Re: [asa] Finger on Sodom and Gomorrah

Usually, when we speak of science, we make reference to the specific
science disciplines. And yet, the essence of the scientific process is
in operation all the time in an informal way, even though it might be
devoid of many of the formal trappings of the scientific discipline..
E.g., when we do something to validate or negate an opinion of someone,
that embodies a trial hypothesis and test for validity. Our sensibility
about the validity of the hypothesis is modified when we find confirm
that the guy really does not "get it". That's the essence of the
informal "scientific method" at work. The broad applicability of the
method, whether formal or informal, accounts for the applicability in
the "soft sciences" where the findings are characterized by statistical
considerations.

The same sort of general/specific quality accompanies the evolution
discussion. The is a biological aspect dominates the formal science. And
yet, the basic framework of change and selective attrition fits not only
biological evolution, but a diversity of human endeavors as well. Some
mistake the applicability of the general principle of evolution (change
and response in the form of selective attrition) as cause and effect, as
when blaming the teaching of evolution for the rise of Hitler.

I'm a bit uneasy with this simplicity.

I think our belief system (including theology) is unavoidably linked to
some extent with experimental results, whether the "results" are
characterized by the rigor of the scientific method, or the more
qualitative valuation system embodied in our belief systems. Consider
the matter of the efficacy of answered prayer, as an example. Our
conclusions about our own experience with answered prayer can have a
significant effect (positive or negative) on our confidence in prayer in
general, with signficant implications for our theology. Here, "one
generalizes many historical events into laws", though the "laws" in this
case are part of our belief system. But the matter of prayer, and its
efficacy is definitely over in the "theology" sector of our belief
system, ...and it has dealt with "unique, historical events". It does
not seem to comply with the sharp division you make.

If the "unique, historical events" you speak of are those recorded
"uniquely" in scripture, then most folks still apply a filter that
determines whether to allow or reject a particular interpretation into
their belief system. While it is not science in the academic sense,
there are in place a set of tests (whether conscious or not, organized
or not, formal or not) used to assess an offered hypothesis
(interpretation) against a set of criteria to determine validity
(friendliness or antagonism with respect to the existing belief system).

That said, what occurred to me in response to what you posted is two-fold:

1. You have described only one side of the equation, even for an
academic perspective. On the inner-person side of science and theology,
the separations between science and theology are not necessarily so
clear or sharply defined. They are part of a necessarily integrated
belief system, recognizing that much of our belief system is just that,
belief, and untested. Moreover, much of our belief system operates
unconsciously, wherein there is also no certainty of maintaining this
distinction.
2. Most folks are not academics, and will not parse these considerations
even in their conscious deliberations according to these two
categorizations. In my experience, folks without academic discipline
background (formal or informal) vary all over the spectrum with respect
to what weightings they assign science or theology as a determining
factor when pondering more difficult matters. But, in any case, they are
usually characterized by an increased receptivity to what others teach
them as "evidence", in the absence of better information or weaker tools
of critical thinking.

Bottom line? I just don't quite agree with the "nothing" and "always"
characterization you offered here. I guess I think the partitioning is
as artificial as the labels.

Regards

JimA [Friend of ASA]

Michael Roberts wrote:

> Science is more than experiments as several of us have said a thousand
> times.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Alexanian, Moorad <mailto:alexanian@uncw.edu>
> To: George Cooper <mailto:georgecooper@sbcglobal.net> ;
> asa@calvin.edu <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 8:16 PM
> Subject: 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>
> [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
> <mailto: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 17:54:14 2007