Colliding with Christ: The Science of the Resurrection - Now available at Amazon.com!

The Resurrection of Jesus Christ

Think Outside the Box

Sam Harris, in his Letter to a Christian Nation addresses Christians as he writes, “You are, of course, right to believe that there is more to life than simply understanding the structure and contents of the universe.  But this does not make unjustified (and unjustifiable) claims about its structure and contents any more respectable.”[1] The assumption that Christian claims about the universe are unjustifiable is a dogmatic claim in its own right, without substantiation.  In fact, the scientific justification of Christian claims about the nature of the universe, Jesus Christ and God comprise a large portion of R.C. Metcalf’s upcoming series.  Colliding with Christ, the first book in this three-part series addresses the scientific evidence in support of the physical, bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.  The concept of resurrection represents the cornerstone of Christianity. In 55AD, the apostle Paul wrote these words to the church he founded in Corinth: “if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.”[2] 

In his latest book, The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins writes, “Did Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead?  Did he himself come alive again, three days after being crucified?  There is an answer to every such question, whether or not we can discover it in practice, and it is a strictly scientific answer. The methods we should use to settle the matter, in the unlikely event that relevant evidence ever became available, would be purely and entirely scientific methods…. Can you imagine religious apologists shrugging their shoulders and saying anything remotely like the following? ‘Who cares?  Scientific evidence is completely irrelevant to theological questions. … We’re concerned only with ultimate questions and moral values. …scientific evidence could [n]ever have any bearing on the matter one way or the other.’  The very idea is a joke.  You can bet your boots that the scientific evidence, if any were to turn up, would be seized upon and trumpeted to the skies.”[3]  Just such evidence lies on the horizon and Dr. Metcalf’s newest book, entitled Colliding with Christ: The Science of the Resurrection, will leave you breathless as you glide through its treasury of thoroughly documented, cutting-edge information, presented in a manner suitable for even the lay reader.

Many opponents of scientific endeavors that embrace theistic proposals cite the idea that the fundamental definition of science rules out any consideration of the supernatural.  Dr. Dawkins clarifies his presuppositions when he states, “I decry supernaturalism in all its forms…”[4]  Yet science itself arose in a Western, theistic intellectual context.  In a recent talk, the University of Massachusetts philosopher of science Del Ratzsch pointed out, “It was Newton’s idea of the cosmos as a creation of an omnipresent God that allowed him to even postulate the possibility of what ultimately became his gravitational theory.”[5]  We need to realize that nobody truly has a completely defensible definition of science, even today.  According to Dr. Ratzsch the substantive definition of science has changed four or five times within just the last century.  Definitions are a human construct, so if nature and the data conflict with our preconceived human definition of science, which should take precedence?  If science itself leads us to question our doubts about the reality of the supernatural, should we ignore the science?  Both Isaac Newton’s Principia Mathematica (1687) and Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species (1859) violated the reigning characterizations of science in their day.  In spite of opposition in some circles, not just religious, Darwin knew that in order for his theory to gain popular recognition, he had to alter the accepted wisdom regarding science’s fundamental definition.  As Dr. Ratzsch went on to say, “If reality falls outside of [certain] imposed borders your science is either going to be woefully incomplete or its going to be wildly skewed.”[6]

Late 2006 saw not only the release of Dawkins’ The God Delusion and Harris’ Letter to a Christian Nation, but also a new book by the famous popularizer of science, the late Carl Sagan.  Sagan’s widow, Ann Druyan revised and edited the audio from his 1985 Gifford Lectures into a book entitled The Varieties of Scientific Experience: A Personal View of the Search for God.  On November 24, 2006, just three weeks after the book’s release, Ms. Druyan joined a panel discussion for the New York Academy of Science’s podcast Science and the City, where she was joined by Steve Soter and Neil deGrasse Tyson, director of the Hayden Planetarium.  A segment from that discussion follows.  You may hear this 2 ½ minute segment as an MP3 by clicking here.

 Ann Druyan:  For Carl, there was only one magisterium, and that was nature.  The best way to have a deep understanding of nature was, for him, through science.

 Steve Soter:  I suspect what is beyond the known is a much vaster, maybe infinite, sea of the unknown, and science advances by extending that boundary.  I suspect that if, in extending that boundary, we found something that was commensurate with traditional natures of God, it would then become part of nature, it would become part of the natural world, and Carl would have no problem with accepting it if there was evidence.

 Neil deGrasse Tyson:  That’s an interesting point. That’s a fascinating point.  You’re saying if you find something that is kind of God-like in some way, then you no longer need faith to believe that, because you have the evidence in support of it, so that simply becomes part of nature; what is within the sphere of scientific investigation. So does it become science or does it stay religion?

 Steve:  It could be both.  That’s a good question.

 Ann:  It is a good question, but let’s remember, science and religion were one until the modern scientific revolution.  Who were its creators?  Copernicus, professional religious person; Kepler, wanting to read the mind of God; Newton, a biblical scholar obsessed with finding numerological significance in the bible.  All of these were religious people.

 Steve:  In fact, he wrote more on the subject of the bible than he did on the subject of physics… Isaac Newton.

 Ann:  I think this illustrates the point.  Darwin was going to be a country parson.  He says in his autobiography, “If you had asked me when I was a young man, if every single one of the articles of faith of the Anglican Church were the gospel truth, I would have said ‘Of course, they are.’” He didn’t set out to, in any way cause any trouble for any church or any religious people.  All of these men were simply following where the science led.  And what it led them to was a deeper understanding of nature.  Suddenly, things that were inexplicable, for instance, the clockwork motion of the planets, became understandable in the context of gravity.

To hear this enlightening conversation in its entirety, go to the Science & the City website.

R.C. Metcalf’s upcoming series promises to extend the boundaries of science by careful scrutiny of cutting-edge discoveries in physics, through the eyes of a contemplative Christian.  Today, if the scientific evidence leads toward an answer in the form of a model that involves God, that possibility is automatically taboo.  In Colliding with Christ, Dr. Metcalf, who is currently unfettered by academic constraints, introduces his omninatural model, which allows for the existence of God.  Albert Einstein was once quoted as having said, “Nature shows us only the tail of the lion.  But I do not doubt that the lion belongs to it even though he cannot at once reveal himself because of his enormous size.”^[7]  Advances in modern theoretical physics are beginning to provide evidence that the lion of Einstein’s musings does indeed exist . . . and that his name may well be Aslan.^[8]

Christianity offers the world a faith grounded in reason and evidence. Dr. Metcalf offers us a model that explains the physical resurrection of Jesus from cutting edge scientific evidence. He skillfully explains difficult concepts in terms anyone can understand.

While Dr. Metcalf presents a compelling scientific explanation of the resurrection of Jesus, the historical evidence is well presented by Dr. William Lane Craig. Visit his website at:

www.reasonablefaith.org

While waiting for your copy of Colliding with Christ to arrive, you may wish to familiarize yourself with some of Dr. Craig's historical arguments. The following video will give you a brief overview of his position.