RE: Theism & MNS

From: Timothy Kennelly <timothykennelly@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun Feb 19 2006 - 11:22:13 EST

Mr. Alexanian,
   
  An argument for evolution, for example, which includes the assumption that an active deity is part of the evolutionary process will generally not be permitted by the normative and rhetorical practices which obtain in MNS. That such arguments do sometime appear, particularly in ID presentations point to the fact that they are at best on the fringe of MNS discourse. Calling MNS theologically neutral does not make it so. One sees the profound difference between scienctific discourse in the 19th century, which is theologically neutral, and MNS which is not.
   
  One may think and argue as a sceintist or a layman that science allows an active deity, it is another thing to find scienctist, taken seriously as a sceintists, arguing that a given patient has been healed by a miracle or a given evolutionary change is the direct act of a deity, or that QM indicates the existence of an active deity. Few, indeed very few, professional scientifc journals will consider such arguments, and those that do are generally driven by an agenda to consider such questions.
   
   
  Timothy E. Kennelly

"Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu> wrote:
                Theological neutral science makes no assumption whatsoever on a deity. Your statement, “the assumption that there is not an active deity,” is a theological and not a scientific assumption. It is quite different, as a physicist, to say that when I do quantum optics I do not have God in my formulae and quite another to say that when I do quantum optics “there is not an active deity.”
   
  Moorad
   
   
   
      
---------------------------------
  
  From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Timothy Kennelly
Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2006 3:01 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: RE: Theism & MNS

   
    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.

                
---------------------------------
Relax. Yahoo! Mail virus scanning helps detect nasty viruses!
Received on Sun Feb 19 11:23:58 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Feb 19 2006 - 11:23:58 EST