That looks like special pleading to me. If a group of neuroscientists discovered
that determinism is true, and thus that free choice is an illusion, or that
consciousness is an illusion, being reducible to patterns of axonal spikes or some
other brain phenomena, would we conclude that because their findings eliminate
features of our existence that give us meaning, therefore those neuroscientists
must not be whole persons, somehow scant of skill and vision? With this rejoinder,
opponents of Galileo and Newton could have protected the meaning and comfort
procured by the richness of the scholastic worldview. We could preserve all our pet
theories that way, but that's special pleading, any way you slice it. To be
successful, any preservation of teleology must not rest on ad hoc restrictions on
the application of the principle of parsimony. If "whole person" is defined (at
least in part) as someone who at all costs protects and preserves that which gives
us meaning, then the restriction below looks to me like special pleading.
- Bryan
"Howard J. Van Till" wrote:
> But Ockham's razor must be used by whole persons with the requisite skill
> and breadth of vision. If wielded by the scant of skill or vision it can cut
> off the very considerations that give meaning to the entirety of life's
> experiences.
>
> Howard Van Till
>
> ----------
> >From: "Bryan R. Cross" <crossbr@SLU.EDU>
> >
>
> > Unfortunately, such a teleology is readily subject to Ockham's razor,
> surviving
> > only in the rather anemic form as a human projection onto reality a la
> Dennett's
> > 'intentional stance'.
> >
> > - Bryan
> >
> >
> > Cmekve@aol.com wrote:
> >
> >> In a message dated 6/27/00 9:25:19 AM Mountain Standard Time,
> >> bivalve@email.unc.edu writes:
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >> << A scientific explanation, such as
> >> biological evolution, should be considered an attempt at describing how God
> >> normally does things. A description of how God does things is not valid
> >> evidence against God being involved. Evolution is actually a smart design
> >> for dealing with certain problems.
> >>
> >> David C. >>
> >>
> >> Quite so. As B.B. Warfield put it nearly a century ago:
> >> "...teleology is in no way inconsistent with...a complete system of natural
> >> causation. Every teleological system implies a COMPLETE 'causo-mechanical'
> >> explanation as its instrument." [emphasis added]
> >>
> >> Karl
> >> *****************************
> >> Karl V. Evans
> >> cmekve@aol.com
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 29 2000 - 11:01:40 EDT