>
>As far as your statement that "its methods assume that some objective truth
>exists," I would agree if you mean that in order to use the method we must
>assume that natural processes are consistent and predictable.
>
Also, a single external reality must exist in which some statements are
either true or false, observations must truly reflect this reality, and
there must be some reason to prefer observations to unsubstantiated
guesses.
>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.
A "rational relativist" is being self-contradictory. There's no way to say
that one observer or interpretation is better unless there is some absolute
standard by which they are measured. In practice, "relativism" almost
always sets oneself up as the absolute, hence its popularity. No one is
willing to accept the consequences of everyone else setting themselves up
as absolute, too, and so hypocricy is inevitable.
>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.
True, and because He has created a universe that does make sense we can
confidently attempt to understand it using scientific methods. Although we
will not know exhaustively, we can assume that, to the extent that our sin
and ignorance do not interfere, we are making closer and closer
approximations of absolute truth.
David Campbell