The word "if" does not apply to God. God is the ultimate being, the essence of existence, the one in whom reality itself finds root. All things exist by and through him.
Consider the question, "if 2+2=5, what is the square root of 4?" The "if" in that question makes it nonsense, because if 2+2 were to equal 5, that would mean everything about mathematics would have to change. What does multiplication or square root mean, if 2+2=5? We would have no idea. Hence the implication of the "if" condition makes everything change in such a way that the question cannot even be sensibly posed.
Another example would be "if the dinosaurs hadn't died out, would Barack Obama still have won the 2008 election?". The question is nonsense. The "if" condition requires postulating such a vague, ill-defined universe that the second half of the sentence - the question - cannot possibly be answered in that universe.
We can think of many such questions. "if I were a butterfly, when would my birthday be?" "If the speed of light depended on the observer, would the Tycho Brahe still have observed the 1572 supernova?" "If the rules of logic didn't exist, what would be the population of the United States?" All of them are nonsense.
But God is the absolute being. He is the one on whom all other things are contingent. Postulating an "if" to God - that is, postulating what things would be like if God were different - involves postulating such a totally different state of things that no question can be sensibly answered.
Note that the Bible contains virtually no instances of "if" applied to God in the conditional, "what if" sense. Try doing a search on "if God" in the Bible. Nearly all the results fall into two categories. They are either a statement of ignorance on the part of a human speaker, (for example, "If God will be with me and watch over me..."), or a statement of logical implication that can also be stated as "since God..." (for example, "If God is for us, who can be against us?"). Nearly none of them are speculations or reasoning based on God being different from who he is. The only possible exception that I can see is Romans 9:22, which is a notoriously difficult verse on a difficult and controversial topic (predestination). It is the only verse which contains the phrase "what if God" in many English translations of the Bible. But let us leave the difficult topic of predestination for a future time: for now, there is strong Scriptural support for the idea that it is meaningless to speculate on God being different somehow.
Look for people saying "what if God..." in your conversations and readings. If the statement that they're making seems like nonsense to you, it's almost certainly because it is.
You may next want to read:
Can God make a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it?
Another post, from the table of contents
Can God make a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it?
This is something I wrote about a decade ago, on my old website which no longer exists. I still like it, so I reproduce it here with some minor edits.
What I am about to write should not really be necessary. I am certain that a satisfactory discussion of the subject exists elsewhere, and the matter is simple enough that anyone who feels compelled to find the answer can do so on his own, given some time. However, the frequency with which this question comes up disturbs me, and I am a little weary of repeating to myself the same line of thought every time I see it. Besides, I like my own answer better than someone else's. So I will write this, and the next time I see the question, I will simply follow the link in my mind to this essay.
It is often asked, "Can God create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it?" There are variations, of course, such as "Can God create a being more powerful than himself?", "Can God decree that he will be no longer omnipotent?", etc. But they are only variations, and my analysis of the first question easily translates into the others. Presently, therefore, I will concern myself with only the first question.
Following the question, it is asserted that the question can be only answered yes or no. If the answer is no, then God cannot create such a rock, therefore he is not omnipotent. If the answer is yes, then God cannot lift such a rock, so again, he is not omnipotent. It is then impossible for God to be omnipotent, but the Christian God is said to possess this attribute. Therefore, the Christian God cannot exist.
Let us now see how a Christian can respond to this argument.
First, the precise meaning of "omnipotence" must be determined. In particular, it should be determined whether or not omnipotence entails being able to defy logic. If it does, God's omnipotence can be preserved by asserting that God can both create a rock that he cannot lift, and lift it. This would imply that logic is a creation of God: God created it to govern the universe, but it doesn't apply to him, and he overrides it at will. The Christian can simply choose this definition of omnipotence, and the debate of whether the Christian God can exist is technically over. The nonchristian may assert that this is the incorrect definition, but the Christian has the prerogative to decide precisely what "omnipotence" means in his own belief system. However, the Christian is now forced into the view that logic is necessarily a creation of God (which may or may not be true. All else being equal, it is better to leave this issue unresolved, for the sake of flexibility). In order to avoid this situation, it is desirable to demonstrate that God can maintain his omnipotence even if omnipotence does not entail defying logic.
If defying logic is not a part of omnipotence, the argument of the previous paragraph doesn't hold. God could not both create a rock he cannot lift, and lift it. That would be a logical impossibility. In this scenario, logic is an attribute of God, rather than his creation. God would be "he who is logical", and he could not be illogical, since that would mean God is not God. At this point, it may be asked "Can God be illogical?" or "Can God be not God?", in a further attempt to show that if God is to be bound by logic, then he cannot preserve his omnipotence. But these questions are just simpler versions of the original question that we are trying to answer. Rather than waiting until the end of the analysis to answer these variations, We will address them now, where they can serve to illuminate how the original question about the rock can be answered.
The more elemental question of the two is "Can God be not God?" The answer is, "No. That would be a logical impossibility". But does that not mean God is not omnipotent, since he cannot be not God? No, because under our current definition, omnipotence does not include the ability to do the logically impossible. And clearly, it is a logical impossibility and meaningless nonsense for anything to be both God and not God. So the question, "Can God be not God?" cannot discredit the Christian God's omnipotence. Likewise, any question in the same form is equally ineffective. Now it remains to be shown that all other questions that were previously mentioned can be reduced to this form.
