David,
Your definition of 'CHRISTIAN NATURALISM' is faulty. The first part is
essentially deistic, nature on its own. The Christian position is, to use
one version, God cooperating in all natural activities of man. Luther
spoke of natural laws as the masks of God. Secondly, how does one ascribe
a whim to the eternal, omniscient and omnipotent Creator? Only if one is
so knowledgeable that anything unexpected can be ascribed to the
irrational can such a view be held. And that's self idolatry.
Methodological naturalism is not a metaphysical dogma, but holds that
scientific investigations can only be checked by observations of nature,
whether direct or indirect. There is a metaphysical/epistemological basis
to this: Nature is orderly. Human beings can understand the pattern of
nature. Human senses are essentially veridical (or can be checked). These
patterns hold true within a materialistic, deistic, theistic, pantheistic
or panentheistic metaphysics as an overarching theory. If I adopt
Plantinga's philosophical views, I can disprove the alternative outlooks.
But this does not take into account a fundamental principle, that
primitive assumptions of any philosophical view cannot be proved within
that view, and can only be challenged from within on the basis of
contradiction. Much as I hate to admit it, theism is not the only
potentially consistent view. And, unfortunately, not all theists are
consistent.
Dave (ASA)
On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 11:00:00 +1800 David Clounch <david.clounch@gmail.com>
writes:
Bill,
None of that on epistemology has to do with whether naturalism is
metaphysics. Schwarzwald raised the point of lack of clarity on
naturalism. I was trying to address it, but at the same time be
complete.
I just think we need clarity that naturalism is metaphysics and is an a
priori assumption. If people cannot agree on clear definitions then
there is no basis for dialog.
So, is anybody denying that naturalism is metaphysics?
Well, Bill, it seems to me you might be arguing that naturalism is ALL
in the realm of metaphysics. I was willing to allow an epistemological
type of naturalism to put its toe in the door. But if you want to slam
the door I have no objections. Maybe thats not what you are doing, but
none of that addresses the main issue of how Christianity is in any way
compatible with any form of naturalism. Barr's claim that the church
invented naturalism implies two different types of naturalism. What
the church originally invented, and what is believed in today by deists,
secular humanists, and perhaps even by materialists and atheists. Again,
is anybody denying that both types are anything but metaphysics?
Thanks,
Dave
On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 8:39 AM, Bill Powers <wjp@swcp.com> wrote:
David:
Two short comments.
1) Plantinga claims that naturalistic evolution is at odds with
epistemology, i.e., a science of truth. He argues that there is no
reason to believe that our minds could have evolved to know the truth.
2) (I know you didn't say this) Why can't we observe miracles? He seems
to me that is easy. I could observe the risen Jesus. I don't think
that's what Moorad said (or intended to say). What we can't do is to
make a science of miracles. But it isn't merely miracles of which we
cannot make a science. It is unique events. Science or any knowledge
relies upon the creation of classes and universals. Of particulars, no
science can be constructed. This is why history is problematic (time for
Gregory to comment). History, it seems, can only become a "science,"
that is, comprehensive knowledge, because we presume to understand the
people and events of the time. We presume we are able to do this because
they are human, as we are human. We apply our "knowledge" (categories,
ideas, universals) of ourselves and our times as a net to catch the
history of times and places different from our own. In some sense, we do
the same with "miracles." No one could tell whether people rising from
the dead is a "miracle" without applying our "knowledge" (i.e., ideas,
understandings, categories, and universals) to the particular event
observed and at hand. We call something a "miracle" when the event (all
events are unique and particular) does not fit into our pre-established
template of the possible (a pseudo metaphysical construct intended only
to convey the structure of our ideas and categories of the world).
So to say that we cannot "study" or make a science of "miracles" is to
say that we are unable to "elevate" the particular to the "class" or
"universal." It remains unique and therefore, to our way of thinking,
irrational and incomprehensible. Nonetheless, we are able to class it as
a "miracle." This entails that the event is partially comprehensible.
We can place parts of it in our pre-established classes (e.g., person,
body, dead, alive). Why is this any different from someone returning
from a coma, or even being healed of a cold? Perhaps today we think we
can speak of underlying processes. How is it we can supposedly make
sense of these and not a resurrection? They are (at least for most of
us) equally mysterious and invisible. The only feature appears to be the
degree of rarity. Resurrection "never" happens. People do come out of
long comas. For a very long time there was, and perhaps still is, no
science of comas. They do or they don't come out, when and whenever they
do. But we think we can make a science of it because we have an extended
opportunity to study the class of events called comas. The same cannot
be said of resurrections. It is unique in number, a class with one
(maybe a few more) members.
So it isn't that it cannot be observed. It is that we have so few
members of the class that they remain unique and isolated from the reach
of our study.
bill
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009, David Clounch wrote:
All,
1)I was confusing metaphysical context and metaphysical interpretation as
meaning the same thing. Now I have to go back and read through all the
posts
and think about this.
