Shuan wrote,
<< I like this definition of science:
Science is a way of knowing that through observation, experiment and
reasoning comes to conclusions about the physical world.."
A fellow named Weinberg wrote it somewhere, but I can't track it
down). Science is not the search for all truth, just the truth about the
physical world.
Now, modern atheists might argue that scientific truth is the ONLY
truth, but of course they are wrong, and even nonreligious folks would
reject such reductionism.However, in the scientific enterprise, the only
permissible way of knowing is through the scientific method, AKA
methodological naturalism (MN).A lot of people dislike this, and would like
to supplement the scientific method with another method, I.e
revelation.However, revelation properly belongs not to science, but to
religion.
Religion is a way of knowing that through revelation, practice, and
faith, comes to conclusions about the supernatural world.Through religion we
experience God. Through science we investigate the physical world. Two
different ways of knowing, two different realities.
I think all religious believers should oppose the attempts of Dawkins
and others to insist that science has excluded all other types of truth,
except those that can be known through the scientific method. This is what
metaphysical naturalism says. Properly applying the scientific method,
however, cannot lead to that conclusion, for the scientific method can only
answer questions about the physical world.It can neither prove nor disprove
the existence of the spiritual world.
When , however,YECs insist on tailoring scientific truth to a literal
reading of revelation, they deform science(and revelation).Scientific truth
has its own space and validity, apart from revelation.Revelation is also
true, just not in a scientific way.We can still say God created the heavens
and the earth, and leave it to science to spell out the details. Indeed ,
the biblical writers had they know how much greater and more wonderful
universe was than they envisaged, would surely have found even greater
reason to praise God.
The metaphysical naturalist looks through his microscope, performs his
scientific test, measures his specimen, and says: There is no god.
The YEC looks at his three thousand year old text, interprets it
literally,and says: There is no evolution.Both make the mistake of applying
the wrong way of knowing to the wrong reality.Both are far from the truth
about either reality.
I posted the above on the BaptistBoard message Board, hoping for some
comment. I would ask for comments now from this listserv, especially on the
"two ways of knowing" approach. Do folks on the list think this is valid. >>
I think it is valid. I wrote the first two chapters of my book Inerrant
Wisdom around this concept of two ways of knowing. It is also the basis of
the distinction between prophet/prophesying and teacher/teaching in the NT.
The very first verse of the Bible assumes (1) you have some spiritual
awareness of who/what God is and (2) a nature-based empirical awareness of
what "heavens and earth" are. By common grace, all of humankind is able to
achieve a true knowledge of the natural world (Gen 1:26-28; Matt 16:2,3);
but, even though all humankind has some knowledge of God by general
revelation, a true knowledge of Christ only comes by special revelation (Matt
16:17).
Theologians may want to make a few more distinctions; and one could talk
about the overlap of the two realms, but fundamentally there are two ways of
knowing.
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 01 2002 - 14:58:53 EST