Possibly, letting Daniel Dennet (or other apologetic considerations)
determine our theology is letting a small tail wag a big dog.
Do you believe that Dennet has correctly applied Ockham's razor?
If so, I disagree. If not, why try to avoid his application of it?
> From: "Bryan R. Cross" <crossbr@SLU.EDU>
> Subject: Re: The Wedge of Truth : Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism
> byPhillip E...
>
> 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
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joel W. Cannon | (724)223-6146
Physics Department |
Washington and Jefferson College |
Washington, PA 15301 |
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 29 2000 - 13:33:43 EDT