Science and the Story We Need

[AnthonyMartin]

Recently reread this 97 article from the now deceased Neil Postman. I've been fascinated by his take on information explosion and thought this piece was even more applicable today than when it was written.

https://www.firstthings.com/article/199 ... at-we-need

[joshuabgood]

Great essay.

[barnhart]

That is truly worth reading. I especially appreciate the analysis of the nature of "gods". Maybe the next short lived story up for consideration is Nationalism.

[AnthonyMartin]

That is truly worth reading. I especially appreciate the analysis of the nature of "gods". Maybe the next short lived story up for consideration is Nationalism.

Nationalism does offer a sense of belonging that both the science and technology gods lack.

[Fidelio]

Great essay, and I appreciated reading it, but I disagree with some of the conclusions (and it is clear the author is not a Bible-believer):

I take these men to mean what I would like to say. Science and religion will be hopeful, useful, and life-giving only if we learn to read them with new humility— as tales,as limited human renderings of the Truth. If we continue to read them, either science or Scripture, as giving us Truth direct and final, then all their hope and promise turn to dust. Science read as universal truth, not a human telling, degenerates to technological enslavement and people flee it in despair. Scripture read as universal Truth, not a human telling, degenerates to Inquisition, Jihad, Holocaust, and people flee it in despair. In either case, certainty abolishes hope, and robs us of renewal.

"...as tales, as limited human renderings of the Truth." Not true of the Bible, but true of "science" (tales e.g., evolution; limited renderings of truth as in the conclusions drawn from much of experimental science).

"Scripture read as universal Truth, not a human telling, degenerates to Inquisition, Jihad, Holocaust," Only if grossly misunderstood.

[AnthonyMartin]

My understanding is that Neil Postman would not have identified as Bible believing Christian. An inerrancy/universal truth discussion, whatever is really meant by that, would be interesting. I would not fully agree with Postman, although I do not have angst with referring to scripture as a "human telling".

[MaxPC]

Great essay, and I appreciated reading it, but I disagree with some of the conclusions (and it is clear the author is not a Bible-believer):

I take these men to mean what I would like to say. Science and religion will be hopeful, useful, and life-giving only if we learn to read them with new humility— as tales,as limited human renderings of the Truth. If we continue to read them, either science or Scripture, as giving us Truth direct and final, then all their hope and promise turn to dust. Science read as universal truth, not a human telling, degenerates to technological enslavement and people flee it in despair. Scripture read as universal Truth, not a human telling, degenerates to Inquisition, Jihad, Holocaust, and people flee it in despair. In either case, certainty abolishes hope, and robs us of renewal.

"...as tales, as limited human renderings of the Truth." Not true of the Bible, but true of "science" (tales e.g., evolution; limited renderings of truth as in the conclusions drawn from much of experimental science).

"Scripture read as universal Truth, not a human telling, degenerates to Inquisition, Jihad, Holocaust," Only if grossly misunderstood.

This is pretty much how I look at it

[Hats Off]

My understanding is that Neil Postman would not have identified as Bible believing Christian. An inerrancy/universal truth discussion, whatever is really meant by that, would be interesting. I would not fully agree with Postman, although I do not have angst with referring to scripture as a "human telling".

Isn't there a bit of difference between "human telling" and Word of God? Is there any other story that we need other than the word of God?

[AnthonyMartin]

My understanding is that Neil Postman would not have identified as Bible believing Christian. An inerrancy/universal truth discussion, whatever is really meant by that, would be interesting. I would not fully agree with Postman, although I do not have angst with referring to scripture as a "human telling".

Isn't there a bit of difference between "human telling" and Word of God? Is there any other story that we need other than the word of God?

Sure. Also a big difference between God breathed and God dictated isn't there?

[Fidelio]

My understanding is that Neil Postman would not have identified as Bible believing Christian. An inerrancy/universal truth discussion, whatever is really meant by that, would be interesting. I would not fully agree with Postman, although I do not have angst with referring to scripture as a "human telling".

Isn't there a bit of difference between "human telling" and Word of God? Is there any other story that we need other than the word of God?

I guess one would say a God-breathed human telling, but that would be confusing. But when the author refers to " limited human renderings of the Truth" we know that the "human telling" he refers to is that of one who believes the Bible to be only a record of man's understanding of god, vs it being the very Word of God.