Re: Signs of Scientism

*This immediately sets up scientific and theological issues as though they
are competing claims of the same kind, addressing the same kinds of
questions. They are not. Theology and science are complementary ways of
knowing.*

For some reason this isn't very satisfying to me. So we really can't "know"
anything? We can only look at things from various "perspectives," each of
which have their own methodological limitations, and arrive at a sort of
bug's-eye pastiche that may or may not cohere?

On 1/20/06, kbmill@ksu.edu <kbmill@ksu.edu> wrote:
> David wrote:
>
> > *I discussed these issues in my extended earlier post.*
> >
> > Ok. If I recall, this discussion was touched off by a comment
> > concerning
> > the possibility of finding a "plausible solution to the origin of
> > life" and
> > before that a statement that "common descent itself is not the
> > subject of
> > any serious debate." If MN is the appropriately limited tool that
> > you've
> > said it is, and alternative "theological" descriptions of the data
> > that
> > don't assume MN are epistemelogically valid, I'm not sure how you can
> > come
> > to such conclusions.
>
> I previously posted an extended statement addressing the issue of
> whether science could recognize and demonstrate "miraculous" action. I
> discussed both biblical events, modern claims of the miraculous, and
> events in natural history. That is what I was referring to.
>
> Concerning your statement above -- theological arguments and claims are
> not "alternative descriptions of the data." This immediately sets up
> scientific and theological issues as though they are competing claims
> of the same kind, addressing the same kinds of questions. They are
> not. Theology and science are complementary ways of knowing.
>
> Keith
>
Received on Fri Jan 20 12:05:48 2006