Re: Fact Free Science?

Brian Neuschwander (bwnbcg@sjm.infi.net)
Thu, 06 Nov 1997 16:56:27 -0800

Tom Pearson wrote:

> It appears far more
> likely to me that the fundamental data adapts to our antecedent
> philosophical templates, rather than the other way around.
> The same is true of theology. How could we possibly understand such
> things as the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, or any Theology of the
> Cross, unless we had some prior understanding of the philosophical concepts
> of person, unity, agency or sacrifice?
>
> Tom Pearson
>

Thanks, Tom, for extrapolating my thoughts so well. George brings up a
good point of caution regarding building theology on philosophy.
However, I would take the position that the starting place could be a
good Christian philosophy as a tool for building good Christian
theology (there is non-Christian theology).

Further, God's transcendence and immanence as revealed in Logos and
Cosmos is not bound by our limited (by finiteness and fall)
understanding. But in fellowship with Him we can build a faithful and
effective world view and world picture. Out of fellowship with Him, our
efforts can take us up many dead ends, as has happened many times in
theology, philosophy, and science. e.g.: Fact Free Science (Johnsons's
term), Faith Free Theology, and Truth Free Philosophy (popular aspect of
post-modernism).

-- 
Brian W. Neuschwander