MAGNETS, MAGIC, AND OTHER ANOMALIES: IN DEFENSE OF METHODOLOGICAL NATURALISM.
Recent critiques of methodological naturalism (MN) claim that it fails by conflicting with Christian belief and being insufficiently humble. We defend MN by tracing the real history of the debate, contending that the story as it is usually told is mythic. We show how MN works in practice, including...
| Publicado en: | Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science Vol. 53; no. 4; pp. 1064 - 1094 |
|---|---|
| Autores principales: | , |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
Open Library of Humanities
Dec2018
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=133133775&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: hlh uiTerm: 133133775 longDbName: Humanities International Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 05912385 ZYG jtl: Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science issn: 05912385 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Dec2018 vid: 53 iid: 4 pid: 15576 pub: Open Library of Humanities artinfo: ui: 133133775 10.1111/zygo.12473 ppf: 1064 ppct: 30 formats: fmt: – @attributes: type: T – @attributes: type: P size: 214KB tig: atl: MAGNETS, MAGIC, AND OTHER ANOMALIES: IN DEFENSE OF METHODOLOGICAL NATURALISM. aug: au: Perry, John Ritchie, Sarah Lane su: Naturalism Belief & doubt Scientific method Theology Torrance, Andrew B. sug: subj: Naturalism Belief & doubt Scientific method Theology Torrance, Andrew B. keyword: Alvin Plantinga Andrew B. Torrance anomaly Edgar Brightman Isaac Newton methodological naturalism miracles scientific method Thomas Aquinas Thomas S. Kuhn ab: Recent critiques of methodological naturalism (MN) claim that it fails by conflicting with Christian belief and being insufficiently humble. We defend MN by tracing the real history of the debate, contending that the story as it is usually told is mythic. We show how MN works in practice, including among real scientists. The debate is a red herring. It only appears problematic because of confusion among its opponents about how scientists respond to experimental anomalies. We conclude by introducing our preferred approach, Science‐Engaged Theology. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: Y custom: Copyright of Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science is the property of Open Library of Humanities and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. item: Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science holder: Open Library of Humanities dt: @attributes: year: 2018 holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|