The Resurrection and Science

[Paul DeBaufer]

In the latest from BioLogos the idea that the resurrection and science are not incompatible. When we think of the Resurrection as simply the reanimation, resuscitation of a corpse we miss what is actually happening. If the Resurrection were reanimation, resuscitation of a corpse then Lazarus was the first resurrected, but he wasn't.

This article supports the view espoused in a new book by Joseph Ratzinger (aka Pope Benedict XVI) that God does something new, something we haven't seen before or since:


Jesus' Resurrection, he contends, was an utterly singular event, straining the very limits of human understanding:

"Anyone approaching the Resurrection accounts in the belief that he knows what rising from the dead means will inevitably misunderstand those accounts and will then dismiss them as meaningless"

I find this article interesting and can't find anything with which I can disagree.

Opinions? Thoughts?

[Shea Zellweger]

In the latest from BioLogos the idea that the resurrection and science are not incompatible. When we think of the Resurrection as simply the reanimation, resuscitation of a corpse we miss what is actually happening. If the Resurrection were reanimation, resuscitation of a corpse then Lazarus was the first resurrected, but he wasn't.

This article supports the view espoused in a new book by Joseph Ratzinger (aka Pope Benedict XVI) that God does something new, something we haven't seen before or since:



I find this article interesting and can't find anything with which I can disagree.

Opinions? Thoughts?

it makes sense... but I'm not sure this is "science." In the sense that the resurrection is a black swan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory), I can see its compatibility with science, but the black swan theory is not by any means proof, it just states that the thing can't be disproven... idunno, I think when most people say something is "compatible" with science, they mean that the thing could be scientifically proven or corroborated, and if they resurrection is a singular event, it by definition cannot be proven.

[Doug Ward]

Paul, I have not read the article, but it strikes a theme with me. This seems to be Paul's argument in 1 Corinthians. The Corinthians seem to be bothered by the idea of the resurrection. It seems they view it as a resuscitation of a corpse. If that is true, then we would not be changed, only permitted to live longer. Paul wants the readers to know they will be changed, somehow it is, will be different. Maybe Paul was on the right track.

[Roland Hearn]

it makes sense... but I'm not sure this is "science." In the sense that the resurrection is a black swan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory), I can see its compatibility with science, but the black swan theory is not by any means proof, it just states that the thing can't be disproven... idunno, I think when most people say something is "compatible" with science, they mean that the thing could be scientifically proven or corroborated, and if they resurrection is a singular event, it by definition cannot be proven.

We had black swans on the lake down the road from our second pastorate. No surprise there.

[Melissa DeBono]

Black Swan theory sounds a lot like "firstfruits" to me. A first example of a previously thought impossible future possibility...that works for me, both theologically and personally. I resonate with the idea that Resurrection is not an event outside the natural order, but just a singular event within the natural order. As far as 'compatible with science," Shea is right to say that as it is not (yet) reproducible, and therefore not scientifically provable, but there are lots of scientific explorations sitting on the shelf waiting for opportunity and technology to pursue them. They are "compatible with science," and I don't see why resurrection should not be like that. I put my hope in a resurection that will be scientifically understandable once people other than Jesus are involved (or once he comes back and lets us examine him.) Jesus was gracious to Thomas who wanted measurable proof, and I think when he returns he might be gracious enough to others to allow for an MRI and a CT scam. Maybe I'm wrong, I'll leave that to God to sort out. Meanwhile I will try to tread gently around that which is really unknowable.