quote:
There is some justification for that but it isn't completely true. My theology is essentially formed by my understanding of scripture. My understanding of scripture is enlightened by what I believe to be solid Biblical scholars such as, (I realize I'm repeating myself here), C S Lewis and N T Wright, although I realize that Lewis would deny being a Biblical scholar.
Since the main interaction of theology with the empirical seems to be avoiding falsification - whether by adjusting the "theory" so it cannot be falsified or finding excuses to deny or explain away the evidence I think that the comparison is highly apt.
quote:
I also read those that have studied both science and theology such as John Polkinghorne, Alister McGrath and John Lennox. Also on the more esoteric side I enjoy Gerald Schroeder.
From my own reading I would say that Schroeder's writings ARE pseudoscience.
quote:
I think where the idea of crank science comes from is that it is clear that in the end there is an absolute truth.
Really my comparison came from your view that theology is like science (apparently meaning speculative theoretical work, largely unconstrained by facts) plus my own observations of how theology deals with problematic issues.
quote:
I think that there are different paths to that truth and that science is absolutely one of them. I understand those that think science is essentially the only path, and though I understand that POV and acknowledge that it might be true, I am firmly convinced that is not the case.
I am firmly convinced that deciding that you must be right and inventing excuses and rationalisations to try to "support" your beliefs is no way to the truth at all. Maybe one day you'll realise that.
™ Version 4.2
