Re: law vs. science

Jason A. Alley (
Fri, 21 Mar 1997 09:31:56 -0800,Internet writes:
>From: "Paul Arveson" <>
>Subject: law vs. science
>Date: Fri, 21 Mar 97 11:31:34 EST

>On the other hand, I think it is important for us as Christians to
>recognize that sin is pervasive in our minds and hearts. All knowledge
>personal knowledge, all data are theory-laden; we have to be humble --
>humility is not the same as relativism. So people like Phil Johnson can
>benefit us if they show where our blind spots are, even if they
>are advocates with a different approach to truth. I can accept his work
>in that light.

> Paul Arveson, Research Physicist Code 724, Signatures Directorate, NSWC
> 9500 MacArthur Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20817-5700
> (301) 227-3831 (W) (301) 227-4511 (FAX) (301) 816-9459 (H)

All knowledge is not personal. This implies a relativistic approach to
truth, where something may be "true for me," or "true for you," but not
"true for him or her." This idea that what exists is contingent upon
what we believe about it is a falacy refuted by the law of
non-contradictions, which states that "Something is either true or not
true, wrong or right." If this is not the case, then our faith is
irrelavent. If God only exists for those who would like Him to, then
there is no real punishment for those who don't believe in Him, and
there can't be that great of a reward for those of us who do, because
God isn't really God of all, just God of those who acknowledge Him.

I'm not saying that you implied all of this in your post, but I would
like to caution anyone who would aproach any truth claim from this
angle. It leads to some dangerous conclusions. Knowledge, if it is of
objective truth, should be objective as well.

In Christ,
Jason Alley