RH1 - you note that our inductive reasoning, that nature is uniform and the future will be like the past, is what allows us to identify an anomaly or miracle. Our capacity for induction/inference is also part of CSL's earlier evidence for the supernatural!
RH2 - with the size argument, our insignificance in the grand scheme of things can still be true, but then it must also be true that the level of effort required by a God to enact miracles is commensurately insignificant. So to say "why would He spend time on us" is the same as asking why I would spend time holding the door for a random person. It's just instinctual, takes half a second, and is immediately forgotten. I guess what I mean is, the proportion with which a God Creator might think about us pales in comparison to how much we spend thinking about Him. Like in Toy Story, the boy is everything to the toys but he has so much more going on (such that they get thrown away, packed away, forgotten, lost).
that is such a fascinating analogy! A key difference between Andy and God would be that Andy's thoughts are discursive and his access to his memories is limited whereas God's thoughts are probably all occurrent and his memory is most likely unlimited, his capacity to hold things in mind would be much different, so He could think about us non-stop while still thinking about some aliens He created on the other side of the universe, or three universes down the street.
Good point - yes, the magnitude of the analogy doesn't go 1:1 as Andy is still just a person and a God Creator is omniscient, omnipresent, and has infinite capacity.
I definitely felt pretty adrift in the last few chapters but 7 & 8 were really enjoyable and I felt like I was able to track with Lewis a lot better!
I really liked the section explaining how miracles don’t break the laws of Nature but conform to it.
Loved this section in particular:
“Miraculous wine will intoxicate, miraculous conception will lead to pregnancy, inspired books will suffer all the ordinary processes of textual corruption, miraculous bread will be digested.”
I just want to say again how much I appreciate being a part of this. Read-along. The companion essays along with the comments have already helped me become a better thinker. When CSL presents his views with examples, it really gets my thinking going. I love the idea that a miracle doesn’t break nature, it just adds an element to nature and nature takes over.
This experience has already helped me ask thoughtful questions in everyday life that I did not really explore before. It seems like such a simple step, but it has been a huge one. I would often accept things at face value based on my own biases to suit my narrative. By critically thinking about why I feel a certain way, I have discovered new things about myself. I had been floating a little bit through my day to day, but I’ve started to unlock some very interesting tools. I guess this comment is not as much about this chapter specifically, but more in gratitude to Parker, and this group, for the growth that I am experiencing already.
Dude! I love that! I've had similar experiences many times and it's so cool to feel you mind coming alive. This first happened to me when I was in college and started trying to read CSL's Screwtape Letters. It was a struggle but once those tools came online, there was no turning back.
On the question as to whether miracles break the laws of nature. I think his example of the miraculous conception aptly illustrates his contention that once the intervention into nature has occurred, the child is born naturally nine months later (although, how we would know whether a "miraculous spermatozoon" was involved, I'm not sure). But what about the resurrection ? To my thinking, that miracle definitely breaks the laws of nature (maybe the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics). Am I missing something in Lewis's reasoning?
Hey Lee, thanks for this question - it helped me wrestle with what Lewis is saying here. I wonder if he would say that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is only a law in the sense that it describes what naturally happens, all things being equal.
In the case of the resurrection, if God steps in and changes around Jesus' biological components, adds new ones in, etc., then that doesn't actually "break" any laws, it just introduces something from the outside. Then the laws continue to operate again as normal and incorporate the interjection.
Actually, I think with my question, I jumped the gun on Lewis's argument. In Ch. 16, "Miracles Of The New Creation", Lewis addresses the uniqueness of Christ's resurrection. On p. 241, he says, "If the story is true, then a wholly new mode of being has arisen in the universe," then, on p. 247, He discusses entropy, which is what the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is about. So I think Lewis would agree with you that God isn't breaking a law, but doing something new. I think the idea of a deeper law that ultimately governs reality is also at play in Lewis's thinking.
One of the really cool things about Miracles has been how it challenges our everyday notions of "laws" and probabilities. If God is God then he can do what he wants, whether or not it matches the ways we typically observe "laws" of nature.
I briefly looked up the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and I'm not understanding how the resurrection would break that law. Perhaps I'm a bit dense lol, but could you further explain your thought process concerning the matter? Thank you!
First, a disclaimer: I am not a physicist, and the laws of thermodynamics are very complicated, so I could certainly be wrong. But a general and simple explanation of the second Law of thermodynamics is that physical systems tend to move from organized to disorganized; in other words, entropy increases. For biology, this means organisms die. From the time we are born, we are dying. Theologically, many would see this Law as the result of the Fall. But Jesus's resurrection defied that Law, spectacularly.
I think we just add Lewis's ceterus paribus clause to the 2nd law. When left on their own* physical systems tend towards disorganization, entropy is the standard if there's no interference from the outside. But if new information is added into the system then entropy decreases and begins from that new point. Is that too easy?
