Re: Cobb County

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 12:03:36 -0500 "Alexanian, Moorad"
<alexanian@uncw.edu> writes:
> My original post should have read:
>
> There is a difference between our conception of the universe and the
> actual, real thing. Perhaps nature should be studied in the light of
> Scripture. We ought to attempt to use Christian theology as
> regulative,
> NOT CONSTITUTIVE, when choosing a particular philosophy of science
> and/or the metaphysics that we want to derive from the results of
> experimental science-physics, chemistry, etc.
>
>
> Moorad
>

Moorad,
This is a reasonable point. The problem is that science is not philosophy
of science. My theology will have a major effect on my philosophy, but
the primary effect on science has to do with ethics, not with the
development of theory. Information is neither right nor wrong, but the
way I get it or use is may be moral or immoral. Its dissemination may be
wise or unwise. I once encountered readily available detailed
instructions on making nitroglycerin. I question the wisdom of that
publication.

Note also that the effect of one's theology is less determinative than
sometimes thought. For example, Bishop Berkeley's idealism is compatible
with conservative theology. Now some orthodox persons are working on a
materialistic philosophy plus deity that they think is compatible with
their evangelicalism. In other words, strictly orthodox theology does not
limit one's philosophy to the traditional Platonic, neoplatonic and
Aristotelian versions commonly encountered.

In all of science and philosophy, there is a tentativeness that is not
always honored. Scientism, metaphysical naturalism, and similar outlooks
are commonly held dogmatically. But human beings should recognize that
they are fallible. I will argue strongly for what I believe to be true,
but I have to recognize that only when I know as I am known will I be
certainly right.
Dave
Received on Wed Jan 19 15:40:47 2005