Re: Kansas munchkins (as Gould will call them)

>>> "D. F. Siemens, Jr." <dfsiemensjr@juno.com> 5/19/2005 11:59:08 PM
>>>writes:

Johnson is certain that methodological naturalism
is atheistic, which is a lie he will not correct for it would scuttle his
political goals. Indeed, one may extend Clemens' characterization: lies,
damned lies, statistics and ID.

Ted replies:
Now, David, I have publicly accused Phil of a lack of discernment, and of
using unhelpful rhetoric that distorts the issues. Some may equate that
combination with outright lies, but I would not do that myself. I have
known him for about 15 years, and I am convinced that he *believes* his
position is true, including the unhelpful analysis and oversimplification
that comes with it. Phil is convinced that naturalism is spiritually,
morally, and intellectually dangerous, and that those who employ MN in
studying origins are only aiding and abetting the ultimate enemy. He
*believes* those things, I say, therefore I would not put ID alongside
statistics, etc.

Some of the most important things he says are not true--as you and I see
it. But they are true, as he sees it. Incidentally, the person who first
referred to MN as "methodological atheism" was not Phil, it was Nancey
Murphy, and she did so in PSCF. Nancey doesn't see MN as equivalent to
atheism, but her use of that term does suggest that she sees why MN *ought
to* raise theological questions. You and I answer those questions
differently than Phil does, but he's speaking the truth as he sees it.

Ted
Received on Fri May 20 09:11:19 2005