The modern sciences are characterised by a methodological atheism. Even though religions offer what appear to be explanations of various facts about the world, such proposed explanations are not taken seriously within the sciences. Even if no natural explanation were available, it would be assumed that one exists. Is this merely a sign of atheistic prejudice, as some critics suggest? Or are there good reasons to exclude from science explanations that invoke a supernatural agent? My answer to this question has two parts. On the one hand, I concede the bare possibility that talk of divine action could constitute a potential explanation of some state of affairs, while noting that the conditions under which this would be true are unlikely ever to be fulfilled. On the other hand, I argue that a proposed explanation of this kind would rate poorly, when measured against our usual standards of explanatory virtue. Even if it were the only proposed explanation on offer, we would have good reason to seek an alternative.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:ADTP/217745 |
| Date | January 2007 |
| Creators | Dawes, Gregory W, n/a |
| Publisher | University of Otago. Department of Philosophy |
| Source Sets | Australiasian Digital Theses Program |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Rights | http://policy01.otago.ac.nz/policies/FMPro?-db=policies.fm&-format=viewpolicy.html&-lay=viewpolicy&-sortfield=Title&Type=Academic&-recid=33025&-find), Copyright Gregory W Dawes |
Page generated in 0.0122 seconds