"The Science of God"

by Gerald Schroeder. What are your thoughts on the validity of Schroeder's arguments? I'm sure this has been covered, but sorry, it's my first post here!

Hello and thanks for joining us.However, this first post (even in the coffee house) isn't going to get you much input.Only a few people are going to have the book. If you want discussion you will have to paraphrase and quote from the source material.Actually, I don't recall this being covered (but the mind is going). You could google it (restricting to this site) to see if it has been discussed.ABE
Ah, found it.
Rationality vs. RandomnessSeems that you don't need this thread? Let me know what you want to do. Thanks.This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 02-11-2005 22:00 AM

Well, if you suppose nobody is going to respond, and it has already been discussed elsewhere, by all means, delete it. I am also too lazy to dust off the book and paraphrase it. This message has been edited by RIP, 02-12-2005 16:29 AM

Here's a review of three of Schroeder's books by a physicist.Talk Reason: arguments against creationism, intelligent design, and religious apologeticsThe Science of God is covered in sections 5-9

Somehow in answer to someone to lazy to put forth their own arguments a bare link seems just the right thing.Thanks.

I'm not attempting to argue anything, I'm attempting to find out what people think about this book.

In the link provided, was the informative commentary: Talk Reason: arguments against creationism, intelligent design, and religious apologetics

quote:

---

Can we assert that the above idea is false? We can't. On the other hand, can we assert, based on rational considerations, that the above idea is true? Again, we can't.
Schroeder's explanation requires a leap of faith. It is fine as long as it is not suggested to be an explanation based on science. There is nothing scientific in the notion that God's frame of reference may be vastly different from men's frame of reference. As far as faith is considered, the above assertion is not a new one, and is simply beyond any discussion in rational, scientific terms. Schroeder, though, wants readers to believe that the described explanation is somehow based on the theory of relativity. It is not.

---

I am not in a position to evaluate this from the velocity of subatomic particles but if the issue is the use of leap of faith then I can comment in general. Will Provine in the spirit of getting ALL evc type issues ON THE TABLE described the difference between his view and Phil Johnson’s as different size leaps of faith. Will held that the best position is to minimize one’s leap (of faith). Will claimed to have been a Presbyterian and Phils apparently converted to one. But because Will was asking Phil for his own ideas on the Cambrian explosion and squirrel adaptability it can not be said as in this physicists commentary again. Will’s assertions AS TO FAITH were however somewhat new in that he attempted to describe this leap as a maxim. Now that does have speculative content and should a physicst feel the same applies to S’s muons then I can not see how I could hold that just because a different level of organization was underconsideration that the edifice of reason was any less not compromised.I know this doesn’t say much but I thought it not coincidental that the phrase leap of faith bridges my quoted passages.