The exchange seems to me to illustrate PJ's insistence that 'naturalism'
must be understood as metaphysical naturalism or scientism. But, as
implicit below, if methodological naturalism is an oxymoron, no Christian
can be a scientist for he would have to deny his faith. Maybe we can have
some picketers in Boston with signs, "Abandon science or be damned."
Dave
On Sat, 1 Jul 2000 14:38:35 EDT SteamDoc@aol.com writes:
> In a message dated 7/1/00 10:14:00 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
> crossbr@SLU.EDU
> writes:
> [Below is my description of what I saw as PJ's unwillingness to
> acknowledge
> providence. Formatting is messed up because the e-mail was sent in
> HTML
> which becomes illegible by the time it passes trhough the reflector
> and then
> AOL.]
> > >"While I believe the evidence does not support the theory of
> evolution,
> > >and while it has been abused as a tool by those pushing an
> atheist
> > >agenda, the Christian faith does not suffer if it turns out that
> > >evolution is true. God can create however He chooses, and is not
> > >diminished if His work in creation was through 'natural'
> processes."
> > The fact that Johnson would not agree to such a statement, which
> evensome
> ID
> > proponents on this list thought was agreeable, seems to confirm
> theclaim
> > that he is unwilling to acknowledge God's ability to do his
> creativework
> via
> > his sovereignty over nature.
> [End of my statement]
> > I wrote Phil a note, asking him
> > about his position on the doctrine of providence and his reasons
> for
> refusing
> > to endorse the above quotation. Here is whathe wrote back:
> > "My views are explained in by writings, especially Reason in
> theBalance (
> > the Appendix is particularly important) and The Wedge ofTruth.
> Among
> > my views are these: (1) God can and does act bywhatever means He
> chooses,
> > including superintendence of natural processes; and (2) I do not
> allow
> other
> > persons, especially persons who think in naturalistic categories,
> to
> > put their own (vague) words in my mouth - e.g., "if evolution" (
> > undefined) "turns out to be true" (as determined by reasoning
> based upon
> > methodological naturalism?). The question is not what God can do
> but what
> the
> > neo-Darwinian mechanism can do, when its creative power has to be
>
> > demonstrated by experiment rather than deduced from naturalistic
> assumptions.&
> > nbsp; I do not cooperate with attempts to evade that question."
> > I think that pretty much settles the question.
>
> I think that pretty much evades the question, as Johnson continues
> to avoid
> explaining his theology of God's action in nature. He gives lip
> service to
> God being able to work through natural processes. The question is,
> if
> Johnson's evaluation of the evidence is incorrect and natural
> evolutionary
> mechanisms really do explain (at a physical level; I'm not talking
> about
> ultimate causation) the development of life (I fail to see what is
> "vague"
> about such a statement), does that exclude God from being the
> Creator.
> If so, then Johnson, if he is consistent, would also have to say
> that God is
> not the creator of stars and mountains, since we have well-verified
> explanations for their formation in terms of "naturalistic"
> mechanisms that
> make no reference to God.
> If not, then one may argue the evidence for and against Darwinian
> evolution
> as a scientific question, but it should have no theological impact.
> In which
> case Johnson's arguments are not defense of the faith, but just
> another
> argument about whether or not scientific consensus is correct or
> not, much
> like his writings on HIV and AIDS.
>
> Maybe we could try him on another question:
> From a theological standpoint, are explanations of the development
> of life in
> terms of "natural" mechanisms incompatible with Christianity? If
> so, are the
> "natural" explanations of the formation of mountains in terms of
> plate
> tectonics also incompatible with Christianity?
>
> I think all the arguments about the scientific evidence are a waste
> of time
> until these fundamental philosophical issues about how God is
> allowed to act
> in the world, and about what natural explanations "mean"
> metaphysically, are
> thought through. Richard Dawkins thinks natural explanations like
> evolution
> "mean" that God is not there. I disagree, based on what the Bible
> says about
> God's sovereignty over nature. Phil Johnson *appears* to agree with
> Dawkins
> on this fundamental view; at least he keeps dodging opportunities to
> disagree
> with Dawkins' view of what evolution means. Once one agrees with
> Dawkins
> there, one has sold out to semi-deism and must then argue against
> the science
> as though the truth of the faith were at stake.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dr. Allan H. Harvey, Boulder, Colorado | SteamDoc@aol.com
> "Any opinions expressed here are mine, and should not be
> attributed to my employer, my wife, or my cats"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 01 2000 - 17:57:56 EDT