Comments on: On the Dogma of Creation http://kevinbasil.com/2004/11/20/on-the-dogma-of-creation/ Decimation & Reconstruction: a weblog Wed, 30 Mar 2011 01:38:21 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: Creation, Part VI: Conclusion | Kevin Basil http://kevinbasil.com/2004/11/20/on-the-dogma-of-creation/comment-page-1/#comment-13319 Creation, Part VI: Conclusion | Kevin Basil Tue, 14 Mar 2006 22:53:52 +0000 http://blog.kevinbasil.com/2004/11/20/on-the-dogma-of-creation/#comment-13319 [...] Part I in this series Part II in this series Part III in this series Part IV in this series Part V in this series [...] [...] Part I in this series Part II in this series Part III in this series Part IV in this series Part V in this series [...]

]]> By: Creation, Part V: With Help from St. Maximus | Kevin Basil http://kevinbasil.com/2004/11/20/on-the-dogma-of-creation/comment-page-1/#comment-13318 Creation, Part V: With Help from St. Maximus | Kevin Basil Tue, 14 Mar 2006 22:23:40 +0000 http://blog.kevinbasil.com/2004/11/20/on-the-dogma-of-creation/#comment-13318 [...] Part I in this series Part II in this series Part III in this series Part IV in this series [...] [...] Part I in this series Part II in this series Part III in this series Part IV in this series [...]

]]> By: Creation, Part IV: Do Faith and Reason Conflict? | Kevin Basil http://kevinbasil.com/2004/11/20/on-the-dogma-of-creation/comment-page-1/#comment-13316 Creation, Part IV: Do Faith and Reason Conflict? | Kevin Basil Tue, 14 Mar 2006 22:19:52 +0000 http://blog.kevinbasil.com/2004/11/20/on-the-dogma-of-creation/#comment-13316 [...] Part I in this series Part II in this series Part III in this series [...] [...] Part I in this series Part II in this series Part III in this series [...]

]]> By: Creation, Part III: The Philosophy of Science | Kevin Basil http://kevinbasil.com/2004/11/20/on-the-dogma-of-creation/comment-page-1/#comment-13314 Creation, Part III: The Philosophy of Science | Kevin Basil Tue, 14 Mar 2006 22:12:35 +0000 http://blog.kevinbasil.com/2004/11/20/on-the-dogma-of-creation/#comment-13314 [...] Part I in this series Part II in this series [...] [...] Part I in this series Part II in this series [...]

]]> By: Creation, Part II: Investigating the Science | Kevin Basil http://kevinbasil.com/2004/11/20/on-the-dogma-of-creation/comment-page-1/#comment-13313 Creation, Part II: Investigating the Science | Kevin Basil Tue, 14 Mar 2006 22:09:52 +0000 http://blog.kevinbasil.com/2004/11/20/on-the-dogma-of-creation/#comment-13313 [...] Part I in this series. [...] [...] Part I in this series. [...]

]]> By: sockmonk http://kevinbasil.com/2004/11/20/on-the-dogma-of-creation/comment-page-1/#comment-5030 sockmonk Thu, 16 Dec 2004 17:00:43 +0000 http://blog.kevinbasil.com/2004/11/20/on-the-dogma-of-creation/#comment-5030 Interesting side note on the old four elements theory... there was a synaxarion reading a week or two ago about one of the bishops at the first ecumenical council who demonstrated the nature of the trinity. He held up a brick, called everyone's attention to it, and squeezed. Fire shot up from the top of it, water dripped out of his hand, and he was left holding only a bit of dust in his hand, thus showing how the one brick had been made of the three elements of fire, water and earth. It appears that God chose to give a sign that would communicate to those gathered based on their current understanding of the composition of things. Interesting side note on the old four elements theory… there was a synaxarion reading a week or two ago about one of the bishops at the first ecumenical council who demonstrated the nature of the trinity. He held up a brick, called everyone’s attention to it, and squeezed. Fire shot up from the top of it, water dripped out of his hand, and he was left holding only a bit of dust in his hand, thus showing how the one brick had been made of the three elements of fire, water and earth. It appears that God chose to give a sign that would communicate to those gathered based on their current understanding of the composition of things.

