>It seems to me that that is a
better place to start out than to hold that scientific discoveries
are to be considered first. The latter approach, even when Christians
use it, is the approach of methodological naturalism. >>
I would disagree, but only in the context of what "science" is.
Since the time of the Epicureans (see Otto Strunk's ATHEISM) science has
taken methodological atheism, or methodological naturalism, as
a guiding principle. Correctly so, in my opinion, for it defines
the nature of the "science game," which is to try to explain, as
best we can, WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE SUPERNATURAL, all the
processes and events we can sense in terms of natural causation. The
enterprise (science) has been wildly successful, using this approach. But
it is a GAME! It is not a "search for truth." Indeed, a theory may be
manifestly wrong -- incorrect -- and still be useful!
The intellectual activity known as Philosophy has no such limitation
on what -- or how -- it investigates. So I will disagree with
Russ insofar as he speaks of science; agree with him wholeheartedly
insofar as he speaks of philosophy. It is quite certain that in
these days we have all to many good scientists (Gould, Dawkins, Sagan,
etc.) lapsing over the science/philosophy line -- and in so doing
very much obscuring the issues. Those lapses need to be pointed out.
John W. Burgeson (Burgy)
IBM (retired)