tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post5830640302775290100..comments2024-03-18T20:24:18.935-05:00Comments on Alexander Pruss's Blog: Theism and scientific non-realismAlexander R Prusshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-13618781253357153862014-04-12T04:55:49.471-05:002014-04-12T04:55:49.471-05:00I can not see how outlined position is similar to ...I can not see how outlined position is similar to God of the gaps scenario? Scientific realism/anti-realism debate is epistemological and metaphysical issue, not scientific. So in articulating such positions all metaphysical aparatus can be helpful (including some kind of methodological theism - suppose some particular theological view because in make more sense than some another. <br /><br />I am very uncertain about realism/anti-realism debate in philosophy of science (especially under influence of brilliant exposition of empiricism in Bas van Fraassen's writings). <br /><br />I hope I have not misunderstand your objection.Milošhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07415201615175187675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-48781507307585747542014-04-11T08:24:45.095-05:002014-04-11T08:24:45.095-05:00Hi Dr. Pruss
Would you say that the scenario you&...Hi Dr. Pruss<br /><br />Would you say that the scenario you've outlined is analogous (or perhaps substantively the same) as the "God of the gaps" position? It seems to me that the theist ought to stay away from invoking God as explanatory for secondary causation because our knowledge if that is imperfect and in flux.<br /><br />It seems that retreating away from realism is a similar move in that the theist invokes God as a stop-gap to explain the efficacy of applied science. If that's so, shouldn't the theist refrain from such a position? <br /><br />Cheers,<br />JamesonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-30513601732426408162014-04-11T06:01:24.247-05:002014-04-11T06:01:24.247-05:00I believe that there is more one line of reasoning...I believe that there is more one line of reasoning attractive to theists to adopt scientific realisim: if God create man it is expected that finute human mind reflect (of course very slighty) unlimited Gods mind and to have capacity to understand how Creation works (including himself). <br /><br />Naturalist affirmation of scientific realism seems to much pragmatic and, on my opinion, path from pragmatics to metaphysics is very unsecure. Milošhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07415201615175187675noreply@blogger.com