> > Theology isn't based on science & science isn't based (other
> >than perhaps historically) on theology. The world is knowable
> >_etsi deus non daretur_ - Laplace was right. But that wasn't the point
> >at issue! The question was whether or not there could be any
> >interaction between science & religion, specifically Christianity, & I
> >think I provided clear examples of how there could be. A person doesn't
> >have to be concerned with those questions (e.g., how God answers
> >prayer), but they are not simply ruled out of court.
> > Science does not tell us that the Holy Trinity - or any other
> >God - created the universe. In fact, God's mode of origination seems to
> >be such as to conceal any such direct view of God at work. But science
> >does speak about what happened in the early universe, and there is no
> >reason in principle why we should not try to extend Laplace's claim as
> >far back toward t = 0 (if there is a t = 0) as possible. _If we start
> >from the standpoint of Christian faith in God as the creator_, science
> >is telling us something about how God brought the universe into being.
> >If not, not. As so often is the case, it's a matter of faith in search
> >of understanding.
> > George Murphy
>
> I believe the interaction between science & religion occurs in the human
> being--the detector of the physical as well as the spiritual. I honestly
> believe that the real thing which "conceals any such direct view of God at
> work" is human pride. We exclude God from the picture when we limit our
> scope of understanding to merely scientific knowledge. However, if we want
> to understand it all, then God comes into the picture.
OK - precisely _because_ science can, within its own sphere,
explain the world _etsi deus non daretur_. But operating from a
standpoint of faith, one believes the true God to be the creator & sees
support for that in what science shows about the world.
George Murphy