Human reasoning governs my every actions but, as a scientist, I am aware
that many questions of importance are not scientific in nature. The issue is
to discern what is science and what it is not. One can approach any question
as being a scientific question but that does not make it so. Human
reasoning transcends scientific reasoning owing to the nature of man of
being mind/body/spirit. Christians ought to reason all the time, but that
does not mean we are doing science by doing so. You do not know if paradisal
man had to die! For all I know death followed the Fall of man. Is that
speculation, yes. Is it nonsense, no!
Take care,
Moorad
-----Original Message-----
From: George Andrews <gandrews@as.wm.edu>
Cc: asa@calvin.edu <asa@calvin.edu>
Date: Friday, June 04, 1999 9:43 AM
Subject: Re: The origin of scientific thinking
>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.
>> >
>
>
>
>