Re: [asa] God as Cause

David -

I agree - that's why I said that the "classical foundationalism" isn't the issue with my argument.

You say that the difference between Plantinga's approach & mine "might be in the nature of God's revelation in scripture and the extent to which belief in God as having revealed himself in scripture should relate to scientific claims." I would elaborate on that as follows. God's revelation is Jesus Christ, including the history of Israel which leads to & includes him, and is most complete in the cross - resurrection event. Scripture is the inspired witness to, & reflection upon, that witness, & when we call scripture "revelation" it is in that sense. This is a matter of priorities (incarnate Word 1st, written word 2d), but is more than that. For the nature of God's primary revelation, which takes place in a hidden way, "under the form of its opposite," opens to us the possibility that in scripture the witness to God's activity is sometimes hidden under the form of human error - & thus that shouldn't expect the science, history &c of the Bible always to be accurate.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: David Opderbeck
  To: George Murphy
  Cc: Jon Tandy ; asa@calvin.edu ; Janice Matchett ; Bill Hamilton
  Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 10:57 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] God as Cause

  George, in the very interesting article you link below, you say:

    Similarly, we should not try to persuade people on grounds of common sense that the fundamental level of reality is revealed in Christ crucified. We should be explicit about the ways in which this claim runs counter to common sense, and invite people to consider their lives and knowledge of the world from this standpoint. . . . . Philosophy should not impose its presuppositions upon Christian theology, but once Christian theology adopts its distinctive presuppositions it should develop their consequences in rational ways.

  This approach seems similar to me in many ways to Plantinga's Reformed epistemology (from what I've been able to read and grasp of Plantinga). Plantinga likewise rejects the foundationalist move of grounding all truth claims in human common sense perception and reason, and asserts that belief in God is properly basic -- that is, that it requires no prior rational foundation.

  It seems that a principal difference between your approach and Plantinga's might be in the nature of God's revelation in scripture and the extent to which belief in God as having revealed himself in scripture should relate to scientific claims. As I've read your work, you would suggest that scripture does not speak authoritatively on matters of science, as that is not scripture's nature or purpose. I think Plantinga would argue that if God is truthful, what he has revealed in scripture is true to the extent it touches on matters that we would today consider "science." (Obviously, this resonates with evangelicals who hold to inerrancy, even if most evangelicals adopt a foundationalist epistemic stance).

  Thus, it seems to me that the difference between your view and Plantinga's "theistic science" position (and the ID positions that later developed from "theistic science") is more a difference concerning the nature of revelation and scripture than a difference in epistemology.

  Fair summary?
   
  On 1/6/07, George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote:
    I am not sure that you understand what I mean by "distinctively Christian" arguments. I am referring in particular to the claim that God's most fundamental revelation is in the event of the cross & resurrection of Jesus Christ, that the divine kenosis involved there is revelatory of the character of God & of God's actions in general, & therefore that we should expect God's work in the world to be hidden by the natural processes through which God works. (Of course that is a very brief summary - see the article to which I referred earlier for more detail.)

    I am not a philosopher and in doing theology I don't stop to ask what a particular philosophical view will allow me to do. But I think that the article here http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2000/PSCF9-00Murphy.html to which I referred earlier will make it clear that my position is not "classical foundationalism." I'll
    let the professional philosophers descide that though. In any case, rejecting a theological argument along with all forms of foundationalism without further consideration is, for a theologian, quite a ham handed way to proceed. Whether or not Plantinga himself really has such arguments in mind in his rejection of foundationalism I don't know - his references to Descartes & Locke make me suspect not. In any case, the fact remains that he hasn't dealt with the types of arguments to which I've referred.

    & again, Plantinga is not the only pro-ID person who ignores such arguments. I referred earlier to Dembski's Intelligent Design. It would be interesting to know if any IDer has actually addressed the type of argument from specifically Christian theology that I've referred to. I don't know of any but there's a lot I haven't read.

    & I suggest that if you wish to pursue this topic further that you actually try to formulate some arguments yourself instead of trying to serve as a proxy for others.

    Shalom
    George
    http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Janice Matchett
      To: George Murphy ; Jon Tandy ; asa@calvin.edu
      Cc: 'Bill Hamilton'
      Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2007 10:45 AM
      Subject: Re: [asa] God as Cause

       
      At 01:00 PM 1/5/2007, George Murphy wrote:
      At 09:58 AM 1/5/2007, George Murphy wrote:

            Just a note on 1 section of Plantinga's article snipped below. Christian opponents of MN & proponents of ID (they are often the same of course), in arguing against MN, almost always ignore distinctive Christian arguments for MN. ...My point now isn't that such arguments must be accepted, but that anti-MN folks ought at least to acknowledge that they can be made, & should try to deal with them. & please note - I'm not saying that Plantinga et al ignore all pro-MN arguments by Christians but that they ignore distinctively Christian arguments. The quote below from McMullin has no distinctively Christian elements, e.g., though McMullin is a Christian. ~ George
        @ I suspect that Plantinga would reject what you might want to call, "Christian" arguments: [snip] ~ Janice
        1st, I did not say "Christian" but "distinctively Christian" arguments. The difference is non-trivial. There are plenty of theistic arguments that can be made by Jews, Muslims & others as well as by Christians, but that's not what I'm talking about. .... 3d, Plantinga may indeed reject the arguments to which I refer. I made a point of saying that he & other anti-ID folks might indeed do so, & that my objection to their procedures was that they didn't even try to deal with them. 4th, __in the material you quote below from Plantinga__ he does not respond to any of what I have called "distinctively Christian" arguments. ~ George

      @@ Your objection makes no sense.

      Plantinga maintains that the distinctive Christian arguments on which methodological naturalism is based are ship-wrecked. That means that he hasn't "ignored" their existence, as you claim. On the contrary, he had previously considered them and rejected them.

      You complain that in "the material" I quoted from Plantinga he doesn't respond to each of what you have called "distinctively Christian" arguments, but he plainly said that he wasn't going to add his voice to those criticizing modern classical foundationalism arguments other than to say that those arguments have "run aground". Read it again:

      "One root of this way of thinking about science is a consequence of the modern foundationalism stemming from Descartes and perhaps even more importantly, Locke. Modern classical foundationalism has come in for a lot of criticism lately, and I do not propose to add my voice to the howling mob.36 And since the classical foundationalism upon which methodological naturalism is based has run aground, I shall instead consider some more local, less grand and cosmic reasons for accepting methodological naturalism." ~ Alvin Plantinga Philosophical Analysis Origins & Design 18:1 Methodological Naturalism? http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/arn/odesign/od181/methnat181.htm

      ~ Janice ..... "Now in view of these examples and many others like them (together with broader Augustinian considerations), the natural thing to think is that (in principle, at any rate) the Christian scholarly community should do science, or parts of science, in its own way and from its own perspective. What the Christian community really needs is a science that takes into account what we know as Christians. Indeed, this seems the rational thing in any event; surely the rational thing is to use all that you know in trying to understand a given phenomenon." ~ Alvin Plantinga

  --
  David W. Opderbeck
  Web: http://www.davidopderbeck.com
  Blog: http://www.davidopderbeck.com/throughaglass.html
  MySpace (Music): http://www.myspace.com/davidbecke

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Jan 9 07:29:59 2007