Re: [asa] God as Cause - for David Campbell

> O.k. then, but this takes us in another direction. I'm not particularly
> interested in the PN/MN dichotomy, since I don't find it especially helpful.
> It is part of a wider problem in the U.S. which denigrates philosophy as if
> philosophical tradition weren't of significant importance to the 'science
> and religion' discourse.

The main reason I see the PN/MN dichotomy as important is its misuse.
Often, MN is simply a term used to try to accuse theistic
evolutionists of compromising with atheism rather than a very useful
category.
I don't see the dichotomy as denigrating philosophy but rather as
trying to distinguish between a philosophical position called
naturalism and the so-called methodological naturalism, which is
really just the assumption that natural laws are likely to provide a
good physical description in a given situation. The latter does imply
some philosophical assumptions, but not necessarily naturalistic ones.

I think most of the people getting prominence in the US on science and
religion issues are scientists. Most scientists are pretty clueless
about philosophy (having confined their coursework to science) and
some are dismissive about it, not realizing that they are continually
making philosophical assumptions.

> If you are going to oppose 'natural' with 'supernatural,' then I assume
> you'll also be willing to speak about what constitutes 'sub-natural.' Super-
> is a prefix rather than an actual fix to the larger problem.

I can't think of anything that would be subnatural. Supernatural is
more or less a synonym of non-natural.

> The theology of 'God is a hidden God' would seem to only be capable of going
> so far until the likes of Dawkins and Dennett are proudly agreeing that it
> is the best way to speak about our Creator! The topic of divine kenosis may
> be helpful theologically-speaking, but it does nothing to assuage the doubts
> of persons who perpetuate the myth that not only is God a hidden God, but
> also a non-existent God!

Of course, if a god is entirely hidden, there is no clear reason to
believe one way or another. Process theology seems to approach this
state of affairs. Even so, this disproves Dawkins et al.'s claim that
lack of evidence is evidence of absence. Christianity asserts that
there are distinct events in which God is evident as well as ones in
which He is hidden but still active.

> But let's not ask the socio-biologists or evolutionary
> psychologists to give us their predominantly non-Christian (even
> un-Christian) views on this topic!

They've fallen into the same trap as Freud and Marx: X explains more
of human behavior than we realize or care to admit, therefore X
explains all human behavior. It may be fruitful to try to find
evolutionary explanations for aspects of human behavior. However, if
every human behavior is merely the product of evolutionary
self-interest, then sociobiology is merely an exercise in evolutionary
self-interest. Obviously, sociobiology is just a ploy to impress
potential mates by questioning the motives of others while appearing
forthright and discerning. Either that or sociobiology doesn't
explain everything.

> Yes, if we consider prayer as a method, then it would seem 'natural' to a
> believer to do it, wouldn't it? For Muslims, it is 'natural' to pray five
> times a day, isn't it?

This is a different sense of "natural". The motive for praying is an
assumption of the existence of non-natural entities, but with practice
prayer can become part of an ingrained routine.

> I wouldn't call miracles an example of non-natural method because to do so
> would be to take a God's eye view, which I think, we
> would be wise not to take, following the advice of many here at ASA. Or
> maybe there are also different ways of expressing the non-naturalness method
> of prayer? Is the 'basic premise of prayer' therefore 'non-natural' or
> 'supernatural' or neither or both?

I see the terms "natural" versus "supernatural" as inherently
reflecting a human's eye view. I'm not sure what the difference
between supernatural and non-natural would be.

-- 
Dr. David Campbell
425 Scientific Collections
University of Alabama
"I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.