Re: The language of "punctuated naturalism"

David J. Tyler (D.Tyler@mmu.ac.uk)
Fri, 27 Sep 1996 09:42:11 GMT

Thanks to Loren and Brian for developing this thread. I'm wanting to
come in on several points, but circumstances are not allowing me the
time at present. However, I was struck by this:

> Loren Haarsma, who thinks Philosophical Naturalists should give proper
> attribution to theists whenever they borrow our idea of methodological
> naturalism. ;-)

In view of contrary statements (i.e. that MN cannot be defended
philosophically without the support of naturalism) some of us would
like to see a defence of the thought that MN is "our idea".

I could make a fairly strong case for the empirical sciences, but the
reasons I would bring would not apply to the historical sciences.
Furthermore, I'm not sure that it is very convincing to suggest that
Christian philosophers of science have prior use of the term
"methodological NATURALISM" over the advocates of naturalism.

Best wishes,

*** From David J. Tyler, CDT Department, Hollings Faculty,
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.
Telephone: 0161-247-2636 ***