Re: review of Pennock's book

From: John (Burgy) Burgeson (hoss_radbourne@hotmail.com)
Date: Fri Mar 29 2002 - 12:16:46 EST

Next message: Peter Ruest: "Brachiators On Our family Tree? (Common ancestry - direct evidence?)"

Previous message: John (Burgy) Burgeson: "Re: review of Pennock's book"
Maybe in reply to: Marcio Pie: "review of Pennock's book"
Next in thread: Steve Bishop: "Re: review of Pennock's book"
Next in thread: Steve Bishop: "Re: Current Events"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

>>Perhaps we could take a poll of ASAers who are or have been practicing
scientists and ask them if they think methodological naturalism (I prefer
not to capitalize it--capital letters have a way of serving ideological
agendas) is a religion.>>

I can think of no way that MN is a religion, not in any sense of either
phrase. I can see where PN (philosophical naturalism) might be so described,
but I am not comfortable with the arguments supporting this position.

Burgy

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

Next message: Peter Ruest: "Brachiators On Our family Tree? (Common ancestry - direct evidence?)"
Previous message: John (Burgy) Burgeson: "Re: review of Pennock's book"
Maybe in reply to: Marcio Pie: "review of Pennock's book"
Next in thread: Steve Bishop: "Re: review of Pennock's book"
Next in thread: Steve Bishop: "Re: Current Events"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 29 2002 - 12:17:05 EST