Interesting, thank you for sharing. A few thoughts come to mind and I am no physicist either. First thought was to think about those who have died and are then brought back to life by effective CPR. Of course when it comes to the death and resurrection the situation is much more extreme with Jesus being crucified and His body laying in a tomb for 3 days, but I wonder if it could still be considered similar without being the same. Second thought was that yes, Jesus is a man, but in Christian theology He is also God, which is my belief/conviction as well. With that being said it would seem that since Jesus is fully man as well as fully God, I wouldn't think of it as natural for God to be able to defy death and revive His own body because He Himself is not impacted by the fall as in His nature still remains the nature of God as well as man (apart from sin). I'm not sure if this helps or brings forth any meaningful thoughts, but those are my thoughts. Good question that probably deserves more consideration!
Michael, I think you are on to something with your thoughts on Christ's unique natures, and I may have gone down the wrong trail with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
I don't know if you are familiar with Malcolm Guite, but any lover of Lewis, Tolkien, or good poetry should check out his YouTube channel. Anyway, he was discussing the scene in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe where Aslan has come back to life, and Susan asks him what it means,
"It means," said Aslan, "That though the Witch knew the Deep Magic, there is a magic deeper still which she did not know. Her knowledge goes back only to the dawn of time. But if she could have looked a little further back, into the stillness and the darkness before Time dawned, she would have read there a different incantation. She would have known that when a willing victim who had committed no treachery was killed in a traitor's stead, the Table would crack and Death itself would start working backwards. And now-"
So, maybe the answer is that there is a deeper law that governs the Universe than even the Laws of Thermodynamics, that when new information is added, things begin to conform to that deeper law.
This was my favorite section to read thus far. I’m still mulling it over, just wanted you to know I’m keeping up and have been discussing a lot of this with my husband in everyday conversation. I particularly appreciated the red herring part, as I’ve had interactions lately that can accurately be described as that. Thanks for all you are putting into this!
Thanks so much for this, Parker. I actually didn't think the first 6 chapters had been a slog until I got to this essay and found it relieving!
If you have the time for a brief comment, I would love to know why you think the third view on the Laws of Nature is wrong! You mentioned that very briefly but seemingly with confidence?
I kept thinking of the phrase "ceteris paribus" throughout the book. As someone who teaches economics to his school students, I love this concept because whenever the student give me a "what if" question, I tell them to start from scratch and look at the result with the new information. Some of the arguments for those who do not believe in miracles stick to the old data and draw a new conclusion that fits their narrative.
Some ideas to add to Red Herrings:
RH1 - you note that our inductive reasoning, that nature is uniform and the future will be like the past, is what allows us to identify an anomaly or miracle. Our capacity for induction/inference is also part of CSL's earlier evidence for the supernatural!
RH2 - with the size argument, our insignificance in the grand scheme of things can still be true, but then it must also be true that the level of effort required by a God to enact miracles is commensurately insignificant. So to say "why would He spend time on us" is the same as asking why I would spend time holding the door for a random person. It's just instinctual, takes half a second, and is immediately forgotten. I guess what I mean is, the proportion with which a God Creator might think about us pales in comparison to how much we spend thinking about Him. Like in Toy Story, the boy is everything to the toys but he has so much more going on (such that they get thrown away, packed away, forgotten, lost).
that is such a fascinating analogy! A key difference between Andy and God would be that Andy's thoughts are discursive and his access to his memories is limited whereas God's thoughts are probably all occurrent and his memory is most likely unlimited, his capacity to hold things in mind would be much different, so He could think about us non-stop while still thinking about some aliens He created on the other side of the universe, or three universes down the street.
Good point - yes, the magnitude of the analogy doesn't go 1:1 as Andy is still just a person and a God Creator is omniscient, omnipresent, and has infinite capacity.
But yeah, your point still stands and is really profound. I'm definitely going to use this in the future! Thanks!
I love the Toy Story analogy. That’s a great way to look at it.
I definitely felt pretty adrift in the last few chapters but 7 & 8 were really enjoyable and I felt like I was able to track with Lewis a lot better!
I really liked the section explaining how miracles don’t break the laws of Nature but conform to it.
Loved this section in particular:
“Miraculous wine will intoxicate, miraculous conception will lead to pregnancy, inspired books will suffer all the ordinary processes of textual corruption, miraculous bread will be digested.”
I just want to say again how much I appreciate being a part of this. Read-along. The companion essays along with the comments have already helped me become a better thinker. When CSL presents his views with examples, it really gets my thinking going. I love the idea that a miracle doesn’t break nature, it just adds an element to nature and nature takes over.
This experience has already helped me ask thoughtful questions in everyday life that I did not really explore before. It seems like such a simple step, but it has been a huge one. I would often accept things at face value based on my own biases to suit my narrative. By critically thinking about why I feel a certain way, I have discovered new things about myself. I had been floating a little bit through my day to day, but I’ve started to unlock some very interesting tools. I guess this comment is not as much about this chapter specifically, but more in gratitude to Parker, and this group, for the growth that I am experiencing already.
