error, and this propensity to error is part of our personhood. We can thus say that God can search the heart and mind of human beings and understand what and why we would act in the way we do.
This is not a way of understanding God’s mind.
On quantum theory, I used to follow this some time back, but have not kept up, so to speak - I am drawn to the view that we know an event when it is measured, while a scientist may be faced with a range of probabilities. This speaks to the intelligibility of the material world.
Theologically, I find the Orthodox doctrine of the “energies” of God and sustaining of the Creation, as a valid doctrine that understands the transcendence of God.
We as Christians are admonished to grow in Christ, and revelation is given to us for that reason. Thus our understanding of the Word of God would be part of our growth.
I think the range of possibilities we are faced with (the possible choices we can freely make) is a finite number, although an extremely big one (similar to the number of angels, which is very big but finite).
God knows all the possible choices humans can make and the outcomes of them. Nonetheless I am free to act and make my own history as I want. As you very well state, my choice is intermixed with error. If I sin, God mercifully gives me the opportunity to repent and to reach my place in heaven and have a name for ever (my true name). If I freely reject to repent, I will remain separated from God and without name for ever: I will be “nobody” and “count for nothing” in eternal life.
In this respect it is interesting to see that in the light of quantum contextuality physical reality is actually defined by “the free choices human observers can in principle perform”. As David Deutsch puts it: “Certainly we find ourselves unavoidably playing a role at the deepest level of the structure of physical reality”: Without reference to “human free choices” it does not make sense to speak about “physical facts”!
I mean the choices we are faced with are so large (but finite) that we as individuals cannot conceive of living in a pre-determine setting. This point is important when we discuss scientific law as sometimes articulated by materialists, in which phenomena may be rendered comprehensible and to which human agency can be applied as determining (even in a limited sense) - eg we are not equipped to fly but we build aeroplanes…
The discussion would need to expand to that of freedom as understood within a human being as “I am”, yet confined to the world that we must live in. The freedom I refer to is compatible with our physical setting, and also is in perfect accord with the Law of God in that we are free to choose to obey and live according to the letter and the spirit of the Law. My discussion would need to be inordinately lengthy (to deal with the subject matter) so I will confine myself to these remarks.
Exactly.
All possible choices humans could do are contained in God’s mind and are finite in number. From this very large number of choice-trees everyone of us makes freely his/her own history.
What quantum contextuality is telling us is that the so called Many-Worlds
or Multiverse interpretation should be reformulated as the All-Possible-Worlds interpretation: All possible human decisions (histories) is the stuff physical reality is made of.
This may be interesting when it comes to interpret times and ages in Genesis: They properly refer to human histories; by contrast before humans are created “days” should not be interpreted as time measure but rather as terms God uses in order we understand how He definitely predetermines the appearance of creatures bearing sense of law and moral responsibility. In this sense Genesis 2:9, 19-20 is paramount.
I find reflecting on two notions fruitful when examining something as predetermined - law and freedom. Law is a concept that may be discussed within science as a mathematical summary that expounds and yet summarises a particular area of natural phenomena, and the maths enables a degree of precision that is rarely observed in human behaviour. Yet law and morals / ethics is intermixed with freedom, in that we are in a position to make a choice of a number of possibilities. By arguing these possibilities are large to us, we may move beyond a mechanical determinism implied by scientific precision. But as free agents, we are bound by our good-evil nature, so this, in short, seems to limit us to what constitutes our character and personality.
I am inclined to view the Law of God (and not laws of science) as teaching us the ultimate view on good and evil choices, and the creation of true humans by God provides the ground of humanity - in short, our freedom ultimately is to be the creatures created by God, the Law shows us our shortcomings and consequences of our choices, and the Grace of God enables us to repent and again try to choose the good.
I fully agree to your claim.
But I would like to stress that within today’s science there are no “laws of nature” allowing us to predict events as if they are predetermined and have to happen or not happen with certainty. For example the resurrection of a dead is something beyond our operational capabilities, which happens with a probability near to zero. However it can happen, and in this case no “law of nature” is broken.
So we have to distinguish two types of events:
-
Regularities in nature, everyone can control independently of God’s Grace, as for instance: By typing my mobile number you and anyone can let my mobile ring without any need to pray for this to happen.
-
Deviations from the regular way things occur in nature, which are beyond our operational capabilities, as for instance letting the sun stand still in the middle of the sky (Joshua 10:12-13).
Nothing speaks in science against admitting that God let highly improbable events of type 2 depend on the prayer of faithful people.
This is why I claim that today’s science helps us to a deeper understanding of the Bible.
Whether or not God COULD do it (keep sun fro setting) is not the question. If he DID do it, then I have no use for that kind of God–a God who directs his “chosen people” to commit genocide on the Caananites. There is no exegesis that justifies this part of the Old Testament as being Holy.
Al Leo
This is the position I have consistently taken: 1) The theory of evolution (neo-Darwinian) provides a reasonable explanation of how Homo sapiens (and other animal life) appeared on earth, but humankind requires something additional; 2) Evolution, as it depends on natural selection, contains a large component of selfishness (animal instinct), and this component is inherited by every human born today. Each of us must struggle to rise above this animal instinct (incorrectly referred to as Original Sin) if we are to heed Jesus’ command to love our neighbor as ourselves’.
With all respect to St. Paul, Joseph Ratzinger, Thomas Aq., Augustine, et al) I think phrasing this dogma in scientific language & based on modern science, makes the point clearer than what many theologians have come up with.
Al Leo
1 Like
When we say we know something, it inevitably means we have gathered data/information that we consider sufficient to allow us to make a conclusion (I have your mobile number, I have a phone, I can dial, etc etc). It is this that gives us confidence in our conclusion. If someone questions our conclusion, we would demand additional information (display that phone number, check it that it rings etc).
On events that are remarkable or unique, we may not have data and information that we may question. IF Joshua’s enemy were to provide an account that we may examine, we would compare the two accounts and make judgments. If we cannot do this, we would have only Joshua (and the victory that resulted) - on this basis (as modern scientists) we acknowledge that account as unique and non-testable. After this exercise, we make an independent decision to believe or not believe.
Things get weird when some people decide that all events must satisfy them, otherwise they get grumpy and argumentative However their response is irrational - all they need to do is decide to believe or not believe - nothing else is possible for a reasonable human being.
Your analysis is excellent.
Because of regularities governing the visible world (as for instance the orbit of the sun) we are capable of gathering “data/information that we consider sufficient to allow us to make a conclusion”. So for instance we can predict at which precise position in sky the sun will be tomorrow at 3:38 pm; according to today’s science the probability for such a prediction to happen is near 1, and therefore it is testable, but exceptions are possible.
Nonetheless such exceptions fulfill two conditions:
-
They are beyond our natural operational capabilities: Letting the sun stand in the sky was beyond Joshua’s capabilities, like phoning faster than light is beyond ours.
-
They are extremely seldom, so that they are practically not repeatable, and as you very well say, the only reasonable basis to accept them is the account of those who witnessed them.
These two conditions correspond to what quantum physics is telling us about the meaning of “the second law of thermodynamics”.
In summary, miracles do not break any “law of nature” but are things beyond our control: God has foreseen to do them depending on our faith.
You may say that miracles do not break any laws… but some people are pretty attached to the notion that they do…