Re: A "proper" theology

From: Moorad Alexanian (alexanian@uncwil.edu)
Date: Sat Apr 15 2000 - 11:27:42 EDT

  • Next message: Adam Crowl: "DNA a Quantum Computer???"

    Dear George,

    As you probably know I do not advocate a particle-wave duality as an
    explanation of the Incarnation. My point was to contrast the degree of
    difficulty of one with the other. I always learn from your posts.

    Take care,

    Moorad

    -----Original Message-----
    From: George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>
    To: Moorad Alexanian <alexanian@uncwil.edu>
    Cc: dfsiemensjr@juno.com <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>; ryan.rasmussen@mcnamee.com
    <ryan.rasmussen@mcnamee.com>; tdavis@messiah.edu <tdavis@messiah.edu>;
    Asa@calvin.edu <Asa@calvin.edu>
    Date: Saturday, April 15, 2000 10:15 AM
    Subject: 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 - 11:27:43 EDT