At 11:27 AM -0700 9/2/99, Jeff Ricker wrote:
>If I am understanding Paul Brandon's post correctly, his thesis is that the
>universe is so complex that phenomena we might be tempted to ascribe to a
>supernatural cause actually may have natural explanations of which we are
>unaware or that are incomprehensible to us. Because of this, there is no way
>to get evidence for a supernatural cause of a peculiar phenomenon by
>eliminating possible natural causes. I am in agreement with him about this (at
>least at this point). His post made me realize that I am not as bothered by a
>belief in supernaturalism (because it could be correct) as I am about the
>special "ways of knowing" that are thought by many to be necessary if one is
>to know the supernatural realm.
That was my point.
I was also trying to demonstrate that Science and Theology are two
different systems of discourse, based on different (and aften incompatible)
basic assumptions.
That is why trying to distinguish empirically between the supernatural and
the merely unknowable becomes a meaningless question.
I'm afraid that if your students insist on applying a literal religious
explanation to all of their experiences then their arguments are
unanswerable, since they're appealing to an ultimate (and by definition
unanswerable) authority that is not consistent with either logic or
empiricism.
We'll have to let the natural selection of memes (Susan Blackmore's _The
Meme Machine_ is a good read) make the final decision.
My approach is to state that science and religion are two different
ballgames with different sets of ground rules.
When you're doing science you must play by its rules -- accept them as a
working assumption.
You may still _believe_ as you will -- that is beyond argument since a
logical argument is based upon common assumptions.
If you cannot accept (as a working assumption) lawfulness and determinism,
then you cannot reap the demonstrated benefits of science, and must instead
pray for a miracle (not meant facetiously). There are those who will make
that choice; I don't think that we can teach them. Fortunately, they are a
small (if vocal these days) minority.
>Because of this, I think that it is unethical to give credence in our courses
>to a set of beliefs for which the only evidence relies on personal experience.
I would neither give credence to these beliefs nor argue against them.
Simply rule them out of bounds.
>... we are merely substituting...another mystery in place of the original
>one.
To many of the religious, the term "mystery" is a positive one!
* PAUL K. BRANDON [EMAIL PROTECTED] *
* Psychology Department 507-389-6217 *
* "The University formerly known as Mankato State" *
* http://www.mankato.msus.edu/dept/psych/welcome.html *
