Wikio - Top Blogs - Religion and belief
Showing posts with label polanyi. Show all posts
Showing posts with label polanyi. Show all posts

Sunday, 16 February 2025

Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have died

Here's the sermon I shared at St Catherine's Wickford this morning:

On Wednesday Richard and I spoke to Year 4 classes at Hilltop Junior School as part of their RE lessons, where they are currently looking at the charitable and community work that churches undertake. We spoke about the Gateway Project, our collections for the Women’s Refuge, and the funds we collect for Positive Life Kenya but, through the questions the children asked, we also spoke about the ways in which the church is there for people and with people at all the key moments in life – at birth through Christenings, when people get married through wedding, and when people die through funerals. It’s sometimes, disparagingly spoken of as ‘hatch, match and dispatch’ but actually means the church ministers to people at every stage of their lives and at all the really important moments in life.

The children specifically wanted to ask about funerals, which is interesting as parents often try to protect children from the reality of death; although, as was clear to us on Wednesday, they are aware of the reality of death and can and will speak about it. That was also the case in the church at Corinth, to which St Paul wrote first and second Corinthians, as we have them recorded in the Bible.

The reality of the resurrection was the big issue or discussion that Paul addressed in the section of his letter that we heard read this morning (1 Corinthians 15.12-20). Paul makes the resurrection central to Christianity by arguing that if it did not happen, then the rest of our faith must be false.

In this section of his letter, he doesn’t give his argument for the reality of the resurrection. He simply states that belief at the end of the passage - in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have died. But in the section of the letter that was read last week he does set out his argument (1 Corinthians 15.1-11). So, let’s look briefly at some of the reasons for believing in the reality of the resurrection.

First, we need to be clear that those who say there is no evidence for the existence of God seek to disallow the very evidence which has helped convince us otherwise by saying that the only acceptable evidence is scientifically measurable evidence. This is the argument that science and its methods provide the only way of knowing that gives us true knowledge of the world around us. Yet, if that were to be the case then, for example, a wedding would make no real sense. Instead of being about the mutual celebration of love and affection between the couple, on the basis of measurable scientific knowledge what occurs when a wedding happens simply becomes about the survival of the fittest through the passing on of selfish genes in procreation. Our experiences of love and faith cannot be adequately captured through the language of scientific measurement. Instead, we need the languages of belief and imagination to give voice to what we truly experience of love and faith. As Richard Chartres once said, "Faith and committed relationships offer a door into the mystery of spiritual life.”

Second, we need to understand that faith is fundamental to all true knowledge and that applies to scientific knowing as much as to any other form of knowing. Scientists like Michael Polanyi have come to understand that faith is fundamental in the whole enterprise of understanding because all knowledge of reality rests upon faith commitments which cannot be demonstrated. As a result, scientists and philosophers of science are now rediscovering the vital role that the imagination has to play in their endeavours.

When there is an acceptance that other forms of knowing and other forms of evidence have validity, then two further arguments can be made. The first of these is that belief in God makes sense of our experiences of life and love in ways that give full weight to our experience of these things without contradicting the findings of science. On this basis, Christianity offers, as Lesslie Newbigin has argued, “the widest rationality, the greatest capacity to give meaning to the whole of experience.”

Second, the arguments for the resurrection made in the New Testament and also subsequently come into play. Many historians, lawyers and sceptics have testified to the convincing nature of this evidence when objectively considered. Many would, for example, agree with E. M. Blaiklock, , who said, “the evidence for the life, the death, and the resurrection of Christ is better authenticated than most of the facts of ancient history . . .”

One of the earliest records of Christ's appearing after the resurrection is given by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15. There, he appeals to his audience's knowledge of the fact that Christ had been seen by more than 500 people at one time. Paul reminded them that the majority of those people were still alive and could be questioned. Dr. Edwin M. Yamauchi, associate professor of history at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, emphasizes: "What gives a special authority to the list (of witnesses) as historical evidence is the reference to most of the five hundred brethren being still alive. St. Paul says in effect, 'If you do not believe me, you can ask them.' Such a statement in an admittedly genuine letter written within thirty years of the event is almost as strong evidence as one could hope to get for something that happened nearly two thousand years ago." These New Testament accounts of the resurrection were being circulated within the lifetimes of men and women alive at the time of the resurrection; people who could certainly have confirmed or denied the accuracy of such accounts.

So, there is good reason for believing that Jesus rose from the dead but what difference does it make that he did? Paul addresses that at the end of today’s reading - in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have died. This means that what Jesus experienced is like a template for our own experience in future when we, too, are raised from death.

