>>My quick appraisal of this interchange suggests that Howard and Griffin
are talking about two different things. Howard's version of naturalism is
a matter of the way in which scientists look for answers, one without
metaphysical assumptions. Griffins "naturalism(ns)" has a load that makes
it compatible with deism (a deity who does not interact with an
independent nature), process theology (a deity which is part of the
universe) and probably Spinoza's deus sive natura, but not with Christian
theism. It looks to me as though Griffin presents his "definition" to
support his quasi-theology so that he will not have to come to grips with
a Creator and Sustainer and Redeemer. The Father of the Lord Jesus Christ
plays hob with human philosophies.>>
I would agree with your definition of naturalism which you identify with
Howard. But I'm not as ready as you are to "write Griffin off." Certainly
he claims to be a Christian; the fact that his metaphor(s) for God are
different than what you and I are accustomed to thinking does not, IMHO,
justify your second-from-the-last sentence.
My own take is that I see Griffin's "naturalism(ns)" to simply be too
confining, and not at all necessary for scientists to work within;
methodological naturalism seems to be enough. From a scientist's
viewpoint, of course, there does not seem to be any difference between
naturalism(ns) and methodological naturalism. From the theist's point of
view, of course, there is quite a bit.
John Burgeson (Burgy)
www.burgy.50megs.com
(source data on issues of science/theology, quantum mechanics,
baseball, ethics, humor, great cars, a story of God's
intervention into the natural causation of the universe, etc.)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 15 2001 - 15:25:56 EDT