From: John W Burgeson (jwburgeson@juno.com)
Date: Thu Oct 16 2003 - 10:45:11 EDT
Ted Davis, on 10-9-03, posted as follows (between the dashed lines):
----------------
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.
--------------
I am unconvinced that you are mistaken, although I cannot find in my
library of books by Johnson a direct quote to verify my statement. I did
find a note on Richard Dickerson's PSCF article (vol 44, pp 137-38) where
Phil takes (page 145 of THE WEDGE OF TRUTH, 2000) exception to
Dickerson's defense of methodological naturalism. And I found zero index
entries in that book under "methodological naturalism," which indicates
to me that Phil does not take it as a "real" concept.
To the extent that Phil DOES understand MN, I agree with your last
sentence, of course. But until I see in his writings that he understands
it, I remain unconvinced. His latest book, THE RIGHT QUESTION, was a
disappointment.
I have met Phil on two occasions, the last being the NTSE in Austin in
Feb 1997. I like him, and to some extent I think he does raise some of
the "right questions." But something is fearfully wrong.
Burgy
www.burgy.50megs.com
________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Oct 16 2003 - 10:50:11 EDT