I think the best definition of Methodological Naturalism (mn) I know of is one Phil Johnson gave at a conference in Texas quite a few years ago (1992 or 1994). Something on the order of "of course science can only measure what science can measure" I can't remember the rest of the quote. I am in Florida away from my books. It ended up as a footnote in "Reason in the Balance." I had asked him about that statement when he came out so strongly against mn a few years later. He didn't say he had changed his mind or that it was wrong, but only that he would state it differently now.
I don't dislike mn, just MN or philosophical naturalism. My idea is approximately that there is no "God meter" to tell us what God is doing in our experiments. I don't assume that God isn't involved in the results, just that He isn't playing with the rules, changing them in the middle of the experiment. I assume that God is involved in all aspects of life, not just when a miracle appears. Like the radical contingency of Peter van Inwagen. Everything that exists continues to exist because of God's continued involvement.
Jim Behnke
________________________________
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Nov 25 15:37:24 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Nov 25 2007 - 15:37:24 EST