LCMS kerfuffle

[Pasgolf]

So, how do we use the language of the current knowledge base to communicate creation?  If we cannot, what does that say about our credibility? 

[SomeoneWrites]

So, how do we use the language of the current knowledge base to communicate creation?  If we cannot, what does that say about our credibility?

I guess I just don't quite follow.  I think it's that I don't understand what you think is lacking.  Or I don't understand what you mean exactly. 
Perhaps I don't see the first question as a particularly helpful from the start.  Pretty good chance I'm just hearing you wrong.



also, fwiw
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

In physics, the observer effect is the fact that simply observing a situation or phenomenon necessarily changes that phenomenon. This is often the result of instruments that, by necessity, alter the state of what they measure in some manner. A commonplace example is checking the pressure in an automobile tire; this is difficult to do without letting out some of the air, thus changing the pressure. Similarly, it is not possible to see any object without light hitting the object, and causing it to reflect that light. While the effects of observation are sometimes negligible, the object still experiences a change. This effect can be observed in many domains of physics, but can sometimes be reduced to insignificance by using different instruments or observation techniques.

An especially unusual version of the observer effect occurs in quantum mechanics, as best demonstrated by the double-slit experiment. Physicists have found that even passive observation of quantum phenomena (by changing the test apparatus and passively 'ruling out' all but one possibility), can actually change the measured result; the 1998 Weizmann experiment is a particularly famous example. These findings have led to a popular misconception that observation by a conscious mind can directly affect reality, though this has been rejected by mainstream science. This misconception is rooted in a poor understanding of the quantum wave function ψ and the quantum measurement process

[Pasgolf]

What I think is presently lacking is the requisite language for speaking coherently about creation as an act of God in terms that can and do account for the significant movement in understanding of the sciences.  When a position is taken that a process description that is dependent upon a cosmology and chronology, that is easily refuted by observation, must be adhered to in order to accept the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, something has gone radically wrong.  When someone indicates, "If you don't accept _________, then you can't possibly accept the resurrection," the logical response is, "Well alright then, I can't."  In attempting to protect the purity of a particular narrative a massive barrier to trust is erected where a word of comfort is desperately needed. 

I am trying to explore and trying to communicate that there may be contemporary language that does as well for our time as did the liturgical development of the creation narrative for the Babylonian exiled Israelites.  What that language is, anthropic principle, algorithm, being observed into observableness by the creator...?  The key for me would be to have contemporary language evoke the same worshipful sense as was evoked by the liturgical narrative for the Israelites who first heard it.   

[SomeoneWrites]

What I think is presently lacking is the requisite language for speaking coherently about creation as an act of God in terms that can and do account for the significant movement in understanding of the sciences.  When a position is taken that a process description that is dependent upon a cosmology and chronology, that is easily refuted by observation, must be adhered to in order to accept the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, something has gone radically wrong.  When someone indicates, "If you don't accept _________, then you can't possibly accept the resurrection," the logical response is, "Well alright then, I can't."  In attempting to protect the purity of a particular narrative a massive barrier to trust is erected where a word of comfort is desperately needed. 

I am trying to explore and trying to communicate that there may be contemporary language that does as well for our time as did the liturgical development of the creation narrative for the Babylonian exiled Israelites.  What that language is, anthropic principle, algorithm, being observed into observableness by the creator...?  The key for me would be to have contemporary language evoke the same worshipful sense as was evoked by the liturgical narrative for the Israelites who first heard it.

In what context do you want to communicate this.  Liturgy? Bible Study? Casual conversation? Exegetical Debate? 

I remember being able to articulate creation fairly easily with a simulation metaphor.  All metaphors break down, and I think that rout can lead to Apollinarism.  I think where it may be getting wonky is attempting to articulate creation in warped Biblical language.  I think that either irritates traditionalists, and confuses the rest.
Example.  "In the beginning was the Algorithm."  "In the beginning" has it's own connotations and baggage.  "was the ____" is also awkward English for most people.   John 1 is a bit more esoteric, but it's equally primal - light/dark/flesh.  Sure, it begs to be unpacked, but it hits very clear contrasts that are easy to connect with, making it essentially timeless. 

So I can see how, in the right context God was called "the clockmaker" (think Deists, first mover arguments, and arguments of design).  In the same way, we might call God the programmer. 
The Trinity may be seen as creator, redeemer, sanctifier.  Or we could say programmer, avatar, and code.  Just some thoughts. 

