Thank you for posting this, Stem Cell. I like the fact that John Shook is careful to separate science from naturalism, insisting that naturalism is based on science, not the other way around.
Science does not require belief in naturalism. Science doesn't even require a belief in a rational, ordered universe. The core of science is a (testable) assumption: theories constructed *as if* the universe were rational are better at predicting and controlling what happens. The fact that science does this so well is evidence for a more robust, philosophical naturalism. Most scientists go ahead and draw that practical conclusion, but it is not technically necessary. Aaron On Nov 4, 2:17 pm, stem cell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I was listening to this podcast today and thought it would be a good > topic to discuss. I would like to get personal thoughts on this from > Orn. and Aaron. I hope this link goes through. Just FYI. More > information on this can be found atwww.naturalism.org. > > www.pointofinquiry.org/john_shook_naturalism_and_the_scientific_outlook/ > > stemcell --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
