Would you care to elaborate on your comment, 'Moreover, one can present
good _theological_ arguments to validate such "methodological
naturalism."' I beleive these arguments may represent a method for
getting some believers to be more comfortable with science and its findings.
george murphy wrote:
> firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> > Hi George, thank you for your comments!
> > george murphy wrote:
> > >
> > > email@example.com wrote:
> > >
> > > (Big Snip!)
> > In fact, the principal untestable hypothesis assumed is philosophical naturalism. The power of the evidences for evolution depends very much on the previous assumption of theism or atheism.
> This is true only in the sense that scientists assume that God is not an element of scientific explanation - i.e., what has been called in a rather loose way "methodological naturalism." Most scientists who are Christians operate in this way whether they have thought out their assumptions carefully or not. (No competent scientist, when confronted with a puzzling result of an experiemnt, will be content to explain it by saying "God did it.") Moreover, one can present good _theological_ arguments to validate such "methodological naturalism."
It is quite another matter - and I think simply untrue - to say that
this is equivalent to an assumption of "atheism" in the ordinary sense
of the word.
-- --Bill Yates --mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org --mailto:email@example.com --http://www.billyates.com/ --Moderator, Writer's Club Christian Writer's Workshop --Editor, WorldVillage.com's Believer's Weekly --Theron Services: Web Design, Editing, Writing
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jun 05 2001 - 15:43:19 EDT