[asa] Finger on Sodom and Gomorrah

Merv wrote: As long as Bolster Scale doesn't get shortened to 'BS' impact. (I can hear our
secularist enthusiasts snickering already.)
I wondered if any would enjoy that little accidental hiccup. :)

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?
I would assume the line would normally be more of a band of gray, for most cases. The discovery of Noah's ark example would not be so gray, of course.

IMO, the impact science has upon any subjective claim, religious or otherwise, would be proportional to the amount of objective exposure the specific subjective claim has embedded within it. This would also be specific to the interpretation being used; allegory is far less subject to scientific scrutiny than other, more literal interpretations.

Further, the scientific impact upon a religious claim would also be proportional to the degree that scientific understanding has for the scrutiny it offers. The greater the confluence of lines of evidence supporting an applicable scientific theory, the greater the impact will be upon its critical review of those objective elements that exist within the claim.

Galileo clearly touted the Copernican model which opposed at least on important passage: that the Earth is immovable. Science has much to say about this and this is an objective element of the religious claim that the Earth is the center of the universe. This view was an erroneous interpretation, and it was eventually corrected, of course. The religious claim of Geocentricity had many objective elements that became more and more counter to scientific knowledge.

[BTW....The UN has just announced that 2009 will be known as the Year of Astronomy. This is tribute to the physicist and astronomer Galileo, arguably the founder of modern science, who, in one day, built a better telescope, then discovered the moons of Jupiter and blemishes on the Moon. In 1611, he discovered Sun spots, though Scheiner(sp?) may have discovered them a few months earlier.]

George

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.
>

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 14:52:37 2007