John wrote:
"The main reason ... is ... the equation of religion with
supernaturalism and the equation of science ...with a materialistic
version of scientific naturalism" (pg xv).
Lucy replies:
You guys are .....way.....beyond me in philosophy, but here is my
question from the standpoint of psychology (read: observations of human
behavior and the "way" people "figure things out."): I wonder if the
above equation remains valid in our age of rapid scientific
advancement. It has been my *observation* that people categorize things
or events as "supernatural" when they DO NOT understand them (it must be
God), and they categorize things as "natural" when they DO understand
them (it isn't God; it's just nature). Therefore, I do not see science
as "destroying God," but I do see people moving away from the idea of
God as science advances simply because it explains more things and
events and our current bifurcation does not allow the presence of God in
things we understand.
I see a key issue with the future of Christianity resting with the idea
of omnipresence. In other words, it should not matter whether something
is understood or not, materialistic or unseen, apparently of design or
of no design. I have always wondered why God is excluded from the
natural world, materialism, and so on. A small case in point: I live
in an EXTREMELY conservative part of the U.S., and I remember vividly
when doctors first started using fiber optics on pregnant women down at
the hospital. People were literally ranting and raving, and preachers
were screaming in the churches. The problem? It seems folks came to
the conclusion that the nine month pregnancy process was "God's miracle"
and had to remain a big mystery. They actually believed that if we came
to UNDERSTAND exactly what happened inside the womb during that process,
that God would no longer be involved! They believed that by
understanding, people would no longer recognize the process as a
miracle. I do not have the exact quote (sorry), but I remember William
F. Buckley, Jr. expressing the same idea in a debate he did on
television against Eugenie Scott et al. He said something to the effect
of, "We must have mysteries. We must not attempt to answer all
questions scientifically. It is the great mysteries of life that keep
our faith in God."
If this point is valid, and it may be, then what a shame. What kind of
thinking have we built into Christianity that mandates ignorance in
order to maintain faith in God? Why must religion be associated ONLY
with the supernatural? Why not the natural, too?
Lucy
attached mail follows:
Continuing notes on Griffin's book.
GRIFFIN2.TXT
2. Notes on the PREFACE (3 pages)
"The central question of this book is simply whether there is anything
essential to science that is in conflict with any beliefs essential to
vital religion, especially theistic religion. My answer is No, but the
dominant answer has been Yes." (pg xv).
"The main reason ... is ... the equation of religion with supernaturalism
and the equation of science ...with a materialistic version of scientific
naturalism" (pg xv).
Griffin defines two terms, "naturalism(sam)" and "naturalism(ns). The
first of these is maximal naturalism; the second minimal naturalism.
These words appear to be close to, but not quite synonymous with
metaphysical naturalism and methodological naturalism. Almost everyone,
Griffin claims, understands scientific naturalism as naturalism(sam).
Later on in the book he cites about two dozen authorities as evidence for
his use of "almost everyone" in the above. It is, I think, because
Bultmann understood naturalism this way, that his resulting liberal
theology became so irrelevant to most of the religious community.
However, Griffin asserts, naturalism(ns) is fully compatible with
theistic religion, if that religion does not require a supernaturalistic
version of theism. The book argues this thesis. It is dedicated to the
thinkers at CTNS and the Templeton Foundation, to Bob Russell and Ian
Barbour, and also to Jack Haught and Ted Peters. Griffin is a professor
of the Philosophy of Religion & Theology at Claremont.
End Preface notes.
Burgy (John Burgeson)
www.burgy.50megs.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 23 2001 - 17:28:34 EDT