Burgy
On Thu, 11 Jun 1998 19:08:52 -0600, John W. Burgeson wrote:
>SJ>I am happy that you make no claim that MN is true, but I
>suspect that you would have trouble maintainng that line, and would
>lapse into claiming it is true (or alternatives to it are false).>>
JWB>...My use of the term MN is that of an operational principle,
>which I have said before, and as such can not be either "true" or
>"false."...
And what I should have said before is, If "MN...can not be either
"true" or "false," then how could MN be falsified?
>>SJ>I doubt that you can so neatly separate "science", "philosophy"
>and "religion". What about "philosophy" of "science"? What about
>"science" that studies *origins*? Indeed, what about "science" that
>studies "religion"?
JWB>...The separation of the three areas of study IS, sometimes, a
>difficult one. Philosophy of science is, of course, philosophy. No
>problem there. Science that studies origins is science; you have a
>problem there but I don't. Science that studies religion is an
>interesting one. I have just read a book by Dale Matthews called
>THE FAITH FACTOR -- I'll be submitting a review on it to
>PERSPECTIVES this month. Matthews does just that. He does it
>well. He does not get confused (IMHO). Recommend the book.
Thanks. But the question is not whether you or I have a problem, but
whether there *is* a problem. Science using MN that studies origins
always comes up with a non-theistic answer. Witness the current
many-universes theories, rather than even consider that the universe
was created.
As for religion, as my post to John Rylander pointed out:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"...it's a historical *fact* proved by 100 years of Biblical Higher
Criticism, that MN is incompatible with *any* meaningful Christian
theism, if carried out consistently. Bultman ended up with all that
could be known about Jesus fitting easily on a 6" x 4" card, and it did
not include His resurrectuion.
Here's a simple test: apply MN rigorously to the Gospels/Acts,
especially: 1) the predictive prophecies of Christ; 2) the Virgin Birth;
3) Jesus' miracles; 4) His resurrection and 5) Ascension; and 6) the
birth of the Church at Penetecost.Then get back to me and tell me
how far you applied MN, where you stopped applying MN, and why.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>SJ>This (I had said that science is not a search for the reality of
>nature (truth), but a search for what we can SAY about nature)is
>just your own special compartmentalised definition of "science". I
>am sure most scientists think they are searching for the *both* the
>"reality of nature" and "truth".>>
JWB>...My statement, of course, was a philosophical one. It is shared
>by a few people I know, or know about. Neils Bohr, for one, has
>said about the same thing, confining his remarks, however, only to
>physics.
[...]
>SJ>This supports my claim that MN is really a subset of TR. TR can
>explain MN but MN cannot explain MN.>>
JWB>...If TR is an operational principle, as MN is, how in the world
can >either "explain" the other? Which one of them is purple?
It was shorthand for TR can explain why MN works within a limited
sphere (the ongoing operations of the cosmos) and why it
increasingly doesn't work in origins or Christianity.
>SJ>Why don't you "support" it (TR)?
JWB>I have written more (to you) explaining why I cannot support it
>than anything else I've written to this LISTSERV in the past 6
>months. If you don't know my reasons for non-support yet, I'm at a
>loss to explain them further to you.
It is always possible for the sender to blame the lack of understanding
of what is sent on the receiver. But from what I remember of my
Communications Theory studies, the problem is almost always with
the sender. Maybe therefore your "loss to explain" why you prefer
MN over TR, has nothing to do with me?
>SJ>I am not aware of Plantinga's Perspectives articles. Are these
>available on the Web?>>
JWB>I think not. They probably should be. He is a most interesting
>guy. PERSPECTIVES has carried stuff by him before, I believe;
>possibly as far back as 1993 or so.
If you are a member of the ASA, would it be possible for you to
encourage them to put Perspectives on the web. Everyone else is
doing it (the ICR is putting all their Impacts on line: see
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-001.htm, etc)
>SJ>What is the difference if MN is not truth? I would have thought
>that on your utiitarian claim for MN that "scientists employing MN"
>*is* MN?>>
JWB>Sorry -- I have no idea what you mean.
OK. I'll put it another way. What is the difference between "scientists
employing MN" and "MN"?
