Re: [asa] Anti-Creationist Psychobabble On the Web

Bill,

PS. I didn't mean to say it doesn't matter "in church".

-Dave C

On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 9:14 AM, David Clounch <david.clounch@gmail.com>wrote:

> Bill,
>
> It doesn't matter. Public schools taught science just fine without MN. MN
> exists only to assuage the concerns of certain religionists. It belongs
> down the hall in the philosophy classroom or comparative religion classroom,
> not in the science classroom. Along with all questions about
> metaphysics.
>
> -Dave C
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 11:09 PM, Bill Powers <wjp@swcp.com> wrote:
>
>> Kirk:
>>
>> You say that MN is neutral with respect to religion.
>>
>> Let me leave that aside and ask whether you (or George) thinks that MN is
>> metaphysicially neutral.
>>
>> Whether you think them questionable or not it appears to me that science
>> surely makes some metaphysical presumptions, even they may vary with time.
>> The kinds of explanations we permit, even MN itself, is metaphysical. Were
>> it not metaphysical what would it be? Surely not empirical. Is it merely a
>> convention? No, I think not. What we mean by a particle, or what is a
>> "thing." Are these metaphysical? They fit a template, perhaps a changing
>> one.
>>
>> I guess what I am briefly suggesting is that science, whether it be MN or
>> something else, paints a possible picture of the world. It constrains the
>> world, only permitting some ill-defined possibilities, and excluding others.
>> There can be no discontinuities, the world is a Uni-verse; it must obey
>> rational law. This is certainly a more classic view, although Nancy
>> Cartwright suggests that the world is "messy," a different "world" I think.
>>
>> Finally, how do we distinguish metaphysics from religion? Heidegger is
>> famous for saying that no one worships the causa sui. So perhaps no one,
>> but Hegel, sings to metaphysics. Still they touch noses, it seems.
>>
>> bill powers
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 2 Apr 2009, Kirk Bertsche wrote:
>>
>> David,
>>>
>>> I don't understand your comments about "George Murphy's views on
>>> methodological naturalism" being "religion."
>>>
>>> Based on George's comments, his view of MN seems to be pretty standard,
>>> and is the way that we we do science. (And I would argue that this is the
>>> way that we SHOULD do science.) It is METHODOLOGICAL, not METAPHYSICAL
>>> naturalism. It makes no religious claims at all, and keeps science neutral
>>> with respect to religion.
>>>
>>> What am I missing?
>>>
>>> Kirk
>>>
>>>
>>> On Apr 1, 2009, at 10:56 PM, David Clounch wrote:
>>>
>>> This is why I oppose George Murphy's views on methodological
>>>> naturalism. To me it's religion and I want that religion separated from
>>>> school as far as the east is from the west.
>>>> I don't mind if George Murphy holds his view personally because he is
>>>> entitled to his religion. I just don't want a public school to base its
>>>> science curriculum on George's religion.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
> --
> =========================
> I often suffer from nostalgia, that fondness for something that never was.
> Pleasant memories have a tendency to expand.
>
>

-- 
=========================
I often suffer from nostalgia, that fondness for something that never was.
Pleasant memories have a tendency to expand.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.