> But if
> observation and Scriptural accounts like Genesis 4 are to be viewed as
> historical then one must of course be ridgidly attentive to the details.
>
> No one else took me up on my question yesterday morning, So, Jim, how much
> observational data can Christians ignore when it comes to an apologetical
> view? one fact, two facts? three facts? 100 facts? or all the facts?
I suspect that there are others like myself - not wanting to get
embroiled in an argument! However, I want to support the basic
argument being developed by Glen.
Christians believe that ALL truth is God's truth. The observational
data is not to be ignored in our thinking. We must prize facts as
little nuggets of gold! Two points follow which offer opportunities
for discussion (- although I'm not sure how much time I'll have to
participate).
1. The "Two Books" approach to knowledge has had a long history: I
refer to the Book of Revelation and the Book of Nature. Whatever
merits there are in the term, Aquinas ruined things when he put a
strict line of division between the former (the province of
theologians and the Church) and the latter (the province of the
natural philosophers - in his day Aristotelians). This strict
division was picked up by Francis Bacon and it was brought into the
scientific revolution and the protestant traditions. I regard this
as a fundamental weakness in early science. The Christian does not
have a strict division between "spiritual" and "secular" thought.
ALL truth is one. The strict division mentality has allowed
theologians to work ISOLATED from other sources of information
regarding their chosen themes. It is a rather unhealthy form of
pietism. Glen, in his unique style, is to be commended for insisting
that data must be addressed conscientiously.
2. Because of the great influence of the Baconian Two Books approach
in the Western world, there has been a tendency to think of a "fact"
as something objective and irreducible. Many early scientists were
very careful to distinguish between "Facts" and "Speculations".
However, I think more and more people are coming to realise that this
is oversimplistic - to the extent that it is wrong. The phrase
"Facts are theory-laden" captures the problem. Researchers bring to
their investigations a conceptual framework which influences what
they see. [Glenn - did you see the first issue of the short-lived
journal "Catastrophist Geology", which had an article about
geologists seeing different things in the field depending on their
pre-conceptions?). So, whilst appealing to "facts" must be valid, it
is also necessary to keep in mind that a healthy debate as to the
meaning/accuracy/completeness of the observations is warranted.
Best wishes,
*** From David J. Tyler, CDT Department, Hollings Faculty,
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.
Telephone: 0161-247-2636 ***