Re: [asa] Science's Blind Spot: The Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism

Howard said: *The belief that the stages of creation are a literary device
does not mean that they have no relevance to the physical world. One does
not cancel out the other. In CSL's essay 'Is Theology poetry?' he says it
is, but so is the theory of evolution. That does not invalidate either. The
plain meaning of Genesis 1 is that God created in stages. There is no
Biblical, philosophical or scientific reason to hold that creation is a
unity.*

You've lost me.

Of course, the fact that the "days" and "kinds" of Gen. 1 are literary
devices doesn't *dictate* that they are not directly describing a physical
reality, but OTOH, it certainly does open the possibility that they may not
correspond directly to any scientifically describable physical reality. In
other words, the recognition that these may consitute part of a literary
device defeats your position that science *must *expect to be able to detect
radical discontinuities in the created order -- just like the recognition
that "rising and setting" with respect to the sun is a literary device
defeats the expectation that science must be able to demonstrate a
stationary earth.

To suggest that the "plain meaning" of Gen is that God created in stages
seems to me to beg the question. Is it really the "plain meaning" if we
understand the literary genre? Perhaps not, if the genre suggests a
framework or analogical days view. Perhaps not even more so if the genre
suggests this isn't to be taken as a literal description of the physical
nature of creation at all.

Moreover, even if the text suggests that God created in stages, it doesn't
necessarily follow that those stages would be transparent to scientific
observation. What if the "stages" represent something internal to God's
will for how the creation should continue to develop, but the physical
result of God so willing is hidden in the record of natural history?

As to the philosophical and scientific reasons for holding that creation is
a unity, maybe you're employing a different meaning of the term "unity." It
seems to me we have every philosophical and theological reason to hold to
the functional integrity of the creation. If the creation is radically
discontinuous, how can we study it? How, indeed, can we really justify any
kind of knowledge claim? Do you hold some kind of "appearance" view
concerning natural history? At the end of the day, are you taking a YEC
position?

If what you mean by a "unity" is simply development-by-radical-jumps vs.
gradual development, I guess my response would be a bit nuanced. Certainly
both aspects are present in the record of natural history, but "radical" in
this context is a relative term and the discontinuities we observe don't
seem to map in any meaningful way onto the "days" of Genesis.

On 7/18/07, Taylor, Howard G <H.G.Taylor@hw.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> David,
>
> The belief that the stages of creation are a literary device does not mean
> that they have no relevance to the physical world. One does not cancel out
> the other. In CSL's essay *'Is Theology poetry*?' he says it is, but so is
> the theory of evolution. That does not invalidate either. The plain meaning
> of Genesis 1 is that God created in stages. There is no Biblical,
> philosophical or scientific reason to hold that creation is a unity.
>
> As to those who hold a different view, they may be wiser Christians than I
> am (I don't mean to judge them - sorry!) but I should still hold honestly
> to my views.
>
> I repeat what Bertrand Russell once wrote:
> *Academic philosophers, ever since the time of Parmenides, have believed
> the world is a unity. The most fundamental of my intellectual beliefs is
> that this is rubbish. I think the universe is all spots and jumps, without
> continuity, without coherence or orderliness or any of the other properties
> that governesses love.* (Quoted in the Introduction and Summary of 'My
> Philosophical Development' by Bertrand Russell, page 199.)
>
> Good wishes,
>
> Howard Taylor
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------
> FAITH AND THE MODERN WORLD:
> www.howardtaylor.net
> Howard Taylor,
> *Work*:
> Chaplain, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, EH14 4AS
> Tel: 0131 451 4508 Mobile: 0775 969 6811
> E-mail: H.G.Taylor@hw.ac.uk
> **
> *Home:
> *51 The Murrays, Edinburgh, EH17 8UD
> Tel: 0131 664 0751
> E-mail: HowardTaylor1944@yahoo.co.uk
>
> *Skype: Howard1944*
> **
> *Blog: http://apologetics.blog.co.uk*
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* David Opderbeck [mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Wed 7/18/2007 18:34
> *To:* Taylor, Howard G
> *Cc:* Peter Loose; George Murphy; asa@calvin.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] Science's Blind Spot: The Unseen Religion of
> Scientific Naturalism
>
>
> Howard said:* ID people may have different interpretations of Genesis 1,
> but they believe that the Creation was not one event. *
>
> Howard, I'm glad you highlighted this. In my experience, people arguing
> for a strong ID position tend to evade it*.* The strong ID position,
> then, like the YEC position, is driven by a particular heremeneutical
> position on Gen. 1, particularly concerning discontinuities in the "kinds"
> and the "days" of creation.
