Re: The Universe in a Single Atom

From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. <>
Date: Thu Sep 22 2005 - 00:58:45 EDT

I would say that revelation is readily recognizable in whatever may be
the sacred books of a particular faith. There is no doubt that the Jews
have a settled text, with the Talmud a commentary on it. Protestants
accept the same set of sacred books, plus those of the New Covenant.
Catholics add to the Hebrew scriptures. The Koran is clearly scripture in
Islam. Hinduism and Buddhism have their ancient sacred books. The only
place where I see a problem is in the initiation of a new cult, though
even there there is usually a clear authority--though it may not last.

I do not believe that intellect will be confused with revelation. At best
it may be "explained" as a gift of God, or by the individual being a bit
of the deity, etc.

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 23:54:56 -0700 "Jim Armstrong" <>
This would seem to me to be a difficult case to make. How does one
differentiate with some measure of confidence among revelation,
imagination, ideas, concepualization, theory formulation, sudden insight,
and so on? Some or all of these could certainly have some effect on the
course of science, even in errant in the short term. I might even go
further and suggest that the gifts of sentience and the discoverability
of nature conspire in a fairly profound form of revelation which does
have something to do with the exercise and course of science. JimA

D. F. Siemens, Jr. wrote:

I don't think there can be a situation in which revelation affects
science. The empirical testing of models seems independent of
metaphysical and religious commitments. A subjective idealist like
Berkeley, a strict materialist or a realist (holding to the ultimate
existence of both mind/spirit and matter) will have to check the same
way, as will Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Moslem or rejector of all
religion. In the prescientific era, metaphysical commitments gave rise to
types of explanation: the perfection of the heavens and of circular
motion gave rise to a theory of orbits using cycles, epicycles and
deferents, along with the unmoved mover transferring movement to the
beings moving the planets. The geocentric universe has a place in both
metaphysics and scripture. But that was challenged by Aristarchus in
antiquity, and by Copernicus, before Kepler put orbits on a scientific
basis using Tycho's observations. Faith conflicts with scientism, but not
with science--unless one is YEC, flat-earther, anti-Copernican, etc. on a
quasi-literal interpretation.

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 21:00:52 -0400 "Randy Isaac"
<> writes:
This seems to be a rather lopsided type of integration of reason and
faith. Science gets to trump faith at every turn. On the other hand,
can any of you really cite an example where faith and revelation affected
science? (not the metaphysical meaning of science)

Received on Thu Sep 22 01:06:08 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Sep 22 2005 - 01:06:08 EDT