|
Humor, Science and Logic — Part 1
By Jeff Messenger, Barkhamsted
Hi, Mr. Carlotti. Thank you for your response in the April 12 issue of The Voice, "The Faith Agenda." This is an agenda I gladly admit to. You are absolutely right that calling you a "prayer hater" was not in keeping with the polite tone I try to maintain. It was a stupid attempt at humor (a variation of "player hater") for which I apologize.
When I suggested that you not read my submissions, it's not because I have no wish to engage you on these issues. I know you are an articulate and intelligent writer. It is rather because you regard me as "pitifully myopic" and "mindless." You obviously have your mind made up about my intelligence; thus anything I write will be automatically dismissed by you.
Regarding the Shroud, Walter McCrone merely had access to a few slides, on which he viewed paint pigments and various particle debris. (Some have even found nylon!) He disregarded the 40 scientists who had direct access to the Shroud, and who conducted tests far beyond the "myopia" of McCrone's specialty. Those who side with McCrone's view disregard the Shroud of Turin Research Project in its entirety. This doesn't honor the spirit of objective science.
I also send my appreciation to Noel Ambery. First, thank you for actually reading my submission, "Understanding the Trinity" [February 22]. Second, thank you for providing a good example of skepticism, "Mythology Gone Crazy," to be printed alongside my letter, "The Skeptical Agenda" [March 8]. Another notable submission of Mr. Ambery's was entitled "The Crucifixion" [March 29].
I am not surprised Mr. (or Ms.) Ambery found my explanation of the Trinity "border(ing) anywhere from the ridiculous to the absurd." As I stated before, I entertain no illusions that my arguments will "convert" all those die-hard skeptics out there. Critics find the entirety of the Christian faith "sheer absurdity" (1 Cor. 1:17 … how ironic that Noel used the same adjective that was being used against Christians in the first century). What I tried to do, and apparently failed to do in the mind of Ambery, is make the "illogic" of the Trinity seem more logical.
Perhaps a trinitarian metaphor from science will appeal more to Mr. Ambery. Theoretical physicists claim that subatomic entities possess wave properties (W), particle properties (P), and quantum properties (h). Although these properties may be very unique and different from one another, physicists still model or explain an electron as "PWh." This isn't to imply that an electron should be divided in three parts, but rather it's to illustrate the complete nature of an electron. (This metaphor comes from Dr. John Warwick Montgomery.) Or consider a model that comes from Freudian psychology. Freud believed that the human psyche is composed of three different components: Ego, SuperEgo and Id. Although each of these can function differently within the mind, they all combine to form one human personality. So Christians see God as a singular mind or singular personality, but this one God is defined by a "composite unity." Interestingly enough, one word used for God in the Old Testament actually implies a composite unity, that word being "Elohim."
So Mr. Ambery can keep saying "three gods" as much as he wants, but that still doesn't make it a Christian tenet. Christians are rightfully the ones to define their own faith. Like it or not, the concept of a "composite unity" God has a logic. Whether this belief is "true" or not is a whole different battle—and one that would be a futile engagement with die-hard skeptics. All I ask of skeptics is that they don't promote the pervasive, condescending attitude that Christians hold irrational, illogical, ignorant and "absurd" beliefs.
While I'm on that particular page, Mr. Ambery also states that "if this theological tenet (of the Trinity) makes sense to Messenger, than I guess anything can make sense to him." That guess would be wrong. One particular thing that continues to make no sense to me is why so many people have the need to ridicule individuals they don't even know (especially in The Voice). I'm all for polite and civil debate, but I see no need to negatively characterize the intelligence of people with whom I disagree. I'd rather concentrate on the disputes at hand.
Mr. Ambery also suggested that I should "get acquainted with complete cosmological theories." His assumption was that I was unaware of the theories pertaining to the nature of the universe prior to the Big Bang. I thought I covered that base when I stated that the Big Bang was considered to be "the beginning of the universe as we now know it." Those last five words are relevant. A universe defined by "quantum gravity" or "quark soup" is highly theoretical, and radically different than the universe we can now study. The infinitely expanding and imploding universe model Noel mentioned has pretty much been rejected by most cosmologists. As a footnote, Noel may be interested in the April issue of Discover, where cosmologist Alan Guth presents his pre-Big Bang "Inflation Theory." Frankly, his abstract and hypothetical theory makes the Trinity concept appear simple in comparison!
Mr. Ambery also quoted Carl Sagan on March 8. I too have been a fan of Sagan, but I was disappointed to learn that Sagan was a professed atheist and prominent member of the CSICOP. Anyway, I did enjoy how the movie version of Sagan's novel Contact implied that empirical evidence can't be expected to reveal the truth of everything! Consider how the main character's testimony (that she entered a series of wormholes and met an alien being) was received. No one believed her story, and they used her favorite "Occam's razor" principle against her.
All ancient, historical truths are completely dependent on the veracity of the eyewitness accounts. Sometimes, one has to have "faith" in the experiences and testimonies of others. (Especially when the given eyewitnesses had nothing to gain from their testimony, except suffering, persecution, torture and death.)
Which leads to a good example of a historical testimony. Mr. Ambery states "no one—and I mean no one—anywhere in the world noticed this ‘noontime darkness’" that accompanied Jesus' crucifixion. Historian Julius Africanus (220 AD) would disagree with Noel, since he had access to the "histories" of Thallus, a first century Greek/ Roman historian. Thallus apparently referenced that very noontime darkness, as it was observed in Rome. This Thallus reference can be found with a "Google" search engine, with many articles either supporting it or dismissing it. A good article supporting the Thallus reference is found at <www.christian-thinktank.com/jrthal.html>. I would hope Noel would read both positions. Of course, if the Thallus reference is deemed unreliable by Noel, He can also consider the "heavy cloud cover" theory that William T. Barrante mentioned [God, Scripture and Weather Reports, March 29].
To be continued …
|
|
