Re: Methodological Naturalism
George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Wed, 25 Mar 1998 08:55:38 -0500Phillip E. Johnson wrote:
>
> To Loren Haarsma and the ASA list:
>
> If you have a reliable special revelation from God (via Scripture or
> otherwise) then of course you know that theism is true regardless of any
> other evidence. But granted the unique superiority of methodological
> naturalism (MN) as a principle of scientific investigation (the premise of
> my original comment), how can you be confident that you have such a
> revelation? MN is not just applicable to evolution. It is also the
> scientific way to investigate purported divine revelations and miracles.
...........................
Your argument opposes MN as a fundamental presupposition about
reality. It does not, however, touch versions of MN which are
not seen as fundamental but as secondary working principles suggested
by, & to be interpreted in accord with, belief that what is truly
fundamental about reality, God, is revealed in the cross and
resurrection of Jesus Christ. That should be the basic question, though
most people would prefer to talk about philosophical theism than about
the implications of the cross.
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@imperium.net
http://www.imperium.net/~gmurphy