From: Howard J. Van Till (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Mar 20 2003 - 12:23:00 EST
Thanks for the interaction. With limited time let me comment only on one
point. You say:
> Having read Griffin's book several times, and also corresponded with him
> several times, I see his "minimal naturalism" as an exact metaphysical
> equivalent of my own pragmatic "methodological naturalism." In that sense, I
> see the two claims as functionally equivalent.
I take "methodological naturalism" to be the choice not to use supernatural
action (coercive divine action) as an element in any scientific explanation.
It does not explicitly deny the possibility of such action, but it excludes
it from the arena science. In essence, it limits the methodology of science
to include natural phenomena only.
As I understand Griffin's definition of "minimal naturalism" it constitutes
more than a choice to limit scientific explanations to natural causes only;
it specifically denies even the possibility of supernatural action -- at any
time, at any place. It is a fairly strong metaphysical statement that, as I
see it, goes beyond methodological naturalism.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Mar 20 2003 - 12:51:40 EST