[...]
>SJ>TR would have no problem with this, where there has been
>"natural causation". The problem only arises where there is good
>reason for assuming supernatural causation (eg. origins,
>Christianity) but MN practitioners implicitly rule that out of
>court.>>
JWB>Only as SCIENCE.
But that would only be OK, if they stopped the "science" at that
point. But they don't. In the case of origins and Christianity, "science"
just keeps on going, reducing the supernatural into the natural.
JWB>I wrote: " When Phil tries to add to it a "never-ending search
>for the supernatural," it changes from science to something I fear is
>nasty." You responded:
SJ>"You are caricaturing Phil. What he proposes is a "never-ending
>search for" *truth*! Your word "nasty" is revealing. Why should
>you, a theist, assume that the "supernatural" is "nasty"?"
JWB>...Think about it. MOST supernatural stuff is "nasty." Ghouls,
>zombies, astrology, human sacrifices to idols, seances, etc. etc. My
>fear is that TR might open the door to the worst kind of "New Age"
thinking.
This is just throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Just because
"MOST supernatural stuff is `nasty'", does not mean that ALL
"supernatural stuff is `nasty'". Why should God creating
supernaturally (which is what we are talking about) be "nasty",
because "Ghouls, zombies, astrology, human sacrifices to idols,
seances, etc" are "nasty"?
JWB>Of course I did not "caricature" Phil, for whom I have the
>utmost respect. You sure do read strange "words" into the posts of
>others!
I did not question your "respect" for Phil. But that does not change
the fact that your claim that he is trying to add to science "a never-
ending search for the supernatural," *is* a caricature of what he is
doing. That Phil is also concerned about excluding the "nasty" aspects
of the supernatural, is evident by the following:
"The other non-mainstream debunking account is The Bone Peddlers:
Selling Evolution, by William R. Fix. This book is marred for me by
its later chapters, which accept evidence of parapsychological
phenomena uncritically, but the chapters about the human evolution
evidence are devastating." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial," 1993,
p192)
But the difference is that you include intervention by God among
those "nasty" :"supernatural stuff". To equate God's supernatural
intervention with "Ghouls, zombies, astrology, human sacrifices to
idols, seances, etc. etc." would be blasphemy if you *really* meant it.
But I hasten to add that I can't believe you really mean this.
>>SJ>TR is a more inclusive theory that can explain MN, whereas
>MN cannot explain MN.>>
JWB>Again, MN is NOT a theory, but an operational principle. I
>assume the same for TR.
Whatever. I am using "theory" in the broadest possible sense.
JWB>I mentioned that I was offended by something you had said
>(not the first instance of such an event. You sputtered a bit and then
>delivered the following amazing comment:
>>SJ> I therefore see no reason to apologize.>>
JWB>OK. Fair enough. I see no reason to continue communication.
That you were "offended" does not mean that I must apologise. I am
offended by much of what you write, but I never ask for apologies.
JWB>Life is too short to tolerate rudeness, which I now conclude
>(contrary to your assertion otherwise) is deliberate.
Well, you "conclude" wrong! I repeat, I was not deliberately rude.
If I wanted to be deliberately rude, don't you think I could do
far worse than say that your use of "theological realism" did not
inspire confidence in your understanding of TR? Get real, Burgy!
But even granting your claim (arguendo), that I was deliberately
rude, it was only *once* in tens if not hundreds of messages over
the space of 2-3 years. Since your reaction is out of all proportion
to the alleged offence, I can only conlude that you are using my
alleged "rudeness" as an excuse to avoid debating with me.
JWB>I leave the rest of your post unread for now. When (if) I see it
>in the digest, if I have anything to say about it, it will not be to you.
That's OK. If you comment on my posts, I will comment on your
comments. Even if you don't comment on my posts, I may comment
on yours. If you ignore what I write, that's OK by me.
Steve
"Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented."
