TomS wrote:

"On 17 Nov 2005 22:58:04 -0800, in article
<1132297084.857812.57750@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, maff stated..."

Shaking the Foundation of Faith
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/18/opinion/18liell.html

By SCOTT M. LIELL
Science, religion and the Cape Ann earthquake of 1855.

This essay repeats the story that Thomas Prince, of the South
Church in Boston, blamed Franklin's lightning rod for the earthquake.

I'm not convinced that the story is entirely accurate. If anyone
has a reliable source - for example, a publication with Prince's
sermon on the subject - could you let me know?

The story is essentially accurate.

The problem, though, was not in connecting earthquakes to lightning.
This was actually an hypothesis held by many scientists at the time.

The problem was in Prince attributing natural phenomena to direct
supernatural interventions.

From the annals of the Princeton, Massachusetts Historical Society

[the town was founded by the Thomas Prince]:

"Among other publications Mr. Prince published in 1727 a Sermon
entitled " Earthquakes the Works of God and Tokens of His Just
Displeasure," of which in 1755 he issued a reprint with an " appendix
concerning the Operation of God in Earthquakes by means of the
Electrical Substance." He was opposed to the use of the lightning rod,
regarding all such attempts to escape the wrath of the Almighty as
questionable devices. His warning against the lightning rod is stated
in these words; - " the more points of Iron are erected round the
Earth, to draw the Electrical Substance out of the Air, the more the
Earth must needs be charged with it. And therefore it seems worthy of
Consideration whether any part of the Earth, being fuller of this
terrible Substance, may not be exposed to more shocking Earthquakes. In
Boston are more erected than anywhere else in New England; and Boston
seems to be more dreadfully Shaken, - 0, there is no getting out of the
mighty Hand of God. If we still think to avoid it in the Air we cannot
in the Earth; yea, it may grow more fatal." (Extract from The Old
Farmer and his Almanac," page 301.)

Prof. John Winthrop published a pamphlet taking issue with Mr. Prince
and severely criticizing his statement."

So I think you can take the story as historically accurate.

Winthrop, a professor at Harvard University and a prominent American
scientist, did not go along with the lightning hypothesis. But his
real objection was that he did not like the idea of Prince bringing in
supernatural explanations to a scientific discussion.

FYI, Winthrop held that earthquates were due to a violent reaction
of heat and chemical vapors deep within the earth's surface. Now we
know that while this hypothesis is closer to the actual cause, it is
almost as incorrect as the lightning hypothesis. But of course no one
had any idea about plate tectonics at the time.

Winthrop himself reported on the earthquake and his theory in, "An
Account of the Earthquake Felt in New England, and the Neighbouring
Parts of America, on the 18th of November 1755," Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society of London, vol. 50 (1757): 1-18

By the way, I don't count White's "The Warfare of Science with
Theology" as a reliable source.

Neither do I.

You'll note that the reference is to a contemporary source, not to
White's account.

So we don't need White as a reference - which is a good thing because
he is obviously biased.

One online source claims - without any citations, I duly note -
that Prince based his claim on a naturalistic connection between
lightning and earthquakes, not on divine intervention.

Actually, Prince did take off his sermon from a current scientific
hypothesis, as noted above. But that wasn't the point.