2) Meanwhile, Schwarzwald has me thinking about naturalism:
"Naturalism", in *The Encyclopedia of Philosophy*, Macmillan, 1996
Supplement, 372-373.
*Metaphysical
naturalism<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism>
*, (or *ontological <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological>
naturalism*or
*philosophical naturalism*) which focuses on
ontology<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology>:
This stance is concerned with existence: what does exist and what does
not
exist? Naturalism is the
metaphysical<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics>position that "
nature <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature> is all there is, and all
basic
truths are truths of
nature."[2]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_%28philosophy%29#cite
_note-1>
Well, thats only part of the story. Let me offer my own suggestions as
to
what naturalism means.
CHRISTIAN NATURALISM is a metaphysical framework, ie, the belief the
universe obeys regular laws all on its own, the laws having been set
in
place by the creator. These laws operate until they are modified at the
whim
of the lawgiver. because we dont know all the laws it is possible many
actions of the lawgiver are via laws we dont know about and thus what may
look like a set-aside of a law is just some other law purposely in use
for a
limited time by the lawgiver. CHRISTIAN NATURALISM thus handles the
situation mentioned by ??? (I believe it was Dave Wallace) with respect
to
superstitious and pagan cultures. This is why naturalism was invented -
to
refute the beliefs of pagan cultures and to re-inforce belief in the
lawgiver. This type of naturalism has never been incompatible with
Christianity.
HUMANIST NATURALISM is a metaphysical framework beleived in by secular
humanists and others of like presuasions, such as materialists and
atheists. As a metaphysical framework it's main tenet is the belief
that
the universe operates according to laws, and does so all on its own, but
does so without purpose. There is no lawgiver. There is no modification
of
law possible. This also handles the aforfementioned situation of pagan
cultures. But it is not compatible with the historical CHRISTIAN
NATURALISM. It is a modern version of naturalism. [An aside - was
there
an ancient version of this that has been brought back? I'd argue no. Why?
because it took Christianity and Christian Naturalism to produce science,
and this modern naturalism emerged post-science, in modern times,
starting
in the enlightenment. I'd argue it is post-Christian]
I don't mean for these definitions of naturalism to be comprehensive.
They
are starting points. I mentioned these because various reference
materials
out there tend to ignore Christian Naturalism and its having been morphed
into a modern (post-Christian) version.
There are, in addition, at least these, having to do with epistemology
rather than metaphysics.
Replacement Naturalism
Cooperative Naturalism
Substantive Nauturalism
Most writers one can find tend to be quite modern. For example,
Plantinga:
© 1994 Alvin Plantinga
Reproduction on other websites is expressly prohibited.
Links to this site are permitted.
Naturalism Defeated
In the last chapter of Warrant and Proper Function1 I proposed an
"evolutionary
argument against naturalism". Take philosophical naturalism to be the
belief
that there aren't any
supernatural beings--no such person as God, for example, but also no
other
supernatural entities.2
My claim was that naturalism and contemporary evolutionary theory are at
serious odds with one
another--and this despite the fact that the latter is ordinarily thought
to
be one of the main
supporting beams in the edifice of the former.3
Naturalism and evolution as opponents? Wow, thats different!!!!!
For sake clarity: When we are talking about questions of ultimate and
final
causes we are talking about metaphysical type of naturalism, not the
epistemological types of naturalism.
Consequently, let me propose the following. Moorad pointed out something
important: phenomena are statistical. We cannot observe miracles. He is
making an epistemological argument here. What's important is the
statement's
implication(s) for the metaphysical frameworks. One can (perhaps) rule
out
what he says via epistemological forms of naturalism. But what one cannot
legitimately do is start with a metaphysical form of naturalism and use
that
to rule out Moorad's statement.
Enough for now.
Thanks,
Dave C
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 12:52 PM, Douglas Hayworth <
becomingcreation@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 8:29 AM, Ted Davis <TDavis@messiah.edu> wrote:
The fact that I said this 22 years ago, combined with the fact that
nothing along these lines has transpired subsequently in public
education,
is not exactly encouraging. Suffice it to say that I certainly agree
with
Cameron and Keith, whose ideas are much more practical than mine while
not
inconsistent with mine. Still, I doubt that most colleges and
universities
will start mandating that science majors, even future teachers of
science,
take a full course in HPS.
Well, here's one area where we have the opportunity to do better. The
Christian school curriculum initiatives by the BioLogos Foundation and
our
own ASA homeschool resources project have the potential to do what public
schools are not likely to be able to do: create materials that teach
science
in light of general and biblical history.
Doug
____________________________________________________________
Motor Home
You can take it with you! Click here for a luxurious new motor home and travel in style!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/c?cp=UOq2WQVcYw9ZZMvsO-UsmwAAJ1C299ic4kQXCDEcUzIPh2aFAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAhgAAAAA=
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Nov 5 15:37:31 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Nov 05 2009 - 15:37:32 EST