[Pasgolf]

The context is the current social order, both materialist dispirited and hyper gullible.  It manifests inside and outside the church.  So, all of the above and then some. 

I like your notion of metaphor as an approach to proximate truth.  I also resonate with your hesitancy simply to transliterate.  That can get kludgy in a hurry.

Thanks as well for your additional thoughts.  I will continue to ponder and test.   

[Dave Benke]

I recently picked up Origin, a book by Dan Brown, whose parents were a church organist and a math teacher.  it's all about the themes swirling through this thread, of course mitigated in the framework of Dr. Langdon, the central figure in his books. 

An interesting read.

dave Benke

[Charles Austin]

It is a great read, Bishop Benke, especially near the end where the scientist's theories are spelled out. But some people in this august forum did not find it agreeable, according to comments on another thread.

[Dave Benke]

It is a great read, Bishop Benke, especially near the end where the scientist's theories are spelled out. But some people in this august forum did not find it agreeable, according to comments on another thread.

Oops.  True, the author was not favorably disposed toward "Creation Scientists".  I thought he had a good handle, though, on the more nuanced approaches to the dialog that exist in the Roman Catholic church, even including their right-edge warriors.  He's all about the art and cultural history aspect, which I enjoy reading through as some of the famous places in Europe, in this case Spain, are highlighted.

Dave Benke

[SomeoneWrites]

The context is the current social order, both materialist dispirited and hyper gullible.  It manifests inside and outside the church.  So, all of the above and then some. 

I like your notion of metaphor as an approach to proximate truth.  I also resonate with your hesitancy simply to transliterate.  That can get kludgy in a hurry.

Thanks as well for your additional thoughts.  I will continue to ponder and test.

I appreciate the conversation. 

I think I'm still struggling with what you are trying to get across. 
And actually, that might be a point to ponder and test.  Think about what it is you're trying to articulate about creation.  At some point, you have a thought of what creation is - God's work, or God starting the clock, or God intimately involved at every moment... a young earth, an old earth, an apparently young earth, an apparently old earth, or what have you.  What you are trying to convey, I imagine, will have a lot to do with your word choice and where you're going with it. 

You said
"I am trying to explore and trying to communicate that there may be contemporary language that does as well for our time as did the liturgical development of the creation narrative for the Babylonian exiled Israelites. "

And that's what keeps going through my head as well.  But it's unclear as to the interpretation of that narrative.  I'd argue there would be 1 or more intended meanings to the narrative.  Like someone who has a more mythic understanding of Gen 1, and speak in terms that God wanted us to know we are corrupt, He made all things good, and salvation was in the future. 

Also when I look at your quote I hear a blending the Babylonian creation myth alongside.  I'm doubtful that's what you meant, but I see the Hebrew myth coming from the Babylonian (in short). 

[Pasgolf]

https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2018/01/30/on-the-size-of-the-universe/

The link gets at a bit of what I am looking for. 

I think that a case might be made that the 7 day creation story is a response to and communal defense by the exiles in Babylon against the corrosive idolatry experienced there and the potential loss of identity threatened by it.  The language is liturgical in an every day sense, allowing for the lifestyle of faithfulness in the context of TOV, not merely in a formal worship setting.

I understand the group self preservation impulse of some in the church, who demand adherence to one group definitional interpretation of the narrative.  It is akin to what the exiles did.  That said, such a response does not speak to the corrosive idolatries of our time in terms that are winsome.  Instead an alternative idolatry is posited which has as much potential for damage. 

[Dave Likeness]

There are several places in the Old Testament to learn more about God's Creation of the Universe

Genesis 1 & 2
Psalm 104
Isaiah 40:12-31
Jeremiah 38 & 39

Of course there are other places which describe God's creation of the heavens and the earth in
the Holy Scriptures  These four listed here are a good place to start because they are more than
a few verses.

[SomeoneWrites]

There are several places in the Old Testament to learn more about God's Creation of the Universe

Genesis 1 & 2
Psalm 104
Isaiah 40:12-31
Jeremiah 38 & 39

Of course there are other places which describe God's creation of the heavens and the earth in
the Holy Scriptures  These four listed here are a good place to start because they are more than
a few verses.

And they need to be unpacked. 
Or you get Hamism and flat earth (He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, via Isaiah)