To Allan, George and Joel:
May I suggest that there is no point in responding to Bryan Cross? It
appears that he KNOWS the untruth, and the untruth has bound him
irretrievably. Allan, for example, made a relevant point, which was
dismissed on the basis of Humpty Dumpty semantics. Doesn't this suggest
irremediable ignorance?
Dave
On Tue, 04 Jul 2000 00:48:34 -0500 "Bryan R. Cross" <crossbr@SLU.EDU>
writes:
> 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 - 16:44:28 EDT