The finite mind of man requires him to create disciplines with well defined
subject matters. The whole of creation can be studied with physical devices as
detectors, that defines science. But certainly that does not encompass the
whole of reality. Man is also a detector both of the physical and the
non-physical--and science can say nothing about the non-physical. Examples,
are notions of deity, human consciousness, moral laws, etc. Just because the
subject matter of science does not include these categories, it is absurd to
say that science declares them to be nonsensical. Methodological naturalism
goes beyond science and it is a philosophy of science that is nihilistic in
nature since it excludes other disciplines---those dealing with the
non-physical, not detectable by physical devices. Man qua man is more than man
qua scientist. The "I" in man is what detects human consciousness and that is
also that allows the theist to perceive of God. Science will always be silent
about these matters. Moorad
>===== Original Message From John W Burgeson <burgytwo@juno.com> =====
>Walter Hicks asked: "Why is it valid for scientists to assume that all
>unknown phenomena must be explained by "God acting within the limits of
>natural causes", but invalid for anyone to suggest that perhaps God may
>have had a direct hand in it? The Bible seems to suggest that God is not
>shy about interacting with His Universe."
>
>My own position on this is that AS A SCIENTIST it is incumbent upon me to
>follow the foundational principle of methodological naturalism. I believe
>it was Dickinson who defined this in PERSPECTIVES some years ago as
>seeing science as a game -- a game in which we try to explain the data
>always as consequences of natural causation. AS A PHILOSOPHER, i.e. when
>not "doing science," I see no reason not to allow for the possibility of
>direct supernatural (nonnatural causation) intervention of a deity. Or --
>even for the direct (natural causation) of an external intelligence. If
>there were any reasonable evidence that an external (non-supernatural)
>intelligence existed, and SETI may someday provide this, then AS A
>SCIENTIST I would have to allow the possibility that this intelligence,
>of one similar to it, did and does intervene in the world. So far, IMHO,
>that "reasonable evidence" does not appear to exist.
>
>John Burgeson (Burgy)
>
>http://www.burgy.50megs.com
> (science/theology, quantum mechanics, baseball, ethics,
> humor, cars, God's intervention into natural causation, etc.)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 23 2001 - 11:43:00 EST