David wrote on Thu, 29 May 1997 14:19:51 -0400
>Although it is very difficult for science to prove something to be true,
>its methods assume that some objective truth exists. Hence, both
>Christianity and science are in conflict with relativistic [no absolutes]
>worldviews.
I would disagree, science cannot prove any statement or hypothesis true,
it can verify or reject, it can make predictions, and it can make probability
statements but it cannot prove any statement true in the same way that God
Statements are true.
As far as your statement that "its methods assume that some objective truth
exists," I would agree if you mean that inorder to use the method we must
assume that natural processes are consistent and predictable.
> A relativistic worldview does result from internally
>consistent [no leaps] human thought without the Spirit. Relativistic
>worldviews are inconsistent under scrutiny-the absolute claim that no
>absolutes exist; the unwillingness of a relativist to accept other views as
>equally valid if they oppose his (e.g., if a mugger believes that a
>relativist's wallet would be better in the mugger's possession, the
>relativist generally dissents), etc. In particular, a scientist espousing
>relativistic standards can't be logically consistent and insist that
>scientific experiments are better for answering questions than are
>alternatives such as fortune cookies, except on statistical grounds (even
>then, he has to make the assumption that one ought to do what is more
>likely to achieve the goal). Careful examination of such basic assumptions
>could be a powerful apologetic.
A relativistic world view can be a problem, if we assume that all observers are
equally qualified observers and each is capable of equally valid interpretations
of their observed data. I don't think any rational relativist would make
that assumption.
As a Christian, I can say all things must relate to God, and He is THE
OBSERVER and
THE DATA MAKER, and in the end, His opinion is the only one that counts.
In Him,
John