Re: The naturalist Philosophy

Date: Fri Aug 30 2002 - 13:35:31 EDT

  • Next message: "Re: More on the Georgia Decision, from Cal Thomas"

    Walter Hicks writes:

    > Since when is the motivation of an advocate a measure of the validity
    > of his idea?
    > I think that is precisely the point that many anti-science folks
    >are trying to
    > raise. Science is neat ,but it really rests on pure faith in naturalism.
    > Scientists point to the many times it has worked in the past and then
    > extrapolate
    > that it should be accepted as a universal truth (ignoring all current
    > problems, I
    > might add). That is indeed philosophy, not science. Science itself
    > only rests upon
    > this philosophy lest it crumble. Why is it necessary to believe
    >that science is
    > some magical approach that can figure out everything about God's
    > universe while God
    > never interacts with His creation? That is surely theology.
    > I think that the suggestion that this be discussed in public schools in a
    > philosophy class is a fine one. Why would a theologian ever disagree with it?

    Even better, start a truly Christian school, where children learn religion,
    even when in physics they learn about evolution. Evolution does not need to
    be taught as "just" science. As a matter of fact all our learning is based
    on a certain type of philosophy. Unfortunately, many, if not all of us, do
    not realize on which philosophy they base their reasoning. God created, but
    He used evolution to guide the universe to what it is now. Philosophy
    without religion is impossible, though I admit that many philosophies do not
    recognize the God of creation.

    Jan de Koning

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Aug 30 2002 - 17:25:22 EDT