Hi Paul
How does this differ from Bacon's two books approach, for better and worse?
Jon
PHSEELY@aol.com wrote:
> 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 - 16:42:50 EST