From: Howard J. Van Till (hvantill@chartermi.net)
Date: Fri Oct 03 2003 - 16:57:03 EDT
I had asked, "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 replied:
> 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.
That may explain the name of the term "scientific naturalism" to be defined,
but it certainly does explain why you chose to give that term a definition
that incorporated ontological naturalism, thereby reinforcing the mistaken
notion that science and ontological naturalism are inseparable.
> 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.
Agreed. So why not define "scientific naturalism" to be MN? Science can get
along just fine without any association with ontological naturalism. MN is a
statement about how science is now done. Ontological naturalism brings in
all sorts of metaphysical baggage that is counterproductive to the
scientific enterprise.
> 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.
Ted, I don't expect you (or anyone else on this list) to agree with Griffin
on this point. What I did hope for is that some members of this list would
nonetheless find value in the sort of distinctions that Griffin's
terminology allows for. I, for example, find his definition of minimal
naturalism and its distinction from maximal naturalism to be very helpful.
> 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.
The question is, Does your term "biblical religion" necessarily entail a
commitment to the concept of supernatural divine intervention (the
overpowering or superceding of natural causes)? If your answer is, Yes, then
your rejection of minimal naturalism is indeed necessary to maintain your
commitment to biblical religion.
Howard
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Oct 03 2003 - 16:59:59 EDT