LH: "You'll be happy to know, David, that most of your comments
on Franklin's article were made by Franklin himself elsewhere in
his article."
Yes I am happy :-) But wherein lies the disagreement??
LH: "It is not the principles themselves which cause
disagreement, but rather the amount of time one spends
emphasizing one principle over the other --- and/or the use of
heavily connotative terms --- which causes disagreement."
I am still left with the thought that differences in emphasis
result from (a) differences at a more fundamental level, (b) less
rational factors (prejudice, experience, culture,...), as well
as vocabulary.
LH: "Perhaps it would be helpful if I give some "context" to
Franklin's article. If I remember correctly, his article is part
of a package intended to gain accreditation for a Christian
liberal arts college/university in Japan. His intended audience
included many officials who have never even thought about the
concept of a "Christian" world-view or "Christian" scholarship
--- let alone the _need_ for such..."
Yes, this is helpful. My own experience of Japan stems from
1984, when I had the opportunity to visit. I have to say I found
it an "alien" culture - and would not presume to prescribe the
best way to present ideas to a Japanese audience. All credit to
Franklin for attempting it!
THE TERM "SECULAR"
LH: "The presuppositions of chemical science are a matter of
revelation for you and me and a great many scientists ---
including the founders of chemical science. But the
presuppositions of chemical science are not _necessarily_ a
matter of revelation. Chemical science can be practised, nearly
identically, by someone with very different religious
presuppositions. As you and others have pointed out,
"naturalistic science" and "theistic science" have different
presuppositions --- but the intersection of those two sets of
presuppositions (the points on which the do agree) are sufficient
for chemical science."
Building bridges with people from different cultures/ideologies
is certainly to be encouraged - as you have graciously exhorted
me before :-)
However, on what grounds can knowledge which is shared or common
be termed "secular"? What is shared is rarely at the level of
basic presupposition or ultimate commitment - but undoubtedly
people's thinking have points of meaningful interaction which we
need to find in order to pursue constructive debate.
LH: "Perhaps the "secular" part of chemical science is the part
which can be shared and agreed upon by people who have different
religious presuppositions. That may be a good working definition
for "secular knowledge" in general. "Knowledge which can be
gained, shared, and agreed upon by people with a variety of
religious presuppositions." What do you think?"
According to my dictionary, "secular" is an adjective meaning
"not concerned with religion; not sacred; worldly". As someone
who holds to the religious nature of all life, philosophy and
actions, this term does not commend itself to me. It gives
entirely the wrong impression! Is anything secular? Is this a
biblical concept?
LH: "As we've said before, it's important to mention both [1]
God's activity in every natural event and [2] creation's
distinctiveness from God."
I'm very happy to concur.
LH: "How do you balance them? You responded to BH in another
post by writing:
DT: 'The inference I draw from your post is that we need to:
(a) Continually emphasise that natural law is DESCRIPTIVE rather
than EXPLANATORY (at least in any fundamental sense);
(b) Continually resist any attempts to make the cosmos autonomous
- whether in the deistic sense or in the naturalist sense. This
requires Christians to actively promote the teaching of God's
providential government of his creation.'
LH: "What would you say to counter-balance? ... I hope you'll
take the time to respond, because I'm interested to see what
language you would use. Thanks."
I hesitate to proceed - because I don't think my comments need
much counter-balancing! They can be expanded and qualified - as
I will seek to do below.
(a) is really a comment on the nature of scientific enquiry. The
point on DESCRIPTION can be expanded by reference to a little
chart. Our appreciation of the world is inherently descriptive
in the first instance. (I also recognise that our descriptions
are themselves theory-laden. This was an issue raised last year
- what are "facts"? - but which did not really get very far.)
DESCRIPTION
(of empirical data)
|
|-------|---------|----------|
Data Patterns Models Laws
&
Relationships
Models and laws can then be used for explanatory purposes - when
seeking to explain causation. But this does not change their
essentially descriptive character.
EXPLANATION
(of causation)
|
|-----------|
Laws Causal events
(including
intelligent causes)
Perhaps the easiest example to point to here is gravity. We do
not know what gravity is - although we have natural laws which
involve gravity. At best, these are descriptive. The quest for
a GUT incorporating gravity is an indication of the intense
desire to formulate an integrated explanatory definition of how
the universe operates. Hawking refers to the time when we shall
"know the mind of God" - and, of course, he is thinking of the
fundamental laws as far more than description. For him, they
provide the ultimate explanation of everything.
To go further than description seems to me to "autonomise"
natural law and to lead to either a deist, semi-deist or
naturalist view of the Cosmos.
(b) If Christians are to promote the teaching of God's
providential government of his creation, we need to clarify what
that teaching is. This is the definition I work with:
God brought the cosmos and life into existence and is
continuously involved immanently in sustaining, controlling and
guiding them. We describe the character of his regular
government by referring to "laws", "mechanisms" and "natural"
processes. Where his government departs from this regularity,
we refer to "miracles" and the "supernatural".
Note: in this definition, no statement is made about how God
governs his creation. The emphasis is on the description of
God's actions, not the explanation. The definition avoids the
charge of "God-of-the-gaps" because there is total continuity of
God's government.
LH: "How would you respond to an attempted _redicio_ad_absurdum_
on the first point? (E.g. "If natural law is merely
descriptive, then God must actively will every event (including
evil) and nature is nothing but an aspect of God's will.")"
I hope this responds adequately. I do not follow the suggested
_redicio_ad_absurdum_. It sounds OK to me. At times, Bill H and
Terry G have referred to the Westminster Confession of Faith, and
I looked it up to see what it said on these issues. I quote
relevant parts of it below as it seems to me to be a very
acceptable summary of what the Bible teaches.
V.1 God the great Creator of all things doth uphold, direct,
dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the
greatest even to the least, by His most wise and holy providence,
according to His infallible foreknowledge, and the free and
immutable counsel of His own will, to the praise of the glory of
His wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy.
V.4 The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite
goodness of God so far manifest themselves in His providence,
that it extendeth itself even to the first fall, and all other
sins of angels and men; and that not by a bare permission, but
such as hath joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding,
and otherwise ordering, and governing of them, in a manifold
dispensation, to His own holy ends; yet so, as the sinfulness
thereof proceedeth only from the creature, and not from God, who,
being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author
or approver of sin.
Best wishes,
*** From David J. Tyler, CDT Department, Hollings Faculty,
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.
Telephone: 0161-247-2636 ***