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

Methodological naturalism is NOT metaphysical. It is the same for
atheists, deists, theists, panentheists, pantheists, and those who have
no idea what metaphysical position they embrace. The only way to give it
a metaphysical/religious twist is to misdefine it as Johnson did (and
refuses to correct his false view).
Dave (ASA)

On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 22:09:23 -0600 (MDT) Bill Powers <wjp@swcp.com>
writes:
> 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.
> >
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
____________________________________________________________
Celebrate the season with a beautiful Christmas tree. Click now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTGgfNJXU5Dg9AFBUM7TaYhVFytBrvK7gGm0llZ3Ww0Kap11LSKtM0/

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Apr 3 13:37:27 2009