Mark Gregson wrote:
> > > NOMA is also very similar to what the 1P said in 1931 in the last official > > statement on the origin of man: leave science to the scientists and religion to > > the Brethren. So be careful of criticizing it just because it was written by an > > agnostic. > > This is probably not the time to try this again, but not being known for great >reasonableness and consistency, I'll try it anyway: > > Marc, what is God's view of science and religion? Does He separate the two? His servants seem to. From the 1931 statement: [Heber J. Grant presidency] "Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored gospel to the world. Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church…" For more on the general topic of science and religion in Mormonism, I'd suggest the article by that name in the EoM: http://www.members.shaw.ca/mschindler/A/eyring_1_8.htm > Does He sort of have a science hat and a religion hat that He puts on as appropriate? > No, but that's not the question I was raising. Both science and religion are man-made terms for concepts, and I would suggest God is above both of them. I think what many people get uneasy over is how to draw a distinction between the activity, or discipline, of science as a human activity, and "natural philosophy," the old, pre-scientific name for looking at the physical world in a physical way. One of the first things Man was commanded to do was to name the animals, and we've been categorizing ever since. > > Of course, these questions are rhetorical, but I don't recall ever getting a >straight answer from you on them. If you have answered and I've simply forgotten, >would you mind refreshing my memory? > Hope the above helps. > > The point that I and others on this list have tried to make to you but have >seemingly failed to do is that with God all truth is one. There is absolutely no >dividing line with "this kind of truth over here" and "that kind of truth over >there". Granted, there are more important and less important truths for us here in >this life, but even so, while the Book of Mormon is indispensible, so is the law of >gravity. So it's all one with God. The concept of non-overlapping magesteria has no >place with God. His knowledge embraces it all. And that's why some of us on this >list don't care much for the notion of NOMA. > But we're not on God's plane, so while in this telestial sphere, NOMA, or the 1931 statement, which amounts to the same thing, will have to suffice, as in so many other affairs. -- Marc A. Schindler Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland “Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on” – Winston Churchill Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the author’s employer, nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated. ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ==^^=============================================================== This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^^===============================================================
