RE: [asa] FYI: Arrogance, dogma and why science - not faith - is the new enemy of

From: Peter Loose <peterwloose@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu Aug 23 2007 - 18:12:13 EDT

 
May I ask what is so meritorious about a 'scientific explanation of P'? At
what point would those who are proposing the need for such cease their
searching for a scientific explanation had they been at the Wedding in
Canaan when the feast ran out of wine.?
 
I sense that your problem, not to say thinly disguised ridicule of
Plantinga, is not on the merits of his case (which is part of a two-section
very long paper) but because of the way you define science. You don't mean a
rational, logical explanation - you mean an explanation in terms of
something natural, judged to be more fundamental which will lead to the need
for a further explanation of something(s) natural but more fundamental still
and so on ad infinitum. Isn't this naturalism dressed up as science?
 
I'm still waiting for someone to come back with a clear and succinct
statement of what is meant by science. I don't mean a treatise - I mean one
or two sentences.
 
Peter
 
  _____

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of George Murphy
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2007 10:46 PM
To: Michael Roberts; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] FYI: Arrogance, dogma and why science - not faith - is
the new enemy of
 
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Roberts" < <mailto:michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
To: < <mailto:asa@calvin.edu> asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2007 4:42 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] FYI: Arrogance, dogma and why science - not faith - is
the new enemy of
 
> An interesting quote from Plantinga in a LeaderU article on Methodological

> Naturalism
>
> 63. Why couldn't a scientist think as follows? God has created the world,
> and of course has created everything in it directly or indirectly. After a

> great deal of study, we can't see how he created some phenomenon P (life,
> for example) indirectly; thus probably he has created it directly. return
to
> text
>
> This is akin to IC or is it God-of-the-Gaps.
If one believes that all things have been created by God, what is gained by
concluding that phenomenon P has been created directly? OTOH, there is the
clear disadvantage that one thereby forecloses the possibility of obtaining
a scientific explanation of P.
 
This is just the old "Then a miracle occurs" gambit, but this time as a
supposedly serious suggestion instead of a cartoon.
 
Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: 269.12.2/967 - Release Date: 22/08/2007
18:51

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Aug 23 18:12:35 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Aug 23 2007 - 18:12:35 EDT