From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. (dfsiemensjr@juno.com)
Date: Thu Jul 03 2003 - 00:30:33 EDT
On Wed, 2 Jul 2003 15:12:34 -0600 John W Burgeson <jwburgeson@juno.com>
writes:
> Howard, always asking the deep questions, posed these on June 17:
>
> "How many on this list think of your set of Christian beliefs as an
> axiomatic
> system derived from an authoritative text?"
>
> After reflection, I would only say that the above is true for part
> of my
> set of Christian beliefs, but not all the set.
>
Both Howard's question and Burgy's answer leave me puzzled. How is what
is largely a number of histories, plus some statements springing from
special situations, along with a variety of other types of documents, an
axiom set? I find many of my fellow Christians extracting different
principles because of differing hermeneutics. While some of these matters
may be reconciled, some are incompatible. But none of them look to me
like the foundation of an axiomatic system.
Mathematics and logic involve axiomatic systems. But one is free to
modify them so long as the set remains consistent. There is absolute
geometry to which one may add one of three parallel postulates
individually. In logic, beyond the split between Aristotelian and modern
logics, don't get started on the number of modal logics. The hard
sciences build models, often on an axiomatic base, but there seem always
to be auxiliary hypotheses which seem outside what can be axiomatized.
The soft sciences do not seem to build solid models. The humanities do
not seem to depend on axiom sets at all, except for logicians. If, as has
been claimed, theology is the application of philosophical method to the
data of scripture, it does not seem that there can be an axiomatic
system. The need for linguistic and historical studies to understand
scripture seems to move the possibility of axioms even further away.
> "How many on this list would identify "derivable from the
> designated
> authoritative text" as one of the primary evaluation criteria for
> the
> evaluation of theological theories?"
>
> I would have to assent to that much and more -- I would say not "one
> of
> the primary" but "the primary.".
>
What bases do we have for our theological commitments? An authoritative
text, God's revelation through prophets and his Son, understood as well
as one can. One's own thoughts about the way things should be. New
revelations, as in "I have a word of the Lord for you." Some other
authoritative teacher--White, Eddy, Jones, Koresh, etc. Bill Williams has
commented that he has talked to learned adherents of various world faiths
and challenged them: the Bible is the only foundational religious text
that posits a beginning which is compatible with what science has learned
of the universe. That's not an axiom, but it is evidence, of which there
is more.
Consequently. my commitment is to scripture as well as I can understand
it. I strive to develop a comprehensive outlook that is consistent, for
it is easy to build a narrow view that is shown to be nonsense when
broader reality intrudes. Where I fail, I trust in God's grace through
his Son. I can't find a better foundation.
Dave
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jul 03 2003 - 00:33:08 EDT