We shall end this Study with a reminder that to appreciate this conclusion, we have to keep in mind the points we have already discussed in the previous Posts. However, the crucial point that influences to a large extent our understanding of the resurrection of Jesus is the depth of consciousness we have developed through our life. Have we a normally grown consciousness as we age through the years, or is it blocked and maimed by our one-sided involvements in the world? If a person considers himself or herself as part of this world to such a degree that there is no essential difference between animals and the humans, consciousness too will remain restricted purely to the material realm of this world. Such a person is not in a position to understand any higher truth that demands refined consciousness reaching out to the spiritual level of reality. To take in the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, one needs openness not only to the temporal, physical and material reality, but also to the eternal, non-physical and the spiritual dimension. Only such people are eligible to receive the gift of faith from God that is an essential constituent of our belief in the resurrection.
It comes down to the question of our state of being that determines our capacity to receive anything new including the revelation from God of which the resurrection of Jesus from the dead takes pride of place. It does not mean that it depends on us whether we receive the grace of God in the form of the gift of faith, but only that we need the minimum requirement of readiness to receive it. It is like accepting the invitation to the wedding feast where everything is ready where the minimum requirement of wedding dress is taken for granted. The quality of our consciousness is the wedding dress required from our part to enter the reception chamber to enjoy the feast. Is our consciousness clouded, darkened or blocked when confronted with this grand invitation? Being immersed in this material world, if we are not attentive, it is easy to be mesmerized by the display of this world where our consciousness and conscience are forced to be submerged under vanities. The rationale of our belief is to be gathered from the particular language-game we play through the religious language we engage in as we have seen in the previous Posts.
Here we shall inquire into the role of our consciousness in believing what we believe and its rationality. The modernist position on consciousness influenced many thinkers in dealing with the question of the resurrection of Jesus. The Catholic Church described and condemned the modernist view on the resurrection of Christ in the decree "Lamentabili" in its 36th and 37th propositions. The 36th proposition reads: "The Resurrection of our Savior is not a fact of the historical order, but a fact of the purely supernatural order neither proved nor provable, which Christian consciousness has little by little inferred from other facts". This condemnation is directly against the position of Alfred Loisy, a former catholic priest, in his books"Autour d'un Petit Livre", pp. viii, 120-121, 169 and "L'Evangile et L'Eglise", pp.74-78, 120-121, 171 constituting the modernist position. If the Resurrection were merely a historical fact pertaining only to the confines of this world, it would not be any better than the raising of Lazarus, the daughter of Jairus or the son of the widow of Nain. They were meant to die again without being absorbed by the power of the Holy Spirit as in the case of Jesus Christ who could become the living Spirit dispensing salvation to those who believe in him. The proof for the historicity of the Resurrection is provided by the empty tomb and the appearances of Jesus after the resurrection that has been amply treated by innumerable scholars, which need not be repeated here.
The crux of the problem with Resurrection is in the trans-historical and eternal component of the reality of Resurrection. Here the role of consciousness comes into play. The modernists insist on the gradual inference of the fact of resurrection by the Christian consciousness from other facts. Which are these facts?They think that the Old Testament prophecies and the expectation of their fulfillment resulted in the Christian belief in the Resurrection. The main argument against this view is that what really happened in the Resurrection was beyond all expectations that even the Apostles themselves were perplexed about and could not bring themselves to believe. This is in the context of the fact that the Apostles and the closest disciples of Jesus were specially trained to believe in him through a period of almost 3 years. So, how did the Apostles and the disciples were able to finally believe in the Resurrection?
This was not possible without a complete revolution in their personal lives for which Jesus prepared them. The Good News proclaimed by Jesus to repent because the Kingdom of God is at hand conveyed the message of a total conversion from our old ways to new ones embodied in his person and realized in the Resurrection. Without such a total change of our inner self and consequent perspectives, nothing of eternal value could be understood by us, let alone appropriated! Such a well prepared ground is watered by God sending His Spirit into us causing faith in the Resurrection as well as all matters pertaining to the eternal.
Unscientific? Do not forget to refresh oneself with our previous Posts treating about language-games and the role of Metaphysics as the tacit foundation of Physics. When speaking of Metaphysics, one has to be cautious, especially because Wittgenstein himself whose philosophical method we uphold, was himself skeptical about it. Of course, Wittgenstein had in mind the empiricism of David Hume and John Locke as well as the rationalism of Rene Descartes and Immanuel Kant. When he spoke of the aim of Philosophy as bringing back the metaphysical use of language to our ordinary use, he had them in mind besides others with similar tendencies. However, Wittgenstein paved the way for the legitimate use of religious language through the notion of "language-games" whereby grammar tells us what anything is with a reference to theology as grammar. Besides, in the strictly logical treatment of language in his "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus", Wittgenstein left open the possibility of the "mystical" that was succinctly expressed in the last proposition of the book:"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one should be silent". Each science and branch of knowledge has meaning only within its own language-game and this applies to empirical sciences as well as Philosophy and Theology.