Dude! I love that! I've had similar experiences many times and it's so cool to feel you mind coming alive. This first happened to me when I was in college and started trying to read CSL's Screwtape Letters. It was a struggle but once those tools came online, there was no turning back.
On the question as to whether miracles break the laws of nature. I think his example of the miraculous conception aptly illustrates his contention that once the intervention into nature has occurred, the child is born naturally nine months later (although, how we would know whether a "miraculous spermatozoon" was involved, I'm not sure). But what about the resurrection ? To my thinking, that miracle definitely breaks the laws of nature (maybe the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics). Am I missing something in Lewis's reasoning?
Hey Lee, thanks for this question - it helped me wrestle with what Lewis is saying here. I wonder if he would say that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is only a law in the sense that it describes what naturally happens, all things being equal.
In the case of the resurrection, if God steps in and changes around Jesus' biological components, adds new ones in, etc., then that doesn't actually "break" any laws, it just introduces something from the outside. Then the laws continue to operate again as normal and incorporate the interjection.
What do you think?
Actually, I think with my question, I jumped the gun on Lewis's argument. In Ch. 16, "Miracles Of The New Creation", Lewis addresses the uniqueness of Christ's resurrection. On p. 241, he says, "If the story is true, then a wholly new mode of being has arisen in the universe," then, on p. 247, He discusses entropy, which is what the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is about. So I think Lewis would agree with you that God isn't breaking a law, but doing something new. I think the idea of a deeper law that ultimately governs reality is also at play in Lewis's thinking.
One of the really cool things about Miracles has been how it challenges our everyday notions of "laws" and probabilities. If God is God then he can do what he wants, whether or not it matches the ways we typically observe "laws" of nature.
I briefly looked up the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and I'm not understanding how the resurrection would break that law. Perhaps I'm a bit dense lol, but could you further explain your thought process concerning the matter? Thank you!
First, a disclaimer: I am not a physicist, and the laws of thermodynamics are very complicated, so I could certainly be wrong. But a general and simple explanation of the second Law of thermodynamics is that physical systems tend to move from organized to disorganized; in other words, entropy increases. For biology, this means organisms die. From the time we are born, we are dying. Theologically, many would see this Law as the result of the Fall. But Jesus's resurrection defied that Law, spectacularly.
Let me know what you think.
I think we just add Lewis's ceterus paribus clause to the 2nd law. When left on their own* physical systems tend towards disorganization, entropy is the standard if there's no interference from the outside. But if new information is added into the system then entropy decreases and begins from that new point. Is that too easy?
Interesting, thank you for sharing. A few thoughts come to mind and I am no physicist either. First thought was to think about those who have died and are then brought back to life by effective CPR. Of course when it comes to the death and resurrection the situation is much more extreme with Jesus being crucified and His body laying in a tomb for 3 days, but I wonder if it could still be considered similar without being the same. Second thought was that yes, Jesus is a man, but in Christian theology He is also God, which is my belief/conviction as well. With that being said it would seem that since Jesus is fully man as well as fully God, I wouldn't think of it as natural for God to be able to defy death and revive His own body because He Himself is not impacted by the fall as in His nature still remains the nature of God as well as man (apart from sin). I'm not sure if this helps or brings forth any meaningful thoughts, but those are my thoughts. Good question that probably deserves more consideration!
Michael, I think you are on to something with your thoughts on Christ's unique natures, and I may have gone down the wrong trail with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
I don't know if you are familiar with Malcolm Guite, but any lover of Lewis, Tolkien, or good poetry should check out his YouTube channel. Anyway, he was discussing the scene in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe where Aslan has come back to life, and Susan asks him what it means,
"It means," said Aslan, "That though the Witch knew the Deep Magic, there is a magic deeper still which she did not know. Her knowledge goes back only to the dawn of time. But if she could have looked a little further back, into the stillness and the darkness before Time dawned, she would have read there a different incantation. She would have known that when a willing victim who had committed no treachery was killed in a traitor's stead, the Table would crack and Death itself would start working backwards. And now-"
So, maybe the answer is that there is a deeper law that governs the Universe than even the Laws of Thermodynamics, that when new information is added, things begin to conform to that deeper law.
Anyway, great things to think about on Easter.
This was my favorite section to read thus far. I’m still mulling it over, just wanted you to know I’m keeping up and have been discussing a lot of this with my husband in everyday conversation. I particularly appreciated the red herring part, as I’ve had interactions lately that can accurately be described as that. Thanks for all you are putting into this!
Thanks so much for this, Parker. I actually didn't think the first 6 chapters had been a slog until I got to this essay and found it relieving!
If you have the time for a brief comment, I would love to know why you think the third view on the Laws of Nature is wrong! You mentioned that very briefly but seemingly with confidence?
I kept thinking of the phrase "ceteris paribus" throughout the book. As someone who teaches economics to his school students, I love this concept because whenever the student give me a "what if" question, I tell them to start from scratch and look at the result with the new information. Some of the arguments for those who do not believe in miracles stick to the old data and draw a new conclusion that fits their narrative.