Consider the question, "Can God be illogical?" Among the properties that God has, the relevant one in this case is "he who is logical". Substituting this meaning for the word "God", we get: "Can he who is logical be illogical?" So the true construction of the question is seen, with its clearly self-contradictory nature.
The original question about the rock that God cannot lift is only slightly more complicated. Let us start with the exact question: "Can God create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it?" Here, "he" is referring to God, who can lift any rock. Substituting this description of God for the word "he", we get: "Can God create a rock so heavy that he who can lift any rock cannot lift it?"
"A rock so heavy that he who can lift any rock cannot lift it" is the logically impossible element in this question. God cannot create such a rock. It would be a logical impossibility. God is still omnipotent, since omnipotence does not include the ability to perform logical impossibilities.
So, the omnipotent Christian God can exist, with either definition of omnipotence. It remains to be determined which definition is the correct one. My personal belief is that logic is an attribute of God, and therefore omnipotence does not include the power to break logic. But that is another matter for another time. For now, the question at hand is settled.
You may next want to read:
A real discussion on the problem of evil and omnipotence.
Another post, from the table of contents
What I am about to write should not really be necessary. I am certain that a satisfactory discussion of the subject exists elsewhere, and the matter is simple enough that anyone who feels compelled to find the answer can do so on his own, given some time. However, the frequency with which this question comes up disturbs me, and I am a little weary of repeating to myself the same line of thought every time I see it. Besides, I like my own answer better than someone else's. So I will write this, and the next time I see the question, I will simply follow the link in my mind to this essay.
It is often asked, "Can God create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it?" There are variations, of course, such as "Can God create a being more powerful than himself?", "Can God decree that he will be no longer omnipotent?", etc. But they are only variations, and my analysis of the first question easily translates into the others. Presently, therefore, I will concern myself with only the first question.
Following the question, it is asserted that the question can be only answered yes or no. If the answer is no, then God cannot create such a rock, therefore he is not omnipotent. If the answer is yes, then God cannot lift such a rock, so again, he is not omnipotent. It is then impossible for God to be omnipotent, but the Christian God is said to possess this attribute. Therefore, the Christian God cannot exist.
Let us now see how a Christian can respond to this argument.
First, the precise meaning of "omnipotence" must be determined. In particular, it should be determined whether or not omnipotence entails being able to defy logic. If it does, God's omnipotence can be preserved by asserting that God can both create a rock that he cannot lift, and lift it. This would imply that logic is a creation of God: God created it to govern the universe, but it doesn't apply to him, and he overrides it at will. The Christian can simply choose this definition of omnipotence, and the debate of whether the Christian God can exist is technically over. The nonchristian may assert that this is the incorrect definition, but the Christian has the prerogative to decide precisely what "omnipotence" means in his own belief system. However, the Christian is now forced into the view that logic is necessarily a creation of God (which may or may not be true. All else being equal, it is better to leave this issue unresolved, for the sake of flexibility). In order to avoid this situation, it is desirable to demonstrate that God can maintain his omnipotence even if omnipotence does not entail defying logic.
If defying logic is not a part of omnipotence, the argument of the previous paragraph doesn't hold. God could not both create a rock he cannot lift, and lift it. That would be a logical impossibility. In this scenario, logic is an attribute of God, rather than his creation. God would be "he who is logical", and he could not be illogical, since that would mean God is not God. At this point, it may be asked "Can God be illogical?" or "Can God be not God?", in a further attempt to show that if God is to be bound by logic, then he cannot preserve his omnipotence. But these questions are just simpler versions of the original question that we are trying to answer. Rather than waiting until the end of the analysis to answer these variations, We will address them now, where they can serve to illuminate how the original question about the rock can be answered.
The more elemental question of the two is "Can God be not God?" The answer is, "No. That would be a logical impossibility". But does that not mean God is not omnipotent, since he cannot be not God? No, because under our current definition, omnipotence does not include the ability to do the logically impossible. And clearly, it is a logical impossibility and meaningless nonsense for anything to be both God and not God. So the question, "Can God be not God?" cannot discredit the Christian God's omnipotence. Likewise, any question in the same form is equally ineffective. Now it remains to be shown that all other questions that were previously mentioned can be reduced to this form.
Consider the question, "Can God be illogical?" Among the properties that God has, the relevant one in this case is "he who is logical". Substituting this meaning for the word "God", we get: "Can he who is logical be illogical?" So the true construction of the question is seen, with its clearly self-contradictory nature.
The original question about the rock that God cannot lift is only slightly more complicated. Let us start with the exact question: "Can God create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it?" Here, "he" is referring to God, who can lift any rock. Substituting this description of God for the word "he", we get: "Can God create a rock so heavy that he who can lift any rock cannot lift it?"
"A rock so heavy that he who can lift any rock cannot lift it" is the logically impossible element in this question. God cannot create such a rock. It would be a logical impossibility. God is still omnipotent, since omnipotence does not include the ability to perform logical impossibilities.
So, the omnipotent Christian God can exist, with either definition of omnipotence. It remains to be determined which definition is the correct one. My personal belief is that logic is an attribute of God, and therefore omnipotence does not include the power to break logic. But that is another matter for another time. For now, the question at hand is settled.
You may next want to read:
A real discussion on the problem of evil and omnipotence.
Another post, from the table of contents
Orthodoxy vs. living out the Gospel: which is more important?
