Walt,
I intersperse some comments.
Dave
On Wed, 05 Jun 2002 22:11:36 -0400 Walter Hicks
<wallyshoes@mindspring.com> writes:
>
> alexanian@uncw.edu wrote (quoting someone else):
>
> >
> > ID advocates can't accept the inability of science to deal with
> > supernatural hypotheses, and they see this limitation as a
> > sacrilegious denial of God's work and presence.
>
> It is also true that science (nowadays -- not so much in the past)
> is
> completely
> incapable of anything other than 100% naturalism. If God ever did
> act
> in time or
> space, today's science would have to deny it no matter what the
> evidence might be.
You have a point in that scientism/materialism has such a broad influence
that supposed evangelicals are trying to fit into a monistic framework
for everything except perhaps the deity. Nancey Murphy, for example,
wants the soul or spirit to be a function of the physical being. This I
take to be because of the pressure of the zeitgeist.
However, this does not cover "naturalism," which is not a single notion.
Science depends on methodological naturalism, that is, it looks for its
answers within what may be observed. Given an event, there may be an
explanation within this framework. Then one has a scientific explanation.
If one does not have such an explanation, a scientist may say that there
is no current explanation or that he doesn't know of one. The one allows
for a future discovery of an explanation; the other, of one known to
another. What he cannot say as a scientist is that the even is
miraculous. I recall my zoo prof talking about everything going on
simultaneously in the development of an embryo. As explanation he simply
rolled his eyes heavenward. That was not a scientific explanation, just
the admission that he did not have one. Now we are beginning to
understand the sequential activation of genes, the effects of various
localized products, etc., the start of a scientific explanation. Does
this mean that God is no longer involved? Not if "in him we live and move
and have our being."
This last is, of course, excluded by metaphysical
naturalism/scientism/materialism, which circle around the nonscientific
claims that nature is all there is, that science is the only source of
knowledge, that there is no spirit or Spirit. As a strict scientist, I
can say nothing on these claims, for they are philosophical, usually
naively so.
> Yet, by being Christians, we are indeed violating the naturalistic
> rules of science
> by promoting the notion that God entered the universe some 2000
> years
> ago. The only
> question is where we draw the line.
>
This seems to assume that science is the source of all truth. There is no
way that I can prove that Jesus is Son of God and son of man or that he
rose from the dead. I believe that there is evidence for these claims,
and I am committed body and soul to them. But this is a matter of faith
or trust, not demonstration. But one may deny these matters without
departing rationality. But their rejection keeps them from the additional
evidence which has come to me as a result of that faith. Nevertheless,
they may claim that this is not a spiritual matter, just something that
promotes some positive emotions, a placebo effect.
> Naturalism refuses to accept that any description other than
> functions of x, y, z,
> and t are allowable -- no matter how much trouble it is in.
Again, this is metaphysical naturalism only.
> Saying that something
> can come into play outside of these variables is not religion, it is
>
> looking for
> truth in science.
Not in, but beyond or outside of. It looks to me as though you are
agreeing to the notion that ALL knowledge is scientific.
We believe that there are other dimensions, but we
>
> rule out any
> possibility that forces or phenomena from these dimensions could
> come
> into play --
> for fear that it might sound religious. We don't understand the
> observation process
> in quantum mechanics at all and we give undefined names like "dark
> matter",
> "repulsive gravitational force" or "dark energy" where we simply do
>
> not know what is
> going on and could be dealing with a totally unsuspected new law
> involving more that
> conventional space time. (Please don't say "God of the gaps" at me
> --
> that is not my
> point!)
>
I've been in contact with some knowledgeable physicists and done some
reading in the area, and what I get is that the ultra-tiny does not fit
everyday common sense. However, the weird predictions have been tested
one after another, and the formulas have is right. As for "dark matter,"
there is no mystery. "Dark" indicates that it is not "visible" in radio
frequencies, IR, visible light, UV or X-ray. "Matter" indicates that it
has a definite gravitational field. This is not that different from the
notion of a solar stuff, identified only by some otherwise unknown
spectral lines. We keep the name, helium, but can now buy it.
What is the probability of "a totally unsuspected new law"? Mighty slim!
The items you mention react in a standard way, and so fit with the four
known forces. Unless, of course, you're writing science fiction rather
than science, and then you can make up your own reality.
> In my view, "naturalism" is in fact a religion,. It is the religious
>
> belief, held by
> many on this list, that says that God will not interact with His
> universe (too much)
> ---- and we we define (I repeat "DEFINE") the physical universe to
> conform to that
> religious belief.
>
Humbug! The group of Christians (for there are non-Christians on the
list) recognize the immanence of the Creator, his continual interaction.
What they deny is that one can find God by means of science. He is near,
but not discoverable by empirical studies. A recovered so God intervened,
and B died so God was away is nonsensical.
> It is handy that atheists have to use the same definition so that we
>
> do not have to
> argue with their science.
>
> Walt
> .
Evidently you have God in a test tube. This means that your God is too
small.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 06 2002 - 01:33:27 EDT