From: salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem)
Subject: Religious vs. Scientific Language
Organization: Stanford Univ. Earth Sciences
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 05:30:33 GMT

>Newsgroups: talk.origins
>From: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
>Subject: Re: Expertise, was Re: Progressive Creationism Part 2
>Message-ID: <1992Oct4.220244.29477@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov>
>References: <1992Oct3.053020.8127@morrow.stanford.edu>
>Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 22:02:44 GMT

SALEM = Bruce Salem; JGA = James G. Acker.

>JGA:	I've been careful to disclaim at the end of each article. 
>The reason that I've posted this is that Chris Colby has requested a "Theory
>of Creation."  This particular theory, "Progressive Creationism", or "ProCre"
>for future use, is a deliberate attempt to reconcile scientific knowledge
>with the language of Genesis.  What should be apparent at the end of
>reading it is that ProCre has considerable religious use, but is not a
>true theory of science -- except for the fact that it incorporates much of
>what science has shown to be accurate. 

	I think that this effort is doomed to failure because it still
leads to a confusion of the use of language. Additionally, Scripture or
other sacred work should have a value above and beyond its correspondance
to science. As the latter is very much a moving target any effort to
reconcile could result in later embarassment. I cannot underscore enough
the fundemental error in Creationism to base itself upon the seeming
likelihood of such a correspondence, and I emphesize the need to read
sacred text in a fundenmentally different way from either science or
history. Even though seeking historical facts in Scripture may be a
worthwhile pursuit, I would argue that a better way to deal with
Scriture is purely as mythology. I am overstating the case, but I
think that good will come from the discussion.

>	I believe in evolution, with an added touch:  I also believe 
>the process can be influenced supernaturally, and yet the process and 
>results still appear wholly natural.

	Then you have no means to test which is which. In fact, your
desire for the supernatural can have nothing to do with this question,
for no evidence can decide the matter. This is a contradiction in
terms, then, you posit something which you cannot test for in terms
of its opposite. If you have a reason for believing that there is a
supernatural agent in our destiny, then the language you use may not
also correspond to the natural process account of organic exolution.
The two languages may not be self contradicting, but they may yield
truth in that they answer questions people are apt to think are the
same, but are not really. In what sense could our history as organic
beings be different from our spiritual history, or destiny? I am open
minded enough to think that such a difference may exist. Our origins
by descent from apes may NOT entail a supernatural event, and yet
our lives have a spiritual part that IS supernatural. The problem is
that we cannot use the same language to describe each, and that any
words tend to fail us, especially about the latter.

>	#1 example is the K-T boundary event. 
>It is *most likely* a meteorite/asteroid impact (as opposed to 
>massive volcanic eruptions).  Now, it is obvious that the impact 
>can be a wholly natural event.  However, on faith I can believe that the 
>trajectory of the asteroid was influenced by God, and the subsequent 
>extinctions allowed a genetic re-mix that led (evolutionarily) to the dominance
>of mammals.  I cannot either prove or disprove what I believe.

	There is nothing to refute or confirm this, but I ask you,
does this invocation of God in momentous events reflect your amour
for other reasons that are more private? I am not being snide. I
just wonder if we must lump together all that of which we are in awe.

	I have this nagging feeling that this too is that old bugaboo
of nature not being able to take care of herself. What is interesting
about the K/T event, or the formation of Pangea, is that the course
of the history of life on earth was forever changed by events that
are not primarily biologic, they are astronomic and geologic events
that had a huge impact, literally, on the biosphere, primarily through
the catastrophic loss of habitat. There is a strong element of the
chance coincidence of rare but always possible events, here, that
don't need extraordinary causes. After all asteroids are wizzing
about earth all the time and the continents will bang together into
one mass sometime in the future. So, even mentioning a supernatural
cause to these events in the same sentence signifies some other
significance than necessity. You might explore the common awe.

>	JGA Axiom 1:  Faith is not based on scientific evidence.
>It is based strictly on belief.  When I say "Axiom 1" in the future,
>I am summing up for brevity.

	At worst this gives you the freedom to make any unfounded
assertion you like. I don't think that faith is unfounded, but it
may have a personal or private imparitive which can be understood.
The problem is that leaping to generalizations about what others
should believe about origins and morals from faith leaves you open
to the necessity of having to come up with some justifications no
matter how ad hoc. What if faith really is too personal an experience
to share with other, then wny externalize it as doctrine and organized
religion and look stupid because you can't come up with any good
justification for the derivative assertions?

>JGA: >	The conference on origins I attended at Washington Cathedral basically
>: >said this:  The scientific or religious investigation of origins is valid.
>: >But they should not overlap -- they are different spheres and pursued
>: >for different purposes.
>: 
>SALEM: 	I would like to hear you elaborate on this. What can either sphere
>: say in its own sphere and not say in the other?
>	
>JGA:	Astronomers and cosmologists can formulate observationally-based
>theories for the origin of the universe.  These do not have to contain
>a religious component (and should not).  
>On the other hand, historians and theologians can
>investigate societies possessing creation mythological texts.  These texts
>likely do not contain data on which scientific theories can be based, but
>provide social and religious information.  (I say "likely" because it's
>possible to think of a religion who worshiped the apparition of a heavenly
>body occurring every 76 years.  If the apparitions were historical, it
>has an overlap with astronomy, but not much.)  Example of a question: How does
>Norse mythology differ from Greek mythology?
>	Relative to other Christians -- those who have ears to hear will
>hear.  I have been able to show staunch inerrant literalist Fundamentalists
>that science was valid and that there are errors in the Bible, and it is NOT 
>EASY.  I don't debate for the sake of debating.  I explain why I believe
>what I believe.

	Well then, as above, why not allow science to find limited but
objective truths about the physical universe and make religion not dogma
but mythology? Mythology is not falsehood but is a figurative account of
deep truth that is felt as you feel your faith in Christ and God. Now,
some people question the historical record about Jesus. I argue that
this is largely beside the point. If we deal with Christ as an archeotype,
as an example of the "Hero With a Thousand Faces", of Joeseph Campbell,
we may find parallels with other traditions than our own that give us
insight into what Jesus may mean to us. This may help us with the context
of the Scripture itself, giving us the ancient cultural background in
traditions that can be traced back 7000 years.

	I don't think that the collection of these mythic/religious
traditions have, necessarily, the same kinds of messages or connotations
as our tradition has.

Bruce Salem