>
> Howard said: *These are the discontinuities that those who take Genesis 1
> seriously should expect to find. We should not expect to find that nature is
> 'one seamless whole'*
>
> Do you really mean to suggest that those of us who might hold a
> "framework" or "analogical days" view of Gen. 1 aren't taking the text
> "seriously"? Either of those views, both of which are held by many
> evangelicals with a high view of scripture, are consistent with the view
> that the Gen. 1 "days" aren't a literal temporal sequence of creative
> "jumps" but rather are a sort of literary device. And that's not to mention
> "serious" evangelical and non-evangelical scholars who see the text as
> mostly allegorical.
>
> Do you also really mean to suggest that our understanding of what creation
> actually looks like can't inform our understanding of scripture? Shouldn't
> we also expect to find that the sky is a solid vault and that the sun
> revolves around the earth, then?
>
> Again, these sound like a YEC-ish responses: "if you question my position
> about the science, you're questioning the authority of scripture." I really
> don't think that's fair.
>
> On 7/18/07, Taylor, Howard G <H.G.Taylor@hw.ac.uk> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Integrity of Creation or as it is sometimes expressed nature is one
> seamless whole.
> >
> >
> > ID people may have different interpretations of Genesis 1, but they
> believe that the Creation was not one event. There were a small number of
> stages. Among these might have been (1). Matter-Energy, (2). Non-conscious
> life (3). Conscious life and (4). Conscious life that is capable of
> abstract reasoning.
> >
> >
> >
> > This means that the sciences should expect to find discontinuities in
> their examination of nature.
> >
> >
> >
> > 1. The understanding of matter and energy cannot be reduced to
> 'nothing'.
> >
> > 2. The understanding of non-conscious life cannot be reduced to a
> complex form of matter and energy. (Biology cannot be wholly reduced to
> chemistry and physics).
> >
> > 3. The understanding of conscious life cannot be wholly reduced to a
> complex form of non-conscious life.
> >
> > 4. The understanding of abstract reasoning cannot be reduced to the
> consciousness of animals.
> >
> >
> > These are the discontinuities that those who take Genesis 1 seriously
> should expect to find. We should not expect to find that nature is 'one
> seamless whole'
> >
> > Bertrand Russell one wrote:
> >
> > Academic philosophers, ever since the time of Parmenides, have believed
> the world is a unity. The most fundamental of my intellectual beliefs is
> that this is rubbish. I think the universe is all spots and jumps, without
> continuity, without coherence or orderliness or any of the other properties
> that governesses love. (Quoted in the Introduction and Summary of 'My
> Philosophical Development' by Bertrand Russell, page 199.)
> >
> >
> >
> > Best wishes from Edinburgh,
> >
> >
> >
> > Howard Taylor
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------
> > FAITH AND THE MODERN WORLD:
> > www.howardtaylor.net
> > Howard Taylor,
> > Work:
> > Chaplain, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, EH14 4AS
> > Tel: 0131 451 4508 Mobile: 0775 969 6811
> >
> >
> > E-mail: H.G.Taylor@hw.ac.uk
> >
> > Home:
> > 51 The Murrays, Edinburgh, EH17 8UD
> > Tel: 0131 664 0751
> > E-mail: HowardTaylor1944@yahoo.co.uk
> >
> > Skype: Howard1944
> >
> > Blog: http://apologetics.blog.co.uk
> >
> > ________________________________
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of David Opderbeck
> > Sent: Wed 7/18/2007 17:02
> > To: Peter Loose
> > Cc: George Murphy; asa@calvin.edu
> > Subject: Re: [asa] Science's Blind Spot: The Unseen Religion of
> Scientific Naturalism
> >
> >
> >
> > Peter -- I understand your concerns here. I think the disconnect
> centers on what "science" does. Does "science" supply a complete
> description of reality, or is it capable of supplying only limited
> descriptions of a part of reality? Is "science" the same thing as "Truth?"
