Discussion:
"Religion and science" turned on its head?
(too old to reply)
Jonathan Hayward
2009-05-29 01:07:16 UTC
Permalink
I have posted, "'Religion and Science' Is Not Just Intelligent Design
vs. Evolution." It's a critique of certain tendencies associated with
how people approach "religion and science boundary issues."

You can read it online at:

http://JonathansCorner.com/religion-science/

--
Jonathan Hayward, ***@gmail.com
An Orthodox Christian author: theology, literature, et cetera.
My award-winning collection is available for free reading online:
I invite you to visit my website at http://JonathansCorner.com/
DKleinecke
2009-06-03 03:11:57 UTC
Permalink
On May 28, 6:07=A0pm, Jonathan Hayward
Post by Jonathan Hayward
I have posted, "'Religion and Science' Is Not Just Intelligent Design
vs. Evolution." It's a critique of certain tendencies associated with
how people approach "religion and science boundary issues."
=A0 =A0http://JonathansCorner.com/religion-science/
--
An Orthodox Christian author: theology, literature, et cetera.
I invite you to visit my website athttp://JonathansCorner.com/
I don't follow links, but sometimes I use the browser to go where the
link indicates. This time I felt curious enough to look at "Religion
and Science". I don't feel very edified.

The subtitle "is not just Intelligent Design versus Evolution"
indicates that Hayward is familiar with a point of view that sees
Religion versus Science as exactly that - Intelligent Design versus
Evolution.
I believe there is a house rule here on soc.religion.christian not to
enter into the ID versus E argument so I will forbear. But I do wonder
whether very many people really do think that is all there is to the
interface between Religion and Science.

It remains difficult for me to understand where Hayward stands on this
general question. On the one hand he appears to strongly object to the
pose that theology is a science. He works with a restricted definition
of science that does not acknowledge the claim of the "soft" sciences
to be sciences - but he never makes it clear what he thinks science
means. He has training in Mathematics and makes several references to
it. But I could not tell which side of the argument he thinks
Mathematics supports.

So, since Hayward does not satisfy me, can I do better? Briefer for
sure - better I leave to reader.
Science is the art of describing the physical world in detail.
Scientists have made discoveries so significant that I am sure that
now, once discovered, they will never be forgotten. Bacteria, for
example.

But science, by definition, cannot look outside the physical
universe. And God, we now all agree, is not in the physical
universe. The big bang cosmology now is dominant. It is not so well-
demonstrated that it might not someday be replaced. But until then
there is a neat dividing line. The physical universe started with the
big bang. If there is a God behind the Big Bang, science cannot look
there and the creator God is a question outside science (and
therefore, I suppose, part of theology). The situation is the same
with intelligent design but I forbear.

The question then becomes (1) does God intervene in the physical
universe? and if so (2) how?

To some of use God does not intervene in the physical BUT mankind is
not confined to the physical universe and God meets us freely in the
extra-physical universe. Or at least that is what some of use believe.
Some people do not believe in an extra-physical universe. I can see no
way to convince them of such an extra-physical universe. So I say: to
each his own opinions and nobody has a monopoly on the truth.

Loading...