"The whole point of the coining of the term by Paul deVries was to distinguish the method of science from philosophical naturalism." - Keith Miller
Does anyone else out there ever get the feeling that, in trying so hard to distinguish 'science' or 'the method of science' from 'mere philosophy,' the chosen term 'methodological naturalism' is throwing out the baby with the bath water? Natural philosophy and natural science - are they really that different today to speak in such exclusivistic terminology?
It seems so pragmatic, so equivocal between science is naturalistic, science is methodological, science is progressing toward perfection, science is evolving, and science is *not* philosophical. Scientists don't philosophize!? Kuhn and Popper are therefore passe.
"MN is descriptive of the fact that science cannot investigate the supernatural." - K. Miller
Did it ever occur to proponents of (strong) MN that God might not have wanted us to so thoroughly separate science from our knowledge of/ relationship with Him? Is there nothing scientific, for example, about theology? Is there no scientific theology?
In some people's versions of MN, science is SO silent on the existence of God, our Creator, that we are left unable to hear.
"Some non-theists see God as an unnecessary addition to a scientific description of the universe, and therefore extend this to a philosophical exclusion." - K. Miller
And some theists perceive God as a necessarily distinct addition to their scientific description of the universe, therefore extending their philosophy into a source of exlusion and division.
Arago
---------------------------------
Now you can have a huge leap forward in email: get the new Yahoo! Mail.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Aug 19 12:36:51 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Aug 19 2006 - 12:36:51 EDT