I should like to post an answer that I gave regarding science and religion
on a different list. Moorad
Dear Moorad,
Do you concur with Gould, that science and religion are separate
non-overlapping magisteria?
Best Regards,
XX
I am not in the business of jargons but the academic disciplines of science
and religion are certainly distinct. However, knowledge and experience of
the physical world and the spiritual world overlaps in humans and as such
they are one in man----humans are detectors of both the physical (science)
and the non-physical (spiritual). Moorad
>----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Kouchoo" <richard.kouchoo@firstdata.com.au>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2002 11:14 PM
Subject: Re: Glenn makes front page of AiG today
>
>
>
> Walter wrote:
>
> >>>My suggestion is that we should instead emphasize that science is about
> physical things and the Christian Faith is about spiritual matters.
> There need not be a conflict between science and religion and THAT is
> what is important. If all could come to believe this, then I think that
> the YEC viewpoint would just fade away with time as an irrelevant
issue.<<<
>
> But Christianity isn't like Hinduism or myriad of other world religions.
It
> can't be based only on some kind of 'in your head,' un-testable
spirituality. It
> must be a _physical thing_ and it must be based on the historical
authenticity
> of the New Testament (i.e. that Christ was resurrected - an historical
> occurrence).
>
> The problem here may be that the YEC applies the same standard of
historical
> discourse to the creation story of the early chapters of Genesis. A story
which
> could not possibly be described in any _humane_ way, other than it has
been
> related in Genesis, given the scientific knowledge of the ancient authors
or
> story tellers.
>
> Richard.
>
>
>
>
>
> Walter Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com> on 11/02/2002 11:48:11
>
> To: george murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>
> cc: John W Burgeson <burgytwo@juno.com>, glenn.morton@btinternet.com,
> asa@calvin.edu (bcc: Richard Kouchoo/First Data Resources/AU)
> Subject: Re: Glenn makes front page of AiG today
>
>
>
> george murphy wrote:
> >
> > It's not clear to me from what you've written here just what
you're
> arguing
> > with. What is "the current approach being taken" which "will never
succeed in
> > convincing a YEC to believe in evolution and remain Christian"? And who
on
> this
> > list has suggested "converting YECs into atheists"?
> >
> > What I have suggested is that people be convinced to
> > a) take scientific evidence and theories seriously, and
> > b) appreciate the variety of _true_ and _authoritative_ material
in
> > scripture.
> >
> > Of course the meta-scientific claims of Dawkins _et al_ should
be
> opposed
> > as well.
> >
> > Shalom,
> >
> > George
> >
>
> But as Glenn mentioned (and a similar observation was made in a post by
> Christopher Sharp) when a YEC becomes convinced of the "truths of
> science", he usually becomes an atheist. If this the net result of
> hammering on the validity of science, then why is that a worthwhile goal
> for a Christian?
>
> I'm suggesting that one is attacking the wrong problem. For example,
> Charles Coulson in "How now shall we live" has one of his main
> characters make the the statement: "I'll find out how to argue with it
> (evolution). I'll find out why the story we heard here today is wrong or
> I'll give up my faith too."
>
> So my point is that we should be dealing with a far more fundamental
> spiritual issue than the validity of the "facts" of science. YECs are
> generally opposed to conventional science because they perceive it as a
> direct threat to their faith. Trying to convince them that they are
> wrong about the validity of science is interpreted as a direct attack on
> Christianity.
>
> My suggestion is that we should instead emphasize that science is about
> physical things and the Christian Faith is about spiritual matters.
> There need not be a conflict between science and religion and THAT is
> what is important. If all could come to believe this, then I think that
> the YEC viewpoint would just fade away with time as an irrelevant issue.
>
> Just an opinion.
>
> Walt
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ================================
> Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
>
> In any consistent theory, there must
> exist true but not provable statements.
> (Godel's Theorem)
>
> You can only find the truth with logic
> If you have already found the truth
> without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
> ===================================
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 11 2002 - 08:58:54 EST