SJ
>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"
Chris
No, behind it is the assumption that fairies (and God) are simply outside
the scope of the method of science. Science is simply a LIMITED method; it
doesn't have the MEANS to deal with fairies or Gods. Arguing that science
should study fairies and God is like arguing that one should use a
microscope to study mathematics, or perform chemistry experiments to test
the laws of logic, or that one should use introspection to determine the
exact chemical make-up of a planet in the next galaxy-cluster.
>SB>Science is a method of inquiry. Science is always provisional
>>pending new evidence.
SJ
>Except that in the case of *origins*, the "inquiry" rules out God
>*absolutely* before the "evidence" is even considered! This is metaphysical
>naturalism.
Chris
No, it's a scientific method requirement, because the scientific method is
not applicable to fairies or Gods. Metaphysical non-naturalism is a
PHILOSOPHICAL position, and it is basically not subject to scientific
method, that's all, except when it makes predictive claims about empirical
facts not yet empirically determined.
>SB>"Divine feet" tend to be pretty final.
SJ
>So does ruling "Divine feet" out *absolutely* "tend to be pretty final"!
Chris
Scientific method doesn't rule them out of existence, merely out of SCIENCE.
Please TRY to understand this distinction.
>SB>The earth can cease to rotate for a time. "The Bible says it, I believe
it.
>>Period."
SJ
>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:
Again, this is a result of the METHOD of science. If a scientist believes in
a metaphysical non-naturalistic view of the Bible, he can do so, but simply
not as a SCIENTIST.
>"...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).
Chris
This all seems irrelevant. The Bible DOES claim miracles, whether it claims
that the Earth stopped rotating or not. Susan's point was that the Christian
approach is to take whatever the Bible is believed to say as essentially
unquestionable truth, to be ACCEPTED, period. Since many people take the
Bible to be claiming that the "Sun stood still," they believe it absolutely.
SJ
>And even if the Christian does say "The Bible says it, I believe it.
Period"
>what is wrong with that?
Chris
You mean, aside from the fact that it's unbelievably stupid?
SJ
>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.
Chris
No. The soundest approach is not to accept ANY of it initially that one does
not already have good reason to believe, and then incrementally accept any
of the rest of it that stands up to criticism. THIS is in fact analogous to
what scientists do.
If we had to accept the entirety of every book we come across on face value,
which is effectively what you are claiming we should do, we'd have to
believe so many contradictions, and our minds would be so bogged down in
internal gibbering, that we would no longer be able to walk, recognize our
relatives, or visually track moving objects. ;-)
SJ
>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)
Chris
The way to deal with such things is to hold them provisionally, loosely, and
NOT believe Steven Weinberg OR Carl Sagan, except in a vastly weaker sense
of "believe." This is NOT what Christians do with respect to the Bible.
SJ
>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!
Chris
That's GIVEN that original premise. Of course, that begs the question, by
ASSUMING metaphysical non-naturalism.