stowfan;1227760; said:
If you ever find yourself in a library with 15 minutes to spare, read the first 30 pages of this book. The author is a PHD at MIT. The book give you the latest
on what science now believes.
Amazon Online Reader : The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom!
Interesting. I read the first page, and the reference to Nietzsche is way off base. His basis for the quote "God is Dead" (which originated from Hegel, actually), is a metaphor, not to be taken in the literal sense in which this book seems to lead from. The basis for theothanatology perhaps, but Nietzsche himself was more interesting in the idea of man outgrowing the fearful concept and "rise above" to put it simply.
I think that traces back to the "need" for God for some to make sense of the world, or angst associated with not having that boundary in place. At the point of which you have no scientific explanation for a phenomena, the jump to psuedoscientific considerations is easy. That is the gap that is the basis for my disagreement in regard to how science works with the Bible. The more we learn, the more we find that the authors of the text were representing ideas at that point in history.
I really don't care that the author has a piece of paper that says his opinions are more justified. If he has good ideas, I'll add them to my own. Science can be just as dogmatic as religion, and our present culture is indicative of that. There has been deep research into making the Bible scientifically viable, as well as the other end of that equation. The thing is in our present culture, there is
so much information available for scientific inquiry
and biblical study, that
any position can be relegated as dogmatic. This could be in the diversity and specialty of scientific disciplines or merely the plethora of schisms that exist in modern Christian belief. This is all based on interpretation of data and subjectivity therein.
Not meant in a pejorative sense, I see much of theology as a precursor to the more in-depth philosophical systems. The tendency to elevate all non-understanding to omniscient influence is vacuous and a childlike mannerism. While I don't refuse Occam's razor, simplicity is not always accurate, but often grasped when no other explanation is available. That, until a genius shows up (Einstein, Newton, Darwin), that shows us all how to approach age-old problems
differently.
The strongest oppositional thought that crosses my mind is when the intelligent community of Theology comes up with very elaborate and deeply thought out
scientific explanations of Biblical stories and myth. This in my mind
bolsters the argument of the scientific perspective due to the negation of miraculous, divine intervention. In other words, if you are trying to explain events that would be considered miraculous otherwise scientifically, you are relegating the idea of divine intervention altogether.