The risen Jesus had a resurrection body and was recognisable to his disciples, although not always. He was able to come and go and move around in ways that had not previously been possible for him and he bore on his body the scars of his crucifixion. This means that there was a continuity between his earthly body and his resurrected body, although they were not one and the same. Later, in this chapter, Paul explains this by saying the perishable body must put on imperishability, and this mortal body must put on immortality.

Writers and theologians have explained this in a variety of different ways. One of those that I find most helpful is that of C.S. Lewis in the last book of The Chronicles of Narnia called 'The Last Battle'. There, he describes his characters dying and entering eternity. In eternity they find themselves back in the land of Narnia but it is a Narnia that has more depth and beauty than previously. As they explore this revitalised Narnia, their cry is one of exploration, 'Come further up and further in'. When they reach the garden at the centre of Narnia, they discover that this is a gateway to another Narnia that has yet more depth and beauty than that which they had just left. Lewis' idea that we abide in eternity in the world that we know but know it in ever increasing depth.

Lewis’ idea works with what we know of Jesus’ resurrected body in order to imagine a new heaven and new earth that is deeper and more beautiful and more real than this earth. Therefore, there is continuity between this world and the next with much that we will recognise but, because it is more real and more beautiful than this world there is much that is also new and unknown that we can discover and explore. In fact, Lewis’ idea is that, because God is inifinite, there is also more of the new heaven and new earth in which we will live our resurrected lives to be explored, discovered and enjoyed. By saying that the resurrection of Jesus is the first fruits of what we will experience, St Paul opens up that possibility to us.

So, as Paul states in 1 Corinthians 15, there are good reasons for believing in the resurrection and for having hope that that we will spend eternity living lives for which Jesus’ resurrection provides the template. Amen.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fiction Family - God Badge.

Monday, 15 June 2015

Discover & explore: Faith


We had a very positive beginning to the 'Discover & explore' service series at St Stephen Walbrook. Among the comments made by those present were these:
  • 'Magnificent choir & organ'
  • 'Both the songs and the reflection were excellent' 
  • 'Beautiful music; the readings were long and meaty! The whole liturgy was good'
  • 'St Martin's Choral Scholars – wonderful tone & expressions'
Here is my reflection on the theme of 'Faith' from today's service:

On 15 June 1215 at Runnymede King John agreed to have Magna Carta, the ‘Great Charter,’ sealed. This event has later become recognised as one of the most important events in English history as it marked the road to individual freedom, parliamentary democracy and to the supremacy of law.

To mark this event, today, at Runnymede, there has been a national Magna Carta Foundation of Liberty ceremony, organised by the National Trust and Surrey County Council, and attended by 4,500 invited guests and VIPs from a cross-section of the community and around the world.

The City of London is the only place to be named in Magna Carta, in a clause guaranteeing "the City of London shall have all its ancient liberties by land as well as by water." It also played a fundamentally important role in the events leading to Magna Carta: Temple, in the west of the City, was where a posse of barons first confronted King John to demand a charter. The City was also later granted the right to appoint a Mayor (later known as the Lord Mayor), part of whose duties was to ensure the provisions of Magna Carta were carried out. As part of the 800th Anniversary celebrations of Magna Carta, the 1297 Magna Carta is currently displayed in the City of London’s Heritage Gallery.

Magna Carta starts as a religious document, concerned with the “health of the soul” of the King, and with the “honour of God,” and with the “exaltation of the Holy Church”. Dr Mike West notes that “Magna Carta established the freedom of the English church from state interference and this has grown to enshrine the rights of each individual to enjoy religious freedom”.

Magna Carta has led to Article 9 of the Human Rights Act, the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, which includes:

  • the freedom to change religion or belief;
  • the freedom to exercise religion or belief publicly or privately, alone or with others;
  • the freedom to exercise religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance; and
  • the right to have no religion (e.g. to be atheist or agnostic) or to have non-religious beliefs protected (e.g. philosophical beliefs such as pacifism or veganism).

The process which took us from the Magna Carta establishing the freedom of the English church from state interference to the rights which we all have to enjoy religious and non-religious freedom ran through the period explored by paintings in the recent re-hanging of the Guildhall Art Gallery’s Victorian Collection. The mid-19th century, as is noted in the Gallery’s description of the theme of ‘Faith’, saw a “crisis of faith” brought about by new scientific developments, such as geological discoveries and Darwin’s evolutionary theory, although the majority of society continued to consider personal spirituality as a key component of life.

