From: Ted Davis (tdavis@messiah.edu)
Date: Thu Oct 09 2003 - 20:50:50 EDT
jwburgeson@juno.com writes:
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.
I used to say the same thing myself, and on one occasion I said it directly
to Phil. I now think I was mistaken: I think Phil understands this
distinction very well. He simply believes, rightly or wrongly, that MN
leads inevitably to PN. He does not mean by this, that the acceptance of MN
leads to PN for every individual thinker who accepts MN; he knows full well
that there are people like me in the universe. Phil wants to know what *my
children* and their children will believe, if I live out my life accepting
MN. He believes in historical inevitability on this (and probably also some
other matters), that unless people right now make a strong stand against MN,
that PN will indeed make strong headway in future generations. Ultimately,
he believes that one cannot *consistently* believe in MN without also
believing in PN.
In his favor, there is the following point. If one rejects MN, one can't
consistently accept PN. And, if one accepts PN, one can't consistently
accept MN. I'll let the logicians tell me, then, whether or not I can
consistently believe what I believe.
ted
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Oct 09 2003 - 20:51:33 EDT