"I consider this question part of a standard test for orthodoxy: any theological system which claims adherence to the system as being more important than living out the gospel fails."
I posted that on the internet somewhere. This is written to explain what I meant by that.
I do not want to imply that adherence to orthodoxy is not important. If I believed that, then I wouldn't care whether a theological system placed orthodoxy or "living out the Gospel" on top.
But I do care, I do believe that there is a theologically correct answer (which is what orthodoxy is), I believe that it is important for us to get the answer right, and that the correct answer is "living out the Gospel" is more important than acknowledging the truth of doctrinal statements.
At this point I should specify what I mean by "living out the gospel". It's simple: believe in Jesus. Furthermore, believing in Jesus will naturally lead to orthodoxy. For example, we come to believe that the Scriptures are inspired because Jesus himself cited the Old Testament and implied that he would cause the apostles to write the New Testament. If I believe in Jesus, then I should naturally be lead to believe in the Bible. That is to say, "if Jesus then Bible". If you believe in Jesus because you first believe the Scriptures to be true (which I'll summarize as "if Bible then Jesus"), I think you have your cause and effect backwards: the Author is greater than his word. But one thing is for sure: "believe in the Lord Jesus Christ" is more important than "which is right: if Jesus then Bible, or if Bible then Jesus?", or any other such debate we may get into about the inspiration of the Scriptures.
Alright, so believing in Jesus is well and good, but what am I to do with that? How should I live my life? Jesus gives us the answer: love God, love one another. These things - believing in Jesus, which directly leads to loving God and loving one another, are the main things I have in mind when I say "living out the Gospel"
My position is strongly supported in the Bible in the holistic sense and in specific "proof texts". Whenever there is discussion about the "most important thing" in the Bible, it is pretty much ALWAYS either "Jesus" or "Love". James says that "faith (in the sense of intellectual adherence to certain doctrines, even correct and important ones such as belief in one God) without works is dead". Paul is probably the biggest stickler for doctrinal purity in the Bible, but even he says that all knowledge - including all heavenly knowledge such as the understanding of "mysteries" and the tongues of angels - is nothing without love. It is only a childish reflection of the perfection that is love. Jesus himself says that loving God and loving one another is the most important commandment, which sums up all other commandments.
In contrast to this, orthodoxy or doctrinal purity is NEVER stated to be the "most important thing". This of course does not mean that it's not important, merely that it's not the most important thing. I personally believe that it is very (but not supremely) important. Otherwise I would not be writing this lengthy post about it. The Bible does have much to say about watching out for false prophets or teachers, keeping the faith that was handed down to us, etc., but never in the context of it being the most important thing.
Therefore, I believe that someone who claims orthodoxy (in the sense of intellectual assent to the right set of facts) is more important than believing in Jesus, loving God, and loving one another (summarized as "living out the Gospel") is in doctrinal error. I believe my position is strongly supported by the Bible, my personal experience, tradition, and the majority of other people I know to be Christians.
Let's say that I come across two people, called Alice and Bob. Alice doesn't know much of anything about theology, even about really important thing such as the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, or the inspiration of the Scriptures. She's even in blatant error about some of those doctrines. But she believes in Jesus wholeheartedly, and therefore actually does the things that she believes that Jesus would want her to do. This leads her to love God and love people.
Bob, on the other hand, has the perfect doctrine: he is right about everything and knows everything. But this does not lead him to trust Jesus, nor to love God or other people.
Between the two of them I would say that Alice is doing better. In fact I would say that Alice is saved while Bob is not. Now, Alice is still in a ton of trouble. Her deviation from orthodoxy will cause her to sin repeatedly, severely cripple her ability to love, and will cause her faith in Jesus to weaken. But this only means that it is obviously better to both "live out the Gospel" and maintain orthodoxy, than to do just one. It's not an either-or choice. In fact they reinforce each other.
All of this though - everything that I've written here - is only explaining a particular doctrine I hold to. It is, by its own argument, not the most important thing. So if you read it and forget it, or if you read it and think that I'm wrong or get angry at me, I will not mind all that much. As long as you believe in Jesus, which leads you to love God and other people. Because that is the most important thing.
You may next want to read:
Jesus is like these things in his incarnate nature:
The Gospel: the central message of Christianity
Another post, from the table of contents
I posted that on the internet somewhere. This is written to explain what I meant by that.
I do not want to imply that adherence to orthodoxy is not important. If I believed that, then I wouldn't care whether a theological system placed orthodoxy or "living out the Gospel" on top.
But I do care, I do believe that there is a theologically correct answer (which is what orthodoxy is), I believe that it is important for us to get the answer right, and that the correct answer is "living out the Gospel" is more important than acknowledging the truth of doctrinal statements.
At this point I should specify what I mean by "living out the gospel". It's simple: believe in Jesus. Furthermore, believing in Jesus will naturally lead to orthodoxy. For example, we come to believe that the Scriptures are inspired because Jesus himself cited the Old Testament and implied that he would cause the apostles to write the New Testament. If I believe in Jesus, then I should naturally be lead to believe in the Bible. That is to say, "if Jesus then Bible". If you believe in Jesus because you first believe the Scriptures to be true (which I'll summarize as "if Bible then Jesus"), I think you have your cause and effect backwards: the Author is greater than his word. But one thing is for sure: "believe in the Lord Jesus Christ" is more important than "which is right: if Jesus then Bible, or if Bible then Jesus?", or any other such debate we may get into about the inspiration of the Scriptures.
