Re: [asa] Creation and Incarnation

*By the way, I find the supposed distinction between strict and relaxed MN
relative to science incoherent.*

Why? What's incoherent about distinguishing "natural explanations
exclusively" from "natural explanations preferred in the first instance, but
not exclusively?"

*Scientific dicta are, at least in principle, subject to empirical test.
When things go well, there is accuracy to 13 places. When there is no
current test, there will be some that deny that a specific theory is
scientific.*

Maybe that was so in the 18th Century, but it ain't anymore. Can you
compute "non-falsifiable" to 13 places? Popper came along precisely because
this sort of hyper-empricism doesn't work. And even Popper's program, of
course, has its problems.

*In contrast, there is seldom an empirical test for theology or philosophy.
The only empirical refutation I know for a philosophical doctrine was for
Schopenhauer's pessimism. The test for nonscientific studies is essentially
consistency....*

Not so. While consistency (or better stated, "logical consistency") is one
test of a philsophy or worldview, other tests include experience (does it
comport with human experience, both of the "outer" world that we observe and
the "inner" world of human consciousness, e.g., moral consciousness) and
practice (does the theory hold up in the laboratory of life). "Consistency"
is thus only a subset of "coherence," which is a richer way of testing a
philosophical position. Maybe philosophical propositions generally can't be
subject to rigorous mathematical tests, but then, since Popper, neither can
large swathes of what we call "science."

On 8/19/06, D. F. Siemens, Jr. <dfsiemensjr@juno.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Greg,
> The fact is that Keith is right. "Science" is not "Wissenschaft" in normal
English usage. It is "Naturwissenschaft". Of course, there are always those
seeking the prestige of science in Christian Science, Science of Mind,
Creation Science, etc. Scientific dicta are, at least in principle, subject
to empirical test. When things go well, there is accuracy to 13 places. When
there is no current test, there will be some that deny that a specific
theory is scientific.
>
> In contrast, there is seldom an empirical test for theology or philosophy.
The only empirical refutation I know for a philosophical doctrine was for
Schopenhauer's pessimism. The test for nonscientific studies is essentially
consistency, although there may be special areas where the interpretation of
scriptures is involved. But I note that there is not complete consistency
among those who hold that the Bible is the Word of God. Like it or not, such
philosophies as materialism can be consistent, along with Hegelian idealism.
As one who follows in the footsteps of Augustine, I reject both. But that
does not mean that I can prove the existence of a deity. Those who think
they can overlook the holes in their argument.
>
> I claim scriptural support for this last: Hebrews 11:6. The empirical
evidence against the latter part of the verse is found in doggerel: God's
plan had a hopeful beginning/ But man spoiled his chances by sinning./ We
hope that the story/ Will end in God's glory,/ But at present the other
side's winning.
>
> By the way, I find the supposed distinction between strict and relaxed MN
relative to science incoherent.
> Dave
>
>
> On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 12:35:52 -0400 (EDT) Gregory Arago <
gregoryarago@yahoo.ca> writes:
>
> "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 15:33:51 2006