Re: [asa] Anti-Creationist Psychobabble On the Web

From: David Clounch <>
Date: Fri Apr 03 2009 - 10:14:53 EDT


It doesn't matter. Public schools taught science just fine without MN. MN
exists only to assuage the concerns of certain religionists. It belongs
down the hall in the philosophy classroom or comparative religion classroom,
not in the science classroom. Along with all questions about

-Dave C

On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 11:09 PM, Bill Powers <> wrote:

> Kirk:
> You say that MN is neutral with respect to religion.
> Let me leave that aside and ask whether you (or George) thinks that MN is
> metaphysicially neutral.
> Whether you think them questionable or not it appears to me that science
> surely makes some metaphysical presumptions, even they may vary with time.
> The kinds of explanations we permit, even MN itself, is metaphysical. Were
> it not metaphysical what would it be? Surely not empirical. Is it merely a
> convention? No, I think not. What we mean by a particle, or what is a
> "thing." Are these metaphysical? They fit a template, perhaps a changing
> one.
> I guess what I am briefly suggesting is that science, whether it be MN or
> something else, paints a possible picture of the world. It constrains the
> world, only permitting some ill-defined possibilities, and excluding others.
> There can be no discontinuities, the world is a Uni-verse; it must obey
> rational law. This is certainly a more classic view, although Nancy
> Cartwright suggests that the world is "messy," a different "world" I think.
> Finally, how do we distinguish metaphysics from religion? Heidegger is
> famous for saying that no one worships the causa sui. So perhaps no one,
> but Hegel, sings to metaphysics. Still they touch noses, it seems.
> bill powers
> On Thu, 2 Apr 2009, Kirk Bertsche wrote:
> David,
>> I don't understand your comments about "George Murphy's views on
>> methodological naturalism" being "religion."
>> Based on George's comments, his view of MN seems to be pretty standard,
>> and is the way that we we do science. (And I would argue that this is the
>> way that we SHOULD do science.) It is METHODOLOGICAL, not METAPHYSICAL
>> naturalism. It makes no religious claims at all, and keeps science neutral
>> with respect to religion.
>> What am I missing?
>> Kirk
>> On Apr 1, 2009, at 10:56 PM, David Clounch wrote:
>> This is why I oppose George Murphy's views on methodological
>>> naturalism. To me it's religion and I want that religion separated from
>>> school as far as the east is from the west.
>>> I don't mind if George Murphy holds his view personally because he is
>>> entitled to his religion. I just don't want a public school to base its
>>> science curriculum on George's religion.

I often suffer from nostalgia, that fondness for something that never was.
Pleasant memories have a tendency to expand.
To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Apr 3 10:15:24 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Apr 03 2009 - 10:15:24 EDT