The debates which began in that period, and which never simply involved the binary oppositions of faith and science that feature in the usual popular commentaries on that period, continue into the present. These lead us firstly to value the freedom we have to hold either religious or non-religious beliefs. This comes with the recognition, identified primarily by Michael Polanyi, that all human knowledge, including that of science, is ultimately faith-based. This is so, because all knowledge relies on personal commitments which motivate our highest achievements and mean that we believe more than we can prove and know more than we can say. As Hebrews 11 expresses it, ‘Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.’ Secondly, for those who do hold religious beliefs, they lead us to value the place of doubt and debate in faith. The latter is well expressed by the statement at St Martin-in-the-Fields that the church exists to honour God by being an open and inclusive church that enables people to question and discover for themselves the significance of Jesus Christ.

As these understandings of faith and the freedom to believe are not universally applied, Dr Mike West, in exploring the legacy of Magna Carta, writes that, “Today it challenges faith communities to examine the part they might play in the development of a liberal democracy and to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem in international relations.”

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

John Stainer - God So Loved The World.

Thursday, 15 December 2011

It's time to embrace uncertainty

It's time to embrace uncertainty Susanne Moore argues in today's Guardian:
"The world is full of people proclaiming about stuff they don't know much about. My trade depends on it. Pundits, politicians and economists, too, all depend on some kind of bladder-busting meta-analysis to keep us quiet. In fact, they are just winging it ...

What is valued is certainty. What is devalued in such a world is uncertainty. Those who aren't sure are weak. Poor. Faithless. Uncertainty is often worrying and feminised. Real men know real things ...

How weighed down is public life with its emphasis on certainty. How dumbed down is belief. The big divides are not between different beliefs, but the differing degree of certitude in which those beliefs are held.

No one knows. No one has the answers. Uncertainty is where we are. It is to be embraced."

I agree with Moore's basic thesis and recently highlighted another comment piece in the Guardian in which Jenni Russell made similar points and concluded: "We should be more willing to admit that the complexity of the world means those leading us will make mistakes."

However, in this post I want to question the assumptions made here about belief. Moore wrote that "those who most understand the value of uncertainty are scientists," highlighting the comment piece in the Guardian by "the delightful" Jon Butterworth on Tuesday. Butterworth set up a contrast between science and belief: "We should all know that science is a betting system, not a belief system. Near-certainty arises from a morass of uncertainty, it does not drop from heaven gift-wrapped."

Like Richard Dawkins, Butterworth argues that science is superior to belief but they use opposite arguments to reach the same conclusion. Dawkins argues that science is evidence based while belief is not and therefore is uncertain, Butterworth argues that belief is about given certainties while science honestly accepts and values uncertainty. Belief is therefore damned if it does and damned if it doesn't.

The reality is that science works with both - uncertainty and evidence - as also does belief. It is the unnecessary opposing of science and belief in both Dawkins and Butterworth that provides a note of certainty (and therefore falsity) in what they write. Their certitude comes from their belief that scientific knowledge is better than the knowledge which comes through religious belief. This certitude is a belief because it cannot be proved. Therefore, Moore's comment that, "The big divides are not between different beliefs, but the differing degree of certitude in which those beliefs are held," which seems aimed at those holding religious beliefs would also seem applicable to Dawkins and Butterworth. A fuller embrace of uncertainty would seem to understand that, as Polanyi argued, all knowing is ultimately faith-based.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sam Phillips - Gimme Some Truth.

Sunday, 1 May 2011

Resurrection: evidence and belief

Thomas’ statement to the other disciples that, “Unless I see the scars of the nails in his hands and put my fingers on those scars and my hand in his side, I will not believe” is essentially one which is repeated regularly by atheists around the world. Here is a typical comment made in the discussion section of Richard Dawkins’ website, “I have never witnessed a scrap of evidence pointing to god's existence, which leads me to a total lack of belief in it.” Dawkins himself has said, "Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is the belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence."

How can we, as Christians, answer such assertions; because it is not enough simply to say that we believe and leave it at that?

First, we need to be clear that those who say there is no evidence for the existence of God seek to disallow the very evidence which has helped convince us otherwise by saying that the only acceptable evidence is scientifically measurable evidence. This is the argument that science and its methods provide the only way of knowing that gives us true knowledge of the world around us.

