Howard commented on my Griffin notes (#3). I had written:
> On page 6 Griffin makes the following statement, which shows, I think,
an understanding of science with which I cannot agree; I think it simply
incorrect: "Science ... may show that all events in this world, including
those events in which we make conscious decisions, are fully enmeshed in
a deterministic nexus of causes and effects ... As scientists,
accordingly, we affirm determinism, while as religious persons we affirm
freedom.<
Howard observed that: "As I read it, Griffin is not at all saying that
this is his own understanding of the character of science. Rather, he is
posing this as one way in which a person from the "two-truth camp"
(science and theology generate _independent_ truths that need not be
reconciled, even where there seem to be contradictions) _might_ present
his/her case for the independence of science and theology. He then
proceeds to list common objections to this approach."
I understand that the sentence does not represent Griffin's own views,
and also that he takes pains to demolish the statement in what follows. I
think my problem is the way in which he presents the position. The phrase
above "Science ... may show... ." is an assertion that something neither
Griffin, nor you, nor me, nor any theist, nor even many non-theists would
agree could ever be a true statement. Had Griffin written words to the
effect "According to some philosophers of science, such as (name1, name2,
etc.), science may show ... ." the text would have been much more clear
as well as more understandable.
Thanks for the comment.
Burgy (John Burgeson)
www.burgy.50megs.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 29 2001 - 11:42:20 EDT