Vince wrote: > Theology is more like math than science I'm not sure what you mean by this. Math is the language of science. Without math, science cannot do what it does. Maybe you can elaborate on what you had in mind when you said that theology is more like math than science.
Vince wrote: > you start with an assumption or set of assumptions, > regardless of how much they do or do not seem > to reflect a real-world situation, then you derive > conclusions from those assumptions. Interesting. I'm not trained in theology, but it sounds like you are saying that theology does not care how much the assumptions they make fit the real world? Is that really what you meant to say? All disciplines of study, whether theology or science, make assumptions and reason from those assumptions. Science reasons from the premise that Truth can be apprehended only through the physical senses. Theology maintains an additional assumption, that we can gain knowledge through the spirit. Vince wrote: > Astrology is founded on fairy tales, superstition, etc. > To those who accept the basic premises of astrology, > that heavenly bodies have some sort of influence on > peoples' personalities and the events which occur in > peoples' lives, it's easy to believe the stuff pumped > out by astrologers. It makes sense to those who believe > the basic premises. Are you saying that there is no foundation at all for astrology? Doesn't Gen. 1:14 say, "let them be for signs..."? Doesn't Daniel 6:27 and Acts 2:19 affirm this also? Wasn't the birth of Christ marked with a star? I do not believe astrology is right for the believer in Christ, but I think you go too far to say that astrology is founded only on fairy tales and superstition. I think Blaine would disagree too. :-) You are presenting a belief from your own culture and value system which is rooted in objectivity and materialism. Vince wrote: > Astronomy is, like all of the hard sciences, based > upon the scientific method. Observation with quantified > measurements of tangible things like mass, temperature, > speed, etc. Brainstorming / dreaming / imagining a > hypothesis. Making logical predictions based upon that > hypothesis. Experimenting to test those predictions. > Confirming or denying the validity of the hypothesis > based upon the results of the experiments. Reproduction > of the experiments and results by other scientists. > Peer review of the final package. You may not realize this, but astrology also proceeds along these paths. They observe the heavens, calculate positions, and they correlate it with events on earth. So what is the difference? Well, one philosopher has suggested that astrology attempts to modify their theory such that eventually their theory becomes unfalsifiable. Astronomy, on the other hand, has followed a method called "Strong Inference" whereby they disproved theories and constructed new hypotheses which they also attempted to falsify. So the idea is that progress toward truth is better made when we construct hypotheses that are potentially falsifiable and then attempt to falsify it. The underlying thinking here is that it is much easier to demonstrate one disproof to dismiss an erroneous idea rather than an infinite number of proofs to try and bolster an idea. Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
