>Richard
>
>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?
> Richard
>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.
Chris
I agree with the basic point made here, also. However, I don't think there
is much point to seeking to find scientific evidence for their God, unless
they can somehow define how there could be scientific evidence for *God* as
distinguished from evidence for, say, alien beings who make universes like
ours (out of existing substance) via technological means for their science
classes, etc.
I reject the dichotomy between values and facts, though I don't think
empirical science has anything to do with values in any basic sense. It is
one of the jobs of philosophy to uncover and validate basic values. Science
can tell us about some of the facts to which these values apply. Thus, if
we decide that human life is a basic value, science can give us enormous
assistance in promoting our survival and wellbeing.
Though Gould's approach, as I understand it, seems superficially plausible,
it ultimately fails because it permits unreason in the field of values.
While *science* can be said to be irrelevant to philosophical values,
reason cannot be irrelevant to discovering and validating values. The basic
"law" of rationality is to believe all, but *only*, what one has adequate
cognitive validation for, and Gould's way violates this principle.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 12:51:19 EDT