Who's opinion should be considered: (was:Re: Snoke's response)

From: Glenn Morton <glenn_morton@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat Aug 13 2005 - 21:22:31 EDT

janice matchett <janmatch@earthlink.net> wrote:At 12:18 PM 8/13/2005, Gregory Arago wrote:

"..... neither am I am trained in theology ....."
## You, and how many others? :) Yet many of the untrained nevertheless voice opinions on the subject which they inexplicably expect to be embraced as carrying equal weight with the opinions of (small "o" ) orthodox biblical scholars. That is a major point that many seem to overlook. These presumptuous biblical illiterates "...Do Not Deserve the Benefit of the Doubt " http://www.tektonics.org/af/calcon.html

Another point I would make, which is my own personal opinion, but which I personally add to the equation any time I'm making an evaluation of the opinions of others in regards to important matters:
Janice, I quote you above as you try to argue against the need for training in science before having an opinion worthy of hearing. You are clearly arguing against the oft made assertion that anti-evolutionists don't have training in science and therefore their opinions should not matter or be weighed heavily.
First off, it isn't formal training that is important, it is experience. Some of the world's greatest scientists had no formal training in the topic in which they became experts. One can think of Faraday as an example.
Now, why should training in science be considered different than training in theology? First off, theology has no experimental aspect to its study. One can't get God to step in to a lab and perform miracles depending upon what incantation one uses. This makes theology quite different from science. In science, on can go into the lab and perform experiments which will distinguish between what is true and what is false. This determination is done in a way that all, who are familiar with the experiment or series of experiments, are forced to agree that the experiment worked as described and leads to a single conclusion.
Without the crucial experiment, theology is left without a means by which one can definitely determine whether God is an Arminian or a Calvinist. What experiment can we perform to determine the truth or falsity of each of those viewpoints? What this means is that you can find formally trained theologians who are just about equally split among all possible positions. There are few theological issues which can claim 95+% adherence.
But in science, with the data from crucial experiments, 99+% of scientists will be drawn to a single conclusion. And this is why those who are unfamiliar with those experiments are not listened to in science and why theology is a bit different. It is the power of logic tied to crucial experiments to test competing ideas that gives science its strong difference. So, if you don't know the details or logic behind the experiments and act as if they don't matter, then your opinion in science will be ignored. Such an unthought out position isn't worth listening to. With science, one must be able to address this data. But there is no such data for theology.

Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
Received on Sat Aug 13 21:24:06 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Aug 13 2005 - 21:24:06 EDT