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

From: George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>
Date: Thu Aug 23 2007 - 21:32:10 EDT

Since you failed to answer my question I'll return the favor.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Peter Loose
  To: 'George Murphy' ; 'Michael Roberts' ; asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2007 6:12 PM
  Subject: RE: [asa] FYI: Arrogance, dogma and why science - not faith - is the new enemy of

   

  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" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>

  To: <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 21:33:39 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Aug 23 2007 - 21:33:39 EDT