Thanks for your insightful comments in "Mooning Johnson", 12-7-99. Yet they
leave me with a question or two.
1) Is it not enough to ask of science that it display God's power and deity
(Rom. 1:20)? Isn't this what happened with the discovery of the "Big Bang"?
While this discovery might have been predicted by Gen. 1 it occurred
independently of the Book of Scripture. Arthur Eddington wrote of it,
“Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present order of Nature is
repugnant to me….I should like to find a genuine loophole.” Doesn't this
indicate his perception of the power and deity of God as creator and his
desire to escape it? Can't the same things be said of the find tuning of
numerous parameters of the universe? It points to the God of Romans. Isn't
that enough for science?
2) How can your idea that the Book of Nature is a sequel to the Book of
Scripture work in science?
3) We do not know how many scientists have been softened or attracted to the
Book of Scripture by reading the Book of Nature first. They may be closet
Christians in the house of science. It seems to me you are prescribing a
certain sequence of "readings" that need to be followed. I'm not sure that's
always the way God brings people to salvation.
Regards,
Bob
--------------------------
In a message dated 12/7/1999 7:50:12 AM, gmurphy@raex.com writes:
<< Book of Nature, both pointing to God. However, it seems clear to me,
based on the
considerations I have raised here, that these books ought not to be read
independently
of one another. In fact, the Book of Nature ought to be read as a sequel to
the Bible.
As with the sequel to a novel, it is important to read the first volume to
find out
about the characters. Or to drop the metaphor, we get our hypothesis of
design from
revelation. Discoveries like the fine tuning come along later, and their
strength as
evidence lies in confirming an already-existing hypothesis that already has
other
confirmation from other realms of experience. Without revelation, we would
be at a loss
to know what we mean by designer in such arguments."
(In _Science and Theology_, edited by Murray Rae _at al_, Eerdmans,
1994).
I.e., in order for what we learn from nature to tell us anything about
God, we
have to place it in the context of revelation (or "special revelation" if you
wish).
There is no legitimate natural theology which is independent of theology
based upon
revelation.
This does NOT mean that scientific investigation _of the world_ must
begin with
Christian presuppositions, intend to glorify the crucified, &c. Atheists can
understand
the world qua world as well as Christians. >>
George,