On 7/19/07, Peter Loose <peterwloose@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Hello Jack:
>
> My point is: MN assumes, entirely a priori, that every event in the
> Natural
> world can be explained in terms of natural causes.
Sorry but that's totally wrong, and is completely contradicted by what
George Murphy said which prompted your original post:
George wrote:
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."
So there's no assumption that every event can be explained in terms of
natural causes. Even Dawkins says there are things science may never
explain. All it does is to assume that the only things SCIENCE can explain
are those which are explainable in terms of natural causes. MN is a
limitiation of science for sure, but it's not a "blind spot".
Once again, I'm afraid, evidence that you don't listen ...
(for personal reasons, having someone listen to you is very important to me
... and I find your propensity not to listen to be very disappointing,
especially when it amounts to a direct contradiction of what was said to
you.)
Iain
--------
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Jul 19 08:33:26 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jul 19 2007 - 08:33:26 EDT