RE: sciDocument.rtf

From: Glenn Morton (
Date: Fri Jul 05 2002 - 00:26:50 EDT

  • Next message: bivalve: "Re: Lot and his daughters"

    Hi Burgy,
    >Glenn muttered, as he set off to work on July 4th:

    Since I don't have a beard, it must have been a mutter in my moustache!

    "It is this
    >wide range of
    >claims in philosophy which made me decide that philosophy wasn't for me.
    >There is no grounding of truth, just assumptions
    >followed by logical consistency. Now, you are correct that science has the
    >advantage of having a judge for the divergent claims--observation and no
    >such mechanism applies to theology. And that is in large part my
    >point. The
    >only way we have to judge the theological claims which come into our mind,
    >or come to us in a vision is by the means of science."
    >I find this a strange claim. I read, for instance, the words Pascal wrote
    >about his epiphany -- no "science" can possibly apply. The same applies to
    >those epiphainies of mine -- not anywhere as vivid as Pascal's, but to deny
    >them I must deny my history. And "science" has 0 to say about them.

    I think maybe I miscommunicated or wrote poorly. I didn't say that science
    can verify metaphysical claims. it can't. But it can verify the events
    which are claimed to have occurred. Why can't we use science to tell what
    is or isn't true about the history related by a religion? I would claim
    that we can do it with Mormons. Science can totally fallsify their silly
    claim that there was a large group of Exilic Jews in the New World before
    Columbus. No skeletal material has been found. no chariots, no horses
    during the period from 600 BC to 1492. No walled cities in northern North
    America. Science most assuredly has something to say about the falsity of
    that religion. That I will stand by.

    >Glenn continues:"Look at all the divergent, mutually exclusive religious
    >claims today. All claim to be the word of some god. How does one go about
    >the job of determining which theology is the true theology? We
    >simply can't
    >decide that the religous claims of our parents are correct because all the
    >adherents of the other religions have parents who told them that their
    >religion was the correct
    >one. Simply put, without some attachment to scientific observation, the
    >veracity of religious claims are as adrift from verification as are the
    >claims of Locke Berkely, Spinoza, Ficte, etc. And that turns theology into
    >a game of what claims do I like the best rather than what claims are true!"
    >The process of discovery which the preceding demands is one which has
    >occupied this person for about 40 years now. I do not think it will stop
    >until I draw my last breath. But "scientific observations" simply appear to
    >be irrelevant to the quest, except to keep me from some of the sillier
    >theologies such as that of ICR and Ken Ham.

    Ah, then you most assuredly have done exactly as I have done and as I am
    advocating above. You used science to judge a theological position. So why
    are you so against me using it or advocating its use for similar purposes???

    >Three things I'm fairly sure of by now in my own quest:
    >1. "God" is not God's name. It is just the collection of marks and noise
    >that we use to describe, inadaquately, to the mystery that lies without --
    >and also within.
    >2. My eternal destiny will be determined to a large degree by the amount of
    >compassion and solidarity I have displayed during my stay here on
    >earth with
    >the oppressed. In the end, I will be judged in terms of love. This is NOT a
    >"salvation statement," and in no way is meant to denigrate the
    >grace of God.
    >3. I have been greatly blessed by at least two epiphanies, one abrupt, one
    >over a period of time. The second is on my web site. I have never written
    >down the first, yet it is vivid and compelling to my mind even as I type.
    >Glenn concludes by writing: "In short, if God did what you say, he left us
    >with no way to determine the truth."
    >If by this you mean "scientifically," or "by measurements," I agree. But
    >there are other ways of approaching (better -- apprehending) Him.

    The only thing I see that we can do is use science to tell us what is false.
    That doesn't tell us what is true. But it does remove the chaff from the


    for lots of creation/evolution information
    personal stories of struggle

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 04 2002 - 16:54:05 EDT