RE: [asa] Creationism Conference (The Queen of Sciences)

I didn't miss the word "complete." I said that by you saying
essentially "not complete" you are implying that there is at least
"partial."

Specifically,

You said:
"A human being is body/mind/spirit, and so experimental science DOES NOT
give us a COMPLETE understanding of what man is."

Is that the same as saying:
"A human being is body/mind/spirit, and so experimental science DOES
give us a PARTIAL understanding of what man is."

I think both statements are the same- don't you? If you think they are
the same, how can you say there is partial understanding then earlier
saying experimental science contributes nothing?

...Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: Alexanian, Moorad [mailto:alexanian@uncw.edu]
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 10:25 AM
To: Dehler, Bernie; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: RE: [asa] Creationism Conference (The Queen of Sciences)

Please read what I write carefully, it was written carefully. I wrote,
"A human being is body/mind/spirit, and so experimental science does not
give us a complete understanding of what man is." You missed the word
"complete." People do not define what they mean by the word "science."
However, most understand what experimental science is.

Moorad

________________________________

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of Dehler, Bernie
Sent: Thu 6/26/2008 1:18 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: RE: [asa] Creationism Conference (The Queen of Sciences)

Moorad-

Seems to me like you've turned the whole discussion around. It was
"does science have anything to do with theology" and you now give the
answer to a different question: "does theology have anything to do with
science."

You also say "A human being is body/mind/spirit, and so experimental
science does not give us a complete understanding of what man is." So
you admit we do get at least partial understanding from experimental
science (implied), then you say we get nothing from experimental science
(explicit). It doesn't sound to me like you are sending a clear
message.

...Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Alexanian, Moorad
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 10:11 AM
To: George Murphy; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: RE: [asa] Creationism Conference (The Queen of Sciences)

Theology is neither constitutive, nor regulative nor instrumental to the
experimental sciences. A human being is body/mind/spirit, and so
experimental science does not give us a complete understanding of what
man is. Therein lies the usefulness of the ASA list on how to explain
man in terms of the physical, the nonphysical, and the supernatural.

Moorad

________________________________

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of George Murphy
Sent: Thu 6/26/2008 12:41 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Creationism Conference (The Queen of Sciences)

Moorad -

I'm not exactly how you're defining "experimental science" - whether
you're just distinguishing it from "theoretical science" or whether you
mean "science based on experimental" &/or "science subject to
experimental test." But since theoretical science is of no value
without its experimental counterpart (& vice versa, I hasten to add as a
theorist), either way your statement below quickly implies simply
"science and theology have nothing to do with one another." Of course
that is a position taken by some people (Gould & Bultmann, e.g.) & in
fact is Barbour's 2d way of relating science & religion. But that view
seems to me extreme & makes me wonder why you think it worthwhile to
participate on a list devoted to science-religion discussion if you hold
it.

(Perhaps the distinction between religion & theology comes in there but
that doesn't seem adequate to explain your apodictic statement. & in
any case it seems to me clear that if science has nothing to do with
theology then a fortiori it has nothing to do with religion.)

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/ <http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu
<mailto:alexanian@uncw.edu> >
To: "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com
<mailto:bernie.dehler@intel.com> >
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu <mailto:asa@calvin.edu> >
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 12:20 PM
Subject: RE: [asa] Creationism Conference (The Queen of Sciences)