Therefore, no science can sit in judgment on religious language and vice-versa, if one wants to avoid the pathetic situation of a sitting duck before the hunter in the form of Logic that governs all branches of knowledge. Or shall we say that the rigid materialist inevitably saws off the branch on which he is seated? He thinks that he is defending reason, science and truth and yet ends up with destroying them without a trace of remorse, may be because he does it in good faith!
It comes down to the question of our state of being that determines our capacity to receive anything new including the revelation from God of which the resurrection of Jesus from the dead takes pride of place. It does not mean that it depends on us whether we receive the grace of God in the form of the gift of faith, but only that we need the minimum requirement of readiness to receive it. It is like accepting the invitation to the wedding feast where everything is ready where the minimum requirement of wedding dress is taken for granted. The quality of our consciousness is the wedding dress required from our part to enter the reception chamber to enjoy the feast. Is our consciousness clouded, darkened or blocked when confronted with this grand invitation? Being immersed in this material world, if we are not attentive, it is easy to be mesmerized by the display of this world where our consciousness and conscience are forced to be submerged under vanities. The rationale of our belief is to be gathered from the particular language-game we play through the religious language we engage in as we have seen in the previous Posts.
Here we shall inquire into the role of our consciousness in believing what we believe and its rationality. The modernist position on consciousness influenced many thinkers in dealing with the question of the resurrection of Jesus. The Catholic Church described and condemned the modernist view on the resurrection of Christ in the decree "Lamentabili" in its 36th and 37th propositions. The 36th proposition reads: "The Resurrection of our Savior is not a fact of the historical order, but a fact of the purely supernatural order neither proved nor provable, which Christian consciousness has little by little inferred from other facts". This condemnation is directly against the position of Alfred Loisy, a former catholic priest, in his books"Autour d'un Petit Livre", pp. viii, 120-121, 169 and "L'Evangile et L'Eglise", pp.74-78, 120-121, 171 constituting the modernist position. If the Resurrection were merely a historical fact pertaining only to the confines of this world, it would not be any better than the raising of Lazarus, the daughter of Jairus or the son of the widow of Nain. They were meant to die again without being absorbed by the power of the Holy Spirit as in the case of Jesus Christ who could become the living Spirit dispensing salvation to those who believe in him. The proof for the historicity of the Resurrection is provided by the empty tomb and the appearances of Jesus after the resurrection that has been amply treated by innumerable scholars, which need not be repeated here.
The crux of the problem with Resurrection is in the trans-historical and eternal component of the reality of Resurrection. Here the role of consciousness comes into play. The modernists insist on the gradual inference of the fact of resurrection by the Christian consciousness from other facts. Which are these facts?They think that the Old Testament prophecies and the expectation of their fulfillment resulted in the Christian belief in the Resurrection. The main argument against this view is that what really happened in the Resurrection was beyond all expectations that even the Apostles themselves were perplexed about and could not bring themselves to believe. This is in the context of the fact that the Apostles and the closest disciples of Jesus were specially trained to believe in him through a period of almost 3 years. So, how did the Apostles and the disciples were able to finally believe in the Resurrection?
This was not possible without a complete revolution in their personal lives for which Jesus prepared them. The Good News proclaimed by Jesus to repent because the Kingdom of God is at hand conveyed the message of a total conversion from our old ways to new ones embodied in his person and realized in the Resurrection. Without such a total change of our inner self and consequent perspectives, nothing of eternal value could be understood by us, let alone appropriated! Such a well prepared ground is watered by God sending His Spirit into us causing faith in the Resurrection as well as all matters pertaining to the eternal.
Unscientific? Do not forget to refresh oneself with our previous Posts treating about language-games and the role of Metaphysics as the tacit foundation of Physics. When speaking of Metaphysics, one has to be cautious, especially because Wittgenstein himself whose philosophical method we uphold, was himself skeptical about it. Of course, Wittgenstein had in mind the empiricism of David Hume and John Locke as well as the rationalism of Rene Descartes and Immanuel Kant. When he spoke of the aim of Philosophy as bringing back the metaphysical use of language to our ordinary use, he had them in mind besides others with similar tendencies. However, Wittgenstein paved the way for the legitimate use of religious language through the notion of "language-games" whereby grammar tells us what anything is with a reference to theology as grammar. Besides, in the strictly logical treatment of language in his "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus", Wittgenstein left open the possibility of the "mystical" that was succinctly expressed in the last proposition of the book:"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one should be silent". Each science and branch of knowledge has meaning only within its own language-game and this applies to empirical sciences as well as Philosophy and Theology.
Therefore, no science can sit in judgment on religious language and vice-versa, if one wants to avoid the pathetic situation of a sitting duck before the hunter in the form of Logic that governs all branches of knowledge. Or shall we say that the rigid materialist inevitably saws off the branch on which he is seated? He thinks that he is defending reason, science and truth and yet ends up with destroying them without a trace of remorse, may be because he does it in good faith!
No comments:
Post a Comment