Thanks for the welcome, Jan. Yes, fortune would have it that Graham is my
brother.
It is interesting to me that you find differences in the 'Wetsidee' between
Dooyeweerd and Vollenhoven. I guess it was to me at the time a monolith that
liked to think itself above scrutiny, being *the* informant to theology itself.
In retrospect, possibly as close to a mediator of divine principle as one would
dare to assume. And you're right about the lack of philosophical training
forced onto the science profession. Such a vacuum allowed that incredibly
detailed, precise, and schematic matrix (interwoven with the church
affirmation) to be something like a higher truth over a lesser truth of some
combination of scripture, tradition, reason, and experience.
But you have it right, I think. It is what I was trying to say about most the
basic underlying assumptions in scientific endeavour. Those very first premises
can determine or influence later outcome; whatever one discusses or argues
about in science finally comes down to those very first premises. You say:
"For example, in the ongoing debates here I often see the influence of a
dualistic world view: some things are under God's rule, some things are
not, though the bible clearly teaches that nothing happens outside God's
will. Much more should be said here, but then we may be getting involved
again in the debate of Arminians contra Calvinists."
There is here an implication that a "dualistic world view" is inferior and that
nothing happens outside God's will. Since I, for example, would probably not
agree with such notions, there must be some deeper assumptions being made.
Surely, some apparent dichotomies point more closely to truth than others. One
thinks of law/grace, or necessity/freedom (determinism/freewill),
subjective/objective. Maybe others, like common/special grace or the
universality/sovereignty of law spheres would detract from truth. Some of us
would be acquainted with those apparent dualities of creation like
wave/particle, certainty/uncertainty, chaos/order, continual/integral e.g.
offering abundances that know no end.
To say that the Bible clearly teaches that nothing happens outside God's will
would seem to marginalise what a vast number of Christian folks think. I know
there are those who equate God's will with his permission. But many cannot
think that events like the holocaust, present-day massacres, or any physical or
moral evil is willed by God. They can't think of them because they are
convinced that libertarian freedom derives from the very substance or essence
of God. That the very necessity and spontaneity of the "machine" of science
(and the splendour of natural phenomena) derives from what God gave at the
"dawn of time". These same people think that removing libertarian freedom
diminishes the sovereignty of God because they believe that freedom ultimately
comes from that image in which they are made. The more freedom a person has,
the closer s/he is to God. Recall what St. Aquinas said about grace perfecting
nature rather than detracting from it.
Again, you're right; the debate of Calvinism/Arminianism belongs to another
channel. It's just that any real discussion in science seems to come down, in
the end, to it. Why? Because there the very first premises are being made, the
nature of God.
Christopher Morbey