Re: [asa] Expelled and ID

>
>
> Where did you get the notion that philosophical descriptors must have a
> purely secular purpose?
> Dave (ASA)
>

Dave,
Good question. Would that possibly be Lemon v Kurtzman?
Dave C (ASA)

> On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 00:31:44 -0500 "David Clounch" <
> david.clounch@gmail.com> writes:
>
> Its a good question as to whether a notion of scientific methodology could
> apply to science before science was invented. The notion was "potential"
> in ancient times just as quantum mechanics was a "potential" field of
> knowledge. But it was unrealized (not actual).
>
> Of course I could be proven wrong...sombody just has to show that the
> fellow at Wheaton got it from, say, Augustine? Or, lets go before the
> Christian era. Got it from, say, the Babylonians?
>
> What is more interesting is that in modern times it was not introduced by
> non-theologians to solve a non-theological problem. For example, if
> Chinese communists had developed the idea when arguing a point of
> scientific discovery among themselves..well then it clearly would not be of
> Christian origin. And would not be intrinsically part of a Christian belief
> system. Would it?
>
> Also, if it hadn't been introduced to solve a theological problem, then
> even if invented by a Christian, I'd argue it is not a theological concept.
> For example, calculus was invented by Christians, but not to solve
> theological problems. Calculus therefore isn't theological. But the fact
> is, as far as I've heard, methodological naturalism was introduced
> explicitly to solve a theological problem. Wasn't it? If so, seems to me
> the burden of proof is on the secular advocate to demonstrate it is not
> theological. Just because a secular advocate likes it doesn't change the
> nature of it.
>
> Please consider the effect of the term. It is used to eliminate certain
> religious ideas. And it has impact on certain religious groups. And impact
> on issues of ultimate concern. This is not a secular purpose. It seems it
> would be very difficult to argue MN has a sole secular purpose.
>
> Dave C (ASA member)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 1:19 PM, D. F. Siemens, Jr. <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Note Thorson's response to Poe in the March PSCF. Notions exist before
>> they are labeled, or relabeled with new names. I recall one of my colleagues
>> in sociology lamenting that some sociologists spent their time writing
>> papers that renamed notions in the hope that somebody would use their new
>> label and give them momentary fame.
>> Dave (ASA)
>>
>> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 01:32:04 -0500 "David Clounch" <
>> david.clounch@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> Dave,
>>
>> It would be very interesting for us to discover whether methodological
>> naturalism was invented in the twentieth century, or whether it has roots
>> further back in history and was merely borrowed. I could be wrong in
>> claiming it to have been invented by (De Vries?) at Wheaton. It's just that
>> I haven't gotten around to discovering any earlier source. As I remember
>> it, Poe claimed the De Vries paper was the very first published anywhere.
>>
>> Other forms of naturalism were obviously re-emergent in enlightenment
>> and post-enlightenment times. I believe Barr and D'Souza both argue
>> that naturalism itself is a Christian idea of ancient derivation.
>> Christians thought a rational approach to the universe combined with a God
>> that is outside the universe implied that the world runs in a regular
>> order. Thus paganism and animism were to be rejected, partly because they
>> depended on supernatural forces within nature. Naturalism speaks
>> against that.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 3:13 PM, D. F. Siemens, Jr. <
>> dfsiemensjr@juno.com> wrote:
>>
>>> You're repeating the lie that is foundational in Johnson and ID.
>>> Metaphysical naturalism, scientism, materialism and their ilk have ancient
>>> roots, although some gained popularity again with the Enlightenment. There
>>> is no way that I can be a theist and a metaphysical naturalist. But there
>>> are many theists who are methodological naturalists--they have to be both to
>>> be scientists.
>>> Dave (ASA)
>>>
>>> On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 08:56:19 -0400 "David Opderbeck" <
>>> dopderbeck@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>> Dave Clounch asks: A third question is, "Should school children be
>>> informed of the theological roots of naturalism?"
>>> I respond: Not sure what you mean by the "theological roots of
>>> naturalism" here -- but if you mean that methodolgical naturalism derives
>>> from metaphysical naturalism, if that were accurate, you could probably
>>> discuss this in a history class.
>>>
>>> As your questions illustrate, it is extremely difficult in the public
>>> education setting to discuss any issues about religion and science, even at
>>> the level of basic presuppositions.
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri May 16 09:36:57 2008