@LukeHill The more I see YEC vs. mainstream science headbutting, the more I see that the appropriate discipline for them to engage in is already well demarcated in Philosophy of science which deals with the assumptions that all modern empirical science need to start with. By calling it "philosophy of science" (which is defensible by the nature of the debate) both sides can then marshal resources in the larger topics to make the debate more productive.

The famous Thomas Kuhn with his 1962 book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions analyze the blind spots and the history of paradigm shift in the practice of scientists. YEC is well advised to read the book to understand themselves better as well.

@Matthew I wonder whether there are YEC commentaries on that book and whether YEC has seen themselves as engaging in topics within Philosophy of Science? While the book doesn't specifically deal with theology, Philosophy of Science is also the appropriate place where the interface between theology and science is discussed.

@GratefulDisciple I'm not familiar with the book (might look it up), but YECs definitely assert that mainstream "science" is in fact locked into a particular philosophy; particularly, that "science" has been made synonymous with "methodological naturalism".

(Actually, ID proponents make the same assertion...)

(...and that's one of the reasons folks can be so passionate about it. Materialists like to assert that allowing ID/YEC into science will be harmful to progress... and they're right, at least as far as insisting on a wrong foundation is harmful to science. Looking in the wrong direction is a waste of money and excludes possibly fruitful avenues of research. In some cases, the harm is even more direct.)

@Matthew Academically speaking it is philosophy of science that makes the call on the character of the scientific enterprise. Being a philosophical discipline, it naturally investigates the history of what have been thought about science (used to be called natural philosophy), so history of science is paramount to the study of philosophy of science. As with all histories, those who don't learn history is bound to repeat it.

Modern science owes a lot to the Medievals who practically gave science it's "charter" by saying that God keeps the created world stable enough so scientists can do their thing. So what you call "methodological naturalism" is maybe because it's part of its "charter", not because they are not necessarily hostile to religion.

YEC can offer critiques of their blind spots (like the tree ring, carbon-14 limitation, etc.). On the other hand YEC needs to understand that they have to assume some stability given by God that God wouldn't methodically interferes in ways that make the pursuit of science undoable. They have to take it literally "by faith" that God wouldn't interfere too much.

It would also be good to see YEC's position as one philosophy in the history of the philosophy of science to see what influenced them as well as what influenced mainstream science, where there are commonalities, where there are differences. It should be a philosophical dialog rather than throwing polemics at each other. The model should be Plato's dialog.

This is in FACT what AiG, Creation ministry, etc. have been doing, but they just don't call it dialog within philosophy of science but as one religion against another.

I would advise YEC to self-consciously construct a Christian philosophy of science that 1) has room for miracles but yet 2) provide enough stability for science to do its work and 3) define the boundaries that scientists need to respect. Mainstream can then look at that Christian philosophy of science and see whether the room is too narrow. Catholic Church (through Aquinas) has given that charter for centuries. That's why the Catholic Church doesn't have much problem with science post-Galileo.

Gotta do some work. TTYL.

@GratefulDisciple Ack. Sorry, I'm mixing up methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism. (Not helped by the book I just finished using "methodological materialism".) Which is why I usually just say Materialism 🙂.

@GratefulDisciple Oh, YECs are quite aware. At least, I assume so given how often they point out that Materialists have to do the same thing 😀.

I'd say there's two reasons for labeling Materialism a "religion". First, because it acts like one, in the sense of having philosophical dogmas which are sacrosanct. Second, because it absolutely makes philosophical assertions. Namely, there is no God, there is no purpose of life, etc.

IIRC we've (meaning, this chat room) had this "religion" vs, "philosophy" debate before, and yes, "philosophy" is in some senses more accurate, with the "religion" claim used to highlight that Materialism's claims have no less theistic effect than YEC.

As far as boundaries... really, what YEC and ID both want is for scientists to be fair about not excluding explanations a priori. Or at least being honest when they're doing so. IOW, don't define "science" as Materialism. Leave, as you say, room for miracles. But methodological naturalism is fine. YECs like methodological naturalism.

Besides which, "room for science to do its work" mostly applies to operational science, in which miracles are not necessary (or expected) even for YECs. That, as you rightly point out, is the basis for operational science.

Arminian is slightly different, it's actually very similar to Calvinism. Arminian has what's called prevenient grace, where God heals the will first so the will can say YES. I think Eleonore's way is better in describing how human will operates. We can all detect 3 states, right? Willing to do something, not willing, and neutral. Eleonore calls it the second order of will. The will to will to love.

In other words, I don't think Arminian and Calvinism has that concept of "neutral" will.

@GratefulDisciple can you give me an example of neutral will?

@LukeHill A girl you have been seeing ask you: "will you marry me?" You have 3 choices: 1) Yes (move closer), 2) No (scared/repelled/time-to-say-bye), 3) Not sure (let's maintain the status quo, I need time to make decision but I want to get to know you better)

#3 is passive "cease resisting", letting the girl to make the move. I know it's not masculine, but with God, God is the "masculine". (sorry, 21st century feminist reader :-) )