Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Feynman quote and my clarification (was Re: OffTopic, Long - NewTestament Provenance)



Carl (and the list members),

This will be my last email on this topic, because I do not wish to be
drawn into a long time-wasting debate when I have more important things
to do. I respond to the list only because I wish to clarify something.

(1) I did quote Feynman and it was within the context of a 3 paragraph
email sent directly to Brian Whatcott, not to the PHYS-L list, in
response to his message about a "culture clash." To know the context,
then you would have to see the entire message sent DIRECTLY to Brian.
If I had wished to send it to the list, then I would have. However, it
was sent directly to him since it was not pertinent to mission of this
list. I think that he should not have taken a tiny quote of mine out of
context and then responded back to the list. If he disagreed, then I
think that he should have responded directly to me.

(2) I use the entire paragraph (from Feynman Lectures...) that you
quoted below (and more) at the beginning of every course I teach. It is
an eloquent description of what we do as scientists. I don't think
Feynman is saying that we'll find what is "correct," but instead that
there is an element of approximation in every model we develop. We will
possibly always find a better model. My original message to Brian was
regarding the fact that both scientists and theologians (or people of
faith in general who try their best to understand Scripture) must be
humble about their views on science and theology because new knowledge
(or experiments, experiences, etc.) may show us that our present views
are incorrect (or poor approximations). But it's hard for anyone to
read my original message or to know the context in which I used the
quote since it was taken out of context.

(3) I originally quoted Feynman as an example that all we know are
approximations to the complete truth (and yes, our approximations
become better and better as we learn.). For those who are people of the
Christian faith and read the Bible, 1 Cor. 13 (known as the Love
chapter by some) says that we presently know in part but someday will
know fully. I quote the entire chapter below my name for those who wish
to read it in context. Both Feynman's writing and the Apostle Paul's
writing urge me as a scientist and as a Christian to realize that I
don't know fully and should be humble regarding my views. Thus, as much
as possible, I want to be teachable and willing to look at evidence. I
do not disregard this conversation on inerrancy of Scripture because
I'm so stuck in my ways that I can't accept evidence. I disregard this
conversation on inerrancy of Scripture because I simply do not have
time to fully investigate it and be involved in long debates. As a
Christian, I believe that my actions toward others and God is much more
important than my theological prowess.

I'm sorry for the long reply, but I'm not happy that I was misquoted.
(By that I mean that the quote was correct but without context, and my
original email message was sent to Brian personally and not to the list
and any replies should have been to me personally or to the list, with
my permission. Perhaps he does not view it this way, I don't know.)

Thank you,

Aaron

On May 29, 2004, at 5:32 PM, Carl Gaither wrote:

Hello to the list,


Yes Feynman did say

"everything we know is an approximation to the complete truth"...

However the rest of the quotation is:



Each piece, or part, of the whole of nature is always merely an
approximation to the complete truth, or the complete truth so far as we
know it. In fact, everything we know is only some kind of
approximation,
because we know that we do not know all the laws as yet. Therefore,
things must be learned only to be unlearned again or, more likely, to
be
corrected.

Six Easy Pieces: Essentials of Physics Explained by Its Most Brilliant
Teacher
"Atoms in Motion"

Isn't the quote sort of being used out of context? How can inerrancy
be supported by this quotation when Feynman's use of his words implies
that things are likely "to be corrected"?

Just concerned about how the quote was used.

Carl Gaither






Brian Whatcott wrote:

I saw a note in a current sectarian newletter
[Episcopal Life - Oklahoma's Mission June 2004] that
speaks to the topic of Biblical Inerrancy.

Teachers in general have little opportunity to see
differences of religious opinion aired.

I thought you might find interesting, this
contribution from Rev. William G. Gartig who
teaches religion in Cincinnatti area colleges.

I place his column below the contributions of
Aaron and Justin.


At 01:30 PM 4/26/2004, Aaron Titus, you wrote:


///
I am a person of faith as well as a physicist.


//


Feynman says that "everything we know is an approximation
to the complete truth"...
AT
BTW I believe in the inerrancy of Scripture.
I do not believe in the
inerrancy of Scriptural interpretation.




[Justin Parke]



.... Inerrency does not mean that
every word in the Bible is literally true as some language is
clearly
meant to be poetic and interpreted in light of that. For example,
one
passage describes God as sheltering His people under his wing but
I do not
know of anyone who interprets this to mean that God literally has
wings. Inerrency *does* mean that the passage was meant to be in
the
Bible, it is not included by mistake.

I hope this is not too far off topic but since we are discussing
science
teaching and religion I thought it was important for all of the
terms to
be properly defined. ///

Justin Parke




[Rev. W.G. Gartig]

Q: How was it decided which books would be included in the
New Testament?

A: "First, though many devout people have assumed that
there must have been one, no "voice from heaven" ever
declared which books belonged in the Bible.
Second, no ecumenical council defined the canon
(the list of books comprising the Bible) until the Council
of Trent(1545-63), when, countering the Reformation,
the Roman Catholic Church reaffirmed the inspiration of
the Apocrypha. No church council to this day has
produced an authoritative canonical list for Eastern
Orthodoxy.
Third, it is hard to argue that inspiration can be
known by observation or "the inner testimony of the
Spirit," since Christians have not always agreed about
which books are inspired.
For example, in Syria until about 400, the four gospels
were not used at all. Instead the Diatessaron .(a weaving
together of the four gospels into one longer composite
narrative) was used. Syriac Christianity also did
not
consider canonical any of the catholic epistles (James, 1
and 2 Peter, 1, 2 and 3 John and Jude) or Revelation.
That changed in about 400 when the Syriac translation
called the Peshitta came into use. It added James, 1
Peter and 1 John, but not the shorter catholic epistles or
Revelation. They still are lacking from the Bible of the
Nestorian Church.
The whole Greek-speaking. eastern half of the
Mediterranean was slow to accept Revelation (and. to
this day, Revelation is absent from the Greek Orthodox
lectionary), while the Latin Church was slow to accept
Hebrews (until Jerome and Augustine argued for it).
Individual congregations seem to have made their
own decisions about what books to read in Worship
services. How did they decide what to read? We know of
two criteria they used:
"Was the book written by an Apostle?" (apostolicity)
and "Is it theologically orthodox?"

Since they were taught by Jesus himself, the apostles
could be presumed to know what was correct and to not
teach anything false. Those whom the apostles taught
personally could similarly be trusted.
But the claim of having been written by an apostle
was not enough. since there were many gospels, acts
and epistles attributed to apostles but with (mainly
Gnostic) theology contrary to the Christianity handed
down over generations within congregations. So, for
orthodox congregations, a book had to be theologically
orthodox as well as attributed to an apostle. If its
theology was heretical, then apostolic authorship had to
be mistaken or a falsification.

What are we to conclude? Books got into the New
Testament through a complicated historical process,
involving both the belief in a book's apostolicity and the
congruence of its theology with tradition, the Christianity
handed down in churches. "
[Gartig]