Dear Theophilus, 

In the last letter, we looked at what is very large and moves very rapidly. In this letter, we will consider that which is very small and see if even there, we can see traces left behind by the Creator.

To take a first step on our exploration, consider the following simple experiment with light. A light, metallic paddle wheel has a metallic bar going through its middle and this bar is suspended over two ridges one on each side. This is to enable the paddle wheel to move easily in either direction. Now, we can take a cathode gun, such as the one found in television receivers and which is used to fire a beam of electrons, and shine this beam on the paddle wheel. After a very short period of time, we notice that the paddle wheel moves and the way we explain this is that electrons, which are very tiny particles of matter, have momentum and when they strike the paddle wheel, they transfer some of their energy and cause the paddle wheel to move.

Now, let us try another experiment with this same cathode ray gun. But this time, we shine the beam on a plate which blocks out the beam except for two very narrow slits separated from each other by a small distance. Behind the screen, we have a detector in the form of film which records the arrival of electrons. We expect this film to show one or at most two spots where electrons collide and leave their mark on the film. But what we observe is why surprising and not at all what we expected. What we see on the film is a band of high exposure and then an unexposed band followed by an exposed band and so on. Anyone familiar with physics would quickly see this as an interference pattern which is the characteristic behavior of waves. But this raises a conundrum for us. What are electrons? Are they waves or are they particles? And, if we thought that this was simply some unexpected behavior limited to electrons, what we find is that light and many other very substances behave in this fashion. What this indicated is that it is wrong to apply the description of wave or particle to electrons or photons of light. A new approach had to be taken when it came to the smallest particles of matter or energy.

Permit me to illustrate what I am referring to here, with a simple example. Look at an orange and you will notice that the orange has an orange color and you would say that this is one of the characteristics of an orange. However, if you were to observe an orange under a blue light, the orange would no longer look orange but it would appear black to you. The reason for this is quite easy to explain. The reason why an orange looks orange is that it absorbs all colors of light except for orange which it reflects and we notice this with our eyes. If we have a strictly blue light, this light is absorbed by the orange, and no light is reflected to our eyes and as a result, our eyes see black. You see what is happening here: we are getting a different answer depending on the circumstances under which we ask the question and this is what happens when we look at an electron.

One of the people who developed an analysis of our study of electrons and other subatomic particles, was the physicist Niels Bohr. He stated that we cannot know anything about a substance except for our interaction with it and the information that this interaction gives. We therefore cannot ask the question: what is an electron, but we can ask how does an electron behave under certain circumstances and therefore, what information does this give about the behavior of electrons. He postulated what is sometimes referred to as the Principle of Complementarity. What this says is that the behavior of tiny substances, such as electrons, can often be described by two complementary behaviors. These behaviors must be incompatible with no person being able to experience both of them simultaneously. These behaviors must not be transferrable and cannot be fused into one accepted final answer.

Bohr formulated what is sometimes referred to as the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. Part of this interpretation was given above. There is an additional important point to be made here. In spite of the contradictory statements of behavior, both must be accepted as of equal weight in discussing a particle. Thus an electron cannot be described as really a particle with some wave properties. This is false. Both aspects of an electron must be held in tension and neither must be given predominance over the other. It is important to emphasize that this paradoxical approach will not be swept away with better equipment or a more refined experimental set up. It is just that nature has this paradoxical behavior at its most fundamental level. I should point out to you that this interpretation of our knowledge of nature was opposed by some eminent scientists such as Einstein but, in the end, the Copenhagen interpretation won the day and it is now widely held as correct within the scientific community.

We have seen some aspects of the study of the behavior of creation at its most basic level. Now, let's see how this applies to Jesus and to our conception of God. Before we do that, I want to draw your attention to something that has been taught in our faith from the very earliest days of reflection on the Christian faith. What Christianity teaches is that the essence of God is unreachable. It is the energies of God with which we interact and it is about this that we can make comments. St. Gregory of Nyssa, for example, taught that the energeia of God pervades and upholds the whole universe and it is this that man interacts with. In creation, it is God's energeia that is manifest. His essence or ousia is beyond all formulations and can only be referred to through negation, if at all. We see here a clear analogy between what Christianity teaches and what Bohr says about our study of nature. To ask questions such as: what is God or who is Jesus, is really an invalid way of formulating a question and because it is invalid, it cannot be answered in any simple way.

Just as we have had to come to terms with the complementary description of nature, we must also accept the complementary view of Jesus. Thus, in some situations Jesus behaves as a man and in others he behaves as God. Never both simultaneously. What we learn from nature is that to talk about Jesus in the best and most complete manner allowed us, we must keep both views before us without blending them or giving one dominance over the other. Permit me to remind you of the words of the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD): Lord Jesus Christ.....Perfect in Godhead....Perfect in Manhood; truly God and truly Man.....acknowledged in Two Natures without confusion, without change, without division or separation - the difference between the Natures being in no way removed....the distinctive character of each Nature being preserved and combining into One Person - not divided or separated into two Persons, but one and the same, Son and only-begotten God.... .

Using any measuring stick, this is a truly uncanny description, made centuries ago, which resonates with some of the most fundamental statements about creation. The Christian conception of God as Trinity is also in accord with the complementary description of creation and any attempt to explain the Trinity away in some synthesis or merging of persons or to speak of God really being one but interacting in different modes, is fundamentally wrong.

We must get away from all attempts to explain God or to prove His existence because these attempts will lead us astray and into error. We cannot make statements about God's being or essence. We can make statements about our interaction with God through nature and paramountly, through our life of prayer. It is in prayer that we come to the most perfect interaction with God and come to see Him most clearly.

There is another matter here that I want to raise before you. We are made in the image and likeness of God and likeness has sometimes been referred to as our attempts to emulate God in loving, moral behavior. One of the reasons that we strive to live holy lives is that by doing this, we become more like God and by seeing into ourselves, we get a clearer likeness of God as we become more like Him.

Another complementary aspect of God is His immanence and His transcendence. St. Maximus taught that God is immanent through his energeia but is transcendent through His ousia, which retained His freedom and permitted Him to behave in mysterious ways. This shows us that God has to be addressed both through affirmation and through negation and both approaches must be maintained, without one displacing the other. And what we have seen from our study of some basic aspects of creation, these complementary approaches, although in tension and self contradicting, must be kept before us in order to permit us to get as close to the truth as is permissible for us.

More in the next letter.

Sincerely,

Yours,

Bar-Abbas