TThey ignored it. Guess it either too sophisticated(Or too simple) for them.
-----Original Message-----
From: Walter Hicks [mailto:wallyshoes@mindspring.com]
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 6:41 PM
To: Shuan Rose
Cc: Asa
Subject: Re: Science and religion: two ways of knowing
Nice presentation, Shaun
What sort of reaction did you get from your post on the "Baptist Board"?
> Shuan Rose wrote:
>
> I like this definition of science:
> Science is a way of knowing that through observation,
> experiment and reasoning comes to conclusions about the
> physical world.."
> A fellow named Weinberg wrote it somewhere, but I can't
> track it down). Science is not the search for all truth,
> just the truth about the physical world.
>
> Now, modern atheists might argue that scientific truth
> is the ONLY truth, but of course they are wrong, and
> even nonreligious folks would reject such
> reductionism.However, in the scientific enterprise, the
> only permissible way of knowing is through the
> scientific method, AKA methodological naturalism (MN).A
> lot of people dislike this, and would like to supplement
> the scientific method with another method, I.e
> revelation.However, revelation properly belongs not to
> science, but to religion.
>
> Religion is a way of knowing that through revelation,
> practice, and faith, comes to conclusions about the
> supernatural world.Through religion we experience God.
> Through science we investigate the physical world. Two
> different ways of knowing, two different realities.
> I think all religious believers should oppose the
> attempts of Dawkins and others to insist that science
> has excluded all other types of truth, except those that
> can be known through the scientific method. This is what
> metaphysical naturalism says. Properly applying the
> scientific method, however, cannot lead to that
> conclusion, for the scientific method can only answer
> questions about the physical world.It can neither prove
> nor disprove the existence of the spiritual world.
>
> When , however,YECs insist on tailoring scientific truth
> to a literal reading of revelation, they deform
> science(and revelation).Scientific truth has its own
> space and validity, apart from revelation.Revelation is
> also true, just not in a scientific way.We can still say
> God created the heavens and the earth, and leave it to
> science to spell out the details. Indeed , the biblical
> writers had they know how much greater and more
> wonderful universe was than they envisaged, would surely
> have found even greater reason to praise God.
>
> The metaphysical naturalist looks through his
> microscope, performs his scientific test, measures his
> specimen, and says: There is no god.
> The YEC looks at his three thousand year old text,
> interprets it literally,and says: There is no
> evolution.Both make the mistake of applying the wrong
> way of knowing to the wrong reality.Both are far from
> the truth about either reality.
>
> I posted the above on the BaptistBoard message Board,
> hoping for some comment. I would ask for comments now
> from this listserv, especially on the "two ways of
> knowing" approach. Do folks on the list think this is
> valid.
>
> Shuan Rose
> 2632 N Charles Street,Baltimore MD 21218
> [410]467-2655
>
>
-- =================================== 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 Apr 01 2002 - 20:42:39 EST