Re: The Science of God

john zimmer (jzimmer@therad.rpslmc.edu)
Thu, 03 Dec 1998 07:01:03 -0600

At 02:32 PM 12/1/98 -0500, you wrote:
>Robert asked:
>
>>Has anyone read the book "The Science of God" (1997 The Free Press) by
>>Gerald Schroeder? Gerald is a physicist from MIT and lives in Israel. I
>am
>>especially interested in viewpoints in dealing with his reconciliation of
>>the days of Genesis using Einstein's relativity equations. He shows the
>>million-million factor difference in our perception of time using the CBR
>>as the start of the cosmic clock. It appears reasonable geologically but
>I
>>want like some input from those members that excel in higher mathematics.
>>
>
>I have only glanced at the book, but it appears to be based on the
>(misguided, I believe) assumption that we can and must reconcile a
>literalistic reading of early Genesis with modern science, no matter what
>the cost in terms of ripping the text out of its original historical,
>cultural and theological contexts.
>
>When this forcing of an ancient text to fit modern Western scienctific
>expectations is done by a Jewish author I find it no more credible than
>when it is done by a Christian. In both cases, I would consider it a
>serious violation of the text.
>
>The issues are not mathematical, but hermeneutical.
>
>Howard Van Till
>
>
I picked up the book about a week ago. It think it will provide
a good example of what I mean by trying to find a way to
re-establish a tension between the subjective pole of our
experience of nature, which is informed by Genesis, and
the objective pole of our experience of nature, which is
informed by the evolutionary sciences. As far as I've read,
Shroeder is starting with a rather wonderful unfolding of
Jewish traditional thought (the subjective experience) which,
from looking at the pictures, I guess will be related to
travelling at the speed of light for six days equalling the
age of the universe. Will find out more as I proceed, but
I suspect that the tension between the subjective and objective
poles described here will be ... so to speak ... tenuous.

Ray