I mentioned earlier that this was a fruitful interview to read–on several levels, including theology. Here’s one example of what I had in mind:

DB: …science has no more method than golf …

… You don’t believe that …

DB: You mean about the scientific method? Certainly I do. Where science has a method, it is trivial – look carefully, cut the cards, weigh the evidence, don’t let yourself be fooled, do an experiment if you can. These are principles of kennel management as well as quantum theory. Where science isn’t trivial, it has no method. What method did Einstein follow, or Pauli, or Kekulé? Kekulé saw the ring structure of benzene in what he called a waking dream. Some method.

Don’t you ever want to say (or scream) this about theological method? Or hermeneutics? I remember asking a friend and teacher about Arthur Pink’s “The Law of First Mention,” which is one of the laws we need to keep in mind in order to properly interpret the Bible. Of course, I think it is highly significant that the first time the Bible mentions blood it is crying out to God and provoking him to action. But does it follow that it is really helpful to speak of a list of “laws” to which one must submit in order to understand a text. Do we read anything this way?

When I first saw Schreck I had never watched Disney’s Beauty & the Beast. So what argument would you have crafted to “prove” to me through syntactical unit analysis that the former was spoofing the latter? Wouldn’t you simply immediately know it if you had seen Beauty & the Beast?

Where theology has a method can we really say it is more than trivial?