Besides taking something completely out of context to make no point at all, you completely missed the context and all of the point of the illustration.
The point being, Richard, if you had been observing from the shore, you would have witnessed a miracle of God’s providence and you would not have known it. That’s pretty much how it works, his providential M.O. – we see the results but we cannot explain how he did it.
You don’t think he is capable of doing that on the molecular level? Undetectably? VFA? Without breaking any of the laws of nature? Do you really know “the difference between a miracle and normality”? Don’t be so sure of yourself.
That’s a good point: storms over the Sea of Galilee can hit fast and break up fast, so an observer on the shore wouldn’t have noticed anything odd. To know something different had occurred you would have had to be close enough to hear the dialogue in the boat.
Though then there’s the walking on the water incident – and apparently not being drenched to the skin, for that matter.
[I have this mental image . . . Mary is thrusting a pile of towels at Jesus, saying, “You have go to stop walking across the lake – you’ll catch your death of cold!”]
You are still not thinking clearly about science – methodological naturalism and what can be discovered by it alone, and what you should know about God’s sovereignty. Like the weather on the Sea of Galilee. What could science have told us about God’s influence on the storm? Nothing at all, because all it can work with is the physical. What science would say is that there was a boat, a storm, and men in the boat speaking – purely physical.
So yeah, when I talk about science, I talk about nature, whether the weather () or biology, and what rules it follows. When I am talking about God, I am talking about his sovereignty and ability to intervene without our knowing how scientifically.
Is denying God. It is making nature self-sufficient.
You know that science does not recognise God, so why on earth do you keep arguing it?
If God is controlling Evolution from the bottom up. there is no need for Survival of the fittest or your famous drift! Things progress because God wants them to. Things change because God wants them to. All my arguments about gaps and changes are nullified and pointless. But not because science says so! Because God is controlling it.
There is no heredity. God is building just like I said so. The early markers are just how he started. The DNA /RNA coding is the building blocks.You have completely rewritten Evolution and claimed it is science! How can it be science if God is right in the middle controlling it all!
I think I’m going to back you up on this one, Richard. Whatever misconceptions you may have about evolution, there’s one thing about methodological naturalism that you seem to understand that a lot of Christians on the side of evolutionary creation/theistic evolution/pro-science miss.
When we talk about “methodological naturalism,” what we say and what people hear are two completely different things.
We can point out until the cows come home that methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism are two different things. We can explain until we’re blue in the face that when we say “methodological naturalism” we aren’t denying God and we aren’t ruling out the possibility of miracles. But that doesn’t change the fact that just by using the expression “methodological naturalism,” people will hear a denial of God. They will hear a rejection of the possibility of miracles, whether that is our intention or not.
As advocates for a responsible and honest approach to science that takes it seriously, we need to remember who we are talking to. We are talking to people who believe that vast swathes of the scientific community are motivated first and foremost by the desire to oppose God and undermine faith, and for whom the desire to figure out how things work comes a distant second. If we’re using vocabulary that gives so much as a hint of supporting that perception, we’re just going to see the shields go up, and our highfalutin explanations of what “methodological naturalism” does and doesn’t mean aren’t going to penetrate them.
That’s why the most important thing I have to say to other Christians involved in this side of the debate is STOP DEFENDING METHODOLOGICAL NATURALISM!!! One of the most important rules of clear communication is that you need to use vocabulary that your audience can relate to and understand. That’s why I focus on concepts such as factual accuracy, rigour, quality control, reproducible results, and not making things up. Yes, it may take longer and more effort to spell these things out than simply saying “methodological naturalism,” but it’s clearer and it’s less open to misunderstanding.
You really cannot differentiate between @St.Roymond’s very useful initialisms, VFA, the ViewFromAbove, and VFB, the ViewFromBelow, can you.
If a watchmaker makes a watch, is it self-sufficient? Um, yeah, I think so? That would be methodological naturalism, Richard, the VFB, with systems operating per the rules set for them by their Maker. Do you deny that? Apparently you do. Why?
Is the watchmaker prohibited from interacting, ‘tinkering’ with it later on? No? That would be VFA when he does.
Does either of those scenarios, those conditions, does either of them deny God? They certainly do not.
All we have to do is make the distinction between VFB and VFA. When practicing science, we better defend methodological naturalism. (Methodological naturalism can include the divine-o-meter when it comes to market.)
There is nothing more I can say. All I can do is reitterate or change it around.
You have never responded to the claims about your view of God as a killer and cruel torturer.
Either you do not understand them, or you refuse to confront them. Either way, until you do, you can goad me until you are blue in the face.
Methodological naturalism does not deny God because it is incapable of even addressing the question. Can the mechanical watch tell you if it had a maker or not?
That I’m focusing on your misconceptions for one. I was actually pointing out that you were on to something and that I needed to affirm it.
Yes, I get that. I get it that methodological naturalism (as understood by regulars on this forum at any rate) can include the divine-o-meter when it comes to market. I get it that methodological naturalism is incapable of addressing the question of whether miracles can happen or not. I get it that that is a completely different thing from denying God, denying miracles, or denying the supernatural.
But my whole point is that many Christians who are trying to figure out what to make of the whole subject don’t get it. They’ve been taught that “methodological naturalism” means something that can’t include the divine-o-meter when it comes to market. Some of them have even been taught that “methodological naturalism” is an existential threat. By using the term “methodological naturalism,” you’ll trigger their fight-or-flight response before you can get them to listen to your explanation that it’s not what they think it is.
That’s why I say that we shouldn’t be attempting to defend something with that particular name and that particular description. We need to find a different way of expressing ourselves that gets the point across in ways that aren’t threatening and that aren’t likely to be misunderstood.
What I’m calling for here is clear communication, not a lowering of standards.
Focus on the goals of factual accuracy, quality control, reproducibility, and not making things up. Because that is what methodological naturalism (as we understand it) boils down to.
Same thing. What facts are they not getting straight? What corners are they cutting? What assertions are they making that are unjustified? What results are they promoting that are not reproducible?
These four questions should cover pretty much everything that needs to be covered for ID and OEC as well as YEC. Anything else is politics, religion or philosophy, not science.
) or biology, and what rules it follows. When I am talking about God, I am talking about his sovereignty and ability to intervene without our knowing how scientifically.