> There is, however, a danger in requiring that truths about (for example)
> geology from Scripture not contradict truths about geology from geological
> science. The danger is that we will try to make those truths match while
> our state of knowledge is so incomplete that we are forced into an
> incorrect conclusion.
>
Agreed. In my reply to George Murphy I noted the distinction between the
verisimilitude of scientific conclusions and "absolute" truth. But we
should of course also note the distinction between the "affirmations" of
God's revelation in Scripture, and our interpretations of these
affirmations. Unfortunately (actually, I think it is ultimately
fortunate), God did not give revelation either the form of propositional
systematic theology, nor did he give the parts of Scripture which touch on
science in mathematical symbolism. No less than Augustine, as we well
know, cautioned against over-interpreting Scripture in the realm of
science.
> To stake out a position
> with incomplete knowledge is to set yourself up for claims of "double
> truth". It's wiser to admit that we don't know everything. Let apparently
> conflicting bodies of knowledge exist and challenge each other. Both will
> be better for it.
>
Practically, I agree. My discussion with John was at the theoretical
level.
> I agree that there is only one truth -- God's truth. But we have different
> spheres of inquiry, and the methods appropriate for each, the methods of
> gathering knowledge and the completeness of our knowledge are different in
> each sphere.
>
If knowledge is justified true belief, then the issue is what method of
justification is most appropriate for different kinds of knowledge claims.
(As I said to John, it is not a difference of truth.)
> Agreed, although it seems to me that Jesus made it rather clear in Jn 16:13
> that we need the Holy Spirit to understand His revelation in Scripture.
>
The role of the Spirit in all this is indeed of crucial importance. But
perhaps Jn 16:13 (and the other Johannine passages), as well as 1 Co
2:6-16, have more to do with understanding the existential personal
implications of revelation, not simply with understanding what revelation
affirms. I firmly believe that a nonbeliever with the proper training can
clearly understand the language of a text of Scripture. What she would
miss, however, is what that text means *for her*. (Indeed, I think I can
point you to commentaries which are very astute in exegeting Scripture,
but whose authors, IMHO, are far from appropriating the truth they have
skillfully unpacked.)
Garry