Yet, if that were to be the case then, for example, Friday’s Royal Wedding makes no real sense. Instead of being about the mutual celebrations of love and affection which we saw between the couple themselves and also between the people of this country and the royal family, on the basis of measurable scientific knowledge what occurred Friday simply becomes about the survival of the fittest through the passing on of selfish genes in procreation. Our experiences of love and faith cannot be adequately captured through the language of scientific measurement. Instead, we need the languages of belief and imagination to give voice to what we truly experience of love and faith. As the Bishop of London said in his sermon, "Faith and committed relationships offer a door into the mystery of spiritual life.”

Second, we need to understand that faith is fundamental to all true knowledge and that applies to scientific knowing as much as to any other form of knowing. Philip Sherrard has given forceful expression to this view:

“Every thought, every observation, every judgement, every description whether of the modern scientist or of anyone else is soaked in a priori preconceived built-in value-judgements, assumptions and dogmas at least as rigid, if not more rigid (because they are so often unconsciously embraced) than those of any explicitly religious system. The very nature of human thought is such that it cannot operate independently of value-judgements, assumptions and dogmas. Even the assertion that it can constitutes a value-judgement and implies a whole philosophy, whether we are aware of it or not.”

Scientists like Michael Polanyi have come to understand that faith is fundamental in the whole enterprise of understanding because all knowledge of reality rests upon faith commitments which cannot be demonstrated. As a result, scientists and philosophers of science are now rediscovering the vital role that the imagination has to play in their endeavours.

When there is an acceptance that other forms of knowing and other forms of evidence have validity, then two further arguments can be made. The first of these is that belief in God makes sense of our experiences of life and love in ways that give full weight to our experience of these things without contradicting the findings of science. On this basis, Christianity offers, as Lesslie Newbigin has argued, “the widest rationality, the greatest capacity to give meaning to the whole of experience.”

Second, the arguments for the resurrection made in the New Testament and also subsequently come into play. Many historians, lawyers and sceptics have testified to the convincing nature of this evidence when objectively considered. Many would, for example, agree with E. M. Blaiklock, Professor of Classics at Auckland University, who said, “the evidence for the life, the death, and the resurrection of Christ is better authenticated than most of the facts of ancient history . . .”

One of the earliest records of Christ's appearing after the resurrection is by Paul. The apostle appealed to his audience's knowledge of the fact that Christ had been seen by more than 500 people at one time. Paul reminded them that the majority of those people were still alive and could be questioned. Dr. Edwin M. Yamauchi, associate professor of history at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, emphasizes: "What gives a special authority to the list (of witnesses) as historical evidence is the reference to most of the five hundred brethren being still alive. St. Paul says in effect, 'If you do not believe me, you can ask them.' Such a statement in an admittedly genuine letter written within thirty years of the event is almost as strong evidence as one could hope to get for something that happened nearly two thousand years ago." These New Testament accounts of the resurrection were being circulated within the lifetimes of men and women alive at the time of the resurrection; people who could certainly have confirmed or denied the accuracy of such accounts.

Another interesting example of evidence for the truth of Christianity and, in particular, the resurrection of Jesus, is the testimony of former skeptics, many of whom attempted to disprove Christian faith. Thomas is merely the first in a long line of such people which in more recent years have included Frank Morison, C. S. Lewis, Dr Gary Habermas, Alister McGrath, and Lee Strobel.

So, there is evidence for the existence of God and evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. Such evidence helps us in holding our faith and may, as was the case for those I have just listed, be helpful in bringing people to faith. However, we should never think that such evidences prove either the existence of God or the resurrection of Jesus. Ultimately, if we believe in both it is because of faith, not proof; just as atheists cannot disprove the existence of God and, therefore, also hold their beliefs on the basis of faith. Neither positions can be proved conclusively, so can only be held by faith.
That is what Jesus emphasizes to Thomas after confronting him with the physical and tangible evidence of the resurrection that he demanded. Jesus said, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed”:

Unless I see
the scars
of the nails
in his hands
and put my finger
on those scars
and my hand
in his side,
unless I can touch,
unless he is tangible,
unless I have proof,
I will not believe.

If you see
the scars
of the nails
in my hands
and put your finger
on those scars
and your hand
in my side,
if you can touch,
if I am tangible,
if you have proof,
you will not have belief.

Blessed are those
who cannot see
the scars
of the nails
in my hands
and put their fingers
on those scars
and their hands
in my side,
blessed are those who
cannot touch,
who are without
tangible proof,
for they truly believe.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Script - Science And Faith.