From: julian@fraser.sfu.ca (Julian Shillcock)
Subject: Re: Science and God
Keywords: Science, God
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 15:52:48 GMT

salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem) writes:

>lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:

>>There is one way of looking at the physical universe which is
>>that everything including stars, atoms, electrons and binding
>>forces is continuously sustained by Jesus in real time.

>	And what is the necessity for this? Why does a universe
>which obeys natural laws that can be known by humble beings
>like us need Jesus' intervention? If you believe that the
>universe is based on a few simple principles that a mere
>mortal like yourself could hope to understand at some level
>in a lifetime, then why announce the above without any
>supporting argument? I think I know, it is to put your religious
>belief in Jesus in the same relm of success as scientific
>knowledge. Even if you do not really believe the above then
>why does your faith have to have the same kind of authority as
>a scientific discussion of physical reality? This tendency
>of some Christians to seek for their belief the same kind of
>verification as science amazes me. It is anti-spiritual. It
>misses the message of myth and religion. I think that Christians
>fall into this trap of thinking because most of them are more
>concerned with the authority of their beliefs which face a challenge
>from science, and miss or forget the spiritual message of faith
>which is not touched by science and does not use the same language
>as science.


This is irrelevant to the original argument and smells of ad hominem to me.
The assertion I was trying to make is that it is possible to reconcile
a christian view of God's creationa dna scientific exploration of the
physical universe. How does one make sense of the world while holind both
beliefs. Of course it is not "necessay" any more than your premise that
the world is based on a few simple principles that we can understand.
BUT given some starting point what are the consequences is a valid
line of reasoning. I prefer to start form the christian assumptions
AND the scientifc method and see where I go. You are perfectly free to
start anywhere you choose but don't make out that christians are always
starting from wacko assumptions while others (evolutionists? atheists?
somebody) start from an inheerently superior position.

>>I can't find the biblical reference so maybe someone can help
>>out here. Considering that God is a spiritual being, and that
>>he created the universe just to accomodate us,

>	This is both an unsuported and arrogant assertion. Oh

Certainly unsupported but not particularly arrogant. If you believe in Quantum mechanics the whole universe evolved to as to bring us into existence so
that we could make observations on the history of the universe. This seems
at least as untestable and/or arrogant.


>	The whole aim of this charade of seeking spiritualism
>and opposing materialism with religion is to justify trancendant
>moral standards, nothing more. That is why C. S. Lewis' argument
>for God is such a joke.

Who mentioned morals??? You sound rather defensive.


>moral standards. Evolution is opposed because it is a cogant
>answer to this. It suggests that nature, physical processes, alone,
>can account for the choices in human behavior. The rest of science
>suggests that the supernatural intercession is not needed in the
>operation of the Universe.

>Bruce Salem

Evolution suggest nothing of the kind: it is a model for the transmission
of genetic information and the transformation of species: unless you
believe that evolution somehow picks out mental processes as well as
physical traits. Personally I find it hard to imagine a scientific theory
(viz one that make predictions and is testable as opposed to one that can
be distorted to accomodate anything) that will postulate anythin about
humans' ability to think. We do not even know what thinking is
yet!
julian