There go the scientific arguments against Jesus’ Virgin Birth?
October 13, 2008
Well, it’s actually more complicated than that, but this news story about a female shark giving birth to a pup that has no genetic material from a male shark reminds me of a long argument I once had with an atheist. He claimed that it was scientifically impossible for there to be a birth in nature among complex organisms without the genetic material of two sexes, ergo the Virgin Birth is a pure fiction. Well, sharks aren’t humans, and I don’t think we suddenly have the evidence to inductively prove the science of the Virgin Birth, but we seem to have disarmed the “scientifically impossible” attack.
But, hey, what Catholic needs a shark’s virgin birth to believe in the truth of the perpetual virginity of Mary?
15 Comments
Comments are closed.
Anyone who has problems with the notion of the virginal conception of Jesus should read Philip Roth’s hilarious short story The Conversion of the Jews. I suppose the same principle (“You know, I think God could do it”) applies to the perpetual virginity of Mary, which goes quite a ways beyond the virginal conception of Jesus. To believe that Mary was a virgin before, during, and after the birth of Jesus has always struck me as a strange teaching, placing an importance on the physical aspects of virginity (insisting that Mary must have been and remained an “intact” virgin) and raising questions about the nature of the birth of Jesus. Some have argued that the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary is not a gynecological statement, it has always seemed so to me. And if not, if part of Mary’s perpetual virginity can be regarded as symbolic, then why not all of it?
There are probably some Catholics who will find a scientific reason behind the Virgin Birth as reassuring. I’m assuming that its a genetic duplicate of the Mother, so anyone making connections between this and the actual Virgin Birth probably needs a rudimentary lesson in genetics.
I’m assuming that its a genetic duplicate of the Mother, so anyone making connections between this and the actual Virgin Birth probably needs a rudimentary lesson in genetics.
No doubt.
Sharks have mothers?!?!!
I’ve always assumed it was part of the doctrine of the virgin birth that it did NOT happen naturally but supernaturally. To claim it might have happened naturally seems to deny the teaching.
I knew there was something in this Catholicism thing all along. Now, if we could only a find a shark that came back from the dead….(j/k)
Kurt – I think you’re right.
Virgin Birth is quite different from Perpetual Virginity.
I used to suggest that parthenogenesis in nature made the Virgin Birth less incredible, back in 1972, but actually bringing the scientific language game to bear on the language game to which the Virgin Birth belongs only creates a dissonance.
Philo of Alexandria has a reference to the Virgin Birth of Isaac that is close in time and culture to what Matthew and Luke say. It belongs to that world of representations.
Kurt, the “doctrine of the Virgin Birth” is less well-defined than that. All the Creed says is “ex Maria virgine”. It is a very unexamined doctrine (in comparison with doctrines such as the Trinity) and is just a sort of shibboleth of Catholic identity.
Spirit of Vat.II
Not so fast says Fr. Raymond Brown (who would white out half the infancy narratives if you gave him a bottle of white out)…he being our own version of Bultmann….. who himself was accused of not believing in the virgin birth….he did believe in it by dogmatic discipline but said it is fleetingly in Biblical texts…. but he noted approvingly on dogmatic grounds in the appendix to the “Birth of the Messiah” that it’s denial was and is condemned quickly by the living Church as in the cases of the Jesuit Jose Scheifler of Spain; R.McBrien in the US whose “Catholicism” had to be amended for that reason; and the case of Ute Ranke-Heinemann whose authority to teach at the University of Essen was removed by the German Bishops because she denied the vc at the biological level and saw it only as symbolic.
Three cheers for Uta Ranke-Heinemann. She at least had the courage of her convictions and got out – like Eugen Drewermann who left as a birthday present to himself. What I don’t understand is when people accept one outlandish claim but not another. If you think a god inseminates mortals, it’s not exactly a leap to believe that Mary retained her hymen through giving birth, In the end, you either accepts everything (with the exception cited below) or it will all slowly run through your fingers like dust.
Another case is however when someone is a ‘believer’ but deems particular stories to have been later additions, fictionalizing and so forth. Like, say, Jesus’ brothers and sisters who fell victim to censors long after the fact.
What is interesting to me is Jesus’ statement regarding wicked people needing a ‘sign’. Seems his disciples didn’t pay much heed to that when they added one ‘miracle’ accounr after another. What I don’t understand is why people need parlour tricks such as walking on water, turning water into wine and such. That impresses them MORE than, uh, the universe as such ?
Of course, a ‘spiritual’ influence can manifest itself physically, but nothing about that is ‘miraculous’ it simply works according to laws we haven’t fully discovered and explained yet. Psychosomatic illnesses are well documented – like my mother, who, 20+ years ago, when she still belonged to a church, would routinely get sick on church service days, and be really out of commission at large gatherings. Another, more recently studied issue is the influence of the body on the mind, say through nutrition,
Is not a turning away from a destructive lifestyle more impressive than some ‘miracle’ ? Not to mention getting an ailment, such as stigmata – it calls for medication, not devotion. In the end, everything makes sense and follows laws. It is up to use to discover them. I, eg, turned out to have a basically wrongly wired brain. A physical condition. Certainly, meditation, prayer, positive thinking etc. can benefit, but to get things right, one needs a medication that corrects the issue. Turns out what I needed wasn’t beliefs but Lamictal and Vyvanse :) But, wish thinking and superstition are easier to embrace, I guess – and, for many, it doesn’t bear the same stigma as needing a psychiatrist.
In brief, one needn’t believe in ‘miracles’ to be a follower of Jesus. In fact, following any positive philosophy, spirituality etc. seems to me more impressive when based on principle rather than unprovable claims or, worse still, because one hopes for reward/dreads punishment. Needless to say, fear is a stronger motivator than virtue.
I didn’t read all the replies so this may have already been pointed out.
1 – to me this would tend to make the virgin birth of Christ less (or non) supernatural
2 – this shark didn’t have a father, Jesus did. He was conceived of the Holy Ghost. It’s really not the same thing.
chew on this sam harris quote, “faith is what happens to credulity when it acheives escape velocity from the restraints of terrestrial discourse”.