Re: Methodological naturalism
Adrian Teo (AdrianTeo@mailhost.net)
Thu, 26 Mar 1998 09:11:28 -0800
Phillip E. Johnson wrote:
> Newton's law of gravity is not dependent upon MN. He provided calculations
> which make predictions which can be verified observationally. A theist
> should say: "however the solar system originated, and whatever is the
> nature of that mysterious force we call 'gravity,' it can be observed to
> operate with a law-like regularity described in Newton's calculations
> (subject to certain famous anomalies)." Compare: "My computer is
> intelligently designed, and it also operates according to physical laws."
I don't get it, Phil. I know my computer is intelligently designed
(observation), but it also operates according to physical laws
(observation), and therefore, I can study those regularities through MN
(method). How is that different from saying something like "The universe
is intelligently designed (presupposition), but it also operates
according to physical laws (observation), and THEREFORE, I can employ MN
to study those regularities (method)"? Isn't that what Christian
scientists are doing all along?
I'm afraid I'm not getting the gist of your concern with MN.