Keith Walker wrote:
> George Murphy wrote:
> > & such questions about inference don't just have to do with
> >the past. Do we know that there are _really_ electrons, pions, &c?
> I agree. If I may speak personally and perhaps leave myself open to
> in any future debate where I want to appear certain, I find myself
> constantly in this dilemma. One the one hand I mistrust deeply the
> certainty of modernistic scientism. On the other hand I fear the
> danger of
> falling into the postmodern morass. I fear the morass because I
> there are realities to be certain about, including the God who has
> himself to us with sufficient clarity for us to truly know him. And I
> mistrust modernistic scientism with all it owes to Hume, not least
> it seems to be so arrogant and certain in its defiance of that God.
Based on this last sentence, it appears that you are referring to a
philosophy of science that presupposes atheism. However, a view that
embraces scientific explanation (methodological naturalism) as being
superior to most or all of its philosophical competitors in terms of
their ability to ascertain SOMETHING of physical reality while
simultaneously "giving God the glory", ought not to be viewed as
arrogant or defiant. While realism is problematic, a critical realism is
most satisfactory; for it leaves the universe open to (perhaps even
necessitates the need for!) theological interpretation while negating
postmodernistic attacks on objectivity.
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="vcard.vcf"
Content-Description: Card for Andrews Jr., George
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="vcard.vcf"
fn: Andrews Jr., George
n: Andrews Jr.;George
org: LeTourneau University
adr: Natural Sciences;;PO Box 7001;Longview;Texas;75607;USA
title: Assistant Professor of Physics
tel;work: 903 233 3281
tel;fax: 903 233 3282