From: Ted Davis (TDavis@messiah.edu)
Date: Fri Oct 03 2003 - 12:14:33 EDT
Howard writes:
>>> "Howard J. Van Till" <hvantill@chartermi.net> 10/03/03 08:20AM >>>
>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.
Ted: My immediate answer is, that's the title of the article I was asked to
write for the particular encyclopedia. That of course begs your question,
which I don't want to do, but it's the genuine reason. I think we get at
*some* of the same issues you get at with your terminology: for example, one
can accept MN without accepting ontological naturalism. The issue of
"intervention" per se is not one we saw ourselves as trying to address, we
did let it come in now and then where it did so naturally in our own
discussion.
As for considering other terms, I think yours have some value, but I don't
agree with David Ray Griffin's conclusion that we theists ought to accept a
kind of religious naturalism. I think therein does lie the death of
biblical religion, which is what I am committed to. My own current book
might not be able directly to respond to Griffin, b/c it's mainly an
historical study of what happened in the late 19th and early 20th centuries,
but I do plan to point out strongly how the religious naturalists known as
Protestant modernists gutted monotheism. And I don't think that benefitted
us now, or then.
ted
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Oct 03 2003 - 12:14:51 EDT