> Experimental science and theology have nothing to do with each other.
>
> Moorad
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu <mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu>
on behalf of Dehler, Bernie
> Sent: Thu 6/26/2008 12:14 PM
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
> Subject: RE: [asa] Creationism Conference (The Queen of Sciences)
>
>
>
> So Dave, you don't think science has an impact in shaping theology?
That's my main point, and you seem to be disagreeing with it.
>
>
>
> ...Bernie
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. [mailto:dfsiemensjr@juno.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 8:37 PM
> To: Dehler, Bernie
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
> Subject: Re: [asa] Creationism Conference (The Queen of Sciences)
>
>
>
> No, we're not together because you are trying to make various
interpretations of the "science" theological. One God the source of all
is theology, and in its time, apologetic. The timing and methodology is
not theology, but represents ancient cosmology and twisted eisegesis.
>
> Dave (ASA)
>
>
>
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 12:13:36 -0700 "Dehler, Bernie"
<bernie.dehler@intel.com <mailto:bernie.dehler@intel.com> > writes:
>
> Hi Dave-
>
>
>
> We have two things-
>
>
>
> 1. The actual text of Genesis 1 & 2
> 2. The interpretation (theology) of Genesis 1 & 2
>
>
>
> Ok- let's assume the text hasn't changed. We now deal with only part
2.
>
>
>
> For part 2, there are two time periods to discuss:
>
>
>
> A. What is the ancient theology (interpretation)?
> B. What is the modern theology (interpretation)?
>
>
>
> For part A, ancient theology, maybe we are both in agreement that it
is ANE science (firmament, flat earth, geocentricism, etc.). Maybe
everyone saw it the same way back then (in the time of Moses and even up
to Jesus and the Apostles).
>
>
>
> For part B, we have different camps (YEC, OEC, TE, etc.). YEC is like
ANE except they accept some Book 2 (modern science) such as
heliocentricity and a round Earth.
>
>
>
> So maybe for part A one could say there is a theology of Gen 1 & 2,
but today (part B) there is no "theology" but instead "theologies."
>
>
>
> Are our minds converging yet?
>
>
>
> ...Bernie
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
> From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. [mailto:dfsiemensjr@juno.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 11:37 AM
> To: Dehler, Bernie
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
> Subject: Re: [asa] Creationism Conference (The Queen of Sciences)
>
>
>
> Bernie,
>
> Are you saying that the clear declaration that there is one God and
that he created what the ANE claimed as gods is not theological? Of
course, if one fudges on the exegesis, there are some very stupid
theological claims. Recall that there are sluice gates in the firmament
to let the waters above the firmament flow. Of course, this can be a
canopy that Glenn showed would cook the earth. Even it did not have
sluice gates. Of course, there is the nonsense that all we have is what
it says to each individual, so that there are as many truths as persons.
>
> Dave (ASA)
>
>
>
> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 14:49:23 -0700 "Dehler, Bernie"
<bernie.dehler@intel.com <mailto:bernie.dehler@intel.com> > writes:
>
> Dave Siemens said:
> "There is a great difference between the theology of Genesis 1 and 2
and the ANE "science.""
>
>
>
> I don't think that statement makes sense. There is no such thing as a
"theology of Genesis 1 and 2." Everyone has their own "theology of
Genesis 1 and 2", some incorporating ANE and some not. I would say Book
1 is the Bible, and Book 2 includes science and history (like ANE
history and modern history). A persons theology may or may not consider
ANE concepts.
>
>
>
> George Murphy said:
> "We don't literally "read" the world."
>
>
>
> I could argue that. I think Book 2 could be read as much as Book 1.
Sure, no book could contain everything about nature, but neither could
any book contain everything about God. We can read about the world in
textbooks and other books- that's the primary way I'm learning about
science and history from others, and also through the spoken word
(podcasts). Book 1 and 2 isn't much different in that respect:
>
>
>
> Book 1: God's Word: The Bible which tells us about God and salvation.
Without literally reading this book, we would know nothing about the
death and resurrection of Christ (there would only be verbal stories-
and numerous versions so as to confuse the message). People learn about
God by reading the Bible, commentaries, and listening to lectures of
those trained in theology.
>
>
>
> Book 2: God's works: History and science. People learn these from
reading actual textbooks, books, and listening to lectures of those
trained in science and history.
>
>
>
> Both use literal books to get their message across. Even Book 1 has
many translations and many languages, and the original is lost. So I
think we do literally read about God's Words and God's works, and also
