RE: [asa] Finger on Sodom and Gomorrah

I really do not know how people define the word "science." However,
experimental science has nothing to do with theology. In experimental
science one generalizes many historical events into laws, whereas in
theology, say in the Christian faith, one deals always with unique,
historical events.

Moorad

________________________________

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of George Cooper
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 2:52 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: [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 15:17:37 2007