Re: [asa] Natural Agents - Cause and Effect, Non-Natural Agents

“It [NatSci] can investigate the mind and any connections between neural activity and human experiences.  But natural science is unable to investigate anything that is not material (matter and energy)." - Keith Miller
 
At least now you've said (not just 'science' but instead) 'natural science,' which is of course one particular type of 'science,' and not necessarily representative of all sciences. Thanks for that! Natural science is materialistic ("anything that is not material"), if I read your message correctly, and energy is material? There are some physicist-Priests where I live who would argue stringently with the latter point.
 
One might wonder how Aristotle's four causes come into play here, especially the non-material ones: efficient, formal and final causes. Banish the last two? They seem marginalised in your 'natural science,' Keith. Well, I guess that's o.k. because they were pushed aside in F. Bacon's 'science' too. So that must make it right or good or useful...?
 
"What Paul is arguing is that this state of affairs is inappropriate and that science should include the investigation of such non-material entities." - Keith
 
'Science' already does this Keith – it already investigates non-material entities! Do you deny this? Now you're just shifting the topic from 'non-natural' to 'non-material' without answering the direct and simple questions I've posed to you. Speak up about your ‘non-natural but not supernatural agents’ if you please, otherwise there is no way forward in this discussion. Obviously there are problems with the 'state of affairs.'
 
No, I disagree. Paul *does not* see "humans as fundamentally non-natural." This is an exaggeration you've concocted. In one sense he's as naturalistic as you are Keith. Paul Nelson is not an idiot and surely he acknowledges that human beings are 'partly natural,' but at the same time *not just natural.* This is a common sense opinion, for all but the crudest of naturalists or materialists. Or are you suggesting that Paul Nelson believes we are 'only spirits' and 'not natural at all'? And he is of course the easiest IDist for TE/ECs to pick on as he is the only openly YEC of the IDM leaders that I listed in the previous post.
 
On the other hand, you have thus far demonstrated unwillingness or inability to accept or even acknowledge the *more than just natural* approach to human beings. Why is this Keith? MN is wielded against (study of) human beings by saying: *not natural, therefore, not scientific.* It is not surprising that many people today are reacting against such myopic scientism. And it really does fit to contemporary definitions of 'scientism' quite appropriately.

 
"ID advocates consistently appeal to the ability of science to study human action as a validation of their argument that science can investigate divine action. That is why their unwillingness to distinguish natural and supernatural agents is a critical error." - Keith
 
The first part of this paragraph is another exaggeration. The IDM in general spends very, very little time (unfortunately for them) on human action, other than using it suggestively in their provocative philosophy of science. John West is your main contact person on this.
 
And the second part of the paragraph is *exactly* what you're doing, Keith, in refusing to answer the question of 'non-natural agents' that are not 'supernatural.' Your failure to distinguish between them demonstrates the weakness of your philosophy, and of MN more generally; ironically too, following your open disclosure of appreciation for philosophy of science in your communication of 'science and religion' discourse.
 
(from the other post) And I missed this contribution from the previous message: “The whole point of Nelson's argument is that science must be free to investigate the non-natural and supernatural. He is arguing for the expansion of science to the investigation of the supernatural.” - Keith
 
Notice please that in the first sentence you speak of ‘non-natural’ *and* ‘supernatural’ as if they are separate. But in the second sentence you use only ‘supernatural.’ Is this because you conflate the two? Unless you say otherwise and give examples, it seems that onlookers must accept that conflation (i.e. non-natural = supernatural) is what you think.
 
Unfortunately, due to a sending error, it seems you weren't able to read my full message, or at least you only responded to the abbreviated one. I'd be glad to comment on your reactions to the full text, which again requests your open disclosure about ‘non-natural agents’, if you are willing to address it. Why there is hesitation I don't rightly know...
 
Gregory

--- On Tue, 4/14/09, kbmill@ksu.edu <kbmill@ksu.edu> wrote:

From: kbmill@ksu.edu <kbmill@ksu.edu>
Subject: Re: [asa] Natural Agents - Cause and Effect, Non-Natural Agents
To: asa@calvin.edu
Received: Tuesday, April 14, 2009, 6:12 PM

> From Nelson's quotation: "You are, if science must be
naturalistic,
> engaged in an activity that science will never understand."
> This is understandable and true, as far as contemporary science
> studies goes. There *are* activities that science doesn't study. The
> limitations of 'science' qua
> "Human psychology, if it can only recognize natural causes for
> events, will be forever on the hapless task of trying to explain the
> actions of the soul without including the soul in the theory." - Paul
> Nelson

> What about this exactly do you disagree with? Is it that a person is
> 'doing science' and therefore cannot possibly be 'entirely
> objective'?

Natural science cannot investigate the action or existence of an
immaterial spiritual soul. It can investigate the mind and any
connections between neural activity and human experiences. But natural
science is unable to investigate anything that is not material (matter
and energy).

What Paul is arguing is that this state of affairs is inappropriate and
that science should include the investigation of such non-material
entities. Because he sees humans as fundamentally non-natural he
therefore argues that science can investigate the action of an
intelligent designer as a causal agent in biological history (such an
agent is clearly supernatural). ID advocates consistently appeal to
the ability of science to study human action as a validation of their
argument that science can investigate divine action. That is why their
unwillingness to distinguish natural and supernatural agents is a
critical error. (By the way I had an extended e-mail conversation with
Paul on exactly this point.)

I would strongly encourage you to read my full essay in the book "For
the Rock Record: Geologists on Intelligent Design." I lay out step by
step my whole argument. I would be happy to respond to anyone's
comments on that essay.

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 Tue Apr 14 14:55:33 2009