--------------9F143E621B4DA8467DA6E147
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hi Moorad;
Humans can easily conceive of literally anything; but are we not discussing
biblical description ot the Earth as opposed to the universe ( let alone
Heaven!) and how modern science and Biblical truth relate? On Earth, death is
needed; therefore, to conjecture otherwise, as you do, is ad hoc and irrelevant
to the science and religion discussion. The world is full of musings about the
atmospheres of Paradise, Heaven, Hell, Nirvana, etc., but scientific
intelligibility is based upon a different mode of conjecture; one that does
allows extrapolation (origins) but based upon present notions of human
reasonability. I do not see - in scripture or in experience - why, as a
christian, I must abandon scientific intelligibility and concoct an imaginary
world (this one) to maintain a wooden read of scripture.
I am sorry, but your analogy of Einstein's aesthetic preference is unclear in
its relevance to my original post. Besides, he abandoned the static universe
ideal and later claimed it his largest blunder - as a good (great!) scientist
should.
Sincerely
George
Moorad Alexanian wrote:
> Dear George,
>
> For all I know death may have been a consequence of the Fall. We do many
> things that are not needed for survival. It could be that eating was a
> pleasure rather than a necessity for survival. Remember that Einstein found
> it pleasing to have a static solution to his (and David Hilbert's) equation
> and was adamantly opposed to the evolving solution found by Friedmann. I can
> easily conceive of a universe where there is no death. Isn't that what
> Heaven is all about? In what way was Paradise not Heaven? We often think
> that God will teach us all we wanted to know about Nature when in Heaven.
> Why, then, are we so opposed to God having taught us science, etc. while in
> Paradise? Therefore, knowledge may have been lost and is being regained
> painstakingly by our puny scientific efforts.
>
> Moorad
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: George Andrews <gandrews@as.wm.edu>
> To: Moorad Alexanian <alexanian@uncwil.edu>
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu <asa@calvin.edu>
> Date: Sunday, May 30, 1999 6:38 PM
> Subject: Re: The origin of scientific thinking
>
> >Hi Moorad;
> >
> >Moorad Alexanian wrote:
> >
> >> Hello Glenn,
> >>
> >> C.S. Lewis said that paradisal man could be like a brute that when we
> knew
> >> him we would fall to his feet a worship him. I do agree with that view.
> In
> >> fact, the movie "Being There" reminded me of that description of unfallen
> >> man and I was not surprised with the ending of the movie where Peter
> Sellers
> >> actually walks on water! But all this is a particular interpretation of
> >> Scripture. We really do not know but certainly the Fall does indicate a
> >> drastic change in kind and not merely a change in degree. We really do
> not
> >> know man before the Fall. Was he able to subsist without eating,
> sleeping,
> >> and so on? My reading of Scripture is that man before the Fall was
> superior
> >> in intellect and closer to God that present day man.
> >
> >While I agree that our knowledge of pre fallen man is sketchy, we can draw
> some
> >inferences from the biblical text, reason and nature - as we presently know
> it.
> >For example, if humanity were able to "subsist without eating, sleeping and
> so
> >on", then they would not be mortal and therefore not human which is a
> >contradiction of God's intended end. i.e. "man". Additionally, food was
> provided
> >for all of the creatures which does imply the 2nd law was in effect ( it
> had to
> >be for the Earth to have any resemblance to what we observe today! ) which,
> >therefore, would further imply birth and death were operational (seed after
> its
> >kind, water needed for plant growth, etc.). The fact that humans lacked
> >knowledge of good and evil alone reveals an inferiority of knowledge as
> compared
> >to post fallen humanity. Furthermore, there is no reason to conjecture that
> Adam
> >and Eve lost any capabilities of communication with God after the "apple
> event"
> >since God admits to their attainment of God-like status and God calls for
> and
> >speaks to them as He/She did before the event.
> >
> >The "closeness" to God you mention was undoubtedly severed! But this is not
> >intellectual, but relational.
> >
> >The symbolism of the two trees, in my view, is everything. The tree of life
> was
> >a counter to deterioration (it appears three times in the Bible and always
> in
> >the context of healing or nourishment for the body; the tree of knowledge
> of
> >good and evil was there to affect a greater change than a mere test of
> human
> >will; it was purposed to "make us like God"- and that it did!