Alright, so believing in Jesus is well and good, but what am I to do with that? How should I live my life? Jesus gives us the answer: love God, love one another. These things - believing in Jesus, which directly leads to loving God and loving one another, are the main things I have in mind when I say "living out the Gospel"
My position is strongly supported in the Bible in the holistic sense and in specific "proof texts". Whenever there is discussion about the "most important thing" in the Bible, it is pretty much ALWAYS either "Jesus" or "Love". James says that "faith (in the sense of intellectual adherence to certain doctrines, even correct and important ones such as belief in one God) without works is dead". Paul is probably the biggest stickler for doctrinal purity in the Bible, but even he says that all knowledge - including all heavenly knowledge such as the understanding of "mysteries" and the tongues of angels - is nothing without love. It is only a childish reflection of the perfection that is love. Jesus himself says that loving God and loving one another is the most important commandment, which sums up all other commandments.
In contrast to this, orthodoxy or doctrinal purity is NEVER stated to be the "most important thing". This of course does not mean that it's not important, merely that it's not the most important thing. I personally believe that it is very (but not supremely) important. Otherwise I would not be writing this lengthy post about it. The Bible does have much to say about watching out for false prophets or teachers, keeping the faith that was handed down to us, etc., but never in the context of it being the most important thing.
Therefore, I believe that someone who claims orthodoxy (in the sense of intellectual assent to the right set of facts) is more important than believing in Jesus, loving God, and loving one another (summarized as "living out the Gospel") is in doctrinal error. I believe my position is strongly supported by the Bible, my personal experience, tradition, and the majority of other people I know to be Christians.
Let's say that I come across two people, called Alice and Bob. Alice doesn't know much of anything about theology, even about really important thing such as the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, or the inspiration of the Scriptures. She's even in blatant error about some of those doctrines. But she believes in Jesus wholeheartedly, and therefore actually does the things that she believes that Jesus would want her to do. This leads her to love God and love people.
Bob, on the other hand, has the perfect doctrine: he is right about everything and knows everything. But this does not lead him to trust Jesus, nor to love God or other people.
Between the two of them I would say that Alice is doing better. In fact I would say that Alice is saved while Bob is not. Now, Alice is still in a ton of trouble. Her deviation from orthodoxy will cause her to sin repeatedly, severely cripple her ability to love, and will cause her faith in Jesus to weaken. But this only means that it is obviously better to both "live out the Gospel" and maintain orthodoxy, than to do just one. It's not an either-or choice. In fact they reinforce each other.
All of this though - everything that I've written here - is only explaining a particular doctrine I hold to. It is, by its own argument, not the most important thing. So if you read it and forget it, or if you read it and think that I'm wrong or get angry at me, I will not mind all that much. As long as you believe in Jesus, which leads you to love God and other people. Because that is the most important thing.
You may next want to read:
Jesus is like these things in his incarnate nature:
The Gospel: the central message of Christianity
Another post, from the table of contents
Miracles: their definition, properties, and purpose
There are some really terrible ways to define "miracle". Some of the worst definitions are "something that violates the laws of nature" or "a low probability event". Aside from the blatant biases embedded in these definitions, they are poor definitions in the sense that it is difficult to apply them to label real world events. Laws of nature as understood by whom? Is quantum tunneling a miracle to Isaac Newton? If we discovered a magnetic monopole would that be a miracle? If we say "laws of nature as they actually are", then how is anyone to know what those are and apply them today, with our limited scientific knowledge? Similarly, if we define "miracle" as "a low probability event", probability according to what model and what background information?
Defining "miracle" as simply "an act of God" is also problematic. It's too broad, because everything is an act of God. On the flip side, this definition suggests the erroneous thought that God does some things but not others - that he may raise the dead but not cause the sunrise - by labeling one as a miracle and the other as normal.
Defining "miracle" as an "unusual act of God" still runs into the problem of how to define "unusual". But we are getting closer. We must be very careful of what we mean by "unusual". Does God have two separate modes of operation? Does the fact that he sometimes needs to resort to miracles mean that he is inconsistent or that he needed to make an exception to his usual laws? This is the kind of error we may fall into with the wrong meaning of "unusual".
Here, then, is my definition: A miracle is an event which reveals more of God to humans. Alternatively (and equivalently), miracles are events which causes humans to learn new things about God. Let's now apply this definition to some examples:
Is quantum tunneling a miracle to Isaac Newton? Yes. Quantum tunneling reveals more about the universe to Newton, and therefore reveals more about the universe's Creator to him. It would continue to be a miracle for Newton until he fully understood the phenomena (by learning quantum mechanics), at which point the phenomenon would cease to be a miracle, to be subsumed by the deeper miracle of the revelation of new laws of nature.
Is quantum tunneling a miracle to a modern physicist? No. The phenomenon itself is understood and therefore we get no new information about the universe and its Creator by observing it. But even to the modern physicist, the deeper miracle of the revelation of the laws of nature would remain. Note that miracles are specific to individual persons - What is a miracle for one person is not to another.
However, sometimes an event is a miracle is for everyone - that is, it is something new and unexpected to the entire human race. The discovery of a magnetic monopole would be such a miracle, because nobody currently knows for certain that they exist. Now, this would be a minor miracle, because it doesn't tell us a whole lot about God. It would be a relatively minor modification to our current understanding of physics, which only partly inform us about God. So it would be a small miracle, but for everyone.
