Inspiration, Scientific and Otherwise

Two Aussie doctors recently received the Nobel Prize in Medicine. They figured out — contrary to all received scientific dogma, and in the teeth of opposition from the medical priesthood — that common stomach ulcers were caused by bacteria, and could be treated with antibiotics instead of surgery. 

Somehow, in some way, these two medical prophets intuited an aspect of the Logos.   Whence came their inspiration?  We don’t know; we can't even make any intelligent guesses.  My money is on (what we call) God the Holy Spirit, acting somehow, in some fashion, possibly at the subatomic level, perhaps not even volitionally. 

Suppose I'm right; that in fact God does continue to reveal aspects of the Logos to scientists.  We couldn't say, then, that he might not likewise be revealing other aspects of the Logos — and perhaps not just to scientists. 

We wouldn't be able to rule out, for example, that those who pushed for +VGR's ordination at GC 2003 were true prophets, despite their apparent departure from scriptural and traditional norms. 

On the other hand, neither can we rule out that GC 2003 was the ecclesiastical equivalent of cold fusion, and that the +VGR supporters were false prophets.   How can we tell?

As it happens, Scripture gives some very practical advice: Wait and see how things turn out.  Deut. 18:21-22, which I've quoted in these pages before, is quite clear:

You may say to yourselves, “How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD ?”  If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.

As I've noted before, Jesus is said to have promised that the Spirit will guide us into all truth, which implies a journey, not a one-time flash of revelation.  If we really trust in that promise, and in God, then we’ll relax and see whether putative departures from scriptural norms prove harmful, or not.  Either way, we’ll have learned something on which future generations can build.

In the meantime, the idolization of Scripture, by a vocal minority in the church, is a very real stumbling block to many of the doubters whom we want to convert.

Comments

[Prof Hugh Phillips]

A very interesting comment you made. There is a misconception about scientific method. It is in fact creative, you have an idea and then test it. If it suvives the test you have a discovery if not, well you go out and think of another idea. In fact, around 50% of scientific major scientific theories are serendipitous.

The lay concept of science is incorrect. A key misconception is that it is ‘right’ – proven, certain or whatever. In fact it is only the best explanation of the ‘facts’ - the data – at the time. In addition it is bounded, that is you theory only holds for a certain range of data – a certain time and space.

Now here is this getting us? This is why there is no real conflict between religion and science. This notion is based on a naïve or dated concept of science. Science and religion are in fact two completely different belief systems that are not incompatible. To claim that religion is right and science is wrong – or vice versa – is 1) to hold a very naive view of each, 2) incredibly arrogant and 3) usurping the role of God.

Hope this helps,

Prof Hugh Phillips,Quebec, Canada