Re: Apologetics, Genesis, and C S Lewis

Moorad Alexanian (alexanian@uncwil.edu)
Wed, 23 Dec 1998 10:24:42 -0500 (EST)

At 05:19 AM 12/23/98 -0800, Adam Crowl wrote:
>Hi Group,
>
>Hope I don't sound too aggressive in my reply. I want to hone up our
>discussion on these issues, so it's time for some clarification.

[deleted]

Moorad wrote:
>>I believe spirit is more than mere life. Life requires body, spirit
>does not
>>require body but mind--e.g. angels. Spirit is that which allows
>>consciousness to know beyond the senses. For instance, the notion of
>>Creator, God, etc. are not discerned by mind/body but by the spirit of
>man.
>>
>Firstly we don't know that angels don't have bodies. They don't have
>mortal flesh, but they always appear as corporeal beings. Perhaps
>embodiment is essential for mind - though what does that imply about
>God? The idea that spirit discerns God but mind does not is hard to
>understand considering that the "heart" [OT locus of mind] is invoked so
>often in talking about God. Mind is always involved in communion with
>God. We are, as Christians, one Spirit with God [a concept left
>forgotten in most discussions] so we can share in His mind - we can know
>his mind. The spirit involves the faculty of knowing, which includes
>consciousness as one of its processes, but it's common to all I think.

I believe mind is necessary for communion with God but it is not sufficient.
To me spirit is the distinguishing characteristic of man which is the
essence of being created in the image of God. This is in contrast to
animals. It is this discontinuity between men and animals--the spiritual
nature of man--that cannot be bridged by any scientific theory of man. Of
course, all this are mere opinions on my part.

[deleted]

Moorad wrote:
>>Man is embedded in spacetime and God is not. How can man, therefore,
>know
>>God or even the whole of creation? That is no a cop out but wisdom.
>>
>You are right, but perhaps the questions we ask aren't that big that
>they need us to encompass all Creation to answer them. According to some
>we can understand the overall history of the Universe with just a few
>equations - and we don't need all the details to do it. I find our
>understanding more a thing of wonder than our ignorance.
>
>Adam

The history of the Universe cannot be described by equations which assume
the matter in the universe is uniformly distributed throughput space. These
models give a very, very gross description of nature. It is clear to me that
a scientific theory of all that exists is an impossibility. Such theories
will have to struggle with the question of beginnings which is abhorrent to
science.

Take care,

Moorad