[MD] Metaphysics

[Krimel]

-----Original Message-----
From: Arlo Bensinger [mailto:ajb102 at psu.edu] 
Sent: Monday, January 18, 2010 2:36 PM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Metaphysics

[Krimel]
They accept on faith that their cars and TV and computers work for 
reasons. For those people, the majority in fact appealing to science 
as a "reason" is not much different from claiming God made it happen.

[Arlo]
But I do think there is a good deal of difference between saying "my 
Harley runs on an internal combustion engine, and I don't understand 
it, but I accept it" and saying "my Harley runs because angels push 
my bike". A primary difference is that should the engine stop 
working, and I became sufficiently motivated to do so, the theories 
of internal combustion (and mechanics, etc.) will allow me to get the 
machine working again. No amount of "praying to God" will fix a broken
engine.

[Krimel]
No wonder you take such issue with Platt. All those dead angels could
negatively impact your next road trip.

[Arlo]
Again, as I said to Ian earlier, there is a profound difference 
between accepting a provisional premise that is always checked 
against experience and accepting an absolute statement despite it 
being checked against experience.

[Krimel]
We went over all this about two years ago and I tend to side more with Ian.
I do think faith is involved when we face the unknown. To me the question is
how much. Angels pushing your bike requires a leap of faith, inventors
tinkering with the laws of nature just a little faith. Having said that, I
do find it distressing when Mark and Platt and to a certain extent Marsha
use this distinction of degree to claim no difference at all.