--- Dr. William Provine, Professor of History and Biology, Cornell University.
http://fp.bio.utk.edu/darwin/1998/slides_view/Slide_7.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--_=_=_=IMA.BOUNDARY.HTML_4820800=_=_=_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Burgy --_=_=_=IMA.BOUNDARY.HTML_4820800=_=_=_--
On Thu, 11 Jun 1998 19:08:52 -0600, John W. Burgeson wrote:
>SJ>I am happy that you make no claim that MN is true, but I
>suspect that you would have trouble maintainng that line, and would
>lapse into claiming it is true (or alternatives to it are false).>>
JWB>...My use of the term MN is that of an operational principle,
>which I have said before, and as such can not be either "true" or
>"false."...
And what I should have said before is, If "MN...can not be either
"true" or "false," then how could MN be falsified?
>>SJ>I doubt that you can so neatly separate "science", "philosophy"
>and "religion". What about "philosophy" of "science"? What about
>"science" that studies *origins*? Indeed, what about "science" that
>studies "religion"?
JWB>...The separation of the three areas of study IS, sometimes, a
>difficult one. Philosophy of science is, of course, philosophy. No
>problem there. Science that studies origins is science; you have a
>problem there but I don't. Science that studies religion is an
>interesting one. I have just read a book by Dale Matthews called
>THE FAITH FACTOR -- I'll be submitting a review on it to
>PERSPECTIVES this month. Matthews does just that. He does it
>well. He does not get confused (IMHO). Recommend the book.
Thanks. But the question is not whether you or I have a problem, but
whether there *is* a problem. Science using MN that studies origins
always comes up with a non-theistic answer. Witness the current
many-universes theories, rather than even consider that the universe
was created.
As for religion, as my post to John Rylander pointed out:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"...it's a historical *fact* proved by 100 years of Biblical Higher
Criticism, that MN is incompatible with *any* meaningful Christian
theism, if carried out consistently. Bultman ended up with all that
could be known about Jesus fitting easily on a 6" x 4" card, and it did
not include His resurrectuion.
Here's a simple test: apply MN rigorously to the Gospels/Acts,
especially: 1) the predictive prophecies of Christ; 2) the Virgin Birth;
3) Jesus' miracles; 4) His resurrection and 5) Ascension; and 6) the
birth of the Church at Penetecost.Then get back to me and tell me
how far you applied MN, where you stopped applying MN, and why.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>SJ>This (I had said that science is not a search for the reality of
>nature (truth), but a search for what we can SAY about nature)is
>just your own special compartmentalised definition of "science". I
>am sure most scientists think they are searching for the *both* the
>"reality of nature" and "truth".>>
JWB>...My statement, of course, was a philosophical one. It is shared
>by a few people I know, or know about. Neils Bohr, for one, has
>said about the same thing, confining his remarks, however, only to
>physics.
[...]
>SJ>This supports my claim that MN is really a subset of TR. TR can
>explain MN but MN cannot explain MN.>>
JWB>...If TR is an operational principle, as MN is, how in the world
can >either "explain" the other? Which one of them is purple?
It was shorthand for TR can explain why MN works within a limited
sphere (the ongoing operations of the cosmos) and why it
increasingly doesn't work in origins or Christianity.
>SJ>Why don't you "support" it (TR)?
JWB>I have written more (to you) explaining why I cannot support it
>than anything else I've written to this LISTSERV in the past 6
>months. If you don't know my reasons for non-support yet, I'm at a
>loss to explain them further to you.
It is always possible for the sender to blame the lack of understanding
of what is sent on the receiver. But from what I remember of my
Communications Theory studies, the problem is almost always with
the sender. Maybe therefore your "loss to explain" why you prefer
MN over TR, has nothing to do with me?
>SJ>I am not aware of Plantinga's Perspectives articles. Are these
>available on the Web?>>
JWB>I think not. They probably should be. He is a most interesting
>guy. PERSPECTIVES has carried stuff by him before, I believe;
>possibly as far back as 1993 or so.
If you are a member of the ASA, would it be possible for you to
encourage them to put Perspectives on the web. Everyone else is
doing it (the ICR is putting all their Impacts on line: see
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-001.htm, etc)
>SJ>What is the difference if MN is not truth? I would have thought
>that on your utiitarian claim for MN that "scientists employing MN"
>*is* MN?>>
JWB>Sorry -- I have no idea what you mean.