]]> By: basil http://kevinbasil.com/2004/11/20/on-the-dogma-of-creation/comment-page-1/#comment-1785 basil Sun, 21 Nov 2004 20:29:39 +0000 http://blog.kevinbasil.com/2004/11/20/on-the-dogma-of-creation/#comment-1785 I discussed this with the Archpriest D this morning. He reminded me of the distinction between spiritual reality and historical reality. He mentioned the present feast --- that of the Entry of the Mother of God into the Temple --- as an example where the history and the spiritual meaning do not align. I had already been thinking of the correlation between today's commemoration, its disjunction between history and meaning, and the encounter of faith and science. Perhaps I'll be able to flesh this out a bit more in the article as it continues. I discussed this with the Archpriest D this morning. He reminded me of the distinction between spiritual reality and historical reality. He mentioned the present feast — that of the Entry of the Mother of God into the Temple — as an example where the history and the spiritual meaning do not align. I had already been thinking of the correlation between today’s commemoration, its disjunction between history and meaning, and the encounter of faith and science.

Perhaps I’ll be able to flesh this out a bit more in the article as it continues.

]]> By: basil http://kevinbasil.com/2004/11/20/on-the-dogma-of-creation/comment-page-1/#comment-1780 basil Sun, 21 Nov 2004 13:33:44 +0000 http://blog.kevinbasil.com/2004/11/20/on-the-dogma-of-creation/#comment-1780 Erich, good points. I only insist on accepting science on its own terms, or rejecting it consistently. I only insist on fully engaging the modern world, or withdrawing from it completely. We are aliens and strangers, who are in the world but not of it. But not to accept evolution. heliocentrism, or any other theory of science, and to arrogantly posture ourselves as knowing the scientists' field better than they, seems beyond the pale. Might as well be Orthodox Amish. Even monks aren't that fundamentalist. Erich, good points.

I only insist on accepting science on its own terms, or rejecting it consistently. I only insist on fully engaging the modern world, or withdrawing from it completely. We are aliens and strangers, who are in the world but not of it. But not to accept evolution. heliocentrism, or any other theory of science, and to arrogantly posture ourselves as knowing the scientists’ field better than they, seems beyond the pale.

Might as well be Orthodox Amish. Even monks aren’t that fundamentalist.

]]> By: Erich http://kevinbasil.com/2004/11/20/on-the-dogma-of-creation/comment-page-1/#comment-1779 Erich Sun, 21 Nov 2004 04:39:28 +0000 http://blog.kevinbasil.com/2004/11/20/on-the-dogma-of-creation/#comment-1779 Kevin -- Interesting analysis and I'd very heavily agree with most of what you say, especially at the end in terms of modern and premodern worldviews. This is one of the reasons that it is important to realize that fundamentalisms (Christian, Islamic, or whatever) are ultimately modern phenomena and not, as some would claim either to support or denounce them, the "true" interpretation of the Bible, Qu'ran, or whatever. However, I base my position more on the historical approach (which I'll grant carries within it the seeds of contradiction because modern history is a "science" to some). In other words, historically speaking and considering the differences in mindset between us and them, it seems ludicrous to think that this could be anything other than a creation myth, spun to make a point. To say that someone writing a few thousand years ago would be struck by the hand of God to write something that is directed at the mind of 18th-21st-century man and his concept of scientific truth is absurd. However, I do wonder about your insistence on evolution as the necessary explanation for certain physical phenomena. Whereas I do not doubt that evolution exists on some level, you know as well as any that even natural "laws" are just consistent observation, and are often changing (historically speaking). Evolution as we currently understand it could simply be a stepping stone to a more refined understanding of scientific phenomena that could ultimately refute some of the broader assumptions about reality that have been made as a result of evolution. Kevin — Interesting analysis and I’d very heavily agree with most of what you say, especially at the end in terms of modern and premodern worldviews. This is one of the reasons that it is important to realize that fundamentalisms (Christian, Islamic, or whatever) are ultimately modern phenomena and not, as some would claim either to support or denounce them, the “true” interpretation of the Bible, Qu’ran, or whatever.

However, I base my position more on the historical approach (which I’ll grant carries within it the seeds of contradiction because modern history is a “science” to some). In other words, historically speaking and considering the differences in mindset between us and them, it seems ludicrous to think that this could be anything other than a creation myth, spun to make a point. To say that someone writing a few thousand years ago would be struck by the hand of God to write something that is directed at the mind of 18th-21st-century man and his concept of scientific truth is absurd.

However, I do wonder about your insistence on evolution as the necessary explanation for certain physical phenomena. Whereas I do not doubt that evolution exists on some level, you know as well as any that even natural “laws” are just consistent observation, and are often changing (historically speaking). Evolution as we currently understand it could simply be a stepping stone to a more refined understanding of scientific phenomena that could ultimately refute some of the broader assumptions about reality that have been made as a result of evolution.

]]>