> >
> > I think theists who accept MN suggest that "science" should not be
> equated with "Truth" in the sense of being a complete description of
> reality. There are pragmatic, historical reasons why it might be advisable
> and useful to cabin "science" in this way. Some of those reasons have to do
> with the limitations of the tools of science -- which are, at root, the
> human senses and extensions thereof, and particular kinds of human logical
> and mathematical constructs, which are not capable of fully understanding or
> describing God. Some reasons relate to the collapse of the
> Enlightenment's effort to craft an all-encompassing "natural philosphy" and
> developments in the philosophy of science since then. Other reasons involve
> the utility of the MN limitation -- it has led to progress in understanding
> and technology in many areas, whereas appeals to non-natural explanations
> have tended to close of potentially useful lines of inquiry. Yet other
> reasons involve practical distinctions that must be made concerning things
> like government research funding.
> >
> > But maybe most significantly, from a theological perspective, there are
> reasons to expect that God endowed creation with "contingent order and
> intelligibility," such that we are capable of studying creation as something
> possessing its own integrity. The integrity of creation suggests that
> creation ordinarly operates according to the "natural" processes with which
> God has endowed it. John 1:1, then, isn't a nail in the coffin of MN at
> all. When the divine logos spoke the creation into existence, he gave the
> creation the very order that makes MN a useful tool!
> >
> > Having said all that, I would agree that MN can ossify into a
> philosophical presupposition. In our culture, it has become anathema to
> suggest that science has limits. It's too easy to assume that there must
> actually be a "natural' explanation for everything simply because the
> empirical tools of science are only competent to seek and offer natural
> explanations. The contemporary scientific establishment can be filled with
> hubris. I'm not sure the answer to that problem, though, is to think of the
> divine logos as some kind of property of the universe that can be described
> through the scientific method. I'd lean towards thinking of the divine
> logos as one of the presuppositions that must cabin any claims to Truth made
> by science. The divine logos is above, around, and under science, but it
> cannot be captured or owned by the scientific method.
> >
> >
> > On 7/18/07, Peter Loose <peterwloose@compuserve.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > George – hi!!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 1. Do you really act as if Science shouldn't appeal to God for
> an explanation? MN appeals to entirely 'natural processes'. What are they
> if they're not matter and energy? You've already ruled out, a priori,
> Information or Intelligence or Mind. I note that your definition of MN is 'a
> pre-scription'. The case is rigged then?
> > >
> > > 2. I do know that about Einstein – I don't see how your comment
> is relevant. What Einstein so famously shows is that matter and energy are
> equivalent, not that they are other than fundamental aspects of a
> Materialist view of all that is.
> > >
> > > 3. Show me then please: why is ON not the logical precursor of
> MN? If the Ontology is a Theistic assumption, then how can MN operate and
> exclude that which is really there as stated in 'our' Ontology?
> > >
> > > 4. I find this comment you make George to be quite distressing.
> Show me any substantive place in the entirety of Scripture where the
> Creation is not a special event, a Singularity? Isn't the weight of John
> 1.1 just that final nail in the coffin of MN??? I really am perplexed. God
> can raise the Dead but O dear, He can't be permitted to create life just by
> His Word??
> > >
> > > 5. I don't understand this one at all. Could this be a non sequitur?
