Re: Viewpoint discrimination or careless reading.

Moreover, the history for such conclusions and assertions is not
encouraging as new knowledge emerges disclosing natural causes and
processes. So, drawing such conclusions and making such assertions in
the absence of specific evidence would seem to be a fairly high risk
proposition. JimA

D. F. Siemens, Jr. wrote:

>On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 13:38:46 -0400 "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>
>writes:
>
>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
>>To: "Pim van Meurs" <pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com>
>>Cc: "asa" <asa@calvin.edu>
>>Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 7:39 AM
>>Subject: Re: Viewpoint discrimination or careless reading.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>In the reference Pim gave there is a cracking reference to a
>>>
>>>
>>quotation by
>>
>>
>>>Plantinga
>>>
>>>"Why couldn't a scientist think as follows? God has created the
>>>
>>>
>>world, and
>>
>>
>>>of course has created everything in it directly or indirectly.
>>>
>>>
>>After a
>>
>>
>>>great deal of study, we can't see how he created some phenomenon P
>>>
>>>
>>(life,
>>
>>
>>>for example) indirectly; thus probably he has created it directly.
>>>
>>>
>>"return
>>
>>
>>>to text
>>>
>>>
>>"Why couldn't a scientist ... ?" Well, a scientist could but
>>_should_ a
>>scientist?
>>
>>1st of course the qualification "after a great deal of study" is
>>pretty
>>vague. At what point is the turn from indirect to direct supposed
>>to be
>>legitimate?
>>
>>2d, & more substantively: There are (IMO) good theological reasons
>>for
>>believing that God limits divine action in the world to what can be
>>
>>accomplished by cooperation with natural processes. I've argued for
>>this on
>>the list sufficiently in the past & won't belabor the point here.
>>Miracles
>>are often cited as counterexamples, to which I reply:
>> (a) Miracles in the broad sense do not necessarily involve
>>direct divine
>>action,
>> (b) biblical miracles generally have a salvifiic &/or semeiotic
>>
>>function, &
>> (c) nothing in scripture indicates that life can come about only
>>by
>>direct divine action, & Gen.1 in fact suggests the opposite.
>>
>>3d, scientists don't like saying "I don't know" but that's the
>>attitude
>>that's most conducive to progress. To say about the origin of life
>>(e.g.)
>>either "It's a miracle"
>>(in the sense of being beyond the capacity of natural processes) or
>>"Only
>>the details are missing" both discourage scientific attempts to
>>solve the
>>problem (the former more than the latter). Only if we leave open
>>the
>>possibility that science can solve the problem AND admit that it
>>hasn't yet
>>done so will researchers be encouraged to work seriously in the
>>area.
>>
>>Shalom
>>George
>>http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>George's response is accurate, but I see a howler in Plantinga's
>argument. It amounts to "I don't know how this phenomenon took place so I
>_know_ that it took place by divine intervention." When human ignorance
>becomes the standard for knowledge, we are dealing with nonsense. It
>strikes me that what Plantinga advocates springs from his adoption of
>Creationism rather than creationism.
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Thu Oct 6 15:05:23 2005