> > Perhaps one way to help clarify misunderstanding is to explain that
> > there is a difference between "rational" thought/"rationality" and the
> > philosophical stance known as "rationalism". Christians IMO are
> > enthusiastic about rational thinking - because God has given us brains
> > to think logically. However, Christians are totally opposed to
> > rationalism, which denies that any true knowledge can be gained except
> > by the application of rational thinking. Rationalism is hostile to
> > revelation, but the Christian understands God's revelation to be true
> > knowledge. Do you understand this difference, Kevin? Do you agree
> > with this particular point I am making?
>
> What I understand is that there is a difference between philosphical
> rationalism or empiricism and methodological empiricism or rationalism. In
> philosophy these two views are almost exact opposites, but in science they
> have been combined into a powerful methodology, in which physical evidence
> forms the basis for logical argument to create the theory that is then used
> to design more experiments that will serve as a new foundation for futher
> logical argument, etc, ad infinitum. Again, rationalism is a part of the
> scientific method (though it is applied only to natural universe, not to
> reality as a whole). To deny that when teaching children about science is to
> teach them only half the story and to give them a false and misleading
> impression about what science is and how it works.
Your terminology is foreign to me. I can see no rationale for
equating "philosophical rationalism" with "empiricism". Nor can I
see the link between "methodological empiricism" and "rationalism"
For the reasons stated above, I regard the claim that rationalism "is
a part of the scientific method" to be fallacious. It has no basis
in the history of science and it has no basis in the philosophy of
science. The confusion between rationality and rationalism is
perhaps more common than I thought. For further clear comments on
this, I would recommend reading Francis Schaeffer's "The God who is
there" (IVP). He thought this issue to be of fundamental importance
and he explains clearly his reasons.
Regarding the use of the word "truth" in science, I had protested at
what I regarded as Kevin relativising "truth":
> > Then you get a situation that what is true (in science)
> > this year is untrue next year (when more light has been cast on the
> > problem). This is a relativistic use of the word "true" that I think
> > we should avoid completely.
>
> Again, however, in science there is no problem with using this version of the
> word truth, so long as everyone understands what you mean by it. We can use
> another word if you like, as long as it conveys the same meaning: the
> rational logical argument is being used to describe what the natural universe
> is like and how it works. That this description may change in the future is
> irrelevant to the fact that it is truth for now, and that this truth will
> change only if new evidence is found. Besides, most of the time the truth
> will only be enhanced and improved, not modified or eliminated.
Kevin, everyone does not understand what is meant. We live in a
culture of post-modernity, where truth is both relativised and
personalised. We live in an age where 90% of leading scientists
claim to be atheists, and where many of them also claim that science
is the only route to truth. We live in an age where Christians are
regarded as odd and superstitious because we believe in revealed
truth. We need to choose words about the capabilities of science
which take all these groups into account.
Best regards,
David J. Tyler.