Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
09-13-2002, 11:21 AM | #21 | |
Contributor
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: I've left FRDB for good, due to new WI&P policy
Posts: 12,048
|
Quote:
Please elaborate. [ September 13, 2002: Message edited by: Kind Bud ]</p> |
|
09-14-2002, 10:48 AM | #22 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: South Bend IN
Posts: 564
|
Kind Bud,
I’m not sure exactly what the point your driving at is. I’m a scientific realist so I do not believe that the laws of physics are merely arbitrary conventions. I agree that there is a distinction between our description of those laws and the laws themselves, but that does not mean that our descriptions are arbitrary since there is an external standard by which we must measure our descriptions against. An accurate map of my apartment is not an arbitrary invention on someone’s part; such a map must conform to the actual layout my apartment and it will contain information which describes real objective features of my apartment. The same is true of our descriptions of the natural world, insofar as they are accurate, and the natural world itself. God doesn’t take His cues from our descriptions; we do our best to order our descriptions according to the objective reality God has made. That being said, I think this is likely little more than semantics. Do you deny that nature exhibits certain regularities? If not, then all my assertion amounts to is the claim that nature's regularities are themselves a means through which God acts. In Christian theology, this idea would be included in the doctrine of divine providence. In fact, I think that when certain Christians (such as Young Earth Creationists) make something’s happening through natural processes and something’s being an act of God mutually exclusive, they are inadvertently undermining this doctrine and undervaluing the sovereign rule of God in all things. God Bless, Kenny [ September 14, 2002: Message edited by: Kenny ]</p> |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|