Dear Sister in Christ,
You wrote: To say as much doesn't leave much of a role for "scientific testing." Indeed, it seems to me that such "divine claims" are utterly beyond the reach of the scientific method."
Do I sense a whiff of "excluded middle" (actually, "excluded other half") in this post?
You wrote: "Which is to suggest that a man who wishes to "reduce" God and His works to what can be described by "science" is probably barking up the wrong tree."
~~~~~~~~~~
Have you ever seen this scientist "reduce" God when discussing evidence of the majesty of His creation?
Au contraire! I always strive to use the evidence of His handiwork to magnify our conception of God and "open our eyes" to His majesty as our Creator...
I recognize and admire the power of your philosophical viewpoint. I also recognize and deplore this "preemptive strike". (Does the term, "shouted down" sound familiar?
It would appear that, sans the mediating presence of A-G, any effort on my part to prepare and share insights based on "direct observations" is a priori abjured by you.
That is no basis for "discussion", and certainly is no incentive for me to expend the considerable effort required to elucidate and share my recent insights.
~~~~~~~~~~
Have I "mis-read" you? (My scars say not...)
I recognize and admire the power of your philosophical viewpoint. I also recognize and deplore this "preemptive strike". (Does the term, "shouted down" sound familiar?) Oh dear, brother in Christ, it seems that here you are strongly suggesting that I am acting in bad faith. But if that's so, then why do you want to talk to me in the first place?
You wrote:
I always strive to use the evidence of His handiwork to magnify our conception of God and "open our eyes" to His majesty as our Creator. [I added the bolds]
I don't see anything wrong with that : You want to use "science" the way proto-Renaissance people used cathedrals....
You wrote:
It would appear that, sans the mediating presence of A-G, any effort on my part to prepare and share insights based on "direct observations" is a priori abjured by you.
Good grief! You're
imputing even more so-much "stuff" against me. On what grounds? What "scars" have I ever caused you???
You mentioned Alamo-Girl, my dearest sister in Christ. As you know, she is on extended sabbatical. I don't know when (or if) she will be coming back. I miss her terribly.
As you also know, she and I go back a long 'ways. We collaborated on two major book projects. The first one -- Timothy -- took two+ years to complete. A-G and I co-wrote this one. At bottom, it was dedicated to the proposition that faith and reason, theology and science, are not mutually opposed and/or mutually exclusive entities. Rather, they are everlastingly dynamic complementarities. In Neil Bohr's sense of that word. [Which boils down to: You cannot see the "particle" aspect AND the "wave" aspect of a given entity at the same time. But you need BOTH descriptions if you want to describe the overarching system of which they are both constituents. Consider that a kind of analogy....]
The two of us were perfect for this job. We were of such different backgrounds -- she, science and mathematics; me, philosophy and the humanities. She, a self-described American Baptist; me, an unchurched Christian of orthodox leaning. We co-wrote this book in a back-and-forth dialogue captured in Word over many months. Some of the ideas that made the book were field-tested at FR over an extended period of time. In one or two cases, we even directly quoted a Freeper. (But these Freepers remain anonymous to this day, because we put their "speeches" into the mouth of "Froggie," a character in the book. I don't remember the screen names, now.)
In all this time, there was never any instance of dispute between Alamo-Girl and me, over any aspect of the book. It was an effortless collaboration. We were always working together, towards the same goal, for the same reasons. We were blessed....
Just a little remembrance of a very dear one.
I'm looking forward to hearing from you again, dear brother in Christ!