contemplate the concepts in our minds (meditating on applications and
impact of all this knowledge).
>
>
>
> George Murphy said:
> "...for Christians God's primary revelation is God's actions in
history that point to & culminate in Christ. It isn't the Bible, which
is a witness to that revelation."
>
>
>
> The Bible is a witness, true. But it is also the vehicle for the
message. No Bible, no message. No Bible, and all you have are numerous
conflicting verbal stories... like playing the game of telephone. In
this way, it seems to me the Bible has a much stronger role that you are
suggesting by that statement, because I think without the Bible, we'd
really have no faith at all.
>
>
>
> Each book can tell us something that the other can't. For example,
Book 1 tells us about the remedy for sin, but not Book 2. Book 2 tells
us about photosynthesis, but not Book 1. Sometimes they disagree on
points, such as the worldwide flood; and in that case, we have to pick a
winner when there is a direct contradiction.
>
>
>
> I have a book called "The three views of Genesis." Each believes the
Bible is inerrant. For the meaning of day, one has a 24 hr
interpretation, one day-age, and the other framework. The 24hr. view
claims the other two are compromised by modern science, as if Book 2 is
corrupting them. To my surprise, the other two claim that they are not
driven by Book 2, but by hermeneutics and internal evidence... I think
that is untrue. Why not admit there is a Book 2 and it should take
precedence? Oh- how evil it must be to have nature affect your
theology? I agree with YEC's that the only reason not to have a YEC
position is because modern science (Book 2) is consulted. And I'm not a
YEC. I accept that there is a Book 2 and encourage it's use and
dominance over Book 1 where it is clearly (to me) more correct, such as
in the worldwide flood question.
>
>
>
> ,,,Bernie
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
> From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. [mailto:dfsiemensjr@juno.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 2:16 PM
> To: GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com <mailto:GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>
> Cc: Dehler, Bernie; asa@calvin.edu <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
> Subject: Re: [asa] Creationism Conference (The Queen of Sciences)
>
>
>
> I think I would put the matter more strongly. There is a great
difference between the theology of Genesis 1 and 2 and the ANE
"science." Theology is not about a mud pie origin for man with woman
coming later, or a simultaneous creation of both sexes, but the fact
that God is the originator and director of all that is. While most
peoples have recognized some sort of deity, I keep running across
psychological and evolutionary explanations for this. And a strong
philosophical case for materialism can be made. I deny such claims on
the basis of scripture, not because of what I can deduce from a study of
nature.
>
> Dave (ASA)
>
>
>
> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 15:29:24 -0400 "George Murphy"
<GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com <mailto:GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com> > writes:
>
> That makes it sound as if theology is committed to a worldwide flood &
loses out to science on that issue. It's much better to say that
theology needs to be open to the insights of the sciences in its
interpretation of biblical texts - which is pretty much what I've said.
>
>
>
> As to the point about "books" - both the "books" of which we're
speaking when we talk about knowledge of God from science & from God's
historical revelation are metaphorical. We don't literally "read" the
world. & for Christians God's primary revelation is God's actions in
history that point to & culminate in Christ. It isn't the Bible, which
is a witness to that revelation. (& no, I don't mean to say that the
Bible can't be spoken of as revelation but it isn't primary.) In this
regard Christianity differs from Islam.
>
>
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/ <http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Dehler, Bernie <mailto:bernie.dehler@intel.com
<mailto:bernie.dehler@intel.com> >
>
> To: asa@calvin.edu <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 3:11 PM
>
> Subject: RE: [asa] Creationism Conference (The Queen of Sciences)
>
>
>
> George Murphy said:
> "But it is wrong to say that the sciences always trump theology."
>
>
>
> I don't think I said that, but I did say that Book 2 (God's works) can
trump Book 1 (God's Word).
>
>
>
> As an example, Book 1 says there was a worldwide flood, and Book 2
disagrees (in mine and George Murphy's opinion). I think Book 2 wins.
Book 2 trumped Book 1. Theology is adapted accordingly.
>
>
>
> I think David Opderbeck made a good point in his first response on
this thread about the queen- we are confusing the topics "two books"
with "Theology as Queen." Theology can be based on anything, 0 or more
books... even mystics with no books have their own theology, as well as
