Re: A "proper" theology

From: George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Sat Apr 15 2000 - 10:13:31 EDT

  • Next message: Moorad Alexanian: "Re: A "proper" theology"

    Moorad Alexanian wrote:
    >
    > My two-cents-worth. In physics we do not really understand the notion of
    > duality when it comes to wave-like and particle-like behaviors. I ask you,
    > is the Incarnation easier or much, much harder to understand? Much of the
    > interaction of God with the physical is for us imperfect knowledge, in the
    > sense that we can know it, because of our spiritual component, yet not be
    > able to neither understand it nor explain it. Moorad

            A number of people have tried to use the idea of complementarity, exemplified
    in the wave-particle duality, to talk about the Incarnation. The human & divine natures
    are supposedly complementary. I have pointed out (e.g., my article in Perspectives,
    March 1999) that this works - or at least works better - for traditional Reformed
    christology than for Lutheran. Saying that two aspects A & B of something are
    complementary in quantum physics means that in any given situation one must speak of it
    as A or B but not both. You don't observe an electron as a wave _and_ a particle in the
    same experiment. In traditional Lutheran christology in which (as I discussed in a
    parallel post) the communication of divine attributes to the assumed human nature makes
    the use of the complementarity concept problematic.
                                                    Shalom,
                                                    George

    George L. Murphy
    gmurphy@raex.com
    http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Apr 15 2000 - 10:15:20 EDT