In my previous post, I reflected on spirit being an essential element of life from a theological perspective. In this post, I want to reflect on spirit from a more scientific perspective. To be upfront, I am no scientist in any sense of the word, but science in all its various disciplines intrigues me because in my opinion they validate the wisdom found in so many of our ancient scriptures.
I think any difficulty in the discourse between science and theism resides in the focus of what science and theism are trying to explain and the language used to explain it. Science is detailed orientated, using the language of math and scientific symbol to seek specific answers to the what, where, and how of things and establishing rational formulas (laws) based on fact to render them applicable. On the other hand, various forms of theism are primarily geared to answer one question, the why of human existence and human experience; the answers to which are expressed in various forms of sacred scriptures which are then distilled into religions doctrines or teachings.
Where religion and science meet, in my opinion, is in the rare speculative fields of science known as theoretical math and physics. Speculation is the junction where theory and theology meet; the gray area of uncertainty, the realm of possibility that borders probability. The fact that theory and theology share the same Greek word for God as their root is serendipitous if not by design. Both explore the fundamental ontological questions regarding our existence and both find themselves wrapped in an enigma.
Where science seems to have the advantage in this exploration of said enigma is in its acceptance that it does not know everything; that it is okay in dealing with uncertainty because obtaining certainty is a perennial challenge; a sought after but unattainable goal, because for every question answered, new questions arise. Christian theology, on the other hand and in particular, has been slow in accepting the importance of uncertainty, but it is changing and even though Paul was there long before others started pouring concrete on their theologies, Christian theologians are starting to embrace the idea that uncertainty provides greater flexibility to our understanding of existence and human experience than an unquestionable certainty. [See 1 Corinthians 13:12]
In my last post, I identified spirit as the essential element of life as we know it; that spirit bonds with necessary physical elements to create a living being, as in a human being. Accordingly, I speculated when a person dies, the physical breaks down to its chemical elements and the spirit/animating element returns to its source, the Being-in-which-we-live-move-and-have-our-being, God which I described in other posts as a nominal/pronominal verb. [See Acts 17:28]
In my last post, I suggested that in the resurrection story of Jesus there occurred an inverse of the incarnation; that the resurrection was not a physical resuscitation of the incarnated Word, but rather the creation of a new spiritual being that enveloped (carried with it) the human experience of Jesus as the resurrected Christ. [See 1 Corinthians 15:42-49] Given this speculative view, the question becomes how does this relate to theoretical physics.
At a very fundamental level if we were to take the language of theism and science and find equivalent terms applicable to both, one might better understand the link that exists between the two. The language of theism divides the components of being as we experience it into two general categories, the physical and the spirited. Science divides the components of being into two general categories also, matter and energy which roughly correlate to the notion of the physical and spirit. What fascinates me with these equivalencies is that science has two laws governing matter and energy; namely, the Conservation of Matter and the Conservation of Energy, which roughly states that matter cannot be created or destroyed in an isolated environment and, likewise, energy cannot be created or destroyed. Theisms also support this concept in terms of the physical and spirit.
When researching these laws, a word associated with both when combined in a "happening" was referred to as "soul" as the durable part of such a happening. I'm not clear on what "happening" and "durable" mean in a strictly scientific context, but that the term soul appeared in the context of a discussion of these laws resonates with where I was headed in this post. Although I found nothing to explain the term "soul" as it relates to the Conservation of Matter, it serves as the juncture in which science and theism meet; the durable part of being that comes from these two uncreated and indestructible sources in an act of creation, scientifically understood as a happening in which something becomes existent.
I believe it was the 18th century chemist, Antoine Lavoisier who concluded that given the Conservation of Matter, the universe, being a macro-isolated environment unto itself, must have a constant weight; that whatever is happening in the universe does not change the weight of the universe no matter how much it expands or contracts; as such, its incalculable weight necessarily was present in the singularity that gave way to the universe before its realization. The same rationale also be applies to energy; that energy is a constant that never diminishes, that it too was present the moment the universe exploded into being.
What we experience as something new emerging is, theoretically speaking, something constantly being recreated from uncreated and indestructible sources; a view consistent with an understanding of God in Abrahamic theisms, as a God who does not slumber or sleep but is constantly recreating all things because all things are not in essence changed on an elemental level, but are being recreated by an uncreated and indestructible constant expressed as God. [See Psalm 121;3 and Isaiah 65:17-18]
In common usage, soul and spirit are treated as synonymous terms, but used here, they are not.[See 1Thessalonians 5;23] Soul is what happens when matter is infused with energy to become an entity in the universe or, theistically speaking, when physical elements are infused with spirit to become a living soul. Both science and theism see the soul as the durable part of an existent being. This is demonstrable in the macrocosmic universe. Stars and galaxies are made up of light and matter of various types. When stars die and galaxies are sucked into dark holes, their presence endures as an energy that can be seen by the naked human eye (with the help of telescopes), centuries and millennia after their real time disappearance.
