SteamDoc@aol.com wrote:
> Three quick points:
>
> 1) Methodological naturalism seeks natural causes (for physical phenomena),
> but it does not insist that such causes always be there. A methodological
> naturalist can accept Jesus walking on water, for example, without insistence
> that there must be some "natural" explanation. The methodological naturalist
> would just insist that such an event could not be considered a part of
> science, since science is concerned with the study of natural phenomena. It
> is only the metaphysical naturalist who asserts that science exhausts all
> knowledge.
You are using a different definition of MN than I am.
> 2) Your statement that finding natural causes for things shaves God and
> providence out of the picture strikes me as an example of the sort of "God of
> the Gaps" negation of providence we have been talking about with respect to
> Phil Johnson. Has finding the natural causes of mountain formation "shaved
> out" God from being the Creator of mountains? If some people, encouraged by
> metaphysical naturalists like Dawkins, come to such conclusions, our response
> should be to oppose the unjustified metaphysical extrapolation of the
> scientific results. Johnson (and perhaps you, judging by the above quote),
> if he were consistent, would have us oppose plate tectonics as a corrosive
> attempt to squeeze theism out of society.
Here you misunderstand me. I am not talking about a case in which *some* effects
are explained by natural causes, but about a case where natural causes are
posited for all *effects*. Is it possible for something to exist and yet have no
effect on anything other than itself. If so, then how would you know of it? If
not, then if natural causes are posited to explain every effect, God is shaved
off. Call it 'God-of-the-Gaps theology if you want; call it any name you will.
That doesn't falsify it.
> 3) I could be more sympathetic to "theistic science" that did not use MN if
> its practitioners affirmed that it is OK for God to create by "natural"
> processes (providentially) and disavowed gap-based apologetics. The real
> harm comes not in the search for scientifically detectable fingerprints of
> God, but in the propagation and encouragement of the theological abomination
> (shared by Dawkins and too many in the Church) that the truth of theism
> depends on the existence of such fingerprints.
> Once you let God-of-the-Gaps theology in, it eats up everything :-)
I agree with you that the truth of theism does not depend on the existence of
scientifically detectable fingerprints. I am not exactly sure what you mean by
'God-of-the-Gaps theology', but if by this term you mean that for every gap, a
divine explanation is posited, then I agree that such a theology is nonsense.
However, the opposite error posits a natural cause for every effect. I believe
the solution is to approach every problem with a genuine search for natural
explanations, but with the willingness to acknowledge the possibility of (direct)
divine action. That avoids the error of occasionalism (which you describe as
'God-of-the-Gaps theology eating everything up) on the one hand, and the error of
methodological naturalism on the other hand.
Wayne wrote:
>I never said that there is a "virtual concensus", all I said was
--------------------------------
> The point is that although the
> assertions of individual scientists
> may claim that "evolution is a
> purposeless process" & co.(TM,R,C),
> few of them really have the basis to
> make that claim. They are scholars
> of a narrow scientific discipline,
> but that does not automatically
> grant them scholarship of other disciplines
> they have earned no credentials in.
--------------------------
>Note the works "individual scientists". Maybe I
>should put that in caps?
No need to put it in caps. I did not claim that *you said* that the virtual
consensus of EBs affirm the undirectedness of evolution. I take it as a fact that
at least 98% of EBs would affirm that evolution is undirected. However, Doug
Hayworth pointed out this morning that there is an ambiguity in the question
which might artificially inflate that number. Yet, even if the survey question
distinguished between (1) undirected by the population themselves and (2)
undirected by a transcendent intelligent agent, I still believe that at least 90%
of EBs would say that evolution is undirected by a transcendent intelligent
agent. You seemingly would write off this phenomenon as the result of scientists
speaking outside their discipline and training. (And I agree.) My point was that
ID proponents could write off the virtual consensus among EBs against ID as due
to the same thing, i.e. speaking about that which they do not really know. How
many EBs are familiar with the terms "specified complex information" and
"irreducible complexity".
George Murphy wrote:
> Since you are very concerned that people not be misinterpreted, please
note that
>I did not say that anyone was claiming that scientific evidence could provide
any of the
>distinctive features of Christian faith. It has been thought by many people
that
>experience of the world & reason could provide a basis for Christian faith or
>"preparation for the gospel" by demonstrating the existence of God &c apart from
>revelation. (E.g., Vatican I.) & that has been a problem in at least two ways.
