What you describe below is consilience. It seems plausible, but probable?
I doubt it since not even two individuals (within the same field) can see
eye-to-eye on every issue. Give it up! You will sleep better at night :)
Best Wishes,
William - N6RKY
Moorad Alexanian wrote:
>
> Dear William,
>
> The finite human mind must analyze, take things apart, before it can study
> it. Afterwards there must be an integration of the knowledge acquired by the
> different fields of study. That is to say, a synthesis of the various
> disciplines used to study the parts. For instance, different disciples can
> study the same thing but with different objectives. For example, man can be
> studied by physicists, chemists, biologists, theologians, psychiatrists,
> etc. The thing is not what one of the disciplines say it is but what all
> the disciplines say that it is. It is this integration of knowledge that I
> keep referring to. Theology forms an integral part of knowledge and ought to
> be part of the integrated wealth of knowledge. The unification that
> physicists talk about is within the field of physics and not with other
> forms of knowledge. Of course, there must be unification within a given
> field before that field can be unified with other fields.
>
> Take care,
>
> Moorad
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: William A. Wetzel <n6rky@pacbell.net>
> To: Moorad Alexanian <alexanian@uncwil.edu>
> Cc: Brian D Harper <bharper@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu>;
> asa@udomo3.calvin.edu <asa@udomo3.calvin.edu>
> Date: Wednesday, May 05, 1999 6:37 AM
> Subject: Re: Phil Johnson on Focus on the Family
>
> >Dear Moorad:
> >
> >Unity of Knowledge and Unified Theory are different subjects. Unification
> >of Forces was Werner Heisneberg's and Albert Einstein's dream. I'm sure a
> >unification there will eventually happen.
> >
> >As for Unified Knowledge? Not in this life or the next. Monotheism cannot
> >have Unity of Knowledge except for God Himself. Even Christ in scripture:
> >"Does not know the day nor the hour of the end".
> >
> >Many theologians claim that Man can achieve this unity or consilience. It
> >cannot be as long as we are confined in both finiteness and in time. That
> >is a sad but realistic picture of Man's reason.
> >
> >Now as for your problem with macro-evolution? It does not invalidate what
> >scripture has to say any more than taking Revelation symbolically. That's
> >a bunch of HOG WASH propaganda from the Fundamentalist/Creationist camp.
> >
> >Now... I've seen another post in reply to your problem with evolution. It
> >may serve you well to study the issue well. I will take a moment to help,
> >if you wish to carry this on with me.
> >
> >Best Wishes,
> >William - N6RKY
> >
> >Moorad Alexanian wrote:
> >>
> >> Dear William,
> >>
> >> We all advocate unity of knowledge. The question is that we must unify
> ALL
> >> knowledge, viz.., the sciences, theology, the social sciences, etc. The
> >> process of integration of knowledge should not lead to nihilism--no
> >> knowledge should be, a priori, eliminated.
> >>
> >> That God sustains the creation can be viewed as a continuous creative
> >> process. But the latter does not imply that theistic evolution is the
> >> logical conclusion of God sustaining the creation.
> >>
> >> I do believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. If such is not the case then
> we
> >> can pick and choose--the Bible becomes a smorgasbord. What is changing
> with
> >> time is our interpretation of Scripture. Much like in science where the
> >> underlying laws of nature do not change but our interpretations of these
> >> laws does change.
> >>
> >> Does theistic evolution involves macroevolution as well as
> microevolution? I
> >> have often said that the Fall of Man is a problem for theistic evolution.
> >> Wherein comes the will of man to fall in theistic evolution?
> >>
> >> I am a firm believer that all true knowledge is One. In fact, it was
> Werner
> >> Heisenberg who said that the unification of all forces in nature had to
> do
> >> with monotheism. Both are appealing to the mind of man---a manifestation
> of
> >> the image of God in man.
> >>
> >> I do not believe that man can prove the existence of God. Man is
> imperfect,
> >> God is perfect. God can only be known as a limiting being from imperfect
> >> being. We know that the integers are either odd or even, but is infinity
> odd
> >> or even?
> >>
> >> Take care,
> >>
> >> Moorad
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: William A. Wetzel <n6rky@pacbell.net>
> >> To: Moorad Alexanian <alexanian@uncwil.edu>
> >> Cc: Brian D Harper <bharper@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu>;
> >> asa@udomo3.calvin.edu <asa@udomo3.calvin.edu>
> >> Date: Monday, May 03, 1999 5:44 PM
> >> Subject: Re: Phil Johnson on Focus on the Family
> >>
> >> >Dear Moorad:
> >> >
> >> >Theistic Evolutionists do not necessarily advocate Unity of Knowledge.
> It
> >> >is held more frequently among theorists than practical science. Yes, I
> am
> >> >a theoritician. At least you have me pegged -- but not Theistic
> Evolution
> >> >itself. Most people in this camp agree that Man's Reason is
> insufficient.
> >> >
> >> >But... We do have enough knowledge to realize that evolution is a part
> of
> >> >the creative process. And if one also believes in theism; then
> LOGICALLY,
> >> >Theistic Evolution is unavoidable. Any other conclusion would deny
> what's
> >> >known to science today. I pingeoned holed your comments because it
> seemed
> >> >typical of a fundamentalist/creationist point of view.
> >> >
> >> >Now let's get into a little philosophy here: How can a monotheist deny
> it
> >> >to be true that there is no unity of knowledge (in this life or the
> next)
> >> >is beyond me! All knowledge is of God -- period.
> >> >
> >> >Now let's do a little theology here: St. Thomas Aguinas's proofs for
> God,
> >> >he employs Ontological, Cosmological, and Teleological proofs. Because
> he
> >> >employed these methods (and more) it is certain that theologians have
> and
> >> >do subscribe to "some form of" Unity of Knowledge.
> >> >
> >> >Is there enough to prove the case?? The answer is no. Theology like
> Unity
> >> >of Knowledge and Unified Theory still needs research and discovery. But
> a
> >> >case does exist and most theorists are heading in this direction as
> noted
> >> >in your original post. Even Stephen Hawking is relenting on his
> rhetorics
> >> >against God and Unified Theory.
> >> >
> >> >Best Wishes,
> >> >William - N6RKY
> >
> >--
> >William A. Wetzel
> >icq-uin# 13983514
> >http://home.pacbell.net/n6rky
> >http://www.qsl.net/n6rky
> >mailto:n6rky@pacbell.net
> >mailto:n6rky@qsl.net
> >
-- William A. Wetzel icq-uin# 13983514 http://home.pacbell.net/n6rky http://www.qsl.net/n6rky mailto:n6rky@pacbell.net mailto:n6rky@qsl.net