Light and energy travels with the imprint of the matter it infused. It's ending is only comprehended in our time when, over time, this energy completely passes us by. The imprint will continue as long as the universe exists and will collapse into a singularity when it doesn't, but the weight and energy of its presence never goes away.
On the microcosmic level, one can speculate that the creative happening of The Big Bang continues to resonate at the most fundamental subatomic levels; a view indicated in what is known at Chaos Theory. This broad theory suggests the existence of an extremely fluid, nonlinear cause and effect relationship between things and events that has no distinct pattern, but when applied in particle physics suggests that at an infinitesimal small level, discernable only as theory, the fluid state of the universe's origins continues to reside in everything that exists in the macrocosmic universe. This is a speculative hypothesis that can be distilled from theory and to some extent from theology [See Genesis 1:1-2].
Bringing all of this back to a theological application, the human being is a result of an ongoing creative process at the most fundamental level which is not discernible without the aid of speculative theory and, in this case, speculative theology. Once again, the difference between these two disciplines is in how they work and what they work with.
Science is fact based. It's laws are based on facts that can prove how things occur and its theories are based on formulae that is derived on factual knowledge that allows one to speculate on the possibility how things work. Theology is more ancient than science and less concerned with fact and more concerned with truth as it relates to the human experience. Theology is a rational approach to knowledge largely obtained through intuition and speculation garnered from experience.
This intuitive approach, however, is not dismissed or displaced by a pure scientific approach to what it means to be human. This being said does not dismiss the fact that science is far superior in identifying and addressing many of the current problems we humans face, but rather there are other things at play in the human experience that are better viewed from a sense of faith and intuition.
What we do and what happens to us has a durable effect on ourselves and the universe. That this durability of experience, the soul, will continue after our this current existence ends is within the realm of possibilities that border probability. The physical returns to its elemental nature, and the spirit to the source of all being. Death is nothing more than the cessation of the current. Time has no meaning to God. Time is only an intuitive device derived from human experience to measure the decay of the things we experience. The soul, theologically and theoretically, becomes recreated as a new spiritual creation imprinted with the experience of the current and is ever-present in that Being-in-which-we-live-move-and-have-our-being. [See Luke 20:38]
Admittedly, all of this is highly speculative, but such speculation sparks the imagination as to its possible applications.
Until next time, stay faithful.
Norm
Friday, November 22, 2019
Thursday, November 7, 2019
COMMENDING ONE'S SPIRIT
Then Jesus, crying with a loud voice, said, ‘Father, into your hands I commend my spirit.’ Having said this, he breathed his last. Luke 23:46
* * * * * * * * * *
I find the most intriguing story about Jesus is the passion story, the final days of Jesus' physical life on this planet. Of all the other things in the New Testament that are said about Jesus, the story of his suffering and death affirms Jesus being one of us, a human being. Human beings die and so did Jesus.
Jesus saying, "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit" is only found in the Gospel of Luke. The Gospels of Matthew and Mark merely say that the at end of Jesus life he cried with a loud voice and gave up his spirit. This final crying out is given meaning in Luke, and Luke's account is what has stuck with me because it offers a possible explanation to what occurs at the moment of one's death.
As a faith-based agnostic, I make no presumptions about will happen when we die. I can only speculate, at best. My faith in God (that Being in which we live and move and have our being) is not based on what will happen when I die, my faith in God is based on the experience of God in the present.
Any thoughts I entertain about an afterlife is simply based on this present life which, in my opinion, suggests the probability of there being more to existence than the physical life I am currently experiencing. What also suggests this probability comes from my personal observation of people who have just died prior to any cosmetic make-over by a mortician.
The one thing that strikes me about someone who has just died is the overwhelming sense of absence; as in, the lights are out and nobody is home. It's this absence of being that brings into question what happened to the life, the energy, that animated this person's physical body at the moment of death.
We tend to treat life as a purely physical phenomenon, that begins at conception and ends at death, but is that accurate? On a purely observational level it would appear to be, but the human experience lends itself to understand there is more to being alive than merely being an animated physical presence. Spirit is the driving force, the energy, the marker that identifies all living matter, including the entire universe.
We do not see spirit; however, we experience its presence and it's absence. It is experience that suggests there is more to the universe, more to the animated physical world than the physical eye can observe. The concept of spirit is frequently related to the personal experience of an acquired feeling.