scholars who consider all books. Claiming to have no theology is also a
theology in itself.
>
>
>
> ...Bernie
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu <mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu>
[mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of George Murphy
> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 11:46 AM
> To: David Opderbeck; Ted Davis
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu <mailto:asa@calvin.edu> ; George Cooper
> Subject: Re: [asa] Creationism Conference (The Queen of Sciences)
>
>
>
> I see that I stirred up a good deal of discussion & won't try to
respond to everything point by point. But a few clarifications -
>
>
>
> 1st, there are some phrases in my original post that seem to have been
overlooked. I said that a putative general revelation - I would rather
just say "observation of the world and reason" - "tells us nothing about
who the true God or about the Incarnation & atonement." I did not deny
that a person may conclude from observation of the world that "there is
a God." But it simply does not tell us who that God is - i.e., that he
is the one who brought Israel out of Egypt & raised Jesus from the dead.
It tells us nothing about God as Trinity or the Incarnation. Nothing.
& that has always been recognized by Christians who argue for a natural
knowledge of God.
>
>
>
> 2d, I used the image of theology of the queen of the sciences to
develop a metaphor. Note my language - "If (as used to be said)
theology is the queen of the sciences, the other sciences are her
ministers." David O & Ted D have had some interesting things to say
about the "queen of the sciences" idea but my purpose in evoking it was
simply to have a picturesque way of describing the roles of theology &
the natural sciences other than the well-worn "2 books" one.
>
>
>
> & I went on to say, "But a wise queen will listen to her ministers in
their areas of competence." (Emphasis added.) Bernie says quite
rightly that when it comes, e.g., to the question of 6-day creation or
evolution, evolution wins. That is because theology listens to the
sciences when they speak about their own areas of competence and, as I
said further, will "if necessary reconsider its interpretation of
biblical texts in that light."
>
>
>
> But it is wrong to say that the sciences always trump theology. The
serious danger of the ideas of natural knowledge of God and natural
theology is that people will begin to think that they can learn
everything they need to know about God and God's will for us by studying
the world - or in other words, from "natural revelation." Nor is this a
mere theoretical danger - it was pervasive in the eighteenth &
nineteenth centuries with the thought of the Enlightenment & deism, & is
quite explicit in something like Lessing's "Education of the Human
Race." I could give numerous examples & Ted D could no doubt do so more
thoroughly. What it produced at best was a kind of unitarian deism with
an emphasis on morality & some kind of hope for an "afterlife." & you
can find this sort of thing today - e.g., Paul Davies.
>
>
>
> The proper procedure in theology, as I emphasized in the PSCF article
I referenced, is to start with God's historical revelation that
culminates in Christ. Then we know who God is and can turn to what
science tells us about the natural world and in some ways learn more
fully how the God revealed in Christ is active in the world. We do that
by looking at scientific knowledge in the light of that historical
revelation - that's why I used the title The Cosmos in the Light of the
Cross for one of my books. & that's the kind of thing that the prophet
is doing (in an OT context) in Is.40:18-25 that was cited here. He
isn't pointing to the heavens as independent proof that YHWH exists. If
any Babylonians had been listening in (this is written to those in
exile) they would have said - "Big whoop! Marduk is the one who
stretched out the heavens." (& after all, to all appearances Marduk had
defeated YHWH.) Rather, the prophet is speaking to Jews from the
standpoint of the !
>
> faith of Israel & simply claiming - if you prefer, revealing - that
the God in whom they'd believed, the God of the Exodus, was the creator
of the whole world.
>
>
>
> & note that at the beginning of the last paragraph I made the
qualification "in theology." In studying the world, OTOH< we don't need
to do any theology or say anything at all about God. The queen
shouldn't micromanage her ministers.
>
>
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/ <http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Click here to save cash and find low rates on auto loans.
<http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2142/fc/Ioyw6i3ndyHxMd81hNT8ErrSjwk
JTeuDMRbbGSBD4UaRKHL54VrVY9/
<http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2142/fc/Ioyw6i3ndyHxMd81hNT8ErrSjwk
JTeuDMRbbGSBD4UaRKHL54VrVY9/> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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.

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 Jun 26 13:34:58 2008