From: Ted Davis (tdavis@messiah.edu)
Date: Thu Oct 16 2003 - 19:35:58 EDT
Walter Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com> writes:
Help me out, Burgy or Ted. There is a clear cut difference between the two
concepts [ted inserts: MN and PN] but I fail to see where it makes any
practical difference in the
outcome. Either way one arrives at a conclusion which precludes direct
interaction by God. It seems like that old saw applies: "If it walks like a
duck and it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, then call it a
duck"
Whether MN ot PN, will the results not be the same -- a duck either way?
Can you illustrate a difference in any scientific theory given the two
views?
Ted: No, I can't, not with a "scientific" theory. However, I can, if you
ask me to illustrate a difference in what a scientific theory is said to
*mean*, in the sense of ultimate meanings. That's the point we're trying to
make. PN says that they ain't no ulitmate meanings, since mechanisms ain't
got 'em, and mechanisms are the sum total of things. MN says that science
can't provide an ultimate meaning, and leaves that task to philosophy and
religion. In other words, PN is atheism while MN is religiously neutral.
ted
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Oct 16 2003 - 19:37:39 EDT