OK. I'll put it another way. What is the difference between "scientists
employing MN" and "MN"?
[...]
>SJ>TR would have no problem with this, where there has been
>"natural causation". The problem only arises where there is good
>reason for assuming supernatural causation (eg. origins,
>Christianity) but MN practitioners implicitly rule that out of
>court.>>
JWB>Only as SCIENCE.
But that would only be OK, if they stopped the "science" at that
point. But they don't. In the case of origins and Christianity, "science"
just keeps on going, reducing the supernatural into the natural.
JWB>I wrote: " When Phil tries to add to it a "never-ending search
>for the supernatural," it changes from science to something I fear is
>nasty." You responded:
SJ>"You are caricaturing Phil. What he proposes is a "never-ending
>search for" *truth*! Your word "nasty" is revealing. Why should
>you, a theist, assume that the "supernatural" is "nasty"?"
JWB>...Think about it. MOST supernatural stuff is "nasty." Ghouls,
>zombies, astrology, human sacrifices to idols, seances, etc. etc. My
>fear is that TR might open the door to the worst kind of "New Age"
thinking.
This is just throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Just because
"MOST supernatural stuff is `nasty'", does not mean that ALL
"supernatural stuff is `nasty'". Why should God creating
supernaturally (which is what we are talking about) be "nasty",
because "Ghouls, zombies, astrology, human sacrifices to idols,
seances, etc" are "nasty"?
JWB>Of course I did not "caricature" Phil, for whom I have the
>utmost respect. You sure do read strange "words" into the posts of
>others!
I did not question your "respect" for Phil. But that does not change
the fact that your claim that he is trying to add to science "a never-
ending search for the supernatural," *is* a caricature of what he is
doing. That Phil is also concerned about excluding the "nasty" aspects
of the supernatural, is evident by the following:
"The other non-mainstream debunking account is The Bone Peddlers:
Selling Evolution, by William R. Fix. This book is marred for me by
its later chapters, which accept evidence of parapsychological
phenomena uncritically, but the chapters about the human evolution
evidence are devastating." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial," 1993,
p192)
But the difference is that you include intervention by God among
those "nasty" :"supernatural stuff". To equate God's supernatural
intervention with "Ghouls, zombies, astrology, human sacrifices to
idols, seances, etc. etc." would be blasphemy if you *really* meant it.
But I hasten to add that I can't believe you really mean this.
>>SJ>TR is a more inclusive theory that can explain MN, whereas
>MN cannot explain MN.>>
JWB>Again, MN is NOT a theory, but an operational principle. I
>assume the same for TR.
Whatever. I am using "theory" in the broadest possible sense.
JWB>I mentioned that I was offended by something you had said
>(not the first instance of such an event. You sputtered a bit and then
>delivered the following amazing comment:
>>SJ> I therefore see no reason to apologize.>>
JWB>OK. Fair enough. I see no reason to continue communication.
That you were "offended" does not mean that I must apologise. I am
offended by much of what you write, but I never ask for apologies.
JWB>Life is too short to tolerate rudeness, which I now conclude
>(contrary to your assertion otherwise) is deliberate.
Well, you "conclude" wrong! I repeat, I was not deliberately rude.
If I wanted to be deliberately rude, don't you think I could do
far worse than say that your use of "theological realism" did not
inspire confidence in your understanding of TR? Get real, Burgy!
But even granting your claim (arguendo), that I was deliberately
rude, it was only *once* in tens if not hundreds of messages over
the space of 2-3 years. Since your reaction is out of all proportion
to the alleged offence, I can only conlude that you are using my
alleged "rudeness" as an excuse to avoid debating with me.
JWB>I leave the rest of your post unread for now. When (if) I see it
>in the digest, if I have anything to say about it, it will not be to you.
That's OK. If you comment on my posts, I will comment on your
comments. Even if you don't comment on my posts, I may comment
on yours. If you ignore what I write, that's OK by me.
Steve
"Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented."
--- Dr. William Provine, Professor of History and Biology, Cornell University.
http://fp.bio.utk.edu/darwin/1998/slides_view/Slide_7.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------