Is a solar eclipse a miracle? To an astronomer, no. This is like the case of quantum tunneling to a physicist. How about for someone ignorant of astronomy? Possibly, if the ignorant person actually learns more about God as a result. He may think, "I didn't know that the Creator allowed things like that to happen!" in which case it's a miracle. Or he may think "The sky dog is eating the heat ball", in which case it's not. Note that whether something is a miracle for a person depends on their interpretation of it. This is why Jesus did not perform miracles among people who lacked faith. In extreme cases, such persons would choose to learn nothing of God even if a dead man were to come back to life. As C.S. Lewis said in his book "Miracle", one must first settle the philosophical question in favor of allowing for miracles, otherwise nothing will convince you.
A sunset can be a very small miracle if you allow it to teach you that God is beautiful, faithful, and glorious. But not every sunset will be a miracle - only the ones that you actually learn new things from.
A scientist should not consider any phenomenon that they can physically explain as a physical miracle: they can, however, still appreciate the miracle in a sunset. Any new, unknown phenomena (which we'll always be discovering more of) would be a miracle to them, as it teaches that God is a little bit bigger, a little bit cleverer, than they previously understood.
But the superior miracle granted to the scientist is the revelation of the laws of nature. It is a miracle that explains many other miracles of less knowledgeable individuals. It is a grand miracle, as it reveals a great deal about who God is. It is a universal miracle, in that discovering an additional law of nature is news to everyone in the world.
"But", you may say, "at this point, have we not gotten far away from a simple understanding of what a miracle is? You can define the word however you'd like, but what good is it if it's different from everyone else's understanding of the word?" Good point. I will now show how my definition coincides with the normal understanding of "miracle", in the sense of it being an unusual, surprising event attributed to God.
The reason that miracles are unusual, surprising, and rare is because these we do not learn anything new from information we already have. In order to learn more about God we must be confronted with an event that is beyond what our current understanding of God can explain. If the event is more unusual, then my understanding of God changes more, so I learn more, and therefore it is a greater miracle. I already know that God created the world so that gravity causes things to fall. Therefore observing something falling is not a miracle. If, after much petition in prayer, something did NOT fall according to gravity, that would be a miracle because I would have learned something new about God - that either God created the laws of physics to be different than what I know, or that God somehow works strangely altogether. This is surprising and unusual to me because it is not how I expected God to act. Note, however, that this is a statement about MY ignorance of God, not about how God works usually or unusually or inconsistently or violates his own rules.
Say you witnessed God raising someone from the dead. This would be a miracle on several levels, but on the question of science, it would be a miracle to you because you do not know how God could have done it. It would teach you new things about God because it is different than what you expected of him. But again, this is a reflection of YOUR lack of knowledge, not a statement about how God breaks the laws of nature or is inconsistent. If you do in fact believe this event happened (which is a separate question), the proper thing to do is to confess your ignorance and learn more about God and the world he created, rather than simply claiming that it is impossible based on your limited current scientific knowledge.
I have explained how my definition accounts for the rarity and unexpectedness of miracles. It also explains why the frequency of miracles decrease as time goes on. In world history, in a particular nation or people's history, and in an individual's life, there are fewer miracles with the passage of time, because when we are ignorant there is much to learn, but later there are fewer (but deeper) things to learn about God which explains the earlier miracles. My definition also explains why God does not do miracles on demand: because that would teach us the wrong thing about God, namely that we could control him. My definition explains why God rarely if ever breaks the laws of nature, choosing rather to do his miracles through the laws of nature: to teach us that God is the Creator who made these laws, not a magic genie who must work against them. It furthermore explains why God does not miraculously answer every prayer: because miracles are for teaching us more about God, not for making our lives easier. He does sometimes answer miraculously, but only to teach us that he cares for us on a far deeper level.
I've mentioned how miracles happen in different levels. Higher level miracles explain the lower level miracles, and deeper truths we learn about God explain the shallower truths. There are no miracles at the highest level: If we could somehow understand God completely through one last final miracle, we'd find that there are no exceptions or surprises or inconsistencies in God, for God is perfectly logical and consistent in himself. All the lower level miracles would be contained and explained in the last miracle to give a complete picture of God.
We can see this happening on smaller miracles: a miraculous healing is miraculous at the medical care level, but perhaps not miraculous at the chemical level or a physics level. That is to say, if we could understand how God works in all the movement of all the particles at the physics or chemistry level (which we of course cannot), then there would be nothing unusual going on and no new information to learn by saying that the person was healed. The catching of many fish is miraculous in the life of a fisherman, but I presume nothing miraculous happened at the biological or deeper levels. David defeating Goliath is said to be a miracle, and it was for king Saul and his army. But on a spiritual level? Goliath went against David with spears and swords, and David opposed him in the name of the God of Israel, whom Goliath had defied. How could Goliath have ever had a chance?
The last, deepest, greatest miracle is the Incarnation. It is a miracle at the level of the nature of God himself. It reveals to us everything about God. "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father". It is the miracle that explains all other miracles.
You may next want to read:
For Christmas: the Incarnation
Answering objections: science as evidence for Christianity against atheism
Another post, from the table of contents
Defining "miracle" as an "unusual act of God" still runs into the problem of how to define "unusual". But we are getting closer. We must be very careful of what we mean by "unusual". Does God have two separate modes of operation? Does the fact that he sometimes needs to resort to miracles mean that he is inconsistent or that he needed to make an exception to his usual laws? This is the kind of error we may fall into with the wrong meaning of "unusual".
