On Wed, 8 Nov 1995 10:23:57 GMT you wrote:
DT>Stephen Jones wrote on 7th November:
SJ>Fourthly, if the Bible says something and science seems to say
>something different, it is bad practice to prematurely reduce either
>to the view of the other. Both could be correct, but we might not yet
>see how. Here I find Bacon's "two books" approach invaluable (sorry
>David! :-)). Nature and the Bible must eventually agree without
>doing violence to either.
DT>This is a comment on Bacon's "Two books" approach and Stephen's
>interpretation of it.
>
>Stephen is anticipating that the Book of Revelation and the Book of
>Nature are not in ultimate tension - because they have the same
>author. There are areas of overlapping content - so understanding one
>Book can help us read and understand the other. This is, I think, a
>healthy view of the two books approach - but it is not Bacon's view.
>
>Bacon, like Aquinus, drew a line between natural revelation and
>scriptural revelation. These were two separate spheres of knowledge.
>The theologians were free to develop their studies of the scriptures,
>and the natural philosophers were free to develop their studies of
>the natural world. Each area was autonomous.
Thanks for this clarification. If this was Bacon's view of the "two
books" model, then I do not accept his view. I do accept that
Scripture is not intended as a textbook on science -it tells us how to
go to heaven, not how the heavens go. But because it is *Special
Revelation, Scripture must have a priority over science. If the Bible
tells us there was a great Flood in Mesopotamia in the comparatively
recent past, and yet geology canot find evidence of it, then Scripture
must prevail. If Scripture tells us that Adam was formed in the
comparatively recent past in the Middle East, yet there are
anthropological problems, then again Scripture must be right, but we
may not be able to see the solution.
To be sure, there are problems with our *interpretation* of what
Scripture says, but this does not alter the fundamental *principle*,
that Special Revelation (rightly interpreteted) must have priority
over General Revelation.
DT>Far from thinking that the Baconian approach is valuable, I feel it
>has the seeds of naturalism sown deeply. The history of science
>after Bacon shows every discipline becoming more naturalistic and
>drawing less from the springs of revealed truth. The
>advocates of "natural theology" fought a losing battle with their
>peers - they too had drunk from Bacon's well and found too little
>water to satisfy their thirst.
I agree with you on this. This is the burden of Phil Johnson's
prophetic mission.
DT>So, my response to Stephen is to say that the concept of "Two
>Books" is not in itself Baconian. I think the "Two Books" concept
>can be helpful. However, the crucial questions relate to the
>relationship between these two books - and here you and I are on the
>same side, for we think that the two books are not autonomous,
>whereas Baconian science has gone down the autonomy pathway.
Agreed. Thank you for this clarification.
Stephen
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones | ,--_|\ | sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave | / Oz \ | sjones@odyssey.apana.org.au |
| Warwick 6024 |->*_,--\_/ | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Perth, Australia | v | phone +61 9 448 7439 |
----------------------------------------------------------------