Comments on: A Christian approach to science http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/2010/06/16/a-christian-approach-to-science/ Ceci n'est pas un blog Mon, 02 Jan 2012 21:09:14 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Anthony http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/2010/06/16/a-christian-approach-to-science/comment-page-1/#comment-21575 Anthony Wed, 16 Jun 2010 21:16:17 +0000 http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/?p=640#comment-21575 Thanks for the comment, Richard. If the "unique" event would be expected to leave some evidence, then it might be possible to look for that evidence; if found, that would support the hypothesis that the "unique" event had taken place. Does that help? Brand discusses that a bit on p. 32, also on p. 12. In my mind the three categories you mentioned are always blurred - I think of theology primarily as the human enterprise of seeking religious knowledge through studying the Bible. This process leads to various factual claims about the "natural" world, which is where the interaction takes place with science. That's what I understood him to mean at least... Anthony Thanks for the comment, Richard.

If the "unique" event would be expected to leave some evidence, then it might be possible to look for that evidence; if found, that would support the hypothesis that the "unique" event had taken place. Does that help? Brand discusses that a bit on p. 32, also on p. 12.

In my mind the three categories you mentioned are always blurred - I think of theology primarily as the human enterprise of seeking religious knowledge through studying the Bible. This process leads to various factual claims about the "natural" world, which is where the interaction takes place with science. That's what I understood him to mean at least...

Anthony

]]> By: Richard Gunton http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/2010/06/16/a-christian-approach-to-science/comment-page-1/#comment-21574 Richard Gunton Wed, 16 Jun 2010 20:23:39 +0000 http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/?p=640#comment-21574 Thanks for this, Anthony. I don't like methodological naturalism, but possibly for different reasons to Brand. I don't see how the occurrence of "unique" (=non-naturalistic?) events can be tested as a hypothesis. There's human testimony of such events, and that means that there are already two sorts of people: those who know that "unique" events do occur and the rest - some of whom seem to know that they don't. More generally, I feel there's a blurring of at least three categories going on here: (1) faith/religious knowledge, (2) biblical interpretation and (3) theology. To say that theology should be in dialogue with science seems very different from saying that people should submit their religious knowledge to dialogue with science, and ditto for biblical interpretation. Could you say a bit more about these categories? Thanks for this, Anthony. I don't like methodological naturalism, but possibly for different reasons to Brand. I don't see how the occurrence of "unique" (=non-naturalistic?) events can be tested as a hypothesis. There's human testimony of such events, and that means that there are already two sorts of people: those who know that "unique" events do occur and the rest - some of whom seem to know that they don't.

More generally, I feel there's a blurring of at least three categories going on here: (1) faith/religious knowledge, (2) biblical interpretation and (3) theology. To say that theology should be in dialogue with science seems very different from saying that people should submit their religious knowledge to dialogue with science, and ditto for biblical interpretation.

Could you say a bit more about these categories?

]]>