2004
Volume 43, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 2542-6583
  • E-ISSN: 2590-3268

Abstract

Abstract

In this article the problem is treated that arises when a systematic theologian uses descriptive material to base a prescriptive argument. By means of the example of the ecological debate it is argued that it is impossible to employ univocally factual data for a prescriptive statement no more than it is possible to select and interpret facts without prejudice. Only in a continuous complex hermeneutic process a relation between both is possible. This implies for the systematic theological researcher that he never is able to set up an unambiguous argument, but only can reach a certain level of plausibility, that depends on both his knowledge of the existing tradition and on the cogency of new evidence and his ability to integrate this into the tradition.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/NTT1989.1.003.BEEK
1989-01-01
2022-12-07
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5117/NTT1989.1.003.BEEK
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error