Feeling, as used here, is the inner experience we obtain through our physical senses; in that, what we see, touch, smell, taste and hear result in forming an immediate inner feeling (good, bad, pleasant, unpleasant, etc.) about those sensations, and I would also add that our inner thoughts and inner conversations result in acquiring feelings. It is those feelings that result in and define our experiences, and it is our experiences that stick with us and shape who we are. It is experience that gives credence to the concept of spirit.
It is the moment of both conception and death that the rational mind struggles with the notion of one's ability to experience as a necessary component of existence. Is conception and death, strictly speaking, experiential on the part of the person conceived or dead or are they merely experiential on the part of an observer; as in the case of conception, the woman who becomes impregnated or in the case of the deceased, the deceased's family and friends?
Was there a me before the me I am? Will there be a me after I die? Is there something that is essentially me or does my existence present a current expression of a fundamental, over-arching existential essence?
To such questions, I can provide no answers beyond the speculative. Instead, I will turn to theology which will not answer these questions, but may give clarity and definition in asking them.
THE SPIRITUAL ESSENCE OF CREATION
The theological proposition presented in the Gospel of John as the Word, the creative utterance, that brought the universe as the essential nature of Jesus is suggestive. Because if this is true about Jesus, then it must be true of us also, because according to the biblical scriptures, we are necessarily the result of this same creative utterance.
The first chapter of John is a summary rewrite of the creation story found in the first chapters of Genesis in which all creation comes into being through the Word. The difficulty with the Gospel of John is that it attempts to make Jesus the one and only incarnated being, a view that is inconsistent with the creation of humankind described in Genesis and with Luke 3:38, "... Adam which was the son of God."
Genesis presents a broader view of the spirit or wind of God as the creative force that brought about the universe. In another post, I suggested and described this spiritual force as the desire to be; that in essence the singularity that became the universe was spirited, activated, animated, released with spirit to take shape; to experience and be experienced.
I defined creation as a kenotic act in which that "Being-in-which-we-live-move-and-have-our-being," commonly known as God, is constantly expending "being" in order to expand "being." It seems to me that this expanding while expending trait of God is imprinted on all that God creates, including us.
As such, when Jesus cried out with his last breath it was his final kenotic act on earth; a complete emptying of his binary self as God incarnate. In Luke's account of this moment, Jesus commends his spirit, his essential self to that Self we all embody; the creative breath, wind, and spirit of the living and life-giving God. If this is true, then the resurrection seems possible, if not probable.
THE PROBABILITY OF RESURRECTION
The apostle Paul, in his first letter to the Church at Corinth writes:
"There are celestial (spiritual) bodies and bodies terrestrial (physical); but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. So also is the resurrection... It (the physical body) is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, the first man Adam was made a living soul (incarnated spirit); the last Adam was made a quickening (life -giving) spirit. [1Corintians 15: 40, 42a, and 45 - KJV]
Paul presents a dichotomous understanding of creation; as there being two separate types of created beings; one physical (by nature thoroughly corrupt) and one spiritual (by nature incorruptible). In this sense, Paul seemingly dismisses, as being dichotomous, the binary elements of the "natural" human as being. A view that is in contrast with the first and second chapters of Genesis and the first chapter of the Gospel of John:
In the first and second chapters of Genesis we find:
" So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. [Genesis 1:27 KJV] And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul (an incarnate spirit). [Genesis 2:7 KJV]
In the first chapter of the Gospel of John we find:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. And the Word was made flesh... . [John 1:1-2, 14a KJV]
The point is that Genesis and the Gospel of John present creation as being a paradox that one can identify as binary unification; the combination of a necessary (physical) and essential (spiritual) element in order to bring about the living creatures we currently are, the present us.
What these various scriptures suggest to me is that at the moment death is realized, the physical element remains in the present to be absorbed back (decay) to its original elemental states, while the essential element of one's being, the breath, the wind, the spirit that animates the entirety of the universe returns to its essential form, God.
One can deduce from this theological premise that the resurrection of Jesus is the prototype of a new creation; the "last Adam, is the converse of the first Adam, but instead of bearing the incarnated image (the essence) of God, the resurrected Jesus is a new spiritual creation; the essence of God bearing the experience of humanity.
At best, I can only present this as pure theological speculation, but I am intrigued by its implications.
As a person in the present and a person of faith, I can only hope that at the end of this terrestrial journey I will say with Jesus, "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit."
Until next time, stay faithful.
Norm
THE EXPERIENCE OF SPIRIT
The one thing that strikes me about someone who has just died is the overwhelming sense of absence; as in, the lights are out and nobody is home. It's this absence of being that brings into question what happened to the life, the energy, that animated this person's physical body at the moment of death.
We tend to treat life as a purely physical phenomenon, that begins at conception and ends at death, but is that accurate? On a purely observational level it would appear to be, but the human experience lends itself to understand there is more to being alive than merely being an animated physical presence. Spirit is the driving force, the energy, the marker that identifies all living matter, including the entire universe.
