RE: The Terms of Debate in Kansas

The use of the terms natural and supernatural brings forth the question whether the two realms interact with each other or not. We are embedded in Nature and so if there is no interaction between the two realms, then it is nonsensical to refer to the supernatural. If there is an interaction, then the question is what aspect of Nature is aware of that interaction? One can recognize two aspects of nature, the physical and the nonphysical. Example of the nonphysical aspect of nature may be the concept of life and its origin but, surely, human consciousness is the nonphysical aspect of humans that is the detector of the supernatural.

The physical universe can be probed solely by physical devices and the physical data serves to infer laws and develop theories-conceived by the nonphysical aspects of humans. All abstract concepts, say that arise in mathematical theories of nature, are overgeneralizations that are not identical to the real objects they describe. Their existence lies in the space of the nonphysical, the human mind. Therefore, the "natural cause-and-effect processes that underlie the structure and history of the physical universe" would have to be only physical causes and not natural, since natural encompasses besides the physical also the nonphysical. [I am not considering esoteric quantum mechanical issues regarding human consciousness and thought affecting nature.] One need not appeal to the supernatural when dealing with the physical aspect of the universe; however, questions regarding the origin of the universe would certainly lie outside the confines of science. Similarly, human consciou!
sness cannot be reduced to the physical and thus can never be fathomed by scientific studies.

Moorad

________________________________

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of Keith Miller
Sent: Mon 5/16/2005 10:46 PM
To: ASA@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: The Terms of Debate in Kansas

        George/Dave/Peter,
            Thank you for your comments. I agree with them but I found it difficult in all your comments to differentiate between what is the common definition of "methodological naturalism" and what is your worldview and opinion. I have noticed in various PSCF articles that authors often took pains to distance themselves from "methodological naturalism" whereas I had considered it a reasonable perspective. But perhaps I have misunderstood how the term is commonly defined. Certainly as Wilgoren defines it, I wouldn't support it. I guess it's not so much a question of how we would prefer to have the term defined as how it is commonly understood to be defined. I hope Wilgoren missed it.
        Randy

My use of the term "methodological naturalism" is simply as a description of what science does. It is descriptive not prescriptive. It is another way of describing what we mean by the empirical character of scientific investigation. Science research seeks to discover the natural cause-and-effect processes that underlie the structure and history of the physical universe. Appeals to supernatural action simply are not informative in understanding how the universe works. Supernatural agents are effectively black boxes since they are unconstrained, and appeals to such agents are equivalent to appeals to ignorance.

Keith

Keith B. Miller
Research Assistant Professor
Dept of Geology, Kansas State University
Manhattan, KS 66506-3201
785-532-2250
http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~kbmill/
Received on Tue May 17 15:40:04 2005