From: douglas.hayworth@perbio.com
Date: Fri Oct 10 2003 - 09:31:57 EDT
Moorad, see my note below your comment:
"Alexanian,
Moorad" To: <bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com>, <asa@calvin.edu>
<alexanian@uncw. cc:
edu> Subject: RE: Methodological naturalism versus philosophical
Sent by: naturalism, from re: Phillip Johnson
asa-owner@lists.
calvin.edu
10/09/03 09:10
PM
Moorad said:
An e-mail may be ?read? by a purely physical device. However, the true
content of the message is not accessible to such a device. It takes another
conscious, rational being as the writer to determine the true content of
the message. These properties of humans are not accessible to purely
physical devices and may be classified as non-physical. I may not need to
consult the Holy Spirit to do the reading and writing of messages. However,
it may be that our ability, for instance, to discern nature is made
possible and does involve the feature of man of being created in the image
of God.
Doug's comment:
Yes, you're right. This is how natural science and Christian theology are
alike: they both require thinking rational beings that can observe,
interpret, and communicate (description) the interpretation. They are
alternative, complementary modes of describing the same reality. The
purpose of natural science is to make descriptions in terms of purely
material mechanisms and properties; therefore, methodological naturalism
(MN) is its only appropriate language. Theology (also a science that
involves interpretation and description, though we do believe that we can
have the aid of God's Spirit to "see" with spiritual eyes more clearly)
looks at the same reality that natural science does, but has a different
purpose and so also requires a different language of description.
BTW, nice post David. One wonders why the validity of MN is so difficult
for people to understand and accept.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Oct 10 2003 - 09:38:08 EDT