On Thu, 26 Oct 1995 12:21:26 GMT you wrote:
DT>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 have found quotes of Bacon re his "two books" approach, eg.:
"Let no man out of a weak conceit of sobriety, or an ill-applied
moderation, think or maintain that a man can search too far or be too
well studied in the book of God's Word, or in the book of God's works;
divinity or philosophy; but rather let men endeavor an endless
progress or proficience in both." (Rusch W.H.,"Darwinism, Science,
and the Bible", in Zimmerman P.A., Ed., "Darwin, Evolution, and
Creation", Concordia: St Louis, p3)
but I have been unable to find a reference to the original
source. Can anyone supply same?
DT>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....
I thought that "All truth is one" is indeed what Bacon was trying to
say with his "two books" approach. Ultimately general and special
revelation must agree, because they are from the same ultimate Source.
If later "theologians" used Bacon's "two books" approach to justify
strict division between "spiritual" and "secular" thought, then that
does not mean that Bacon's approach is invalid.
DT>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.
Is there any evidence that this "Western...tendency to think of a
`fact' as something objective and irreducible" is due to the
"influence of the Baconian Two Books approach"?
DT>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...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.
I agree with the above, but I cannot see that the "Baconian Two Books
approach" necessarily is opposed to it.
I personally find Bacon's "two books" approach helpful and
integrative. Ramm, while not mentioning Bacon, believes that "two
books" approach is:
"THE APPROACH THAT CREATES HARMONY
If we believe that the God of creation is the God of redemption, and
that the God of redemption is the God of creation, then we are
committed to some very positive theory of harmonization between
science and evangelicalism. God cannot contradict His speech in
Nature by His speech in Scripture. If the Author of Nature and
Scripture are the same God, then the two books of God must eventually
recite the same story. Therefore, in place of resentment or suspicion
or vilification toward science and scientists, we must have a spirit
of respect and gratitude. In place of a narrow hyper-dogmatic
attitude toward science we are to be careful, reserved, open- minded.
We are to pay due respect to both science and Scripture. Neither
adoration of one nor bigoted condemnation of the other is correct. We
must be ready to hear the voice of science and the voice of Scripture
on common matters. The spirit of mutual respect for both science and
Scripture preserves us from any charge of being anti scientific or
blindly dogmatic or religiously bigoted; and from being gullible, or
credulous or superstitious in our religious beliefs as they pertain to
Nature." (Ramm B. "The Christian View of Science and Scripture",
Paternoster: London, 1955, p25).
God bless.
Stephen
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones | ,--_|\ | sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave | / Oz \ | sjones@odyssey.apana.org.au |
| Warwick 6024 |->*_,--\_/ | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Perth, Australia | v | phone +61 9 448 7439 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------