Re: [asa] Finger on Sodom and Gomorah?

Quoting George Cooper <georgecooper@sbcglobal.net>:

> There should be some kind of Bolster Scale, perhaps, that rates scientific
> impact upon religious claims. [Hmmmm.... make that a Reinforcing Scale].
> For example, this finger story might be an RS of 2, and the discovery of
> Noah's ark intact a 10. Of course, this would still be a subjective scale,
> but it gives some emphasis for the scientific arguments that help make a
> claim more plausible.
>
> George Cooper
 
As long as Bolster Scale doesn't get shortened to 'BS' impact. (I can hear our
secularist enthusiasts snickering already.)

Seriously, though, I wrestle with what impact science can/should have on
theology. Obviously archaeological finds can verify certain historiocities --
nicely so. But how do we draw the line on where that is necessary vs. where we
are willing to let historiocity go? Glenn Morton and Dick Fisher, etc. can
stump those of us who easily let much of early Genesis off the hook in demanding
historical interpretation by asking us: "so when does it start becoming
historical"? And when does historical become important? I don't have a good
answer for them, except that a lot of later events MUST be. So this mysterious
line is not allowed anywhere close to the time of Jesus, for example.

All I know is that science can help out with what is historical or not, BUT
science cannot contribute to the answer of how significant or important this is,
which must be addressed by the supersets: Theology / Religion / Philosophy. Or
I should say, the only contribution science can make is to divide out
extra-ordinary things from ordinary things in the first place, helping to give
the supersets fodder to chew on. But that is the boundary of science.

--Merv

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Dec 20 11:40:37 2007