From: Cmekve@aol.com
Date: Fri Oct 17 2003 - 20:34:12 EDT
In a message dated 10/17/2003 5:47:20 PM Mountain Standard Time,
gmurphy@raex.com writes:
> I have some problems with this. In the 1st place, while Phil Johnson can
> use
> any language he wishes, I am wary of a statement about science &/or
> scientific method
> which has (IMO) theological warrant from a person who is neither a scientist
> nor a
> theologian. &PJ is neither.
>
> But then to substance. MN of course does have to do with scientific
> method, but
> as stated by PJ it is perilously close to a tautology. In fact, as he says
> in the
> footnote you included, "Of course science can study only what science can
> study" - which
> doesn't say much. &if this definition is accepted, we're left with no
> "naturalism"
> that has much content as an alternative to metaphysical naturalism - which
> of course
> fits very nicely with the Johnsonian attack on "naturalism" in general.
>
> MN - at least as I understand it &use the term - is more than just a
> statement
> about how scientists ought to work. It is also a statement about the world
> - i.e., that
> what happens in the world can be understood in one way in terms of things in
> the world
> and their interactions. I.e., if scientists follow MN as a method they will
> not
> encounter phenomena that in principle they cannot understand. The world can
> be
> understood - in the phrase popularized by Bonhoeffer (it actually comes from
> Grotius)
> /etsi deus non daretur/, "though God were not given."
>
> A few qualifications:
> 1) I said "what happens in the world can be understood ...", not "the
> world can
> be understood ...". Science cannot tell us why there is a world - i.e., why
> something &
> not nothing. Or, pace string enthusiasts &c, "why this world ¬ another."
> 2) Continuing, "can be understood in one way ...". I add the
> qualification "in
> one way" because an explanation in terms of natural processes accessible to
> science
> doesn't preclude an explanation in terms of God's will worked out through
> those
> processes. Similarly, saying that Lincoln died because a bullet entered his
> brain
> doesn't rule out the statement that Lincoln died because Booth wanted
> revenge for the
> South's defeat.
> 3) I would also add the qualification that MN will work "except for a set
> of
> events of measure zero (& leave it to mathematicians to define the
> appropriate measure!)
> This is because
> a. I don't want to rule out all miracles and, while I think that many can
> be
> understood at least by analogy with natural processes I won't say
> dogmatically that all
> can, &
> b. I think it likely that Goedel's theorem rules out the possibility of a
>
> literal "theory of everything" - a conclusion that Hawking also seems to
> have come to
> recently.
>
> Shalom,
> George
>
> P.S. PN stands for "philosophical naturalism" does it not? I'm not crazy
> about that
> term because lots of philosophies &philosophers have different concepts of
> nature,
> including some in which "supernature" is continually intervening in it.
> There are
> similar problems with "metaphysical naturalism" &besides, its acronym is the
> same as
> that for methodological naturalism. While it's not perfect, I think
> "ontological
> naturalism" (ON) would be best for this concept.
>
> George L. Murphy
> gmurphy@raex.com
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>
>
It's true that Phil Johnson is not a scientist or a theologian. As we all
know he is a lawyer. It seems to me that the practice of the law routinely
insists on and uses methodological naturalism (MN). Does the Discovery Institute
have a legal branch that investigates ID in the law? Why not? The answer
seems to be that like most, if not all natural theologies, they end up creating a
god (Designer) in their own image. Apparently Feuerbach is alive and living
in Seattle! :-)
Karl
********************
Karl V. Evans
cmekve@aol.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Oct 17 2003 - 20:34:58 EDT