> Would you mind unpacking please? Excuse my ignorance.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Blessings
> > >
> > > Peter
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
>
> > >
> > > From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]
> On Behalf Of George Murphy
> > > Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 12:56 PM
> > > To: Peter Loose; asa@calvin.edu
> > >
> > > Subject: Re: [asa] Science's Blind Spot: The Unseen Religion of
> Scientific Naturalism
> > > Subject: Re: [asa] Science's Blind Spot: The Unseen Religion of
> Scientific Naturalism
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 1) MN is not "based around" the assumptions of matter & energy. It's
> a prescription that science should not appeal to God as an explanation. The
> introduction of intelligence or mind as explanatory elements would not
> violate MN in this sense - as long as those are not simply aliases for God
> (which they are for ID). Of course whether or not such a procedure is
> fruitful is another matter.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 2) Matter & energy, as concepts in physics, are not at the most basic
> level "two" entities but one - that's the significance of E = mc^2.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 3) The claim that Ontological Naturalism is the "logical precursor"
> to Methodological Naturalism is false.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 4) I was neither "setting aside" the Resurrection nor saying that it
> is the only phenomenon (Note my plural - "unique historical event s like the
> resurrection") with which science cannot deal. I was recognizing precisely
> the possibility of events, commonly referred to as miracles, which cannot
> be explained adequately without reference to God. OTOH Scripture gives
> us no reason to think that the origin of life is in that category.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 5) In the vast majority of cases God sustains - & acts - by his
> powerful Word in cooperation with creatures. That is why science
> constrained by MN works - the point of my original post.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Shalom
> > > George
> > > http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Peter Loose
> > >
> > >
> > > To: asa@calvin.edu
> > >
> > >
> > > Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 5:12 AM
> > >
> > >
> > > Subject: [asa] Science's Blind Spot: The Unseen Religion of Scientific
> Naturalism
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Wow George – I am amazed! May I as a Brit make a comment?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > What is MN? It's a set of assumptions based around two poles – Matter
> and Energy. Any outcome must be bounded by those assumptions. Now suppose
> those assumptions are wrong in any absolute sense? Will that ever be
> discovered?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Probably not – because MN is almost universally now come to be the
> only 'correct' way of doing science. And when MN fails, as it has
> manifestly, in any question about the origin of a single self-replicating
> cell or indeed on the increasingly vast matters shown up by the Encode
> project, those who operate by a commitment to MN fall back on another set of
> commitments. It's deep in the world-view of arguably virtually all
> scientists. That assumption is that MN is linked, to its logical precursor,
> Ontological Naturalism. So, if the answer to for example "the origin of life
> question" is elusive (it is?) then ON informs our Scientism and, by faith,
> we understand that the worlds were framed by MN. So we wait in faith,
> committed to MN, for the answer to the question of the origin of the single
> living cell.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Now a third pole of science ought to embrace something akin to
> Intelligence or Mind. We know that Information is at the heart of life. No
> computer engineer can look at DNA without recognising that the cell is
> programmed for life.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I've spent my life applying computers to Industrial Process Control
> problems. I've lived with the challenges of designing rugged software that
> doesn't fall over and cause, in my case, Steel Mills to crash. What I know
> is how difficult that challenge is. I know that it costs incalculable hours
> to develop software that runs reliably. I know that any 'glitches' or 'bugs'
> in the software didn't get better overnight. No, we pored over the code to
> work out, intelligently, what was going wrong and how to put it right.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Everything we know about Information tells us that it only arises from
> pre-existing Intelligence. It is neither matter nor energy. Those who hold
> to MN might as well postulate that Windows XP (or any other 'language' )
> could arise simply by squirting a long string of 'white noise' into a
> bi-level device ( e.g. - a Schmidt trigger) and expecting as output a
> string of code that when married with an X86 Instruction set would suddenly
> become Windows XP or any other Operating System. The real world simply isn't
> like that. There seems to be a complete absence of empirical evidence to say
> that the biological world is any different. But because we've assumed MN we
> have formed an attachment to it that is so inseparably linked to science,
> that anyone who argues science can be done with an additional pole, such as
> Information, or Mind, then that person is ostracised - "he's not doing
> science".
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I am amazed too that one can set aside the enormous ramifications of
> 'The Resurrection' in a single sweep of the hand "But - bracketing off for a
> moment claims for unique historical events like the resurrection - we don't
> have any reason to believe that there are any such phenomena. " What do you
> mean by your phrase "Any reason"? Most of the New Testament challenges that
> statement. While the Resurrection is clearly absolutely huge, it is by no
> means the only 'Singularity' in either the NT or the OT.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Then we come to such themes as spelled out in Hebrews 1:3 (NIV) The
> Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his
> being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided
> purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in
> heaven.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I am engineer, not a scientist or a philosopher – but I am old now and
> I've heard enough and seen enough to know than MN is a limit on science and
> is the territory of the a priori commitment to Naturalism. What's the
> difference between Naturalism and Atheism?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Peter Loose
> > >
> > > Chelmsford
> > >
> > > UK
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
>
> > >
> > > From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]
> On Behalf Of George Murphy
> > > Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 2:18 AM
> > > To: George Murphy; David Opderbeck; Ted Davis
> > > Cc: PvM; Gregory Arago; asa@calvin.edu; (Matthew) Yew Hock Tan
> > > Subject: Re: [asa] Science's Blind Spot: The Unseen Religion of
> Scientific Naturalism
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > After a long lapse, another of the typos you all know & love. Below
> read "Of course that doesn't mean that what it's able to study exhausts all
> reality, or that we may NOT encounter observable phenomena that such science
> can't finally explain."
