Re: Fwd: [asa] Creation and Incarnation

>
> > 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.

Some distinction is needed between what we call the following three
assertions:

Everything is, in principle, fully explicable by natural laws.

Natural laws provide adequate physical descriptions of what happens in the
vast majority of situations, and it is a reasonable assumption to think that
they apply to a given situaiton unless there is strong evidence to the
contrary. This says nothing about what role supernatural agents might play
in the operation of natural laws.

Science refers to the process of investigating and explaining the physical
world using natural laws. If phenomena exist that do not follow such laws,
they are not amenable to scientific examination. This does not mean that
those other methods are less valid, just that they fall outside the
definition of science as adopted here.

(Natural is used in contrast to miraculous, rather than to artificial, so
human activities that obey the laws of physics count as natural. The
contrast to miraculous again is not very good wording, as Christianity and
many other viewpoints hold that supernatural agents are at work in things
that obey natural laws as well as in occasions when they are set aside. )

The first of these is more or less equivalent to scientism. The second is
what I think is usefully labeled as methodological naturalism. The third is
an assertion that methodological naturalism is the approach used by
science.

I would take slight exception to the third assertion, in that purported
regularly predictable supernatural actions can be investigated by science.
Astrology, parapsychology, etc. claim that anyone ought to be able to
observe a certain set of results in a given circumstance. In contrast, it's
impossible to get a statistically meaningful data set on whether Jesus will
rise again after being executed.

Most scientists are not philosophers and don't think about the philosophy of
science very much, if at all.

-- 
> Dr. David Campbell
> 425 Scientific Collections
> University of Alabama
> "I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.