Re: Naturalism, What does it Mean?

From: Steve Petermann (steve@spetermann.org)
Date: Fri Oct 03 2003 - 08:48:31 EDT

  • Next message: George Murphy: "Re: Naturalism, What does it Mean?"

    4) naturalistic theism -- God, yes; coercive supernatural
    > intervention, no.

    Seems to me there could also be some distinctions in this one.

    Process theology: Divine action is only persuasive(whatever that means,
    non-assertive?).

    Polkinghorne, Peacocke, Russell type divine action that is assertive but
    embedded in "natural processes."

    Anomalous divine action that might not fit within known natural processes
    but is non-violationist because nature is not ontologically independent with
    intrinsic properties.

    BTW, I've read most of Griffins new book _Reenchantment without
    Supernaturalism_ and I still can't find his science based mechanism for
    concrescence. That is so fundamental for process theology and since it
    claims to be science friendly, I think it should be make explicit. Also
    since his approach affirms efficient causation, I don't see how he can also
    affirm human freedom or divine persuasion unless he also appeals to quantum
    indeterminacies.

    Steve Petermann

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Howard J. Van Till" <hvantill@chartermi.net>
    To: "Ted Davis" <TDavis@messiah.edu>; <asa@lists.calvin.edu>;
    <steve@spetermann.org>
    Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 7:20 AM
    Subject: Re: Naturalism, What does it Mean?

    > >From: "Ted Davis" <TDavis@messiah.edu>
    >
    > >
    > > Scientific Naturalism -- the conjunction of naturalism, the claim that
    > > nature is all that there is and hence that there is no supernatural
    order
    > > above nature, along with the claim that all objects, processes, truths,
    and
    > > facts about nature fall within the scope of the scientific method.
    >
    > Ted,
    >
    > Why use the adjective "scientific" for this purpose? It serves only to
    > reinforce the popular (but mistaken) idea that science and maximal
    > (ontological) naturalism are inseparably linked.
    >
    > For this reason I strongly prefer maintaining the distinctions among: 1)
    > maximal naturalism -- no God; 2) minimal naturalism -- no coercive
    > (supernatural) intervention; 3) methodological naturalism -- agnostic re
    > God; and 4) naturalistic theism -- God, yes; coercive supernatural
    > intervention, no.
    >
    > Science is compatible with all four forms of naturalism listed above, but
    > could be done perfectly well with 4) or 3) or 2) as its operative basis,
    > thereby avoiding the counterproductive exclusive association with 1).
    >
    > Howard
    >
    >

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Oct 03 2003 - 08:51:31 EDT