God Incarnate illogical? (Part 2 of 2)

"Adoration of the Shepherds" by Guido Reni (1575-1642)

APOLOGIA

By Hendrik van der Breggen
The Carillon, December 23, 2015

God Incarnate illogical? (Part 2 of 2)

Christmas celebrates the truth of God becoming a human being. Jesus is God Incarnate: Jesus is fully God (God the Son) and fully human. But some object that "fully human" means not-God, so Incarnation means being God and not-God (at the same time and in the same sense), which is logically contradictory (logically impossible) and thus cannot be true.

In my October 17 column (God Incarnate illogical? Part 1 of 2), I argued that this objection fails: the notion of God Incarnate is not contradictory and thus its truth isn't logically precluded from the get-go. It's mysterious, but not nonsense.

Think of it this way: As the parent who limits him/herself to interact with a child at the child's level doesn't cease to be fully a parent, so it goes with God. As the creator of an interactive video game can become a character in the game and still fully remain the game's creator, so it goes with God.

Today I'll deal with three additional objections: Isn't the Incarnation contradictory because Jesus lacked omniscience (whereas God is omniscient), was tempted (whereas God can't be tempted), and died (whereas God can't die)?

Objection 1: According to the New Testament, Jesus doesn't know when the end will come, but God is supposed to know everything, so it's logically impossible for Jesus to be God.

Reply: Not necessarily. It's possible that Jesus' mind may have been operating at two levels, as is the case with humans. Jesus' deeper subliminal aspect of self may have had complete access to divine knowledge, and His non-subliminal aspect of self may not have had this complete access (although there apparently was some access). God the Son may have known this limitation would occur before deciding to become a man, yet He considered it a price worth paying in order to be like us to save us.

(Logic reminder: to refute the charge that something is contradictory/ logically impossible, all that's needed is a merely logically possible non-contradictory scenario, however far-fetched it might seem.)

Objection 2: What about the New Testament evidence for Jesus being tempted? God cannot be tempted, but Jesus was tempted, so Jesus can't be God—the contradiction still holds.

Reply: No. It is possible that Jesus' mind may again have been operating at the above-mentioned two levels, as the case with humans. Jesus' deeper subliminal/ subconscious aspect of self may have had complete access to divine power, whereas His non-subliminal aspect of self may not have had this complete access, thereby allowing for real temptation as a human (although there apparently was some access for the doing of miracles).

Objection 3: But what about the New Testament evidence for Jesus' death on the cross? God cannot cease to exist and still be God. Doesn't this show that Jesus can't be God?

Reply: No. This objection only gains traction if we hold the view that human death requires annihilation. But on the Christian view, human death logically entails physical death only, with the immaterial soul or spirit continuing its existence. So if Jesus the man dies on the cross, He can continue to exist as God, who is eternal Spirit.

Conclusion: Whether the above descriptions of how Jesus is the God-man is completely true in all its details, I don't know. I do know, however, that they're enough to show that the contradiction charge doesn't stick, so the idea of God Incarnate—that Jesus is fully God and fully human—is not logically impossible. And so the notion of Incarnation shouldn't be dismissed at the get-go as in principle impossible to be true.

For the earnest truth seeker, then, I suggest that he or she read (or re-read) the New Testament and keep in mind that there's good evidence for Jesus' life, death, and resurrection—and that the resurrection is a sign for thinking Jesus is who He claims to be.

Keep in mind too that the Holy Spirit may be using reason to knock gently on the door of one’s heart.

Merry Christmas!

(Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, teaches philosophy at Providence University College. The views in this column do not always reflect the views of Providence.)

Further reading on the principle of non-contradiction:

• “Bible and the Principle of Non-Contradiction” (Apologia, October 4, 2014)
• “God and the Principle of Non-Contradiction” (Apologia, September 8, 2011)
• “The Principle of Non-Contradiction”  (Apologia, May 7, 2009)
• “God and the Stone Too Heavy to Lift” (Apologia, October 30, 2008)

Further reading on the concept of Incarnation:

• Paul Copan, "The Incarnation" in Loving Wisdom: Christian Philosophy of Religion.
• Ronald H. Nash, “Christianity and the Test of Reason,” in Worldviews in Conflict: Choosing Christianity in a World of Ideas.
• James A. Parker, "The Incarnation: Could God Become Man Without Ceasing to Be God?" in The Apologetics Study Bible. Reprinted in If God Made the Universe, Who Made God? (Beginner level)
• Thomas D. Senor, "The Incarnation and the Trinity," in Reason for the Hope Within (ed. Michael J. Murray). (Advanced level)

Further reading on the evidence for Jesus’ resurrection (which is a sign for believing Jesus is in fact God Incarnate and placing our trust in Him):

• William Lane Craig, On Guard. (Beginner level)
• William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith. (Intermediate/ advanced level)
• Gary Habermas, The Historical Jesus.
• Gary Habermas & Antony Flew, Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? (ed., Terry L. Miethe).
• Michael Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus. (Advanced level)
• Lee Strobel, The Case for Easter. (Beginner level)

Believing Christmas because of Easter

Caravaggio's "Doubting Thomas"/ "The Incredulity of Saint Thomas" (c. 1602-03)

APOLOGIA
By Hendrik van der Breggen
(The Carillon, December 17, 2009)

Believing Christmas because of Easter
Christmas is the time of year to reflect on the birth of Jesus. The heart of the Christmas story is that Jesus is God (God the Son) come to earth as a human being. Jesus is Emmanuel—God with us.

It’s an interesting story. But why believe it?

This, it seems to me, is where publicly-accessible knowledge of the historical reality of Jesus’ subsequent death (30-something years later) and resurrection (a few days later yet) becomes crucially important.

