Re: [asa] Finger on Sodom and Gomorrah

The email limit is that you're only supposed to post a
maximum of 4 emails/day to the listserv...speaking of
which, I think this is my fourth...ah well...

In Christ,
Christine

--- George Cooper <georgecooper@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Moorad wrote: I really do not know how people define
> the word "science." However, experimental science
> has nothing to do with theology.
> Agreed, modern science is constricted to the
> objective realm. Theology does not directly impact
> it, though it can indirectly influence science since
> scientists themselves hold theologies.
>
> Conversely, however, science can impact theology
> directly, as was the case with the Copernican model,
> including observational evidence made by Galileo and
> the Jesuits.
>
> 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.
> Since both are historical events, then it is logical
> that one can impact the other, as stated above.
>
> George Cooper
>
> [BTW, what is the email limit that was mentioned in
> another thread?]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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 16:13:08 2007