Re: theology (Was Re: Did Peter walk on water?)

Date: Mon Sep 30 2002 - 19:40:06 EDT

  • Next message: Walter Hicks: "A falsifiable test Re: AiG bites the dust"


    First off,
    I never said "I don't know what that means so it's
    hogwash." Please read what I said again. I said

            In the end, I would either have to feel that whatever
            words are used for it, "haggadic midrash" is one step
            short of the word for "hogwash" as best I can see it.

    There is one artifact that slipped in ("either") due
    writing/re-writing and then mis-editing, but excluding that, I thought
    I was clearly saying that I must interpret the _Biblical passage
    itself_ as hogwash. That was perhaps extreme, but it was
    how I felt after a brief study using the resources I had. I
    had not considered the internet at the time. By the way, It
    still would be more helpful to have some prefiltering by way
    of some "recommended URLs", since one of the
    threads here is that AiG pays these search engines to
    put their "answers" up first on the search engines.
    It would reflect _your_ bias, but it is better than relying on
    someone who can afford to pay the Yahoos their dues and
    people who differ with you can also make other recommendations.

    I appreciate and value theology.
    I will learn what I can of theology _when_ I can, but
    my first priority is and should be the science. Scientific writing
    should not be riddled with one's metaphysical views and good
    scientists are (and should be) reluctant to taint their writing with
    unsubstantiated faith issues. What I accept privately, i.e., that
    there is more than "matter" in the universe, is not likely to
    be established by science, since science is the study of matter.
    So frankly, a scientist has little to contribute to theology unless
    he/she can build a probe to measure something of the spiritual realm.
    I have no ideas for how to build such a device.

    Where I see theology being essential to the scientist who is
    also Christian is in addressing issues like the A-camp have
    made (that "measurability" is _the_ critera for belief) and claims
    by the C-camp (mainly YEC and ID folk) that we can use science
    to _prove_ that the Bible is true. It does pay to _listen_ to theologians
    in that case. One can certainly see the emptiness in some A-camp
    claims about what C-folk are supposed to believe. Likewise
    Christians who agree with the A-camp are in for a rough ride, and
    may not be standing on firm theological ground either. To that extent,
    I agree with you that I should learn more (and indeed I can see that),
    but I know my calling has its weight on the science side and not the
    theology side.

    by Grace alone we proceed,
    Wayne (plain vanilla Christian folk) Dawson

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Sep 30 2002 - 22:35:58 EDT