I printed & read your essay on the use of "methodological naturalism."
very interesting. I will no doubt reread it once or twice more. No, I did
not find it persuasive, but, as always, you make me think! < G >
I think that, in the section you call "Problem 1," where you list five
parts to "Christian Scholarship in the natural Sciences," I would
probably be a strict demarcationist, and argue that #1, #4 and #5, while
certainly part of "scholarship," ought no be considered part of
"science." Thus I would see your first argument failing. Yes, I have read
Plantinga's arguments against being a demarcationist. I remain one
anyway, I think on strictly pragmatic grounds.
Your second argument, that MN implies no God in ordinary events, it is
apparent that some, Sagan & Dawkins among them, seem to endorse this. The
recent articles (last year) in PERSPECTIVES appear to me to answer that
issue, although your argument is strong and very well put.
I don't really follow your third argument, "credit where credit is due."
I don't agree with your fourth argument, "MN implies science must deny
miracles." Implications are funny animals; they depend as much -- perhaps
more -- on the hearer's worldview(s) as on the expressed language.
So I wind up in substantial agreement with Richard Dickerson in PSCF 44,
#2, whom you quoted.
As always, I enjoy reading your stuff. My intention is to adapt some of
it (not this essay but other materials on your website) for a six week
"science/Christianity" Sunday School class this fall at Montview Blvd
Presbyterian Church here in Denver.
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 : Tue Feb 19 2002 - 18:39:00 EST