Bryan R. Cross wrote:
...........................
> George Murphy wrote:
>
> >> For example, if we take Doug's answer about the
> >> trilobite eye, and apply it to the fine-tuning of the universe, science should
> >> forever go on looking for an explanation by IDNC.
>
> > There is an obvious difference here. Everybody (except maybe solipsistic
> >trilobites) recognizes that trilobites are embedded in a universe which was "here" long
> >before they were & is much larger than they are. Thus it is not unreasonable to seek
> >the cause of features of the trilobite eye in processes of that universe. But it is not
> >generally admitted that the universe itself has such a "larger" environment. We can
> >speculate about parallel universes in various ways but that is speculation and no more
> >logically compelling than belief in a creator who transcends the universe.
>
> Multiverse theory has been around for at least the past twenty five
> years, and especially big the last ten years. And multiverse theory is
> the baby of MthN, even a MthN that is limited to the domain of natural
> science. You claim that multiverse theory is no more logically
> compelling than theism, but the degree to which MthN's conclusions are
> compelling is not relevant to my point. My point is that the discipline
> of science when employing MthN will be in perpetual conflict with other
> disciplines not employing MthN. MthN doesn't stay behind stipulated
> boundaries. It will posit natural causes (an infinite number of
> universes if need be) in order to explain any phenomenon. And in that
> case, it will always be opposed to areas where, say, Christianity,
> claims that non-natural causes are involved (e.g. redemptive history,
> religious experiences, etc.) Of course one can simply choose to ignore
> the deliverances of science in these cases, or subordinate them to
> higher sources of authority. But a method that entails perpetual
> disagreement between the disciplines just cannot be correct, especially
> if we affirm Augustine's principle of the unity of truth. ...................................
Actually "multiverse" theories have been around for more like 45 years &, more
important than the length of time, did not originate with an attempt to explain the
properties of the universe. Their genesis (in science rather than science fiction)
was Everett's many worlds interpretation of QM, which was intended to explain the
measurement process without requiring any collapse of the wave packet.
Metaphysical (N.B.) naturalism is a hard and fast dogma which refuses ever to
consider God as an explanation for anything. At some point, even after hypothesizing
the most extravagant multiverse imaginable, it still say why there is something rather
than nothing.
I do not consider _methodological naturalism_ to be that rigid. There would, in
fact, be no point in making the distinction between the two if methodological naturalism
were not at least open to the possibility of theistic answers to questions at some
level. Just what that level is may be open to debate, but when the quest for "natural"
explanations gets to the point of postulating unobservable entities then it seems that
that point has been reached. This is all the more so for Christians who are not only
"open to the possibility of theistic answers to questions at some level" but are
explicitly committed to them.
Speaking for myself, a commitment to methodological naturalism is not just a
concession to the successes of science. It is a consequence of an understanding of what
kind of God God is, based on God's revelation in the cross & resurrection of Christ. I
won't go into that in more detail here - many of those on this list have heard me
expound on the theme. But I do think that in the whole ID-MN &c debate not enough
attention has been given to the possibility that there are good _theological_ arguments
for methodological naturalism & against at least the popular understanding of ID. Van
Till's arguments about the functional integrity of creation are steps in the right
direction & ID proponents have been unwilling to take them with sufficient seriousness.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 06 2000 - 08:31:01 EDT