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Shalom
> > > George
> > > http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > >
> > >
> > > From: George Murphy
> > >
> > >
> > > To: David Opderbeck ; Ted Davis
> > >
> > >
> > > Cc: PvM ; Gregory Arago ; asa@calvin.edu ; (Matthew) Yew Hock Tan
> > >
> > >
> > > Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 1:16 PM
> > >
> > >
> > > Subject: Re: [asa] Science's Blind Spot: The Unseen Religion of
> Scientific Naturalism
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 2 comments -
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 1) Those who've been on the list for awhile may remember that Hunter
> was on it a couple of years ago & that some of us debated these issues then.
>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 2) All the history, philosophy & theology involved in this discussion
> is interesting, but we shouldn't lose track of one crude empirical fact:
> Science operating within the constraints of MN works - it has been working
> for ~400 years & continues to work very well in explaining known phenomena &
> predicting new ones. Of course that doesn't mean that what it's able to
> study exhausts all reality, or that we may encounter observable phenomena
> that such science can't finally explain. But - bracketting off for a moment
> claims for unique historical events like the resurrection - we don't have
> any reason to believe that there are any such phenomena. Of course that's
> where ID raises it's distinctive objection, but the best it's done so far is
> to point to some phenomena that haven't yet been explained fully. There is
> simply no good reason for scientists, whatever their religious beliefs, to
> abandon MN as a presupposition for doing science: "If it ain't broke, don't
> fix it."
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Shalom
> > > George
> > > http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > >
> > >
> > > From: David Opderbeck
> > >
> > >
> > > To: Ted Davis
> > >
> > >
> > > Cc: PvM ; Gregory Arago ; asa@calvin.edu ; (Matthew) Yew Hock Tan
> > >
> > >
> > > Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 11:51 AM
> > >
> > >
> > > Subject: Re: [asa] Science's Blind Spot: The Unseen Religion of
> Scientific Naturalism
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Ted said: I also believe it is much more accurate; the term MN itself
>
> > > probably arose with Christian philosophical reflection on the limits
> of
> > > science and the reality of a "supernatural" God, and our definition
> reflects
> > > this.
> > >
> > >
> > > But what Hunter seems to be saying is that what we now call MN is
> rooted in the epistemology and method of Bacon and Locke. For the
> Enlightenment empiricists, empirical study of the world is an effort to
> obtain unified knowledge about reality-as-it-is. If reality-as-it-is
> includes the empirically observable hand-of-God, then that observation
> properly falls under the umbrella of "science," or, to use an eighteenth
> century term, "natural philosophy." The gist of Hunter's argument -- at
> least what the book review seems to reflect -- is that "science" should
> return to this broader notion of "natural philosophy." The current
> restrictions of MN would reflect an improper, a priori skeptical elision of
> God from nature, as well as an improper turn away from "empirical,"
> observational, inductive Baconian science towards more speculative deductive
> methods ala Popper.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > But my first question about this is how to return to Bacon and Locke
> after Darwin, Einstein, and Heisenberg -- in other words, do Bacon and Locke
> work after Newton's mechanism has been dethroned? And my second question is
> how to return to Bacon and Locke after the collapse -- or at least
> undermining -- of foundationalist empistemology's naive view of culture,
> history and language.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 7/16/07, Ted Davis < TDavis@messiah.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > >>> PvM < pvm.pandas@gmail.com> 7/15/2007 5:01 PM >>>quotes Wikipedia
> on
> > > Methodological naturalism, as follows:
> > >
> > > <quote>Naturalism does not necessarily claim that phenomena or
> > > hypotheses commonly labeled as supernatural do not exist or are wrong,
>
> > > but insists that all phenomena and hypotheses can be studied by the
> > > same methods and therefore anything considered supernatural is either
> > > nonexistent, unknowable, or not inherently different from natural
> > > phenomena or hypotheses.</quote>
> > >
> > > Then, Pim adds the following comment:
> > >
> > > If all Hunter is interested in is pointing out that there may have
> > > been some who had religious motivations to restrict science, such
> > > should again not be confused with a methodological approach. Science
> > > neither approves nor disapproves of the supernatural, which for all
> > > practical purposes is the logical complement of natural.
