Search this blog

Thursday, April 22, 2010

Tackling the mass-energy equivalence & John 3:16

The comparison, if it could be said to be a comparison, between the mass-energy equivalence equation and John 3:16 that Professor Jackson posed is an interesting one. With due consideration given to all the factors in play regarding these subjects, one could argue semantics over this comparison for days on end without reaching a consensus. As such, let us first make a few distinctions between the two of these subjects.

The mass-energy equivalence equation is a scientific concept. This is to say, it has been investigated through scientific method through which the evidence was observable, empirical, and measurable, and also subject to specific reasoning. Thusly, because reasoning and empirical evidence is capable of "connecting the dots", let us say that the mass-energy equivalence equation is metonymic inasmuch as the data can be proven to be directly related to one another.

John 3:16 states: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (KJV). One may observe that several pieces of data are incapable of being metonymically proven, nor are they metonymically (or causally) observable, empirical, or measurable. Specific reasoning may be used to subjectively validate the notion that whomever believes in Jesus Christ will have everlasting life — however, this notion cannot be said to be verified on the same level of empirical knowledge precisely because: (1) Can we observe everlasting life? No. Due to our own limited lives, this will never be possible. (2) Can we find empirical evidence of everlasting life? No, for the same reasons which answered the previous query. (3) Can we measure everlasting life? No, see previous answers ... and even more pertinent: (4) Can we observe and measure empirical evidence of belief in metonymic measurements? Definitively, the answer is that we cannot. Only metaphoric reasoning can give a sense of truthfulness to the claim that, by believing in the son of God, one may enjoy life everlasting.

The question of the hour is what kind of value do place in truth. In what situations is the truth more desirable? Are there situations in which the truth does not matter as much? The author addresses "truth" in a very interesting way: "Hope may be a greater treasure than truth" (364). That is not to say that truth does not possess value, because it a truth is being claimed with the notion of hope being more valuable than truth, but that truth is, at the same time, sometimes both necessary and unnecessary. In that same passage, truth serves the function of affirming that there is something more valuable than truth at that moment in time, and that thing is hope, truth merely serves to verify its own inability to serve a higher purpose than to verify itself.

No comments:

Post a Comment