"Mythological Naturalism" contra "Mythological Creationism"?
We all accept that God created the world, else we would not be members of
an organization which has as magazine "Perspectives on Science and
Christian Faith." I read much about geology here, and will leave answering
that to geologists, but I cannot understand how anyone can read the first
eleven chapters of Genesis in a modern, literal, "scientific" way. It does
not fit. People who were living 4000 years ago would not have understood
if they had to listen to all the technical details we have now. Even our
forefathers a couple of hundred years ago would not have understood
it. Our Lord talked to us in a way they and we could understand. So
reading Genesis as if it tells modern 21st century Christians exactly what
happened scientifically does not make sense at all. Even the measurements
cannot have been exactly as reported in the books of Moses. Try to figure
out how the number of soldiers could march around the city of Jericho of
which the measurements are known from excavations.
But God did not talk to people in a language they could not
understand. And "Science" is only an invention of recent times. It is not
a myth that God created. Still, our language, our civilization, our
"exactitude" is only a recent development.
Jan de K.
At 08:51 AM 09/02/02 -0700, Allen Roy wrote:
>From: John W Burgeson <email@example.com>> Allen wrote, about "mythological
>naturalism": "Not a new term. It is
> > simply stating that Naturalism is mythology. It's (sic) assumptions have
> > no factual basis. The unprovable assumptions are:
> > 1. matter/energy/motion originated (and continually operates) according
> > to
> > natural laws by which they interact that is inherent within them.
> > 2. Nature is all there is and has ever been or ever will be."
> > New term to me, Allen.
>Creationism also holds at least one unprovable assumption: "nature and all
>its laws originated as invented, designed and created "Ex Nihilo" by God"
>accepted by faith in the truthfulness of a person found through
> > It is apparent that you see science working with the philosophical
> > naturalism assumption. That SOME scientists do so I will cheerfully
> > agree. That even a significant minority do so I doubt. I know that I did
> > not, even when I was an atheist.
>To me (and I believe most Creationary Catastrophists), Science is the
>scientific method, not a separate philosophy of life as are Creationism or
>Naturalism. It is entirely possible to find science being properly done
>within the philosophical naturalism assumption or within the philosophical
>Creationism assumption. The difference being that the scientifically
>acquired data is interpreted differently within the contrasting
>I will deal more with the attempted philosophical accommodations between
>Creationism and Naturalism in another posting.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Feb 09 2002 - 15:03:21 EST