Re: [asa] Expelled and ID

The *Lemon *test isn't followed precisely anymore -- or maybe more
accurately, it isn't clear whether and to what extent the *Lemon* test still
controls in light of Justice O'Connor's reworking of that test. The key
question now seems to be whether the relevant public will perceive that the
state is endorsing a religious belief. So, for example, it's unclear
whether most of the articles in the current issue of Faith and Philosophy --
say, the first two articles, "Making Sense of Divine Simplicity" and
"Evidence for God from Certainty" -- could be discussed in a public
secondary school because both make arguments in favor of a Christian
conception of God. Where does the discussion slide from an "objective"
consideration of philosophical descriptors to an "endorsement" of a
religious belief when the philosophical descriptors are used to evaluate and
defend a religious belief? Who knows.

On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 9:36 AM, David Clounch <david.clounch@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>> Where did you get the notion that philosophical descriptors must have a
>> purely secular purpose?
>> Dave (ASA)
>>
>
> Dave,
> Good question. Would that possibly be Lemon v Kurtzman?
> Dave C (ASA)
>
>
>
>
>> On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 00:31:44 -0500 "David Clounch" <
>> david.clounch@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> Its a good question as to whether a notion of scientific methodology
>> could apply to science before science was invented. The notion was
>> "potential" in ancient times just as quantum mechanics was a "potential"
>> field of knowledge. But it was unrealized (not actual).
>>
>> Of course I could be proven wrong...sombody just has to show that the
>> fellow at Wheaton got it from, say, Augustine? Or, lets go before the
>> Christian era. Got it from, say, the Babylonians?
>>
>> What is more interesting is that in modern times it was not introduced by
>> non-theologians to solve a non-theological problem. For example, if
>> Chinese communists had developed the idea when arguing a point of
>> scientific discovery among themselves..well then it clearly would not be of
>> Christian origin. And would not be intrinsically part of a Christian belief
>> system. Would it?
>>
>> Also, if it hadn't been introduced to solve a theological problem, then
>> even if invented by a Christian, I'd argue it is not a theological concept.
>> For example, calculus was invented by Christians, but not to solve
>> theological problems. Calculus therefore isn't theological. But the fact
>> is, as far as I've heard, methodological naturalism was introduced
>> explicitly to solve a theological problem. Wasn't it? If so, seems to me
>> the burden of proof is on the secular advocate to demonstrate it is not
>> theological. Just because a secular advocate likes it doesn't change the
>> nature of it.
>>
>> Please consider the effect of the term. It is used to eliminate certain
>> religious ideas. And it has impact on certain religious groups. And impact
>> on issues of ultimate concern. This is not a secular purpose. It seems it
>> would be very difficult to argue MN has a sole secular purpose.
>>
>> Dave C (ASA member)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 1:19 PM, D. F. Siemens, Jr. <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Note Thorson's response to Poe in the March PSCF. Notions exist before
>>> they are labeled, or relabeled with new names. I recall one of my colleagues
>>> in sociology lamenting that some sociologists spent their time writing
>>> papers that renamed notions in the hope that somebody would use their new
>>> label and give them momentary fame.
>>> Dave (ASA)
>>>
>>> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 01:32:04 -0500 "David Clounch" <
>>> david.clounch@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>> Dave,
>>>
>>> It would be very interesting for us to discover whether methodological
>>> naturalism was invented in the twentieth century, or whether it has roots
>>> further back in history and was merely borrowed. I could be wrong in
>>> claiming it to have been invented by (De Vries?) at Wheaton. It's just that
>>> I haven't gotten around to discovering any earlier source. As I remember
>>> it, Poe claimed the De Vries paper was the very first published anywhere.
>>>
>>> Other forms of naturalism were obviously re-emergent in enlightenment
>>> and post-enlightenment times. I believe Barr and D'Souza both argue
>>> that naturalism itself is a Christian idea of ancient derivation.
>>> Christians thought a rational approach to the universe combined with a God
>>> that is outside the universe implied that the world runs in a regular
>>> order. Thus paganism and animism were to be rejected, partly because they
>>> depended on supernatural forces within nature. Naturalism speaks
>>> against that.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Dave
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 3:13 PM, D. F. Siemens, Jr. <
>>> dfsiemensjr@juno.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> You're repeating the lie that is foundational in Johnson and ID.
>>>> Metaphysical naturalism, scientism, materialism and their ilk have ancient
>>>> roots, although some gained popularity again with the Enlightenment. There
>>>> is no way that I can be a theist and a metaphysical naturalist. But there
>>>> are many theists who are methodological naturalists--they have to be both to
>>>> be scientists.
>>>> Dave (ASA)
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 08:56:19 -0400 "David Opderbeck" <
>>>> dopderbeck@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>> Dave Clounch asks: A third question is, "Should school children be
>>>> informed of the theological roots of naturalism?"
>>>> I respond: Not sure what you mean by the "theological roots of
>>>> naturalism" here -- but if you mean that methodolgical naturalism derives
>>>> from metaphysical naturalism, if that were accurate, you could probably
>>>> discuss this in a history class.
>>>>
>>>> As your questions illustrate, it is extremely difficult in the public
>>>> education setting to discuss any issues about religion and science, even at
>>>> the level of basic presuppositions.
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>

-- 
David W. Opderbeck
Associate Professor of Law
Seton Hall University Law School
Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.