Okay - I finally finished hearing this one all the way through.
It was cool to hear her take on Lewis’ space trilogy. I’d never thought about that portrayal of Satan as being “the most disturbing” of all. But she’s right - Milton’s or Dante’s Satan probably had nothing in comparison.
That’s an impressive list of publications. I should familiarize myself with Apostles of Reason, this could be a serendipitous topic given my view of what reason can and cannot prove. It would also be interesting to gauge her response to Keener’s commentary on Acts 2:14-36.
My concern wasn’t with sychophantry, but the trials and traps you never see coming. In my experience it’s the thing you didn’t see that gets you or at least tries to.
“The Chalcedon Problem: Rousas John Rushdoony and the Origins of Christian Reconstructionism,” Church History 77:2 (June 2008), 399-437
These are some intriguing tangents. My fundamental belief that reasonable people can disagree about the inerrancy of Scripture was my break from the Reconstruction camp.
I suppose to a large degree it depends on whether or not you consider history a science. I personally lean that way a bit due to the research involved in really knowing an area of history.
I’ll add that being OEC put me on the boundary of that camp even when I found myself in it. Well sort of. I never really felt home there. Being charismatic also made me an outsider. Yes, I know it sounds crazy, but I was being taught covenant theology and reading Dominion by Covenant in a reformed charismatic church OEC was from a book I found by Hugh Ross, and the socialist stuff was from 2 Corinthians 8:14.
At some point, I don’t recall when, but there was a definite moment when I thought or wrote for the first time that reasonable people can disagree about the authority of the Bible. Even Christians can disagree about it.
The point though, and which I previously grasped, was that there was unanimous agreement at Sanai when Israel brought itself as a nation under the authority of the Law. Today we do not have that and it can’t be forced on those who have conscientious objections to the Canon today.
There are several fields of study that are evidence-based but do not have a scientific method. Some examples include:
History
Philosophy
Literature
Art
Music
Theology
These fields of study all rely on evidence to support their claims, but they do not use the scientific method to gather or analyze that evidence. Instead, they use a variety of methods, such as:
Historical research
Philosophical argumentation
Literary criticism
Art criticism
Music analysis
Theological exegesis
The scientific method is a powerful tool for gathering and analyzing evidence, but it is not the only way to do so. These other fields of study can also produce valuable knowledge, even if they do not use the scientific method.
Here are some more details about each of these fields of study:
History is the study of past events. Historians use a variety of sources, such as documents, artifacts, and oral histories, to reconstruct the past. They then use this evidence to write narratives that explain what happened and why.
Philosophy is the study of fundamental questions about existence, knowledge, and morality. Philosophers use logic and reason to argue for their positions. They also engage in critical thinking, which involves evaluating the arguments of others.
Literature is the study of written works of fiction and non-fiction. Literary critics use a variety of methods to analyze these works, such as:
Close reading, which involves carefully examining the text
Historical context, which involves understanding the work in the context of the time it was written
Cultural context, which involves understanding the work in the context of the culture it was written in
Art is the study of visual works of art, such as paintings, sculptures, and photographs. Art critics use a variety of methods to analyze these works, such as:
Formal analysis, which involves examining the composition, color, and line of the work
Iconography, which involves identifying the symbols and motifs used in the work
Historical context, which involves understanding the work in the context of the time it was created
Music is the study of musical works, such as songs, symphonies, and operas. Music critics use a variety of methods to analyze these works, such as:
Harmony, which involves examining the way the notes in the work are arranged
Melody, which involves examining the way the notes in the work are sung or played
Rhythm, which involves examining the way the notes in the work are arranged in time
Theology is the study of religion. Theologians use a variety of methods to study religion, such as:
Textual analysis, which involves examining religious texts
Historical research, which involves studying the history of religion
Philosophical argumentation, which involves using logic and reason to argue for religious beliefs
These are just a few examples of evidence-based fields of study that do not use the scientific method. There are many other fields of study that fall into this category, such as:
Economics
Political science
Law
Education
Public policy
These fields of study all use evidence to support their claims, but they do not use the scientific method to gather or analyze that evidence. Instead, they use a variety of methods, such as:
Statistical analysis
Survey research
Case studies
Interviews
Observations
The scientific method is a powerful tool for gathering and analyzing evidence, but it is not the only way to do so. These other fields of study can also produce valuable knowledge, even if they do not use the scientific method.
So that makes it even more sciency that carbon-14 dating? Please show me the universities that list history courses under the science department. Have you enlightened any schools yet?
With philosophy I understand there is deductive evidence, but that’s not how I would refer to an evidentiary field of study which is based on inductive evidence.