--- David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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'm uncomfortable with the distinction between "strong" MN and "weak" MN,
because I think the definitions impose arbitrary limits. Suppose for example
that we are arguing whether God can act in nature and we conclude that No, He
cannot, after having considered only macrosopic phenomena. What about the
possibility that God acts at a much deeper level -- via sensitive dependence on
initial conditions and/or quantum phenomena? We cannot rule out God's action in
nature because our knowledge is not complete. So it seems to me that the
Christian practicing in the sciences must proceed via MN, but always be ready
to admit that God may be (IS!) acting at some deeper level. I guess that makes
me an advocate of weak MN, but I still don't like the distinction.
Bill Hamilton
William E. Hamilton, Jr., Ph.D.
248.652.4148 (home) 248.821.8156 (mobile)
"...If God is for us, who is against us?" Rom 8:31
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
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 13:28:15 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Aug 21 2006 - 13:28:15 EDT