QUANTUM HERMENEUTICS

What if scripture is about possibilities and not about facts? What if scripture only fixes itself into one definite position on being observed and that the position of the observer affects the position of scripture? It would be a modern allegorical method. It would explain why Jesus applies the prophecies of the Isaiahs to himself whilst being aware that they were originally written to address contemporary events. It would explain how Christ can be both 100% human and 100% divine at the same time without being two or a mixture of two (maybe he was quantum entanglement writ large). It would explain the kingdom of God now existing at the same time as the kingdom of God in the future. It would turn accusations that humans created God into an acceptance of the reality of God. God is fixed in reality when we observe God. This would give credence to universalism being both reality and non-syncretic at the same time.

Heck, what if everything was about possibilities becoming fixed on being observed? What if we are a possibility observed and fixed in one place by God the Great Measurer. Scientists have no idea why there is uncertainty at the quantum level whilst there is apparent certainty at the classical level of existence. Perhaps creation and observance are the same thing. That would certainly back up the creation out of chaos idea.

If God is fixed in reality by our observation of God at the same time that we are fixed in reality by being observed by God, then the question "Then where did God come from?" becomes redundant and would not have to be answered by claiming an infinite existence for either God or the universe (multiverse).

Why if in theory time can travel forwards or backwards does it appear to always travel forwards? Answer: Because God is a clockwatcher.

Please send me my Nobel Prize money now via PayPal. I can wait for the medal to arrive through the post.

Oh, and another thing. If this is true then we can alter our theology and practice to fit in with the modern world without any qualms (in fact it becomes our duty to do so). This is because it allows for the position of God to remain constant whilst the position of the observer (us) changes. What we observe (our view) can alter without what we view intrinsically altering.

Belief becomes observation. Those who observe God are saved by God because they fix their salvation through observation. Those who observe something different fix their own futures without my God having any culpability in their decision. Richard Dawkins has killed God but only the God he chooses not to observe. He cannot kill the possibility of God. Therefore, God is not dead. God is eternal potential, just waiting for people to notice God.

Comments

QUANTUM HERMENEUTICS — 16 Comments

  1. OK Jonathan, you wrote: “It would explain how Christ can be both 100% human and 100% divine at the same time without being two or a mixture of two (maybe he was quantum entanglement writ large).”

    So now I have a question for you.

    Does this now describe US, upon receiving his body and blood at Holy Eucharist?

    Is all this supposed to point back at us in the long run?

  2. Ooo, ooo, ooo, Yes! If this is true then we can alter our theology and practice to fit in with the modern world without any qualms (in fact it becomes our duty to do so). This is because it allows for the position of God to remain constant whilst the position of the observer (us) changes. What we observe (our view) can alter without what we view intrinsically altering.”
    Got it. Brilliant. Send this on to Matt Shepherd and Stand Firm for their comfort.

  3. You’ve got me thinking, Tracie. I think it is obvious that the bread and wine is bread and wine – anything else would involve magic. However, in quantum theory observance is an important part in fixing the reality of something. Therefore, in quantum hermeneutics the argument is not about the nature of the bread and wine but about the observance of the bread and wine. In postmodernity the latter is not an argument worth having. The bread and wine can be observed by two different people in two different ways and both can be equally real. It’s a subtle shift in the way we view an argument that has divided the church which could lead to the redundancy of the argument altogether.

    At the moment these are broad brushstrokes of ideas. But I like the way we are thinking. It could lead somewhere interesting.

  4. Yes, it could lead to something interesting. It adds a lot to my own occasional amateur-hobby efforts at re-imagining the ideas of Christianity.

    I thought I saw something else recently about the Bible being about possibilities rather than fixed structures, not with the same logic behind it, but still about it being an invitation rather than a commandment, memo, or warning.

    As per Tracie’s comment, my thinking over the last year or two has been that the story of Jesus has always been about us, showing us who we are, rather than having us fixate on Jesus the person as opposed to Jesus the Christ, but maybe that isn’t what she meant.

    But then again, I also like to think that whenever the New Testament talks about Christ it really means the poor and unwanted and unlikeable, and that the judgement of Christ is their reproach or praise, and that it’s all about shame rather than some kind of eternal fiery torture.

    The potential of this entanglement view almost makes me wish I hadn’t more or less realized I am once again headed down the path of giving up the whole Christianity thing. Hopefully it will lead somewhere beyond a blog post.

    • I am leery of the regularity with which people are abusing quantum theory in spirituality, so while “quantum magic” may be fun, I think it’s the notion of imagery/text as generating potential that is of interest, not the other stuff. Metaphor and liturgical/poetic language and imagery has always been about venturing out past regular boundaries and capturing some of the strangeness beyond the familiar, expanding ones perspective in new ways. I suspect Mad Priest’s post might have been partly tongue-in-cheek, but even if so, there might still be something interesting lurking in his musings.

    • The clue to where I’m coming from is in the title of the post. I’m suggesting a way of doing theology based on the paradigm of quantum theory. It would be ridiculous for me to claim anything beyond that as I have absolutely no proof whatsoever.

    • Sure, you are taking inspiration from that model and applying it elsewhere. But many others try to use quantum theory to directly blend physics with their religious notions as a “get out of jail free” card for some ridiculous thing they want to claim, just waving around words like “quantum field” and “probability matrix” to dismiss criticism. That’s why theirs is bothersome and yours is interesting.

    • If, like me, you believe God to be a scientific reality (as opposed to being something that is made of nothing) you have to abide by the scientific method. Therefore, I never claim anything to be true that has not been proved by observation or experiment. Of course, I talk in definites when I’m talking within the Christian cult because religion is a philosophical thing and can be spoken about poetically. But even then my “Of course, I could be wrong…” motto always applies.

      However, the scientific method does not preclude “what if.” In fact, it is usually the beginning of all good science (Higgs springs to mind). I think the idea of God being an observer that holds chaos together is not only an interesting “what if,” but is a possibility. I can imagine how mathematics could be employed to prove this possibility but I certainly have no idea how you would even start to come up with an experiment to prove it. All that experiments have proved so far is that there is something missing from quantum theory that would connect the quantum with the classical. Until we discover what that something is all possible “what ifs” are still on the table, and we can have fun.

    • For you, Adrian, this is correct because you do not believe. But for those of us who do believe it can mean whatever we want it to mean because we are no longer subject to the law.

  5. If it means whatever I want it to mean, why should I bother with it? Why run twice as fast to get to the same place?

    • There’s no reason why you should bother with it. In fact, I doubt if your particular psychology would be conducive to an appreciation of such a view of life. But for normal people I would suggest that the answer is “for fun.” You’ll have to look “fun” up in a dictionary if it’s a new word to you.