> -----Original Message-----
> From: evolution-owner@udomo3.calvin.edu
> [mailto:evolution-owner@udomo3.calvin.edu]On Behalf Of Richard Wein
> Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2000 8:11 AM
> Subject: Re: Is Darwinism Self-Refuting? (was: An intelligent discussion
> with Intelligent Design's designer)
>
....
> There are, of course, plenty of other things to criticize in the cited
> article. But most subscribers to this list will not need me to point them
> out.
>
> However, there is one point on which I'm in agreement with Johnson:
>
> >A: The typical tactic is to cede to science the authority to
> determine the
> >"facts," then try to salvage some area for Christian faith in
> the realm of
> >"value." But since "values" are not granted the status of genuine
> knowledge,
> >what you put there is eventually dismissed as subjective fantasy.
> Christians
> >need to insist that they are making genuine knowledge claims. I
> like to put
> >it this way: Is there any "-ology" in theology? Are we studying anything
> >real?
>
> If a religion makes no claims to factual truths, then what is the
> basis for
> its claims regarding values? How is it any different from a secular school
> of philosophy? If, on the other hand, it does make claims to
> factual truths,
> then it must hold its own in the scientific arena. So I think that ID
> proponents are right to look for scientific evidence for their God. The
> problem is that they are so desperate to find it that they will claim to
> have it whether it exists or not.
>
> Richard Wein (Tich)
A few very quick points:
(1) From an atheistic perspective, Christianity probably is akin to
philosophy
(2) Philosophy is not limited to values, but rather engages deeply in
factual issues -- these are tradtionally its primary focus, in fact (i.e.,
what the facts, esp. the foundational truths, are and how our knowledge of
them is justified).
(3) Scientific validation is not generally required for a proposition to be
true or to be rztionally believed. What philosophers call "Scientism" would
deny this, but for very good reasons, very few philosophers (though, alas,
very many practicing atheists) take scientism seriously. Science is
distinct from truth, and distinct from rationality.
(3a) I agree with you that IDers tend to be scientistic, but I see this as a
serious philosophical mistake. You, Chris, Richard Dawkins, and others will
disagree with me on this point, I imagine. :^>
John
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 09:42:57 EDT