> > >
> > > Here are my comments:
> > > First, this is not an adequate definition of MN, IMO. In fact,
> ironically,
> > > it lends support to the incorrect argument from ID advocates, that MN
> simply
> > > collapses into metaphysical or ontological naturalism. Thus, I'm
> surprised
> > > that Pim quoted it. Note the language: " all phenomena and hypotheses
> can
> > > be studied by the
> > > same methods and therefore anything considered supernatural is either
> > > nonexistent, unknowable, or not inherently different from natural
> phenomena
> > > or hypotheses." Here is my paraphrase, aimed at making my point: If
> > > scientific methods (ie, naturalism) can't detect it, it ain't real,
> it's
> > > only a figment of one's imagination. Am I missing something here? If
> so,
> > > please be explicit about what I'm missing. I do think this is the
> tone and
> > > intent of this very poor definition.
> > >
> > > Second, Pim, the definition you cite from wiki contradicts your own
> > > comment, when you wrote: "Science
> > > neither approves nor disapproves of the supernatural, which for all
> > > practical purposes is the logical complement of natural." If the
> > > supernatural is "nonexistent" or "unknowable," (see wiki), then the
> latter
> > > part of Pim's sentences is entirely emptied of content. If the
> > > "supernatural ... is not inherently different from natural phenomena
> or
> > > hypotheses," then it collapses into the natural, and I fail to see how
> it
> > > becomes "the logical complement of natural." Please have another look
> at
> > > that wiki definition, Pim, and clarify your own view in light of it.
> > >
> > > Third, I offer a much better (IMO) definition, taken from the entry on
>
> > > "Scientific naturalism" that I wrote with philosopher Robin Collins
> for the
> > > Garland encyclopedia of science & religion
> > > ( http://www.amazon.com/History-Science-Religion-Western-Tradition/dp/0815316569
> ),
> > > a shorter version of which (essays unabridged, however) from JHU press
> > > ( http://www.press.jhu.edu/books/title_pages/2308.html ). Here is our
> > > definition of MN: "the belief that science should explain phenomena
> only in
> > > terms of entities and properties that fall within the category of the
> > > natural, such as by natural laws acting either through known causes or
> by
> > > chance (methodological naturalism)."
> > >
> > > Why do I believe this definition is much superior? First, it spells
> out
> > > that MN is a belief; one might even call it a belief about beliefs, in
> terms
> > > of its implications. Our definition leaves ample ground (as it
> should) for
> > > one to make reality claims about a God who really is bigger than
> "nature,"
> > > and who actually interacts with "nature," which is better called "the
> > > creation." It simply affirms, properly, that inferences about God go
> beyond
> > > what science itself can claim. It in no way rules out the legitimacy
> of
> > > such inferences. Second, when read in context (our definition of part
> of a
> > > much longer definition of four types of naturalism), it is clear to
> people
> > > that MN does not equate to or collapse into overreaching forms of
> > > naturalism. Thus, e.g., we define "scientific naturalism" (our term
> for the
> > > most wide reaching kind of naturalism) as follows: "the claim that
> nature is
> > > all that there is and hence that there is no supernatural order above
> > > nature, along with the claim that all objects, processes, truths, and
> facts
> > > about nature fall within the scope of the scientific method." Our
> > > definition of MN is designed, properly, to leave this type of
> speculation
> > > aside entirely. Whereas the wiki definition, IMO, strongly suggests
> or
> > > implies precisely that nature is all there is--at least, all that is
> > > genuinely meaningful to discuss, which is the spirit of the logical
> > > positivism that still underlies efforts to ridicule belief in God and
> keep
> > > it out of the academy.
> > >
> > > The definition Robin and I give, in what is frankly a far more
> reliable and
> > > academically serious publication that wikipedia, is (I believe and I
> hope
> > > others agree) a definition that is much more appropriate to consider
> on the
> > > ASA list. I also believe it is much more accurate; the term MN itself
>
> > > probably arose with Christian philosophical reflection on the limits
> of
> > > science and the reality of a "supernatural" God, and our definition
> reflects
> > > this.
> > >
> > > Ted (ASA member, and glad of it)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> > > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.6/902 - Release Date:
> 15/07/2007 14:21
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.8/906 - Release Date:
> 17/07/2007 18:30
> > >
> > >
> > > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.8/906 - Release Date:
> 17/07/2007 18:30
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Jul 18 14:40:32 2007