From: George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Thu Oct 09 2003 - 16:50:21 EDT
John W Burgeson wrote:
.........................
> Phil's primary error, IMHO, is not understanding that philosophical
> naturalism (the universe is all there is) and methodological naturalism
> (science is a game which investigates causality as if no gods exist) are
> two very separate ideas. To the extent he DOES know this, he makes the
> error that most scientists don't understand the difference........................
This is, of course, a serious error. I think equally serious is the fact that
he doesn't know much about either science or theology - & that that really doesn't
matter to him. He seems to think that his philosophical expertise, such as it is,
obviates the need for such detailed understanding of the topics he considers.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Oct 09 2003 - 16:52:04 EDT