On 11 Dec 95 20:16:14 EST you wrote:
SJ>Again, I have no problem with science's naturalistic rules as
>long as they recognise that they are just that: man-made rules.
JB>OK. Agree.
SJ>I have no problem with science trying to see if they can find
>a naturalistic process by which life began.>>
JB>OK, Agree.
SJ>However, I believe it becomes idolatry when scientists mistake
>the rules for ultimate reality, and fail even to consider fairly
>whether a Creator might have originated life.>>
JB>AGree with first clause, not with second WHEN PRACTICING SCIENCE!
We are not just talking not about "practicing science". We are talking
about the special case of *origins*. Do you really think an Isaiah or
a Paul (or indeed Jesus), would think it is OK to ignore the
possibility that God may have originated life?
SJ>And with Phil Johnson I cannot understand how Christians who
>believe that God is real and that He did in fact originate life,
>believe it is *in principle* leads to better science to rule this
>out.>>
JB>I can accept that you "cannot understand."
Actually I can "understand" very well! But if I posted what I thought
the reason was, I am afraid a number of Reflectorites would
become very upset! :-)
JB>Herein lies the crux of our mini debate. Let me give two or three
>reasons why this is so.
>1. It never allows a scientific copout -- "god of the gaps."
>2. It keeps the occult out of science.
>3. It allows people with wildly varying metaphysical assumptions
> coming from many cultures to agree on a common set of ground rules.
>4. It works well.
>5. It is so commonly accepted that those who flaunt it are
> liable to be ignored or ridiculed. This is just a fact.
These are *not* issues of "in principle". They are pragmatic reasons
for not rocking the materialistic-naturalist boat! :-)
JB>That's five reasons. Maybe others can add more. Johnson has
>done a very good job (IMO) of
>arguing the opposite case in his two books. I admire him for that,
>and I wish him well in sharpening the issues.
Indeed Phil Johnson does sharpen the issues. After discussing
Nancey Murphy's reasons why science must "for better or worse"
be methodologically atheistic" (which are similar to yours),
Johnson writes:
"The great virtue of Murphy's review is that she is so candid in
acknowledging that the issue is one of cultural power and
intimidation, not truth. Because she is familiar with contemporary
trends in philosophy, she knows better than to suggest that science
inherently must have any particular characteristic, as if there were
some "essence' of science located in a Platonic heaven. A cultural
phenomenon like science is defined by human beings, and the definition
can and does change from one era to another. What humans have
defined, other humans can redefine-if they have sufficient cultural
power to force the change.
Murphy does not argue, as Weinberg undoubtedly would, that
methodological atheism* ought to rule science because atheism is
true. On the contrary, we are entitled to presume that a professor of
Christian philosophy at Fuller Theological Seminary would insist
emphatically that atheism is false. In that case, the reason that
valid scientific theories can be achieved only by making the
counterfactual assumption that atheism is true is not immediately
obvious-to put it mildly. In a free intellectual environment, we
might expect that Christian theists would vigorously assert that
some conclusions of the methodological atheists who rule science
may be as faulty as the unsound premise from which they were
derived. The reason theists do not (should not?) do this, it seems,
is they are afraid-for both legal and intellectual reasons-to enter
the debate."
(Johnson P.E., "Reason in the Balance", InterVarsity Press:
Downers Grove IL, 1995, p98)
Don't get me wrong! It is easy for me (a non-scientist) to criticise
scientists who are Christians for not making a stand for God in their
science. Indeed they would be "ignored or ridiculed", or as Johnson
puts it "marginalized".
However, if God did in fact create the universe, life and life's major
groups, then who *is* going to bear witness to it, if it is not those
self-same scientists who are Christians?
Fortunately there *are* some scientists who are Christians, eg. Dean
Kenyon, who have had the courage of their convictions, made a stand
for God, and have paid the price. My prayer is that, through the
philosophical leadership of Phil Johnson, J.P. Moreland, and others
in the theistic science movement, this trickle will become a flood!
God bless.
Stephen
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones | ,--_|\ | sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave | / Oz \ | sjones@odyssey.apana.org.au |
| Warwick 6024 |->*_,--\_/ | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Perth, Australia | v | phone +61 9 448 7439 |
----------------------------------------------------------------