In a message dated 7/1/00 9:02:16 PM Mountain Daylight Time, crossbr@SLU.EDU
writes:
> SteamDoc@aol.com wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Why do you think that? Do you think it is not possible for a theist to
reach
> conclusions about scientific evidence for any particular natural phenomena
> until
> he or she has worked out a theology of divine action through second
causes?
I should have phrased that more carefully. It is OK for a Christian to talk
about scientific evidence without working through the metaphysics first. I
meant that *injecting the scientific arguments into Christian apologetics*
was a bad idea if the theology was not thought through first. And certainly
the Phil Johnson movement is more about apologetics than about concern for
reaching correct scientific conclusions. At least that is the way it is
played in the church. Johnson has been given opportunities to disavow the
use of his writings about evolution in "God of the Gaps" apologetics, but
instead he seems to revel in playing defender of the faith.
> He wants the data to be interpreted *without* the assumption that
> nothing beyond nature is necessary and therefore *with* open-mindedness to
> the possibility of direct divine action.
Such "open-mindedness" is fine with me. But is Johnson "open" to the
possibility that God might not have acted in the way Johnson thinks he should
have? There's a place in "Defeating Darwinism" (which I don't have in front
of me) where Johnson basically says that a "real God" would not act in such a
behind-the-scenes way. Dembski sneers at the idea of a "stealth God" who
would do his work providentially. If Johnson believes in providence so that
such "direct divine action" is not theologically necessary, he should be
working to correct all those in the church who see the truth of theism as
tied to God creating by such means.
>I hope that my perception is mistaken, but it appears that you are not that
>concerned about accurately and charitably interpreting Johnson. Hopefully
>there is some other explanation.
I'm quite concerned about accuracy, but I'm probably not as charitable as I
should be. Not to excuse that, but years of seeing these things from Johnson
and the theological abominations many Christians take from them
("Christianity isn't false after all because Phil Johnson is showing that
evolution isn't true after all.") has taxed my charity. It is also not an
excuse but is perhaps germane to note that Johnson is often uncharitable to
his Christian critics ("accommodationists" is a common label, and he has
accused Christian profs in science of adopting methodological naturalism out
of selfish career concern).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 : Sun Jul 02 2000 - 00:36:22 EDT