From: Josh Bembenek (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Sep 19 2003 - 10:38:48 EDT
> But does the larger scientific community feel any need for a principle
>religious connotations, even one with (as you've said) only minimal
>Such a principle may appeal to some non-Christian theists who are
>scientists, but many
>scientists are content with a much simpler principle which has _no_
>content: The natural world can be understood in terms of natural
>processes. To them (&
>also to many religious believers, Christian and otherwise) RFEP as a
>postulate is simply
>that latter principle with some religious language added. So what is
>really the cash
>value of RFEP as a postulate?
> & in fact RFEP as a postulate may be seen simply as a surrender by
>concession that it has nothing to do with the real world which science
>realize that that's not your intention but it's the way many people will
>read it. So if
>the question is, "How persuasive will RFEP as a postulate be to the
>as a whole?", my guess is "Not very."
George, perhaps you could inform us as to how the RFEP should be MORE based
upon Christological arguments? I see the principle as mostly derived from
the evidence of science, such that it can be made without direct reference
to some biblical text. And what would be wrong for challenging scientists
to think, even if all natural phenomena can proceed as observed and
postulated by mainstream science, what could be the source of it all? I see
no problem with meeting scientists where they are and asking them to
consider the legitimacy of Christian faith one step at a time. And frankly
I can't see how you could make the RFEP say something like "because capable
and efficient natural causes, Christ."
Get 10MB of e-mail storage! Sign up for Hotmail Extra Storage.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Sep 19 2003 - 10:39:03 EDT