From: "D. F. Siemens, Jr." <firstname.lastname@example.org>
I am no adherent to Thomas and his Aristotelianism, holding that Augustine
and Plato represent a more coherent biblical position. As for where we go
from there, I adhere firmly to the sola scriptura of the reformers.
Since my approach is delimited by revelation, I have no place for views that
contradict the Word. ... I reject many of the pronouncements of
contemporary philosophers and theologians for being incoherent and
Question: What would be the scientific equivalent of the sola scriptura
approach to theology (crafting a theology with only the biblical text as
One answer: Choosing to base astronomy solely on naked eye observations, as
was the practice two millennia ago -- the sola eyeballa approach.
I think you will conclude that [process theology] makes less sense than
atheism, and is not compatible with the biblical statements about the
knowledge and being of the Trinity.
Comment: The concept of the Trinity was worked out (in the midst of much
ecclesiastical controversy) by philosophers/theologians several centuries
after the writing of the biblical text. As you well know, there is no
reference to "The Trinity" in the scriptures.
Dave, I think we've both made our positions clear on this. I don't do
astronomy by the sola eyeballa approach, and I don't do theology by the sola
scriptura approach. Limiting one's data set does have the attractive feature
of stabilizing the process of theory formulation, but the cost of that
stability is very high -- the contribution of continuing human observation
and experience must be ignored. I see no way to justify that.
You have made different choices. You may have the last word if you like.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Dec 05 2001 - 09:15:29 EST