> Fourthly, if the Bible says something and science seems to say
> something different, it is bad practice to prematurely reduce either
> to the view of the other. Both could be correct, but we might not yet
> see how. Here I find Bacon's "two books" approach invaluable (sorry
> David! :-)). Nature and the Bible must eventually agree without
> doing violence to either.
This is a comment on Bacon's "Two books" approach and Stephen's
interpretation of it.
Stephen is anticipating that the Book of Revelation and the Book of
Nature are not in ultimate tension - because they have the same
author. There are areas of overlapping content - so understanding one
Book can help us read and understand the other. This is, I think, a
healthy view of the two books approach - but it is not Bacon's view.
Bacon, like Aquinus, drew a line between natural revelation and
scriptural revelation. These were two separate spheres of knowledge.
The theologians were free to develop their studies of the scriptures,
and the natural philosophers were free to develop their studies of
the natural world. Each area was autonomous.
Far from thinking that the Baconian approach is valuable, I feel it
has the seeds of naturalism sown deeply. The history of science
after Bacon shows every discipline becoming more naturalistic and
drawing less from the springs of revealed truth. The
advocates of "natural theology" fought a losing battle with their
peers - they too had drunk from Bacon's well and found too little
water to satisfy their thirst.
So, my response to Stephen is to say that the concept of "Two Books"
is not in itself Baconian. I think the "Two Books" concept can be
helpful. However, the crucial questions relate to the relationship
between these two books - and here you and I are on the same side,
for we think that the two books are not autonomous, whereas Baconian
science has gone down the autonomy pathway.
Best wishes,
*** From David J. Tyler, CDT Department, Hollings Faculty,
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.
Telephone: 0161-247-2636 ***