Re: Fwd: [asa] Creation and Incarnation

Roger, I honestly didn't think I was being so unclear. I don't know that
anything I've been trying to say has anything to do with my legal training
or the law. I pointed out once or twice where I thought unfair arguments
were being used, like the ad hominem and argument from authority, but that
isn't law school stuff. I'm also not sure what "wordsmithing" I've done --
can you be more specific? Was there a term I used that was out of place or
didn't make sense? It would've been nice if you'd asked me this privately
first.

Here is the point I was trying to make in my discussion with Dave S. (and
Keith): I'm not convinced that it's adequate to segregate methodological
naturalism from other ways of knowing, call that "science," and consider the
tensions between faith and science resolved. That seems to me to be at
least partly a political play, a way of protecting science as special
domain, rather than a useful way to determine truth. It particularly
concerns me because there are many people who tie this move to an atheistic
view of knowledge -- a view that makes human perception and reason the
foundation for all knowledge, and that presupposes that we have warrant for
calling something "knowledge" only if it is supported by particular kinds of
empirical evidence. On the other side of the equation, I'm not convinced
that it's adquate for ID proponents to call something "methodological
naturalism" and consider the argument won.

So, I was trying to distinguish between a "strong" methodological naturalism
-- one that allows only naturalistic causes -- from a "weak" methodological
naturalism -- one that prefers naturalistic causes but that allows for
divine action that supercedes naturalistic causes. I tried to suggest that
the issue of whether this should be called "science" be set aside as
unimportant. I'm personally very interested in epistemology more than how
to define "science" (though that's interesting too). I've read lots of the
literature from both sides, and I don't think these epistemological
questions have been adequately explored.

It was at this point, through my own fault as much as anyone else's, that
the shouting match began. I respect Dave S. and Keith, BTW, and have
learned lots from both of them. It may be that we just disagree somewhat on
this point -- is that so bad?

P.S. -- As to my origins view, I don't think that was the subject of
discussion. In the event anyone cares, I'd answer your question about the
age of the universe / earth "yes." My answer to your second question would
be much longer, qualified and more complicated, as it would be even for many
TE's here, partly because I'm seeking out how to understand common descent
in relation to my faith. Do you accept what many in the scientific
community call "evolution," or do you believe, as do most TE's, that common
descent was entirely and providentially guided by God? If the latter, do
you believe God is bounded by physical laws, or is He free to intervene
miraculously in the creation? If the former, how do you handle the
difficult question of Adam and original sin? I guess I tend towards
believing some sort of providentially guided common descent, with perhaps
(or perhaps not) some more direct "miraculous" intervention by God at some
points in history, but I can't say I have a view on this that I'd go to the
stake for.

On 8/21/06, Roger G. Olson <rogero@saintjoe.edu> wrote:
>
> David,
>
> I'm in tentative agreement with the "other" Dave. What is your point
> anyway? Do you have anything to contribute to the faith/science debate or
> do you just want to banter about rhetoric you learned in your law school
> experience?
>
> What is you origins view? Do you accept the consensus conclusion of
> modern science of a 13-15Ga universe and 4.5Ga Earth? Do you accept that
> God created and sustained life via the natural processes of what the
> scientific community calls "evolution" (both chemical and biological)?
> What is your view anyway? Come on, be up front with us. Don't use your
> wordsmithed lawyer language, please answer in terms that mere
> mathematicians, physicists, chemists, biologists, and (heaven forbid!)
> even philosophers can understand.
>
> I've read your posts in this thread and I don't have a clue about you're
> trying to say. Perhaps it's because I'm too dense. I'll not discount
> that possibility. ;-)
>
> Roger
>
> P.S. So, what's your point anyway?
>
>
>
>
> > *I'm not really sure that I want to jump into this thread, but it
> strikes
> > me as odd that we are considering human activity to be non-natural.*
> >
> > I thought someone might bring that up. Yes, human activity is
> "natural"
> > in
> > a sense, but obviously it adds an element of conscious intent that goes
> > beyond the mere operation of physical laws (assuming a deterministic
> view
> > of
> > the mind is wrong). But ok, set that aside: suppose upon investigation
> we
> > learn that all the frfls prayed one day that their hair would turn
> green.
> > Could we entertain the notion then that a non-naturalistic cause is
> > involved?
> >
> > *Should have known better than to respond to a lawyer. Sorry, folks.*
> >
> > Dave -- why is this necessary? I'm not the one who started throwing
> > around
> > the unfriendly rhetoric. You still haven't responded to anything I've
> said
> > on the merits. So what about the merits?
> >
> > On 8/20/06, Terry M. Gray <grayt@lamar.colostate.edu> wrote:
> >> I'm not really sure that I want to jump into this thread, but it
> >> strikes me as odd that we are considering human activity to be non-
> >> natural. As far as I can tell there's no violation of any natural
> >> process when people decide to dy their hair green. It appears that
> >> some of us are operating with very different means of the word
> >> "natural".
> >>
> >> TG
> >>
> >> On Aug 20, 2006, at 7:13 AM, David Opderbeck wrote:
> >>
> >> > we know about hair color, the best explanation for a few isolated
> >> > frfl's is a non-naturalistic one: some people decided to dye their
> >> > hair gree
> >>
> >> ________________
> >> Terry M. Gray, Ph.D.
> >> Computer Support Scientist
> >> Chemistry Department
> >> Colorado State University
> >> Fort Collins, CO 80523
> >> (o) 970-491-7003 (f) 970-491-1801
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
> --
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Aug 21 09:54:42 2006