Here, then, is my definition: A miracle is an event which reveals more of God to humans. Alternatively (and equivalently), miracles are events which causes humans to learn new things about God. Let's now apply this definition to some examples:
Is quantum tunneling a miracle to Isaac Newton? Yes. Quantum tunneling reveals more about the universe to Newton, and therefore reveals more about the universe's Creator to him. It would continue to be a miracle for Newton until he fully understood the phenomena (by learning quantum mechanics), at which point the phenomenon would cease to be a miracle, to be subsumed by the deeper miracle of the revelation of new laws of nature.
Is quantum tunneling a miracle to a modern physicist? No. The phenomenon itself is understood and therefore we get no new information about the universe and its Creator by observing it. But even to the modern physicist, the deeper miracle of the revelation of the laws of nature would remain. Note that miracles are specific to individual persons - What is a miracle for one person is not to another.
However, sometimes an event is a miracle is for everyone - that is, it is something new and unexpected to the entire human race. The discovery of a magnetic monopole would be such a miracle, because nobody currently knows for certain that they exist. Now, this would be a minor miracle, because it doesn't tell us a whole lot about God. It would be a relatively minor modification to our current understanding of physics, which only partly inform us about God. So it would be a small miracle, but for everyone.
Is a solar eclipse a miracle? To an astronomer, no. This is like the case of quantum tunneling to a physicist. How about for someone ignorant of astronomy? Possibly, if the ignorant person actually learns more about God as a result. He may think, "I didn't know that the Creator allowed things like that to happen!" in which case it's a miracle. Or he may think "The sky dog is eating the heat ball", in which case it's not. Note that whether something is a miracle for a person depends on their interpretation of it. This is why Jesus did not perform miracles among people who lacked faith. In extreme cases, such persons would choose to learn nothing of God even if a dead man were to come back to life. As C.S. Lewis said in his book "Miracle", one must first settle the philosophical question in favor of allowing for miracles, otherwise nothing will convince you.
A sunset can be a very small miracle if you allow it to teach you that God is beautiful, faithful, and glorious. But not every sunset will be a miracle - only the ones that you actually learn new things from.
A scientist should not consider any phenomenon that they can physically explain as a physical miracle: they can, however, still appreciate the miracle in a sunset. Any new, unknown phenomena (which we'll always be discovering more of) would be a miracle to them, as it teaches that God is a little bit bigger, a little bit cleverer, than they previously understood.
But the superior miracle granted to the scientist is the revelation of the laws of nature. It is a miracle that explains many other miracles of less knowledgeable individuals. It is a grand miracle, as it reveals a great deal about who God is. It is a universal miracle, in that discovering an additional law of nature is news to everyone in the world.
"But", you may say, "at this point, have we not gotten far away from a simple understanding of what a miracle is? You can define the word however you'd like, but what good is it if it's different from everyone else's understanding of the word?" Good point. I will now show how my definition coincides with the normal understanding of "miracle", in the sense of it being an unusual, surprising event attributed to God.
The reason that miracles are unusual, surprising, and rare is because these we do not learn anything new from information we already have. In order to learn more about God we must be confronted with an event that is beyond what our current understanding of God can explain. If the event is more unusual, then my understanding of God changes more, so I learn more, and therefore it is a greater miracle. I already know that God created the world so that gravity causes things to fall. Therefore observing something falling is not a miracle. If, after much petition in prayer, something did NOT fall according to gravity, that would be a miracle because I would have learned something new about God - that either God created the laws of physics to be different than what I know, or that God somehow works strangely altogether. This is surprising and unusual to me because it is not how I expected God to act. Note, however, that this is a statement about MY ignorance of God, not about how God works usually or unusually or inconsistently or violates his own rules.
Say you witnessed God raising someone from the dead. This would be a miracle on several levels, but on the question of science, it would be a miracle to you because you do not know how God could have done it. It would teach you new things about God because it is different than what you expected of him. But again, this is a reflection of YOUR lack of knowledge, not a statement about how God breaks the laws of nature or is inconsistent. If you do in fact believe this event happened (which is a separate question), the proper thing to do is to confess your ignorance and learn more about God and the world he created, rather than simply claiming that it is impossible based on your limited current scientific knowledge.
I have explained how my definition accounts for the rarity and unexpectedness of miracles. It also explains why the frequency of miracles decrease as time goes on. In world history, in a particular nation or people's history, and in an individual's life, there are fewer miracles with the passage of time, because when we are ignorant there is much to learn, but later there are fewer (but deeper) things to learn about God which explains the earlier miracles. My definition also explains why God does not do miracles on demand: because that would teach us the wrong thing about God, namely that we could control him. My definition explains why God rarely if ever breaks the laws of nature, choosing rather to do his miracles through the laws of nature: to teach us that God is the Creator who made these laws, not a magic genie who must work against them. It furthermore explains why God does not miraculously answer every prayer: because miracles are for teaching us more about God, not for making our lives easier. He does sometimes answer miraculously, but only to teach us that he cares for us on a far deeper level.
