I wonder how do you understand that man was created in the image of God. I
suppose it means that we are a finite replica of Who God is. I do not see
any disagreement between what a wrote and the God of Scripture. Regards,
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stuart d Kirkley" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "Moorad Alexanian" <email@example.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 2:11 PM
Subject: Re: Chronicle of Higher Education
> Your post stated "Human intelligence is what allows man to understand
Nature and it is this very same intelligence that detects the 'intelligence'
behind the creation.
> I pose this for your consideration. If we acknowledge God as Omniscient,
that is "all science" or "all knowing", then isn't it God who is the only
intelligence and his 'knowing' is revealed to us through our spiritual
perception of the universe. If God is understood to be the only Ego, and
allowed to be the only Ego, then the unfoldment of the universe and of the
Divine Nature is revealed, and as we acknowledge this Ego, and let go of
human self, we are relieved of the responsibility to try and understand the
universe in human terms, which is inadequate to comprehend so infinite a
theme. God, as Omnipotence, Omniscience, and Omnipresence, precludes any
other power, any other mind, and any other presence except His infinite
being and His infinite manifestation of which we are simply the reflection
and expression of His glory.
> "Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and He will lift you up."
> On Tue, 18 Dec 2001 12:59:01
> Moorad Alexanian wrote:
> >I posted the following on the ongoing discussion in the Chronicle of
> >Education. Moorad
> >It is difficult to discuss issues involving the word science without
> >unequivocally defining what one means by it. It should be remarked that
> >subject matter of science is data collected by physical devices. In
> >knowing is based on evidence obtained via the interactions of
> >particles/fields. If something cannot, in principle, be measured by
> >devices, then that something is outside the purview of science. This
> >clear demarcation of what science is and what it is not.
> >Of course, one ought to distinguish historical science, e.g., cosmology,
> >evolutionary theory, etc., from physics. The former is more akin to
> >science and deals only with unique events; whereas physics is the
> >of experimental science. This definition of science is what requires that
> >the evidentiary data of the historical sciences must be collectible by
> >physical devices.
> >Accordingly, science cannot indeed "deal with ethics, aesthetics,
> >metaphysics, and so on." The real question is, what does "and so on"
> >include? It clearly includes man unless one makes the philosophical jump
> >from science to scientism or materialism.
> >Gould's magisteria represents a disjoint set of science and religion and
> >it also excludes man. Note, however, that John Eccles says, "It [ego or
> >self] is essential to the concept each of us has of being a self," and he
> >adds, "in the religious sense it corresponds to the soul." Accordingly,
> >consciousness cannot be determined or measured with physical devices and
> >it is not the subject matter of science. Only the non-physical self in
> >can detect consciousness in the same fashion that the theist perceives
> >Eugenie Scott ought to realize that it is the non-physical in man that
> >summarizes data collected by physical devices into physical laws and thus
> >creates theories based on the mathematics that man has invented. Yes,
> >intelligence is what allows man to understand Nature and it is this very
> >same intelligence that "detects" the intelligence behind the Creation.
> >-- Moorad Alexanian, Professor of Physics, University of North Carolina
> >Wilmington (posted 12/18, 10:45 a.m., U.S. Eastern time
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Dec 19 2001 - 09:22:36 EST