Re: Def'n of Science

Bodester (
Wed, 3 Mar 1999 16:36:41 -0500

>This view, that there are inherent limitations behind historical knowledge,
>sounds like something from the Scottish philosopher, David Hume. Hume used
>this to caution against the historical claims of the Bible.

Hume indeed had some intriguing stances. I haven't studied him in-depth but
at least know the basics. My personal stance on issues I would call an
interesting combination of Hume's empiricism, Descartes' rationalism, and
Reid's sensicalism. (Is that a word?)

>Being from Calvin College, Jason, how do you reconcile your caution
>regarding the historical claims of evolution science and the historical
>claims of the Bible?
I would place the Bible in a different category than evolution science. I
view the Bible as not meant to be a textbook. However I do think it's
historically accurate. To me the Bible is not human alone (thus "God's
word"), a category I WOULD place science in. As to Calvin College, I am
enjoying the liberal arts education as it gives me a background of so many
widely explored areas (outside of my interests in computer science and
math). I advocate a lot of caution in all areas of belief if possible, but
approach the Bible as highly credible.

Have any challenges for my thinking? Please do!