I've mentioned how miracles happen in different levels. Higher level miracles explain the lower level miracles, and deeper truths we learn about God explain the shallower truths. There are no miracles at the highest level: If we could somehow understand God completely through one last final miracle, we'd find that there are no exceptions or surprises or inconsistencies in God, for God is perfectly logical and consistent in himself. All the lower level miracles would be contained and explained in the last miracle to give a complete picture of God.
We can see this happening on smaller miracles: a miraculous healing is miraculous at the medical care level, but perhaps not miraculous at the chemical level or a physics level. That is to say, if we could understand how God works in all the movement of all the particles at the physics or chemistry level (which we of course cannot), then there would be nothing unusual going on and no new information to learn by saying that the person was healed. The catching of many fish is miraculous in the life of a fisherman, but I presume nothing miraculous happened at the biological or deeper levels. David defeating Goliath is said to be a miracle, and it was for king Saul and his army. But on a spiritual level? Goliath went against David with spears and swords, and David opposed him in the name of the God of Israel, whom Goliath had defied. How could Goliath have ever had a chance?
The last, deepest, greatest miracle is the Incarnation. It is a miracle at the level of the nature of God himself. It reveals to us everything about God. "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father". It is the miracle that explains all other miracles.
You may next want to read:
For Christmas: the Incarnation
Answering objections: science as evidence for Christianity against atheism
Another post, from the table of contents
An analysis of "Let It Go" in Disney's "Frozen"
 |
| Image: by Alice X. Zhang |
Disney's latest film "Frozen" is receiving rave reviews, and the song "Let It Go" is one of the highlights of the film. Don't take my word for it - Wikipedia, as usual, is great for such simple background facts. I am currently having an internal debate about whether Elsa is my favorite Disney character, and whether "Let It Go" is my favorite Disney song - time will tell, but I'm leaning towards "yes" on both questions. On my Google search history, there are queries such as "let it go is brilliant" and "frozen let it go analysis", but having found nothing satisfactory, I've decided to write this post instead.
There has been much written about "Let It Go", and a typical opinion on the song is that it is "liberating" or "empowering", that it is about Elsa coming into her true identity, and that it is a jubilant celebration of release for those who have been living in fear or bondage. But while all this is true as far as that goes, stopping the analysis there misses the great depth and subtlety of the song. Yes, the song is about empowerment, but there is also tragedy, anger, bitterness, and self-deception in it, in even greater measure. It doesn't mark Elsa's claiming of her identity or her apotheosis - instead, by the end of the song, she is in severe danger of losing herself. The song does lift her up, but only to set her perched atop a high precipice, with slippery slopes falling into a despair event horizon on one side and a moral event horizon on the other. The potency of the song derives not from how uplifting or positive it is, but rather how perfectly it fits into the overall narrative, and how much it does to develop Elsa into a compelling, relatable character.
(At this point I would like to link the video and the lyrics for the song - I'll be referencing them often for the remainder of this post)
First, consider the placement of the song in the whole movie. Elsa has just run away from her own coronation, and has brought the eternal winter upon Arendelle. The song itself only marks the end of the first act. The story has just begun, so this cannot be the end of the character development for Elsa - it is actually only the end of the beginning, and the primary function of the song is to set down the conflicts that Elsa must go through - the demons that she must face - before the story is over. In fact, much of the rest of the story will be played out to specifically reverse many of the most triumphant lines of her song. Consider the following:
Elsa sings several times, "Let the storm rage on", referring to her stormy heart and mind. (The weather itself is actually quite calm for most of the song). She also sings that she's now free. She is trying to convince herself that she can live with the turmoil inside. But, in Elsa's next scene (For The First Time In Forever (Reprise)), she is confronted with what she's done to Arendelle and sings, "Oh, I'm such a fool, I can't be free / No escape from this storm inside of me", driving her further toward despair. So she takes back what she had said, in her very next scene. She is, in fact, not yet free and is not fine with the storm raging on inside her.
In "Let It Go", the line "Let the storm rage on" is followed by "The cold never bothered me anyway" - a line many people remember, as it's said twice, sung in a different style, and is the last line of the song. Of course, as the Snow Queen, Elsa is not bothered by low temperatures in the literal sense. But in the other senses of the word "cold", she is still frightened of it. Uncontrolled release of her powers still remains the primary problem in the story, and after building her ice palace she is never again happy while using her powers, until the end of the movie.
Most importantly, "cold" as in isolation from other people, is still bothering her to the core. Think about what she does after she finishes her song, right after she sings that last line "the cold never bothered me anyway": she turns around and slams shut the doors to her new castle, as she had done in Arendelle. Her way of dealing with her problem is still the same as it was before her coronation: she thinks as long as she shuts people out - and if that doesn't work, as long as she's far enough away and isolated and alone - she'll be okay. But this is diametrically opposed to the central message of the film - that instead of not being bothered by the cold of isolation, she needs to be embraced by the warmth of love. The movie cannot end until she recants this sly, subtle line, which she does only at the climax. Until then, Elsa is lying to herself.
Another line in the song that's a self deception is when she says "You'll never see me cry". Both this line and "the cold never bothered me anyway" are the kind of things said by people who are trying to convince themselves; they are not usually said by people for whom this is simply true. Of course, we do see Elsa cry over Anna at the end, as a testament to the love that Elsa has for her. Again, by negating this very line in the song and shedding tears, she is finally becoming the person she wants to be. Elsa finds her identity and finally comes into her own character, not in embracing the message of these lines in "Let It Go", but in rejecting them in the climax.
