Re: ugabooga god of the universe(was: Re: Chapp article)

George Murphy (""
Mon, 15 Nov 1999 09:12:38 -0500 wrote:
> Agreed, but if one rejects empiricism as that Clapp article suggested, then
> one must decide what he is implicitly accepting! One can't reject any one
> of a series of options without raising the possibility that one of the
> other options is the correct one. Assume our options for supporting the
> Scripture are 1. empirical data, 2. seances, 3. warm fuzzy internal
> feelings, 4. goosebumps when I read it. If I reject the empirical data
> option, I have implicitely accepted that one of the other options--the
> wierd ones-- are the way to support the Scripture.
> What I see too often is a rejection of empirical data as a basis for
> supporting the Bible and that raises the question of what it is we are
> using to support it.

First, the necessary caveat that I think the Bible contains historically
accurate material, that Christianity is a faith rooted in historical events, &
that historical research can help to support Christian claims.
BUT - more is involved than the question of "supporting" Christianity by
one or the other of the dubious means listed above. One can also ask, "What does
the basic Christian claim support." I.e., if the basic belief in God's revelation
in Jesus' life, death, & resurrection are assumed as foundational, what range of
experience & phenomena can be explained satisfactorily?
Similarly - it's important to ask about experimental support of the basic
postulates of relativity (e.g., measurements of c), but one should also ask about
the explanatory range of those postulates if they are assumed to be true.

George L. Murphy