On Thu, 10 Jun 1999 15:55:24 -0600, Susan Brassfield wrote:
[...]
>SJ>...Moreover, THAT MATERIALISM IS ABSOLUTE, FOR WE
>>CANNOT ALLOW A DIVINE FOOT IN THE DOOR.
SB>yes. If you can say "the fairies did it" you don't have a
>reason to inquire further.
Thanks to Susan for confirming my point! Methodological naturalism *in
the case of origins* is really *metaphysical* naturalism. Behind it is the
*metaphysical* assumption that God is imaginary, like "fairies"
SB>Science is a method of inquiry. Science is always provisional
>pending new evidence.
Except that in the case of *origins*, the "inquiry" rules out God
*absolutely* before the "evidence" is even considered! This is metaphysical
naturalism.
Besides, it is a myth that "Science is always provisional pending new
evidence." As science gathers the "evidence" it becomes less and less
"provisional", as Horgan has pointed out:
"My guess is that this narrative that scientists have woven from their
knowledge, this modern myth of creation, will be as viable 100 or even
1,000 years from now as it is today. Why? Because it is true. Moreover,
given how far science has ahead come, and given the physical,-social, and
cognitive limits constraining farther research, science is unlikely to make
any significant additions to the knowledge it has already generated. There
will be no great revelations in the future comparable to those bestowed
upon us by Darwin or Einstein or Watson and Crick." (Horgan J., "The
End of Science: Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of the
Scientific Age," 1997, p16).
For example, it is hardly "provisional" when Michael Ruse, the leading
Darwinist philosopher states that:
"Evolution is a fact, fact, FACT!" (Ruse M., "Darwinism Defended," 1983,
p58)
SB>"Divine feet" tend to be pretty final.
So does ruling "Divine feet" out *absolutely* "tend to be pretty final"!
SB>The earth can cease to rotate for a time. "The Bible says it, I believe it.
>Period."
Again thanks to Susan for illustrating how MN, when applied to the Bible,
strips it of all its supernatural claims, as Phil Johnson pointed out in a
message to the ASA Reflector on 25 Mar 1998:
"...MN is not just applicable to evolution. It is also the scientific
way to investigate purported divine revelations and miracles. ...By MN
Biblical scholars have discovered that the Pentateuch was stitched together
from various sources (J, E, P, etc) and that the "historical Jesus" worked
no miracles and was deified by his followers. Finally, by MN we know that
Scriptural passages praising God give evidence only of the religious
consciousness of whoever wrote them."
But actually the Bible doesn't say that "The earth can cease to rotate for a
time." What the Bible it says in Josh 10:13 is that "the sun stood still, and
the moon stopped..." While I have no problem if God did cause the earth to
"cease to rotate for a time", it is possible to legitimately interpret this
passage literally that the sun and moon only *appeared* to Joshua to stand
still. Ramm points out that there are at least four possible interpretations
of this passage, only only one of which is that the earth ceased to rotate
for a time:
"A. The First interpretation is that the command of Joshua to the sun and
moon is poetical....; B. If we accept the miracle as one of the prolongation
of light then we may take as one alternative that God stopped the sun or
the earth and the moon....; C. Another alternative we may adopt...is...
through a miracle of refraction ...the sun and moon appeared to be out of
their regular places...; D. Maunder has argued that the request of Joshua
was not for more time but for release from the heat of the day...He
attempts to prove that Joshua did not ask the sun to stand still but to be
silent, i.e. keep from shining." (Ramm B.L., "The Christian View of
Science and Scripture," 1967, pp107-108).
And even if the Christian does say "The Bible says it, I believe it. Period"
what is wrong with that? The vast majority of Christians haven't got the
ability or training to decide what in the Bible should be accepted and
what rejected. In those circumstances, the soundest approach, in the first
instance, is to accept it all on face value, and then work at increasing one's
understanding and resolving difficulties. This is in fact analogous to what
scientists do.
Indeed, despite the other scientific myth about the `argument from authority'
implied in Susan's words, as Richard Lewontin points out, even scientists
accept things that are outside their area of expertise on authority:
"Third, it is said that there is no place for an argument from authority in
science. The community of science is constantly self-critical...But when
scientists transgress the bounds of their own specialty they have no choice
but to accept the claims of authority, even though they do not know how
solid the grounds of those claims may be. Who am I to believe about
quantum physics if not Steven Weinberg, or about the solar system if not
Carl Sagan?" (Lewontin R., "Billions and Billions of Demons", review of
"The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark" by Carl
Sagan, New York Review, January 9, 1997, p30)
Given the Christian's original premise that the Bible is the unique written
revelation from God, it is reasonable that it should be believed to be true,
even if not everything is understood in it and every difficulty is not
resolved. In particular it would be unreasonable to reject the Bible because
it contains records of supernatural interventions by God. In fact, given
what the Bible claims to be, a unique revelation from God, it would be
strange if there were no records of supernatural interventions by God in the
Bible!
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"It is as a religion of science that Darwinism chiefly held, and holds men's
minds. The derivation of life, of man, of man's deepest hopes and highest
achievements, from the external and indirect determination of small chance
errors, appears as the very keystone of the naturalistic universe. And the
defence of natural selection appears, therefore, as the defence of their
integrity, the independence, the dignity of science itself." (Grene M., "The
Faith of Darwinism," Encounter, Vol. 74, November 1959, p48)
--------------------------------------------------------------------