Keith:
I thought your reply to Bill Payne was excellent.
One possible part where I differ -- and I think it is more on word
definitions than anything else -- was at the end when you wrote
"These examples all involve the action, or proposed action, of human
agents or alien intelligences which are modelled on human agents. Human
agents (and aliens if they exist) are "natural" agents. They are as much
natural agents as other organisms. As a paleontologist I look for the
signs of the action of such agents (burrows, traces, boring patterns,
etc) and distinguish them from non-biological physical agents. This is
all within the proper perview of science. However, a "nonnatural" agent
by definition is not subject to natural laws and processes - it can do
anything. As such it has no predictive value."
In an earlier post today I suggested that both God and humans can perform
supernatural actions, else free will is a nullity. Human actions, of
course, can be analyzed and theories made from the data -- for we "know"
what humans are capable of (making arrowheads, building stone huts, etc."
That is why I suggested "s/n(g)" and "s/n(h)" to stand for the two types
of supernaturalism. So with my definitions, I'd rewrite your last
sentence (in agreement with your point) as "However, a s/n(g) agent by
definition is not subject to natural laws and processes - it can do
anything. As such it has no predictive value."
So when you assert, as you do above, that "They (humans) are as much
natural agents as other organisms," I'd agree but I'd also add they are
much more than that.
Burgy (John Burgeson)
www.burgy.50megs.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri May 25 2001 - 12:21:03 EDT