Re: [asa] Anti-Creationist Psychobabble On the Web - non-natural agents?

Discussion of what is meant by "nature", "agent" &c is appropritae in its own right but in 98% of the discussions in which the concept of MN comes up the meaning is what Burgy has quoted, "Attribute nothing to the gods." Perhaps it should be expanded to "Attribute nothing to God or gods/godesses." In practice that is the meaning of MN - God cannot be part of a scientific explanation or theory. Stating it that way avoids a lot of philosophical debates which are interesting in themselves but not essential to the question of how science functions.

MN has been criticized here as a theological concept & that charge may be levelled against the definition I've given. Since the question is precisely whether or not God can be part of scientific explanation, that's unavoidable. But my definition is also a limit on theology. In any case it's something upon which both theists and atheists can agree (especially if they have any understanding of how science actually functions). Theists agree not to introduce God into their theories & atheists agree that the absence of God from scientific theories does not in itself mean that there is no God - i.e., that MN isn't equivalent to ontological naturalism. At least that's how it should work.

Shalom
George
http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm

----- Original Message -----
From: "Keith Miller" <kbmill@ksu.edu>
To: "AmericanScientificAffiliation Affiliation" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Sunday, April 05, 2009 9:18 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] Anti-Creationist Psychobabble On the Web - non-natural agents?

>
> For those interested:
>
> I will try to clarify my statement below.
>
>> Natural agents are events or processes that have a cause-and-effect
>> link to a subsequent event or process. For example the eruption of
>> a volcano might be the proximal cause (agent) for a subsequent
>> decrease in global temperature by increasing the concentration of
>> sulfur-dioxide aerosols in the upper atmosphere.
>>
>> Organisms are also natural agents as they impact their environment
>> and by their actions cause a subsequent event or process. Humans
>> are obviously powerful natural agents in the natural world.
>
> "Agent" can be used with a very wide range of meanings. There are
> volitional agents, living agents, and nonliving entities (I probably
> should not have referred to events or processes as agents in my
> comment above). Examples of these types of natural agents would be
> humans (volitional agents), burrowing clams (living agent), and
> volcanoes (nonliving natural entities). The term "agent" in
> scientific description could be restricted to volitional agents, or
> any living organism, or include any natural entity. I used it in the
> most general sense because the boundaries between the categories
> above are not at all clear to me.
>
> Some may argue that humans are non-natural agents. In fact many ID
> advocates equate humans and supernatural agents as scientifically
> equivalent. This is one of the bases for their argument that science
> can investigate the supernatural, since it can investigate human
> action. (I discuss this in more length in my chapter in the book "For
> the Rock Record: Geologists on Intelligent Design) However, human
> are natural agents. They are part of this material world that can be
> studied using the tools of science, and whose actions in the past can
> be reconstructed. Because we know human physical capabilities and
> limitations we can identify them as causal natural agents. If
> humans possess a non-material spirit or soul, this does not make them
> non-natural agents. It would simply mean that humans possess an
> aspect of their being which transcends scientific description, and
> would lay outside the ability of science to investigate.
>
> Note: Not that dictional definitions are the same as philosophy, but
> here are the definitions of "agent" in the Websters:
> 1) A power that acts, a moving force; 2) one who acts ... a free
> moral agent; 3) that which produces or will produce a certain effect
> (also Chem. - a substance or element capable of producing a
> reaction). These would seem to be consistent with my use above.
>
>
> Keith
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Apr 6 14:10:31 2009