a) Christology and Quantum Complementarity
Some scholars have found that specific theories in science
can illuminate particular theological concerns related to redemption. A clear
example comes from the use of quantum mechanical complementarity in
discussing christology. In a lengthy study published in 1966, John McIntyre compared the traditional
two-natures model with psychological and revelation models of Christ.In 1967, William Austin specifically described the humanity and the divinity of
Christ as complementary, but noted problems with this idea. He then suggested
that Messiah and Logos form a better example of complementarity.In 1974, Barbour reviewed these two proposals.He was critical of McIntyres view that models are independent of each other,
but he agreed with McIntyres assessment of the function and status of the
models. Barbour also stressed that if complementarity is to be invoked, such
models should be on the same logical level: in physics, particle and wave
are, but in theology, divinity and humanity are not.
In 1976, Christopher B. Kaiser compared Chalcedonian
christology and Bohrs own version of complementarity,finding eleven points in common. For example, both wave and particle point to
the same object, an electron, and both God and human, pertain to the same
person, Jesus Christ. Two models are necessary as well as sufficient in both
cases, and in both cases they are dynamically related to each other. He
concluded by exploring the implications of the comparison. More recently, James
E. Loder and W. Jim Neidhardt returned to these ideas, drawing again on Bohr
and discussing complementarity in relation to the work of Søren Kierkegaard and
Paul Møller; their
proposal has been evaluated recently by Kaiser.
Contributed by: Dr. Robert Russell
|