> >
> >Sincerely,
> >George.
> >
--------------9F143E621B4DA8467DA6E147
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
Hi Moorad;
Humans can easily conceive of literally anything; but are we not discussing biblical description ot the Earth as opposed to the universe ( let alone Heaven!) and how modern science and Biblical truth relate? On Earth, death is needed; therefore, to conjecture otherwise, as you do, is ad hoc and irrelevant to the science and religion discussion. The world is full of musings about the atmospheres of Paradise, Heaven, Hell, Nirvana, etc., but scientific intelligibility is based upon a different mode of conjecture; one that does allows extrapolation (origins) but based upon present notions of human reasonability. I do not see - in scripture or in experience - why, as a christian, I must abandon scientific intelligibility and concoct an imaginary world (this one) to maintain a wooden read of scripture.
I am sorry, but your analogy of Einstein's aesthetic preference is unclear in its relevance to my original post. Besides, he abandoned the static universe ideal and later claimed it his largest blunder - as a good (great!) scientist should.
Sincerely
George
Moorad Alexanian wrote:
Dear George,For all I know death may have been a consequence of the Fall. We do many
things that are not needed for survival. It could be that eating was a
pleasure rather than a necessity for survival. Remember that Einstein found
it pleasing to have a static solution to his (and David Hilbert's) equation
and was adamantly opposed to the evolving solution found by Friedmann. I can
easily conceive of a universe where there is no death. Isn't that what
Heaven is all about? In what way was Paradise not Heaven? We often think
that God will teach us all we wanted to know about Nature when in Heaven.
Why, then, are we so opposed to God having taught us science, etc. while in
Paradise? Therefore, knowledge may have been lost and is being regained
painstakingly by our puny scientific efforts.Moorad
-----Original Message-----
From: George Andrews <gandrews@as.wm.edu>
To: Moorad Alexanian <alexanian@uncwil.edu>
Cc: asa@calvin.edu <asa@calvin.edu>
Date: Sunday, May 30, 1999 6:38 PM
Subject: Re: The origin of scientific thinking>Hi Moorad;
>
>Moorad Alexanian wrote:
>
>> Hello Glenn,
>>
>> C.S. Lewis said that paradisal man could be like a brute that when we
knew
>> him we would fall to his feet a worship him. I do agree with that view.
In
>> fact, the movie "Being There" reminded me of that description of unfallen
>> man and I was not surprised with the ending of the movie where Peter
Sellers
>> actually walks on water! But all this is a particular interpretation of
>> Scripture. We really do not know but certainly the Fall does indicate a
>> drastic change in kind and not merely a change in degree. We really do
not
>> know man before the Fall. Was he able to subsist without eating,
sleeping,
>> and so on? My reading of Scripture is that man before the Fall was
superior
>> in intellect and closer to God that present day man.
>
>While I agree that our knowledge of pre fallen man is sketchy, we can draw
some
>inferences from the biblical text, reason and nature - as we presently know
it.
>For example, if humanity were able to "subsist without eating, sleeping and
so
>on", then they would not be mortal and therefore not human which is a
>contradiction of God's intended end. i.e. "man". Additionally, food was
provided
>for all of the creatures which does imply the 2nd law was in effect ( it
had to
>be for the Earth to have any resemblance to what we observe today! ) which,
>therefore, would further imply birth and death were operational (seed after
its
>kind, water needed for plant growth, etc.). The fact that humans lacked
>knowledge of good and evil alone reveals an inferiority of knowledge as
compared
>to post fallen humanity. Furthermore, there is no reason to conjecture that
Adam
>and Eve lost any capabilities of communication with God after the "apple
event"
>since God admits to their attainment of God-like status and God calls for
and
>speaks to them as He/She did before the event.
>
>The "closeness" to God you mention was undoubtedly severed! But this is not
>intellectual, but relational.
>
>The symbolism of the two trees, in my view, is everything. The tree of life
was
>a counter to deterioration (it appears three times in the Bible and always
in
>the context of healing or nourishment for the body; the tree of knowledge
of
>good and evil was there to affect a greater change than a mere test of
human
>will; it was purposed to "make us like God"- and that it did!
>
>Sincerely,
>George.
>