Re: Chronicle of Higher Education

From: Moorad Alexanian (alexanian@uncwil.edu)
Date: Fri Dec 21 2001 - 09:49:15 EST

  • Next message: RDehaan237@aol.com: "Withdrawal: criticising scientific naturalism"

    I totally agree with you. There is an essential historical element in the
    Christian faith, which is Jesus-- God Incarnate. In that sense, Christianity
    is not a religion since in our faith God sought man while in religion man
    seeks God. Perhaps I did not say it right but what I meant is that the very
    same thing, the "I" in us, that bears witness to our consciousness is the
    very same way we perceive, our in your words "listen to," God. In Romans 8:
    16 it speaks of the Spirit bearing witness to our sprit. Surely it is the
    soul in man, the non-physical in man, that is the seat of this
    witness---"Only the non-physical self in man can detect consciousness in the
    same fashion that the theist perceives God." Thanks for your comments.
    Merry Christmas. Moorad

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Stuart d Kirkley" <stucandu@lycos.com>
    To: "Moorad Alexanian" <alexanian@uncwil.edu>
    Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
    Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 12:51 AM
    Subject: Re: Chronicle of Higher Education

    > I was not finding fault with what you said, just making some remarks about
    understanding God. We try to understand God through human intellect, when
    what we need is humble listening to the messages that God is sending us all
    the time. To understand God is not to tell Him what we think we know of Him.
    True communion involves listening for God's direction. "Be still, and know
    that I am God" This isn't hard, but if we think that we can pattern the
    infinite with our human knowledge, we are missing the mark. If you want to
    comprehend what I wrote to you you would do well to gain some scriptural
    insight. Try reading Romans 8, particularly verses 16 to 19.
    > --
    >
    > On Wed, 19 Dec 2001 09:23:14
    > Moorad Alexanian wrote:
    > >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,
    > >Moorad
    > >
    > >
    > >----- Original Message -----
    > >From: "Stuart d Kirkley" <stucandu@lycos.com>
    > >To: "Moorad Alexanian" <alexanian@uncwil.edu>
    > >Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
    > >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."
    > >James 4:10
    > >> --
    > >>
    > >> On Tue, 18 Dec 2001 12:59:01
    > >> Moorad Alexanian wrote:
    > >> >I posted the following on the ongoing discussion in the Chronicle of
    > >Higher
    > >> >Education. Moorad
    > >> >
    > >> >
    > >> >http://chronicle.com/colloquy/2001/design/45.htm
    > >> >
    > >> >It is difficult to discuss issues involving the word science without
    > >> >unequivocally defining what one means by it. It should be remarked
    that
    > >the
    > >> >subject matter of science is data collected by physical devices. In
    > >physics,
    > >> >knowing is based on evidence obtained via the interactions of
    > >> >particles/fields. If something cannot, in principle, be measured by
    > >physical
    > >> >devices, then that something is outside the purview of science. This
    > >gives a
    > >> >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
    > >forensic
    > >> >science and deals only with unique events; whereas physics is the
    > >prototype
    > >> >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
    > >so
    > >> >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
    > >so
    > >> >it is not the subject matter of science. Only the non-physical self in
    > >man
    > >> >can detect consciousness in the same fashion that the theist perceives
    > >God.
    > >> >
    > >> >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,
    > >human
    > >> >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
    > >at
    > >> >Wilmington (posted 12/18, 10:45 a.m., U.S. Eastern time
    > >> >
    > >> >
    > >> >
    > >> >
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
    > --
    > Click here for your very own create-a-date adventure from MatchMaker
    > Go to http://ecard.matchmaker.com/dating.html
    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Dec 21 2001 - 09:49:32 EST