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

From: John W Burgeson (burgytwo@juno.com)
Date: Wed Dec 26 2001 - 13:58:52 EST

  • Next message: John W Burgeson: "Re: Evolution Statement"

    Moorad wrote: "I have defined science by its subject matter, which is
    data that can, in
    principle, be detected by physical devices. Is that consistent with
    methodological naturalism? And, if so, why use an "ism" in the definition
    of science?"

    I'm not uncomfortable with your definition, but I may not have thought it
    thorough completely, so I have not (yet) adopted it. Is it consistent
    with MN? I think so,

    As far as "using an 'ism'" in defining science, I'm not sure I'm doing
    that. I am arguing that MN is a foundational assumption of science.
    Plantinga has a couple of recent articles arguing for two kinds of
    "science," one assuming MN and one not. You can read these in the ARN
    journals of a year or two ago. To me, they were interesting, but not
    persuasive.

    If you are uncomfortable with "isms," then substitute for the term
    "methodological naturalism" (which I think is admirably descriptive,
    lucid and clear) a generally synonymous phrase "study of natural
    causation." It's the same thing, albeit (IMHO) a little more vague.

    Hope you had a good holiday, my friend.

    John Burgeson (Burgy)

    http://www.burgy.50megs.com
           (science/theology, quantum mechanics, baseball, ethics,
            humor, cars, God's intervention into natural causation, etc.)



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Dec 26 2001 - 14:00:48 EST