[asa] MN --------v---------PN (was C.S. Lewis on ID)

Gregory Arago wrote:
> "
> Next, it seems to me that the 'new atheists' are pleased to use the MN
> vs. PN dichotomy in their favour. Would anyone disagree that this
> dichotomy has improved the 'new atheists'' position? Everybody already
> knows that atheists are philosophical naturalists who, when they
> are natural scientists, use naturalistic methods.
>
DN: I strongly disagree that the dichotomy has improved the "new
atheists" ' position. See below.
>
> Could we thus call this MNism as a kind of endearing 'wedge' strategy
> for theistic evolutionists or evolutionary creationists, i.e. to split
> the foundations of naturalism in order to claim that a certain kind of
> naturalism is actually really quite consistent with (and is even good
> for!) theism? It should still nevertheless be perceived openly and
> honestly that most types of naturalism are inconsistent with religious
> thought, that is, the ones used by agnostic or atheistic natural
> scientists (who are all unavoidably naturalists anyway, by definition,
> aren't they?) and by those scientists and scholars in other spheres
> who would promote naturalism as ideology.
>
DN. Yes. The MN-PN cut is the appropriate wedge for TEs and ECs. It
should be the appropriate wedge for everybody. Once the wedge is
inserted the atheists are left stranded, being unable to move from
science to scientism..
>
> From another source, also cited on wiki:
> "naturalism is the philosophy that maintains that (1) nature is all
> there is and whatever exists or happens is natural; (2) nature (the
> universe or cosmos) consists only of natural elements, that is, of
> spatiotemporal material elements--matter and energy--and non-material
> elements--mind, ideas, values, logical relationships, mathematical
> laws, etc.--that are either associated with the human brain or exist
> independently of the brain but are still somehow immanent in the
> physical structure of the universe; (3) nature operates by natural
> processes that follow natural laws and can, in principle, be explained
> and understood by science and philosophy; and (4) the supernatural
> does not exist, i.e., only nature is real, therefore, supernature is
> not real. Naturalism is therefore a metaphysical philosophy opposed
> primarily by supernaturalism."
> (http://www.freeinquiry.com/naturalism.html)
>
> Thus, according to this definition, naturalism simply *IS* a
> metaphysical philosophy, with no need to distinguish a PN from a
> MN. What we have here then is a great big guard against
> supernaturalism, as ideology. The truth remains that other
> alternatives to 'natural' than 'supernatural' are available to enter
> the discussion and thus to give relief from this one-track
> conversation of 'natural' vs. 'supernatural'.
>
>
DN: Yes. Without a qualifying adjective "naturalism" is usually take to
be PN. That is why it is necessary to educate people to realize that
there is a vital distinction between PN and MN.
Don

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Nov 28 20:54:26 2008