Re: [asa] Proposed Revision of Genesis 1-11 in the KJV

From: Gregory Arago <>
Date: Mon Apr 21 2008 - 04:46:01 EDT

How far can a theoretical physicist/theologian go to challenge a historian? Is it the mushroom cloud versus the molehill? From (almost) ahistorical (George) to historical (Dick) seems a far cry for some to travel. Perhaps even further than from natural-physical science to human-social science?!
  George says 'uncritical' to Dick, a historian, but this is laughable, and obviously so. Things (in our human world) happen in time. Sometimes the historians and anthropologists are correct and sometimes they aren't. Time and fate will tell. But to doubt them or to challenge them always...George is on the vanguard of yesterday and never. A perfect place for theoretical physics, but not theology!
  I remember Arthur Peacocke asking, even pleading, with three Orthodox Priests in the room, for 'better evidence of miracles' in the Hotel Astoria at a conference on Science, Ideology and Religion. This was a shock to me! Of course, questioning a historian is easy enough in itself, but without knowledge of that sphere, just as George has little knowledge of sociology, it seems rather stubborn, protectivist and backwards-looking rather than forward-looking and open to collaborative sharing of views in interdiciplinary fashion.
  "There are two ways to view the world, one as if nothing is a miracle, the other as if everything is a miracle." - Albert Einstein
George Murphy <> wrote:
      This will be my last comment on this thread & on a quite minor point at that, but it's one that shows how uncritical Dick is about evaluating putative evidence that supports his views. There's a mound in Nineveh named for Jonah so the Book of Jonah is historically accurate! Maybe - but maybe pious Jews, or Christians, or Muslims connected that mound in Nineveh with Jonah because they believed that he'd been there. That kind of thing has happened in many different cultures at different times. Without something like the discovery of remains in the mound that can be dated around the time of Jonah & something like DNA evidence that links the remains to ancient Israelites, the evidential value of this mound is pretty close to zero. Ditto for "the mound of repentance."
  I pointed this out once before here & got no response from Dick. Is anyone surprised?

Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr!

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Apr 21 04:47:24 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Apr 21 2008 - 04:47:24 EDT