Re: [asa] Empiricism, Faith and Science

*The main reason why science shuns this "other" is because we have no way to
set up controlled experiments to examine it.*

But the same is true for much of science itself. Historical science, as the
recent discussion here highlighted, can make predictions about anticipated
observations that should follow from the model deduced from historical
facts, but it often can't be subject to controlled experiments. We can't
re-run the early universe or biological evolution in any meaningful way
against a control. That doesn't make cosmology or evolutionary science
non-empirical.

*So "empirical" in the sense of "experimental" knowledge of religious truths
is basically ruled* out

I agree, if "empirical" only means "controlled experiments."

*we have no means whereby to achieve interaction with it, except possibly at
a very personal level and at a time of God's own unknown chosing.*

But here I disagree. This is the big epistemic issue as I see it. I think
stating it this way capitulates to the positivist / empiricist's
epistemology. We can achieve and observe interaction with "it" through
God's working in history. Exhibit A is the cross and the resurrection. Our
faith is warranted not only by incommensurable personal experiences, but but
historical observations and by rational presuppositions about God and our
capability to understand that God has acted. I agree that personal
experiences provide the assurance of faith and constitute part of the
warrant for belief, but I can't agree that the sphere of "faith" is grounded
in incommensurable personal experiences alone.

*So, if you ask me for proof, I would have to be silent,
*
I agree and disagree. I agree there is no "proof" of faith claims. But I
agree with that because I think the notion of "proof" is not well
defined. There's no "proof" of most claims, including most claims of
science, if "proof" means certainty beyond any possible question. In
contrast, I think there can be good "warrant" for faith claims, such that it
can be rational to make them and to use them as anchors for one's worldview.

On 9/15/06, Dawsonzhu@aol.com <Dawsonzhu@aol.com> wrote:
>
> David wrote:
>
>
> But isn't this [old school positivism form of] epistemology implicit in a
TE position that promotes a rigid methodological naturalism? Even though
the TE's MN is couched in pragmatic terms, isn't the philosophical
underpinning a belief that there really is no "empirical" knowledge of
religious truths?
>
> I also don't quite know what you mean by "rigid". Maybe that
> all things that happen in the world can be explained only by
> physical processes? I mainly see no reason to assume that
> "physical" (in the sense of "matter interacting with matter")
> is all there is.
>
> Even granting the atheists who seize on infinite time to
> get a quantum fluctuation just right so we arrive at
> our present universe, we must also grant infinite time for
> these other things too. So rejecting everything but matter
> is mostly chauvinism, probably hubris and, as an argument,
> little more than a ruse.
>
> The main reason why science shuns this "other" is because we
> have no way to set up controlled experiments to examine it.
> We don't know what "it" is, let alone whether (or even if)
> we can probe it with anything we can make in a completely
> controlable way. However, it would appear that (at least for
> the most part), if this "other" does exist and interacts with the
> world, it tends to interact in a non-coercive way. So one would
> expect that most things can be explained by a physical process
> having taken place. But whether God was in any way involved with
> it, this we cannot determine (at least) with our current understanding
> and means of probing things physically.
>
> It does push into the matter of faith, but this has always been
> an issue from the very beginning and is not likely to change
> in the future either. We see God's action in the world through
> the eyes of faith, but certainly, because of this, there is
> reason to also doubt, and that would be consistent with the
> tendency of God to interact non-coercively with the world. So
> he who wishes to ignore God can easily chose to do so.
>
> Intuition is an important part of science, so turning to one's "feeling"
> is not, in of itself, wrong --- even when you are unsuccessful at
> finding a way to work it into a successful experiment. So, if you
> ask me for proof, I would have to be silent, but I see no reason to
> deny everything I cannot prove it.
>
> So "empirical" in the sense of "experimental" knowledge of
> religious truths is basically ruled out in this picture
> because we have no means whereby to achieve interaction
> with it, except possibly at a very personal level and at a time of
> God's own unknown chosing.
>
>
> By Grace we proceed,
> Wayne
>
>
>
> By Grace we proceed,
> Wayne
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Sep 16 10:59:46 2006