RE: Theism & MNS

From: Timothy Kennelly <timothykennelly@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat Feb 18 2006 - 15:01:27 EST

Mr. Alexanian,

  Indeed. The argument I am offering is concerned with the normative presuppositions of MNS. That reality might not be consistent with these presuppositions is to be expected.
   
  Timothy E. Kennelly
  
"Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu> wrote:
                One must not confuse the models one uses to describe Nature with the real thing. Recall that a map of a city, which can be usual to get around, is far from being the city itself. Surely, one does not, and certainly cannot, include God in the models used to describe Nature specially those in physics where the models are mathematical.
   
    Moorad

   
      
---------------------------------
  
  From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Timothy Kennelly
Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2006 12:08 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: Theism & MNS

   
    Mr. Miller,

     

    I must indicate profound disagreement with the statement below. Modern Natural Science must of necessity work with the assumption that there is not an active deity. With respect to the natural world God (or god) does nothing. One might also argue for nature's god in which case god does everything, but alway in a manner which is understandable in rational terms.

     

    
>[Science] says nothing about how God might interact with the natural world. Science pursues truth within very narrow limits.

     

    
---------------------------------
  
  Yahoo! Mail
Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.

                        
---------------------------------
 Yahoo! Mail
 Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.
Received on Sat Feb 18 15:01:59 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Feb 18 2006 - 15:01:59 EST