Re: slightly OT, but still connected
- From: "Clayton Doyles" <cd@xxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 01 May 2005 03:25:59 GMT
"Roland Roberts" <roland@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:m264y3r9v6.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> I'm responding to this one on-line, but it's a bit long and probably
> primarily of interest to Christians :-/ Sorry in advance, and feel free
> to flame me (a little), but please do so privately if you can to avoid
> too high a noise level here....
Roland, to be honest, I thought many more would have *plonked* this
discussion long ago. I continue to be somewhat surprised by the responses I
keep seeing, especially considering that this is a saa group.
> >>>>> "Clayton" == Clayton Doyles <cd@xxxxxx> writes:
>
> >> If you're trying to say we (humans) need to be a bit more humble
> >> about what we think we know, I'll buy that.
>
> Clayton> We as humans should be a LOT more humble, yes.
>
> >> But if you're trying to say we don't truly know anything, you've
> >> lost me.
>
> Clayton> We know a few things, but to God, although we were created
> Clayton> in His own image, our intelligence when compared to Him is
> Clayton> like that of an amoeba.
>
> You are skirting *very* shaky ground theologically. Theologians accept
> as an axiom that our knowledge is incomplete and imperfect (hmmm, sounds
> a lot like reasonable science, that), but they also accept that we can
> know *truly* as well. You're comparison is either in conflict with that
> or it is meaningless. Tell me know much an amoeba knows truly wrt to
> God.
>
> I reject the apparent age hypothesis, which is the only one which can
> both explain the apparent age of the universe and a "real" age of
> c.6,000 years. I am of the opinion that it turns God into a deceiver
> and I certainly reject that.
You're entitled to reject it if you want to. That's on the benefits of
having free will and I certainly won't be judging you for it.
> I find most of these arguments come from what I think is a too limited
> view of God or a very strange interpretation of the Bible. The Bible
> does *not* claim the world/universe is 6,000 years old. It makes no
> claim for it's age. Bishop Usher inferred it from adding up
> geneological ages. Ironically, some of those geneologies are almost
> certainly "in error" by modern accounting---they were not intended to be
> literal geneologies accounting for every ancestor in the tree, but had
> symbolic or numerological significance, often to show "perfection" in
> some count. Whether you agree with that or not, Usher's chronological
> *is* extra-biblical and I find those would imbue it with canonical
> weight to be in grave danger spiritually---what else will be given
> canonical weight which is also extra-biblical?
Well, I must admit, you're right, 6000 years definitely isn't spelled out in
the Bible. And if you're saying that man shouldn't add to the Bible, you're
quite correct. In fact, it is stated somewhere in the Bible not to add or
subtract from it.
> I think that every Christian should see that the God-given evidence
> presented in the universe (creation) itself testifies that the universe
> is bigger and older than anything we could have thought or imagined.
When you put it that way, perhaps.....
> The underlying symmetries of physical laws that govern the physical
> universe speak to me of a God who is "not the author of chaos but of
> order."
Ok, I can agree. Perfect revolutions, rotations, stellar orbits, etc.
> Alan Guth speaks of "eternal inflation" to try to wipe away the need for
> a specific beginning to the universe---the observable universe had a
> beginning, but the inflation that sparked our cosmic bubble continues
> elsewhere, just outside the limits of visbility. I happen to think that
> that is not science anymore---it is intrinsically unobservable.
Outside of the known universe and not prone to our physical laws? I could
agree with that.
But
> that sounds to me a lot like a religious metaphor for intrinsically
> unknowable things in the universe, a lot like the Christian
> theologically position that God is knowable truly, but not completely.
My own belief is that we'll never know Him completely as long as we exist as
we do. I was trying to show an example of when we might know Him better
with the amoeba=man example earlier but that was in response to someone
else.
> While I have found the commentaries of many people, sciencists and
> non-scientists alike, disturbing wrt their interpretation of the
> theological implications of this or that new discovery, I have yet to
> see a new finding which actually challenges Biblical claims. Too many
> "defenses" by Christians against science are misdirected defenses
> against the interpretation or claims of commentators.
The one thing that bothers me the most about a scientist is one who flat out
says that God does not exist. As long as they're willing to concede the
possibility of His existence, I try not to be defensive. I believe to most
Christians, this is what it comes down to essentially.
> 20+ years ago when I was still doing "real" physics, we measured the
> sub-barrier transfer reaction cross sections.
Now, your PHD is ahead of me here :). I have an idea what your talking
about, but you'd have to explain further.
What where the
> theological implications? None that I can see. That's most of
> science. When we measured the cross section of lithium break-up on gold
> and carbon targets, what were the theological implications? None that I
> can see (but it did have implications for big-bang nucleosynthesis).
>
> In what was perhaps a subconscience act of reliving a bit of my youth, I
> wore the silly T-shirt with Maxwell's equations today; the one that says
> "In the beginning God said ...[equations]... and there was light." Some
> seem to take that as being a bit sacreligious. I don't see it that way.
Yes, they could do that. We've had similar events in my workplace, but I've
never said anything because, for our universe, there definitely are
equations even though the Almighty didn't spell them out.
> Either God said that, or something (currently) indistinguishably close
> to it, or else you have to conclude that light does not propagate by the
> laws that God laid down for it. In other words, if you are a Christian,
> you need to get a little more comfortable with science as man's
> exploration of the universe God created.
I can buy that. I have to say, I think you've made a lot more sense trying
to tie the two philosophies together than a lot of the other posters here
including myself initially. You've definitely given me some things to think
about and without rejecting God.
Clay
> regards,
>
> roland
> --
> PGP Key ID: 66 BC 3B CD
> Roland B. Roberts, PhD RL Enterprises
> roland@xxxxxxxxxxx 6818 Madeline Court
> roland@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Brooklyn, NY 11220
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: slightly OT, but still connected
- From: Florian
- Re: slightly OT, but still connected
- References:
- Re: slightly OT, but still connected
- From: Roland Roberts
- Re: slightly OT, but still connected
- Prev by Date: Re: Astro-Physics upgrading smaller refractors
- Next by Date: Re: Jupiter Image
- Previous by thread: Re: slightly OT, but still connected
- Next by thread: Re: slightly OT, but still connected
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