Additional examples abound. Elsa sings "here I stand, and here I'll stay", and "I'm never going back". But of course, she does go back to Arendelle. She eventually abandons the ice palace (while keeping the new dress and hair). She sings "That perfect girl is gone", but in the end, she does in fact become the perfect girl she always wanted to be - fully in command of her powers, and on top of that beloved of her sister and her people. She sings "the past is in the past", but her final salvation comes from her relationship with her sister, stemming from Elsa's deepest past.
Lastly in the matter of lyrics, consider the title of the song itself, "Let It Go", which is sung repeatedly. What is she letting go of? Firstly and most obviously, it refers to Elsa letting go of the restraints of her powers, to "see what [she] can do / to test the limits and breaking through". This is the positive element in the song, and what most listeners unfortunately latch on to, to the exclusion of other elements. Personal empowerment is obviously good. If you look carefully at Elsa's expressions while she's singing, the few tens of seconds around this line is the only time she is genuinely happy. But personal empowerment, though good, is fraught with danger, as indicated by the next line: "No right, no wrong, no rules for me".
Seriously, how many characters say something like that and not become evil? These are probably the most telling lines for picking up on the narrative meaning of the song. And that is the second thing that she's letting go of: her sense of right and wrong, of the rules and restrictions that being a "good girl" imposed on her releasing her powers. Now obviously some of the rules constraining her before were restrictive and counterproductive, but they were also for the safety of others. How much of that is she letting go? Only some specific rules? All of it? The entire concept of goodness? We don't know, but her singing "No right, no wrong, no rules for me" should have set off alarm bells in the audience's heads. "Let It Go" was originally meant as a villain song, and Disney wanted the possibility of Elsa being a villain to be alive in the audience's minds. We are supposed to be worried for Elsa's soul at this point, and the rest of her character development is about how she is saved from her precarious position.
Elsa is also letting go of any hope or desire of companionship with people. This is the third meaning of "let it go". If the above second meaning of "let it go" indicated an erosion of Elsa's goodness, this third meaning indicates an erosion of her hope. The second meaning pushes Elsa towards evil, the third meaning pushes her towards despair. The second meaning may lead to villainy, and the third meaning may lead to tragedy. She has decided to stay away from all that she loves, and she's tried to convince herself that she's fine with that.
Look again at Elsa's expressions as she sings "Let It Go", especially during the lines that I've mentioned above. Open up the video, put it on a HD resolution, and slow down the speed to 0.25 during key moments. Or go see my study of Elsa's facial expressions during "Let It Go". Look for the emotions flitting across her face almost frame by frame. She switches rapidly between resignation, bitterness, giddy happiness, genuine smiles, sorrow weighing down her brow, anger, resolve, and many mixtures of these emotions. Some of the most negative emotions are on Elsa's face during some of the most triumphant lines. The animators, songwriters, and the singer did a remarkable job of conveying all this in this beautifully crafted, intricately complicated song - it's a pity that many people simply see a positive empowerment song.
"Let It Go" informs the audience of the evil and the despair that Elsa has the potential to fall into, while keeping her a completely sympathetic character. Her empowerment, while clearly a good thing, also raises the danger that she may fall one way or another. It makes the audience able to relate to her while at the same time causing us to be wary of her and worried for her. Who hasn't felt that they could become more powerful if only they let go of other people and their restrictions and morality? Who hasn't felt that there is nothing they could do in certain helpless situations, powerless despite their abilities? And who hasn't felt their soul imperiled by these feelings? For all these reasons, despite being the only human with superpowers, Elsa is the most real, relatable character in "Frozen".
After setting up this remarkable character in "Let It Go", the rest of the film is about showing how Elsa successfully navigates these potential ruins and comes to be a wholly good person, worthy to be a heroine in one of Disney's best films. She has some close calls - she nearly became evil in rebuffing the visitors and intruders in her castle. She did despair when she thought Anna was dead. But through Anna's deep love and help from the others, she earns her happy ending.
I think that if you take "Let It Go" simply as an uplifting empowerment song, you rob Elsa of a great deal of her intricate characterization. You collapse her into a two-dimensional character. If the song was entirely positive, if her soul was not in actual danger of ruin when the song ended, then she loses her agency for character development. She simply becomes someone nice and powerful who reacts to what happens in her environment. She would not be fundamentally all that different in the end than she was in the middle. To be a fully fleshed out character, Elsa's empowerment must also imperil her.
It has to be this way because it's true in real life. We have heard that "with great power comes great responsibility". We have heard that "nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power". We know that "power corrupts". Unfortunately, this is not a sentiment I hear often among many groups who have recently become empowered. There is much talk about how good and progressive and positive personal empowerment is. But not many are saying to these people that power is not a right or a privilege, but a sacred charge, to be used for doing and becoming good.
Thank God that we have in Elsa a wonderfully compelling character who perfectly combines all these points. And thank you Disney, for bringing us a beautiful song, a superb character, and an excellent film.
You may next want to read:
A systematic mythology of the "Frozen" universe
The dividing moment - a short alternate ending to "Frozen" that I wrote to illustrate just how close Elsa came to desolation and perdition. Beware; it's dark, tragic, and graphic.
Elsa's facial expressions during "Let It Go", in Disney's "Frozen"
The Gospel according to Disney's "Frozen"
The Gospel according to Disney's "Tangled"
Another post, from the table of contents