I have always been somewhat perplexed by the idea that natural science rules out purpose. My sense is that the claim really is that natural science rules out, i.e. makes superfluous, certain supernatural explanations for how aspects of the world came to be. So I suppose I think purpose for is being conflated with explanation how.
I think my thought is different from, but consistent with, the analysis in the article you cite.
1 comment:
I have always been somewhat perplexed by the idea that natural science rules out purpose. My sense is that the claim really is that natural science rules out, i.e. makes superfluous, certain supernatural explanations for how aspects of the world came to be. So I suppose I think purpose for is being conflated with explanation how.
I think my thought is different from, but consistent with, the analysis in the article you cite.
Post a Comment