Re: The Universe in a Single Atom

From: Jim Armstrong <>
Date: Thu Sep 22 2005 - 03:19:34 EDT

Ah, I see. You were referring to written revelation. But I'm not sure
that quite resolves the issue because the OT revelation in some cases
predated written records, only later to translated from the oral
tradition into written form..
In any case, it is not a big matter I think, more a quibble. JimA

D. F. Siemens, Jr. wrote:

> 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.
> Dave
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 23:54:56 -0700 "Jim Armstrong" <
> <>> writes:
> 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.
>> Dave
>> 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)
>> Randy
Received on Thu Sep 22 03:25:07 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Sep 22 2005 - 03:25:07 EDT