If everything is an illusion, why shouldn't the discoveries of the
neuroscientists be also considered an illusion?
Moorad
-----Original Message-----
From: Bryan Cross <crossbr@SLU.EDU>
To: asa@calvin.edu <asa@calvin.edu>
Date: Thursday, June 29, 2000 11:01 AM
Subject: Re: The Wedge of Truth : Splitting the Foundations
ofNaturalismbyPhillip E...
>That looks like special pleading to me. If a group of neuroscientists
discovered
>that determinism is true, and thus that free choice is an illusion, or that
>consciousness is an illusion, being reducible to patterns of axonal spikes
or some
>other brain phenomena, would we conclude that because their findings
eliminate
>features of our existence that give us meaning, therefore those
neuroscientists
>must not be whole persons, somehow scant of skill and vision? With this
rejoinder,
>opponents of Galileo and Newton could have protected the meaning and
comfort
>procured by the richness of the scholastic worldview. We could preserve all
our pet
>theories that way, but that's special pleading, any way you slice it. To be
>successful, any preservation of teleology must not rest on ad hoc
restrictions on
>the application of the principle of parsimony. If "whole person" is defined
(at
>least in part) as someone who at all costs protects and preserves that
which gives
>us meaning, then the restriction below looks to me like special pleading.
>
>- Bryan
>
>
>"Howard J. Van Till" wrote:
>
>> But Ockham's razor must be used by whole persons with the requisite skill
>> and breadth of vision. If wielded by the scant of skill or vision it can
cut
>> off the very considerations that give meaning to the entirety of life's
>> experiences.
>>
>> Howard Van Till
>>
>> ----------
>> >From: "Bryan R. Cross" <crossbr@SLU.EDU>
>> >
>>
>> > Unfortunately, such a teleology is readily subject to Ockham's razor,
>> surviving
>> > only in the rather anemic form as a human projection onto reality a la
>> Dennett's
>> > 'intentional stance'.
>> >
>> > - Bryan
>> >
>> >
>> > Cmekve@aol.com wrote:
>> >
>> >> In a message dated 6/27/00 9:25:19 AM Mountain Standard Time,
>> >> bivalve@email.unc.edu writes:
>> >>
>> >> [snip]
>> >> << A scientific explanation, such as
>> >> biological evolution, should be considered an attempt at describing
how God
>> >> normally does things. A description of how God does things is not
valid
>> >> evidence against God being involved. Evolution is actually a smart
design
>> >> for dealing with certain problems.
>> >>
>> >> David C. >>
>> >>
>> >> Quite so. As B.B. Warfield put it nearly a century ago:
>> >> "...teleology is in no way inconsistent with...a complete system of
natural
>> >> causation. Every teleological system implies a COMPLETE
'causo-mechanical'
>> >> explanation as its instrument." [emphasis added]
>> >>
>> >> Karl
>> >> *****************************
>> >> Karl V. Evans
>> >> cmekve@aol.com
>> >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 29 2000 - 11:31:15 EDT