From: PvM <>
Date: Fri Jun 01 2007 - 00:13:34 EDT

On 5/31/07, <> wrote:
> > However, it seems to me that one could easily take the view that
> > "natural phenomena" covers all events in space-time that are not caused
> > by something outside the continuum eg super natural. In such a view the
> > resurrection while occurring in space-time is not a "natural phenomena".
> But clearly they didn't mean to allow this kind of interpretation, because
> if they did then it exposes the scientific process to the counter claim that
> certain events in history were not "natural phenomena," including the
> appearance of bacterial flagella or priveleged planets, because an
> intelligent designer may have caused these things from outside the
> continuum. That is exactly the sort of claim that they were intending to
> deny by their statement.

Not a very scientific explantion really. Surely that the statement was
intended to deny this seems hardly an issue of concern.

> Also, this interpretation reduces their statement to the tautological claim
> that "all things that are not supernatural are natural." That kind of
> tautology is not at all helpful in defining the "method" of methodological
> naturalism. So clearly they didn't mean this.

It seems to me that you are reading too much into this simple statement

> > You could well be right in your conclusion of duplicity, but I'd like to
> see
> > some other evidence that philosophical naturalism was what was meant
> > before coming to that conclusion.

> Like Rich, I think they were just sloppy and not purposely deceptive. But
> I think that kind of sloppiness is inexcusable in a statement that was
> intended to protect the purity of science against metaphysical intrusions.
> In effect, they were insisting that theists must hold to the purity of
> science while they were overlooking their own injection of non-theistic
> metaphysics into science. I think this statement is very telling in the
> same sense that a Freudian slip is very telling.

Again me thinks thou protests too much.

Why not simply take the statement for what it says rather than for
what some fear it may be saying and we would not be rushing to
conclusions that are hard to support with much of any evidence?

Just a thought though

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Jun 1 00:14:10 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Jun 01 2007 - 00:14:10 EDT