Friday, January 27, 2006
A Clarification On "Science And Revelation"
My Wednesday post on the claim that science is a form of general revelation has resulted in a very interesting email discussion with a regular reader and friend.
We went round and round for a while until we came up three key words in the discussion - revelation, truth, and science.
After much discussion, we decided to stick with the traditional definitions of special and general revelation.
We never really bothered to define truth, but we did talk about the fact that many post-modernists don't believe in such a thing. Which is frankly, a huge problem when it comes to this duscussion.
Finally, we found it necessary to draw a distinction between the process of science and the results of science, and whether or not science can result in truth.
Remember the key question is can science result in general revelation? One also needs to recall my discussion from back in December defining science and discussing different kinds of science.
Where we ended up was that general revelation can come from hard mathematical science which results in truth.
The problem is, in the end, the fact that so little that currently bears the label science produces anything even remotely resembling truth in a metaphysical sense, heck, it often does not even result in objective truth.
Having said all of that, I should clarify the point I was trying to make in the Wednesday post. As a blanket statement, to claim that science results in general revelation is a huge problem. Some science, extremely well done, and carefully vetted can result in general revelation.
A generic and blanket claim that science, as the term is commonly used today, results in general revelation is dangerous. It threatens virtually all that Christianity stands on.
Related Tags: science, general revelation, hard science, soft science, truth, scientific method
We went round and round for a while until we came up three key words in the discussion - revelation, truth, and science.
After much discussion, we decided to stick with the traditional definitions of special and general revelation.
We never really bothered to define truth, but we did talk about the fact that many post-modernists don't believe in such a thing. Which is frankly, a huge problem when it comes to this duscussion.
Finally, we found it necessary to draw a distinction between the process of science and the results of science, and whether or not science can result in truth.
Remember the key question is can science result in general revelation? One also needs to recall my discussion from back in December defining science and discussing different kinds of science.
Where we ended up was that general revelation can come from hard mathematical science which results in truth.
The problem is, in the end, the fact that so little that currently bears the label science produces anything even remotely resembling truth in a metaphysical sense, heck, it often does not even result in objective truth.
Having said all of that, I should clarify the point I was trying to make in the Wednesday post. As a blanket statement, to claim that science results in general revelation is a huge problem. Some science, extremely well done, and carefully vetted can result in general revelation.
A generic and blanket claim that science, as the term is commonly used today, results in general revelation is dangerous. It threatens virtually all that Christianity stands on.
Related Tags: science, general revelation, hard science, soft science, truth, scientific method