If Easter is true, that is, if Jesus really resurrected after His death, then this event would constitute a miraculous sign, i.e., an extraordinary supernaturally-caused, empirically-observable event that provides grounds (1) for believing Jesus is who He claimed to be (God in the flesh) and (2) for placing our faith in Him (as Lord and Saviour).

Significantly, careful New Testament scholarship provides excellent historical reasons for believing that, in actual fact, Jesus was killed and subsequently resurrected bodily (physically).

Some contemporary critics, however, inspired by philosopher John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), object as follows: Even if Jesus’ resurrection occurred, isn’t it likely that the alleged miracle will someday be better explained naturalistically, i.e., as produced by hitherto unknown laws of nature, without recourse to the supernatural?

In reply, I think that a reasonable answer to this objection is No. Here are some reasons for thinking that Jesus’ resurrection is supernaturally caused.

Concerning death, we have excellent knowledge of what relevant natural causes can and cannot do. Our universal experience (with the exception of Jesus' case) over thousands of years is that dead people, when left to themselves, do not resurrect or transform themselves into living bodies made with rejuvenated flesh and new powers. (Reminder: we are talking here about resurrection, not mere resuscitation). Also, our knowledge of cell necrosis (cell death) tells us that dead bodies not only stay dead, if no intervention occurs, but also begin, irreversibly, to decay. Bodily decomposition starts within minutes after death and, after a day or more without refrigeration, renders resuscitation, let alone a resurrection (on naturalistic assumptions), physically impossible.

In terms of naturalistic causes, then, a resurrection is, as philosopher Francis Beckwith points out, "more than presently inexplicable.” In fact, the more we learn about nature, the more we know that naturalistic hypotheses are not even remotely possible as plausible accounts of a resurrection.

Of course, to think that there are some previously unknown natural laws waiting to be discovered may be reasonable in some not well understood fields of investigation (say, a healing of cancer as an apparent answer to prayer); and so in those fields one must explain why one thinks one is not being rash in saying those laws cannot be found (perhaps our bodies have built-in, non-miraculous healing powers which become activated when we exercise an attitude of faith).

The fact remains, however, that it is not reasonable to think this way in the well understood realm of human death. As philosopher C. Stephen Evans observes, “we surely know enough about the natural order to know that it is most unlikely that there could be any natural explanation for a person who has been dead for three days being restored to life."

What is worse (for naturalistic explanations), in the case of Jesus’ resurrection we also have the resurrectee claiming to be God, thereby further pointing to supernatural causation.

Thus, and contrary to what some critics would have us think, if Jesus’ resurrection were to occur, as the historical evidence strongly suggests, it is reasonable to conclude that Jesus’ resurrection would be a supernaturally caused sign—a miracle.

In view of the publicly accessible historicity of Easter, Christmas clearly is not just another religious story. Easter gives us good reason to think that the heart of the Christmas story—the story of the supernatural God becoming a human being—is true.

Jesus is Emmanuel—God with us. This, it seems to me, is life-changing information.

Merry Christmas!

(Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is assistant professor of philosophy at Providence College, Otterburne, Manitoba. The views in this column do not always reflect the views of Providence.)

Christmas, Evolution, and Narnia

APOLOGIA
By Hendrik van der Breggen

(The Carillon, January 1, 2009; published December 30, 2008)

Christmas, Evolution, and Narnia

One of this season’s popular gift DVDs may be Prince Caspian, part of C. S. Lewis’s Chronicles of Narnia.

Lewis (1898-1963) is famous as a writer of children’s fantasy. What many Narnia fans might not know, however, is that Lewis, an Oxford and Cambridge University professor, was persuaded by J.R.R. Tolkien and others to believe that, in the Christmas story, the ancient myth of a dying and rising God became fact.

According to the Christmas story, God came to earth as a human being named Jesus. But, Lewis learned, the Christmas story isn’t complete without Easter. About thirty years after Jesus’ birth, Jesus revealed God’s radical love for us by suffering and dying on a cross, thereby taking the punishment for our sins onto Himself and granting us a pardon. Two days after the crucifixion, Jesus rose from the grave—a glorious sign to help us accept God’s gift of grace, by faith.

Lewis presented arguments for the literal truth of the Christmas-Easter story in his book Miracles.

Intriguingly, one of Lewis’s arguments in Miracles is relevant to contemporary discussions of evolution and intelligent design, when “evolution” is understood atheistically.

Here’s the argument (modified by University of Notre Dame philosopher Alvin Plantinga). Evolutionary theory on the assumption of an unguided, unplanned process of genetic mutation and natural selection guarantees at most that we behave in ways conducive to immediate survival.

Significantly, immediate survival only requires immediately useful skills in foraging, fighting, fleeing, and reproducing.

This means that the reliability of our belief formation very probably does not extend to deep theories about nature, especially if they’re not related to immediate survival. Therefore, if atheistic evolutionary theory is true, then our beliefs about logic (beyond rudimentary logic) and mathematics and science—especially deep scientific theories—should be, very probably, dubious.

But now an epistemological (knowledge) problem arises for atheistic evolution: It is a deep scientific theory, which, if true, very probably shouldn’t be believed to be true.

Go figure.

But another problem also arises. We know much, much more than what’s required for mere immediate survival (think of particle physics, lasers, etc.).

So?

Well, it turns out that our knowledge of physics, lasers and the like is suggestive evidence for thinking that our brains and senses are intelligently designed (for truth seeking). This means that when we discuss evolution and its philosophical implications, the apparent evidence of intelligent design which arises from our ability to reason and do science in the first place should be considered.

It also means that we should ponder what Lewis called “deeper magic,” that is, God’s redemption plan for humanity, established before time and space began, but revealed in history, paradoxically, by a baby in a manger.

(Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is assistant professor of philosophy at Providence College, Otterburne, Manitoba.)