We do not see spirit; however, we experience its presence and it's absence. It is experience that suggests there is more to the universe, more to the animated physical world than the physical eye can observe. The concept of spirit is frequently related to the personal experience of an acquired feeling.
Feeling, as used here, is the inner experience we obtain through our physical senses; in that, what we see, touch, smell, taste and hear result in forming an immediate inner feeling (good, bad, pleasant, unpleasant, etc.) about those sensations, and I would also add that our inner thoughts and inner conversations result in acquiring feelings. It is those feelings that result in and define our experiences, and it is our experiences that stick with us and shape who we are. It is experience that gives credence to the concept of spirit.
It is the moment of both conception and death that the rational mind struggles with the notion of one's ability to experience as a necessary component of existence. Is conception and death, strictly speaking, experiential on the part of the person conceived or dead or are they merely experiential on the part of an observer; as in the case of conception, the woman who becomes impregnated or in the case of the deceased, the deceased's family and friends?
Was there a me before the me I am? Will there be a me after I die? Is there something that is essentially me or does my existence present a current expression of a fundamental, over-arching existential essence?
To such questions, I can provide no answers beyond the speculative. Instead, I will turn to theology which will not answer these questions, but may give clarity and definition in asking them.
THE SPIRITUAL ESSENCE OF CREATION
The theological proposition presented in the Gospel of John as the Word, the creative utterance, that brought the universe as the essential nature of Jesus is suggestive. Because if this is true about Jesus, then it must be true of us also, because according to the biblical scriptures, we are necessarily the result of this same creative utterance.
The first chapter of John is a summary rewrite of the creation story found in the first chapters of Genesis in which all creation comes into being through the Word. The difficulty with the Gospel of John is that it attempts to make Jesus the one and only incarnated being, a view that is inconsistent with the creation of humankind described in Genesis and with Luke 3:38, "... Adam which was the son of God."
Genesis presents a broader view of the spirit or wind of God as the creative force that brought about the universe. In another post, I suggested and described this spiritual force as the desire to be; that in essence the singularity that became the universe was spirited, activated, animated, released with spirit to take shape; to experience and be experienced.
I defined creation as a kenotic act in which that "Being-in-which-we-live-move-and-have-our-being," commonly known as God, is constantly expending "being" in order to expand "being." It seems to me that this expanding while expending trait of God is imprinted on all that God creates, including us.
As such, when Jesus cried out with his last breath it was his final kenotic act on earth; a complete emptying of his binary self as God incarnate. In Luke's account of this moment, Jesus commends his spirit, his essential self to that Self we all embody; the creative breath, wind, and spirit of the living and life-giving God. If this is true, then the resurrection seems possible, if not probable.
THE PROBABILITY OF RESURRECTION
The apostle Paul, in his first letter to the Church at Corinth writes:
"There are celestial (spiritual) bodies and bodies terrestrial (physical); but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. So also is the resurrection... It (the physical body) is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, the first man Adam was made a living soul (incarnated spirit); the last Adam was made a quickening (life -giving) spirit. [1Corintians 15: 40, 42a, and 45 - KJV]
Paul presents a dichotomous understanding of creation; as there being two separate types of created beings; one physical (by nature thoroughly corrupt) and one spiritual (by nature incorruptible). In this sense, Paul seemingly dismisses, as being dichotomous, the binary elements of the "natural" human as being. A view that is in contrast with the first and second chapters of Genesis and the first chapter of the Gospel of John:
In the first and second chapters of Genesis we find:
" So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. [Genesis 1:27 KJV] And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul (an incarnate spirit). [Genesis 2:7 KJV]
In the first chapter of the Gospel of John we find:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. And the Word was made flesh... . [John 1:1-2, 14a KJV]
The point is that Genesis and the Gospel of John present creation as being a paradox that one can identify as binary unification; the combination of a necessary (physical) and essential (spiritual) element in order to bring about the living creatures we currently are, the present us.
What these various scriptures suggest to me is that at the moment death is realized, the physical element remains in the present to be absorbed back (decay) to its original elemental states, while the essential element of one's being, the breath, the wind, the spirit that animates the entirety of the universe returns to its essential form, God.
One can deduce from this theological premise that the resurrection of Jesus is the prototype of a new creation; the "last Adam, is the converse of the first Adam, but instead of bearing the incarnated image (the essence) of God, the resurrected Jesus is a new spiritual creation; the essence of God bearing the experience of humanity.
At best, I can only present this as pure theological speculation, but I am intrigued by its implications.
As a person in the present and a person of faith, I can only hope that at the end of this terrestrial journey I will say with Jesus, "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit."
* * * * * * * * * *
Norm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)