RE: Science of the Gaps (Re: God acting in creation #4+++)

From: Moorad Alexanian (
Date: Sun Dec 23 2001 - 11:42:15 EST

  • Next message: Walter Hicks: "Re: Science of the Gaps (Re: God acting in creation #4+++)"

    The finite mind of man requires him to create disciplines with well defined
    subject matters. The whole of creation can be studied with physical devices as
    detectors, that defines science. But certainly that does not encompass the
    whole of reality. Man is also a detector both of the physical and the
    non-physical--and science can say nothing about the non-physical. Examples,
    are notions of deity, human consciousness, moral laws, etc. Just because the
    subject matter of science does not include these categories, it is absurd to
    say that science declares them to be nonsensical. Methodological naturalism
    goes beyond science and it is a philosophy of science that is nihilistic in
    nature since it excludes other disciplines---those dealing with the
    non-physical, not detectable by physical devices. Man qua man is more than man
    qua scientist. The "I" in man is what detects human consciousness and that is
    also that allows the theist to perceive of God. Science will always be silent
    about these matters. Moorad

    >===== Original Message From John W Burgeson <> =====
    >Walter Hicks asked: "Why is it valid for scientists to assume that all
    >unknown phenomena must be explained by "God acting within the limits of
    >natural causes", but invalid for anyone to suggest that perhaps God may
    >have had a direct hand in it? The Bible seems to suggest that God is not
    >shy about interacting with His Universe."
    >My own position on this is that AS A SCIENTIST it is incumbent upon me to
    >follow the foundational principle of methodological naturalism. I believe
    >it was Dickinson who defined this in PERSPECTIVES some years ago as
    >seeing science as a game -- a game in which we try to explain the data
    >always as consequences of natural causation. AS A PHILOSOPHER, i.e. when
    >not "doing science," I see no reason not to allow for the possibility of
    >direct supernatural (nonnatural causation) intervention of a deity. Or --
    >even for the direct (natural causation) of an external intelligence. If
    >there were any reasonable evidence that an external (non-supernatural)
    >intelligence existed, and SETI may someday provide this, then AS A
    >SCIENTIST I would have to allow the possibility that this intelligence,
    >of one similar to it, did and does intervene in the world. So far, IMHO,
    >that "reasonable evidence" does not appear to exist.
    >John Burgeson (Burgy)
    > (science/theology, quantum mechanics, baseball, ethics,
    > humor, cars, God's intervention into natural causation, etc.)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 23 2001 - 11:43:00 EST