From: douglas.hayworth@perbio.com
Date: Fri Aug 29 2003 - 08:50:43 EDT
Regarding MN, I recall a previous exchange that I had on this list in July
of 2000 (http://www.asa3.org/archive/asa/200007/0104.html). I think that a
simple example clearly demonstrates the usefulness and validity of MN in
science. Here's what I said then:
"I find the idea of a "theistic natural science" to be an oxymoron, like
"spiritual car mechanic". When I go to have my car fixed, I want a
mechanic who is methodologically a naturalist; he rightfully assumes to the
bitter end that there is a physical basis for the problem. If he never
finds one, and God somehow miraculously makes the problem goes away, I
thank God. For me,
having faith that God will provide, it was a miracle, a special provision
in a time of need. If the mechanic finds a problem and fixes it, I also
thank God, and trust Him to provide for me to pay for the work. By either
outcome, I want the mechanic to be a relentless methodological naturalist
(and, significantly, I give thanks to God for his purpose in my life). If
my mechanic is a Christian, that's all the better; but only in the sense
that he will (hopefully) have a higher level of integrity and tenacity in
solving my car problem, i.e., his Christianity makes him a better
methodological naturalist. As a Christian, he will also be able to share
in my experience of provision."
Doug
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Aug 29 2003 - 08:58:23 EDT