RE: [asa] HPSS - Survey of Views

From: Alexanian, Moorad <alexanian@uncw.edu>
Date: Sat Apr 05 2008 - 11:00:49 EDT

Surely, one can believe that "God sustains His creation, which means 'no God, no nothing'"together with deism, viz., God does not intervene with the affairs of human life and the laws of the universe. What if one supposes the former and rejects the latter, how far away from deism are our views. That is to say, "to what extent God sustaining the creation shows up in the existence and temporal development of all that there is?"

Moorad

________________________________

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of Randy Isaac
Sent: Fri 4/4/2008 7:41 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] HPSS - Survey of Views

Greg,
 I've read only Kuhn and read about Popper's views. Though I'm interested in knowing what they have to say, I'm not inclined to spend the time reading them. Nor, to my knowledge, do I know many scientists who do. Most of us prefer to just do the science. We know it when we see it but can't always define it. Are you indirectly confirming that all the paradigm changes they consider still retain the core of a belief that science is possible?
  Moorad, I'm not sure I understand your question but I do believe that the fact that anything exists at all and that what does exist is coherent and orderly is one of the more potent arguments for the existence of God.
  Randy

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Gregory Arago <mailto:gregoryarago@yahoo.ca>
        To: Alexanian, Moorad <mailto:alexanian@uncw.edu> ; Randy Isaac <mailto:randyisaac@comcast.net> ; asa@calvin.edu
        Sent: Friday, April 04, 2008 5:27 PM
        Subject: RE: [asa] HPSS - Survey of Views

        "But I wonder if any of these 4 (or others) philosophers of science ever considered a paradigm shift that included abandoning the idea of a consistent order in the universe?" - Randy Isaac
         
        Yes, those 4 are all philosophers of science. But also, as I pointed out in the previous post, they are trained in physics, mathematics and psychology. So they are also 'scientists' as far as the term goes. As to your above question, Randy, it makes me wonder if you have read any of them, especially Feyerabend. This indeed was the main purpose of the thread to discover. Thanks to those who have already commented on this survey in public and private. - G.A.
        

        "Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu> wrote:

                Scripturally, God sustains His creation, which means "no God, no nothing." Therefore, to what extent God sustaining the creation shows up in the existence and temporal development of all that there is?
                
                
                Moorad
                
                ________________________________
                
                From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of Randy Isaac
                Sent: Fri 4/4/2008 10:56 AM
                To: asa@calvin.edu
                Subject: Re: [asa] HPSS - Survey of Views
                
                
                
                Jim,
                Maybe we need to differentiate between the perspective of a given
                scientist and that which develops from the collective perspective of the
                scientific community. Certainly, each scientist approaches the data from a
                paradigmatic framework and is not (cannot, I think) be "purely objective",
                whatever that might mean. However, part of the essence of scientific
                methodology is independent corroboration and reproducibility and acceptance
                by the collective community of scientists in that particular field. In
                principle, this means that scientists from all sorts of different
                sociological and philosophical perspectives weigh in on the matter. This
                doesn't mean that complete objectivity without influence by any paradigm is
                achieved but it does make a big difference in sifting out spurious results
                that might be unique to a given paradigm. What needs to remain in common to
                all paradigms is the core belief that there is order in the universe and
                that science is possible
                
                This core belief is what differentiates many creationist and ID
                presuppositions. Creationists typically claim significant discontinuities in
                the laws of nature. This means that whatever order there is in the universe
                was different in the past, the so-called non-uniformitarian assumption.
                Some, though not all, ID perspectives include the idea that certain aspects
                of the order in the universe bear the hallmarks of intelligent manipulation
                rather than typical cause and effect relationships.
                
                As a result, when the paradigm that shapes one's conclusions differs at
                such a basic level, all sorts of red flags are raised. It's no wonder that
                conflicts ensue. But I wonder if any of these 4 (or others) philosophers of
                science ever considered a paradigm shift that included abandoning the idea
                of a consistent order in the universe? My guess is that when they talk of
                paradigm shifts, they reall mean something very different.
                
                Randy
                
                
                ----- Original Message -----
                From: "James Mahaffy"
                To:
                Sent: Friday, April 04, 2008 7:48 AM
                Subject: Re: [asa] HPSS - Survey of Views
                
                
> Folks
>
> Kuhn -- yes and he was very important in helping me understand that
> science does not work just objectively
> Popper -- am somewhat aware of him but have not read him and way back when
> I picked up one of his books did not find it easy to read.
> Others -- not really.
>
>
> It is interesting how often on this group science appears in many posts to
> be objective and not really influenced by paradigms.
>
> James Mahaffy (mahaffy@dordt.edu) Phone: 712 722-6279
> 498 4th Ave NE
> Biology Department FAX : 712 722-1198
> Dordt College, Sioux Center IA 51250-1697
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
                
                
                To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
                "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
                
                
                
                
                To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
                "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
                

        
________________________________

        Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail <http://ca.promos.yahoo.com/newmail/overview2/>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Apr 5 11:03:56 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Apr 05 2008 - 11:03:56 EDT