APPENDIX
Two
Naturalisms: narrow and BROAD
Howard Van Till, an evolutionary creationist, describes
two meanings for one word:
One meaning,
I shall call it naturalistic (narrow),
is very limited in scope and simply refers to the idea that the physical behavior
of some particular material system can be described in terms of the "natural" capacities
of its interacting components and the interaction of the system with its physical
environment. Therefore there is a naturalistic (narrow) theory
of planetary motion, or of star formation,... No stance regarding the
ontological origin of its existence is either specified or implied. Nor
is the ultimate source of its capacities for behaving as it does, or its purpose
in the larger context of all reality, or its relation to divine action or intention. Defined
in this way, naturalistic (narrow) has no elements or connotations that
would be in any way objectionable in principle to Christian belief.
The other definition, which
I shall call Naturalistic (broad), is
far more expansive in scope. It not only includes all of the elements
of naturalistic (narrow), but it also superimposes the strong
metaphysical stipulations that neither the existence nor the behavioral
capacities of material systems derive from any divine source (thereby
making a Creator unnecessary) and that the behavior of material systems
can in no way serve in the attainment of any divine purpose or intention. So
defined, Naturalistic (broad) is essentially identical to materialistic and
is, therefore, absolutely irreconcilable with Christian theism. Any
critique of methodological naturalism that fails to honor the
distinction between the broad and the narrow meanings of naturalistic is,
I believe, sure to generate more heat than light, more hostility than
learning.
Quoted
from a middle section in Van Till's essay
review of The Creation Hypothesis.
FIVE
TERMS we should avoid (multiple
meanings and stolen words)
NATURALISM: Using naturalism to
mean "a nontheistic worldview-theory claiming that nothing
exists except nature" can lead to implications that "natural" means "without
God." But this is not consistent with a theistic worldview,
which claims that natural process involves supernatural
activity for designing, creating, and sustaining, plus (sometimes or
always) for guiding that appears natural. / a solution? Instead
of naturalism,
we should use naturism to describe
a claim that "...nothing exists except nature." Why?
(*) Because this will avoid
an implication that "natural" is a word with strong links to
a nontheistic worldview. In addition, this will avoid confusion
about intended meaning, since if "naturalism" means "a universe
without God" there will be a conflict with three other meanings connected
with science: 1) naturalistic methods for
doing science focus on natural mechanisms; 2) a naturalist,
such as Carolus Linnaeus or John Muir, is a person who studies nature; 3)
a naturalistic approach to the scholarly
study of science is based on a claim that "science" should be defined
by studying what scientists actually do, not by logically deciding
what scientists should do. {* But
a practical difficulty — the fact that "naturalism" has
been commonly used to mean "nothing exists except nature" — is
described earlier. Thus, "the horse
is out of the barn" already, but we can try to use language that
is more precise in the future, in whatever we say and write. }
MATERIALISM: The
term materialism can refer to a worldview-theory
claiming that "only matter (i.e., matter/energy plus interactive
forces,...) exists." But I would rather reserve "materialism" for
spiritually important critiques of un-Biblical attitudes that are
common (especially in America but also in other cultures) about the
pursuit of material wealth (money and what it can buy) and the sins
of pride, coveting, and greed. Maybe, as with naturism, this
view should be called matterism.
STOLEN
WORDS? A few years ago, while googling I
discovered that, unfortunately, the
word "naturism" has
been stolen (well, that's how it seems to me) by people who wear
no clothing, to describe their lifestyle; and "matterism" is
an esoteric philosophy of modern art. Do all words have
multiple meanings? Sigh. / Similarly,
and more significant theologically, "creationism" has been stolen so it's commonly used to mean (only)
"young-earth creationism" even though it should refer to ALL views
claiming that God created our world. And so on, with many other
examples of terms that are overpopulated with too many meanings,
so (if you want to communicate a meaning that is not the most common
meaning) you cannot use the stolen term.
HUMANISM: Using humanism to
mean "atheism" can imply that atheistic humanism is a "religion for humans" that
should be adopted by those who care for humans. {
I'll write more about this later, re: humanism being "a religion by humans" and
why the name was chosen by atheists (because it's good for them)
and was foolishly adopted by Christians (even though it's bad for them),
and why this name should be rejected
by Christians
because
it is inaccurate,
and is overly flattering for atheism. }
NATURAL HISTORY: The
history of nature is the history of everything that has occurred in our
matter/energy universe. For a Christian theist, nature's history
includes normal-appearing events and also miraculous-appearing events
such as the resurrection of Jesus. / But even if "natural
history" means only the formative history of nature (not the salvation
history of humans) there is a logical problem, and a solution: To
avoid illogical circular arguments, we should replace the term natural
history with history of nature or nature's
history. Why? Because "natural history" implies
that all events in history have been natural. This term can then
be used — for example, by declaring that "all of natural history
should be explained by natural causes" — in a circular argument
whose purpose is to bypass the process of logic by using an assumption
(hidden in the term "natural history") to answer the question
of whether the history of nature has included only natural events.
NATURAL SCIENCE: Similarly,
a claim that "in natural science, natural phenomena
and natural history should be explained
by natural causes" is trivial. This
is just faulty circular logic (assuming "science is natural" in
order to conclude "science is natural") camouflaged with verbal
ambiguity by using "natural" to mean both "pertaining
to nature" (in the first three uses)
and "normal appearing" (in the fourth
use). To avoid this sloppy logic, instead of natural
science we should use terms that are more general (science)
or more specific (physical science, biological
science, social science,...).