> 1) The successes of scientific explanation led (one can already see the
process
>at work in Newton & it comes to flower in somebody like Lessing) to the idea
that a
>natural knowledge of God is all that is needed - i.e., to the belief that the
>distinctive features of Christian faith (Incarnation, Trinity, &c) were
superfluous.
> 2) Even when that hasn't happened, ideas of philosophical theism
functioning as
>natural theology, such as the immutability & perfect simplicity of God, have
infected
>Christian theology and obscured central Christian beliefs in the meaning of the
cross &
>the Trinity.
Well, I don't share your theological position with respect to natural theology
and general revelation. Just because some people were led by the success of
science to downplay the importance of special revelation, that does not mean that
natural theology implies or entails such a move. General revelation can inform
one's interpretation of special revelation, and vice versa. Likewise, since I
affirm simplicity and immutability, I wouldn't use the term 'infected', but
that's another matter.
> It is true that abuse does not nullify _proper_ use, but the problem is
that
>natural theologies, & design arguments as a part of some such theologies, have a
clear
>tendency to get out of their proper bounds & do a great deal of damage. & there
is a
>simple reason for that - the tendency of sinful human beings to make up their
own gods
>in place of the real God. It's what Paul is talking about in Romans 1.
The same problem can arise with special revelation as well. The two have to be
held together to avoid the sort of problems you mention. General revelation apart
from special revelation can become a pagan religion; but special revelation apart
from general revelation can also become a parade of subjectivity, and the
practical results can be the same.
> Those who present ID arguments, especially when part of a "wedge" directed
>against naturalism &c, have some responsibility to make clear the limitations of
the
>argument so that they are not misused. While they sometimes make formal
qualifications
>to the argument of the type you state, I don't hear IDers going out of their way
to
>disabuse theologically unsophisticated people of the idea that their claims
provide some
>independent proof of God.
I agree. This is a legitimate point.
>> That is exactly what ID is not.
>> Take SETI for example. Do the SETI researchers base their
>> belief that ID is detectable on revelation?? Obviously not. Since an atheist
can believe
>> that intelligent design is detectable in nature and detected in nature, (i.e.
an atheist can
>> be an ID proponent) ID is not dependent upon revelation. Is there a
theological problem with
>> the SETI researchers' belief that intelligent design is detectable in nature?
If not, then
>> what are your *theological* objections to the ID thesis that intelligent
design is
>> detectable in nature and detected in nature? It appears that you conflate ID
proper with the
>> use some ID proponents and Christian apologists make of it.
> Your supposed parallel between SETI & ID means nothing: The fact that
people in
>research program A don't operate with a certain assumption doesn't mean that
those
>engaged in program B don't. The ID movement, as it exists in the real world,
has a
>clear religious agenda. There may be a couple of atheist IDers but the
prominent ones,
>& the ones who get anyone to pay attention to the movement, are theists & are
explicit
>about their agenda of opposing naturalism, their belief that God acts in the
world, &c.
> I can't get into the minds of ID proponents & so can't say to what extent
their
>beliefs which stem from religious upbringings, scripture, &c have influenced
their
>beliefs in ID. But it is notoriously difficult for most of us, with the best
will in
>the world, to keep deeply held beliefs from influencing the way we evaluate
arguments.
> I recognize the theoretical distinction between "ID proper" and "the use
some ID
>proponents and Christian apologists make of it" but make no apologies for
"conflating"
>them because that's the way ID appears in the real world & the way it may
influence the
>people I preach to & teach.
If the critics of ID continue unabashedly to conflate ID proper with the
apologetic misuse which is made of it, its legitimate scientific claims (such as
those seen in SETI work) will be lost in the cries of protest over its apologetic
misuse. If those who present ID arguments "have some responsibility to make clear
the limitations of the argument so that they are not misused", then critics of ID
have some responsibility to distinguish carefully between ID proper and its
apologetical misuse. Just because all that you and your congregation experience
is apologetic misuse, that doesn't justify conflating such misuse with ID proper.
Moreover, not all use of ID by apologists is misuse. Think of all the recent
archaeological finds that have provided substantiation to biblical accounts. They
don't prove that the Bible is true, but they do provide some support to the
Bible's claims. Likewise, if the ID main thesis turns out to be true, this will,
undoubtedly, provide some support to theism. (Even though theism is fully
compatible with the falsity of the basic ID thesis, and atheism is fully
compatible with the truth of the basic ID thesis.)
- Bryan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 04 2000 - 01:48:41 EDT