Thursday, December 24, 2009
Some discussion of methodological naturalism on Shallit's blog
Some interesting points in this discussion. First, it looks as if these people are ready to use words like "natural" and "supernatural' as if they, and everyone else, knew what those terms meant. I am not at all sure that we are entitled to assume this. Shallit assumes that if science is naturalistic, it won't make any references to gods of any kinds. Why? What is it about gods that makes them supernatural?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
As an ID proponent, I often need to point out that "natural" explanations can mean either "non-supernatural" or "non-intelligent." Most ID proponents then simply consider the question of whether certain (biological) phenomena are best explained by intelligent causation, regardless of whether that intelligence is supernatural or natural. Most -- but not all -- ID proponents believe that the intelligence is supernatural, but we also think the evidence is insufficient to establish that. Sir Fred Hoyle, on the other hand, was a non-supernaturalist who was also an ID proponent.
Post a Comment