> page 101:
> "The simplest way to resolve the contradiction [of theistic naturalism]
>is to withdraw one's personal theism from the world of objective reality.
>Perhaps the consequences of divine action are inherently invisible to
>science, although they may be apparent enough to the eye of faith. If
>evidence of divine action in the history of the universe is conspicuous by
>its absence, then we may still choose to believe that the universe would
>disappear if God did not constantly uphold it with his mighty (but
>scientifically undetectable) word of power. Wise metaphysical naturalists
>will smile at these transparent devices, but they will not openly ridicule
>them. Why should they -- when theists implicitly comply with the
>naturalistic doctrine that "religion" is a matter of faith, not reason."
"Wise metaphysical naturalists" is an oxymoron. As shown by the
hostile views of science coming from some social sciences, the validity of
science without a theistic justification is philosophically unjustified.
If you like to do science, that's OK, but there is no objectivity, no
reason to prefer the results of an experiment over what appeals to me in
making a decision, and no reason to be honest without an absolute basis.
The Enlightenment attempt to throw out God as the basis for the rationality
of the universe yet maintain its rationality is just as doomed as the
attempt to throw Him out of morality and maintain morality. It's simply
easier to do experiments without thinking about "what is the philosophical
justification of this?" than it is to think about morals without such
questions. Also, the consequences of attempted violation of God's natural
laws are more immediate and harder to deny than are the consequences of
attempted violation of the moral laws, so atheists are more quickly forced
to accept the former. Failure to detect God in an apparently random
process is the fault of a blind observer, not a blind watchmaker.
"Methodological naturalism" is a bad name for studying the physical
universe under the assumption that Jesus, in whom all things hold together,
is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Because the universe is created
and maintained by God, we can expect rational laws to hold. However, on
some occasions, a departure from these laws (to the best of our knowledge)
is necessary for the carrying out of His plan. Whether such departures are
necessary apart from His self-revelation to humanity is not clear, so I do
not think it's wise to insist that such departures exist.
Faith is reasonable, but will not be reached by abstract reasoning
apart from God. Historical evidence and the effects on people's lives are
physical evidence that can be given in support of Christianity. The most
important evidence for Christianity for me is my own experience of Jesus
Christ. However, I also find Christianity preferable to Mormonism because
the Bible agrees with historical evidence and the book of Mormon does not.
By endorsing erroneous scientific claims, Christians can make faith appear
unreasonable to scientists. No unbelievers will be converted by theistic
evolutionists, intelligent design supporters, or anyone else save God
alone, but if they think Christianity requires ignorance, they probably
will not be very open to the Gospel.
David Campbell
"Old Seashells"
Department of Geology
CB 3315 Mitchell Hall
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Chapel Hill NC 27599-3315
919-962-0685
FAX 919-966-4519
"He had discovered an unknown bivalve, forming a new genus"-E. A. Poe, The
Gold Bug