>But I was not suggesting "natural law" for anything along this continuum
>as you define it; I was just suggesting it as a preferable term to MIRM.
oops; I apologize for misunderstanding you
>My point was that the word "random" is not what you are trying to say in
>that category. After all, many of the things one might put there (the
>path of Newton's apple after it leaves the tree, the motions of the
>planets) have a "randomness" content that is for most purposes
>negligible. What I think you really mean instead of "random" is
>something like "unguided" or "natural", which is why I suggested "natural
>law" as a clearer name for this category.
Yes; a planet's motion is not very "RANDOM". So, although it makes
sense to think about randomness at the quantum-level (and this was my
intention), or (although less satisfactorily) at micro-levels with atoms or
molecules, at a macro-level, with apples or planets, it is not very useful
for accurate description, nor for distinguishing theistic action from
non-action.
re: your suggested replacements,
I don't like the term "matter in NATURAL motion", for reasons explained
in "naturalism vs materialism". But if we use "naturalism" to describe the
whole belief system of MIRM-only, then it might be consistent to also use
"natural" in this context. // Also, check this morning's "naturalism or
materialism" post, for a way to convert the multiple meanings of "natural"
into a useful characteristic. // But eventually I reach a conclusion that
it is not a good idea to create a new term stating that "natural = without
God".
"matter in NORMAL motion"? (i.e. normal-appearing?)
"matter in UNGUIDED motion" seems OK, but a bit inelegant, and we have
to define "unguided"; but, as you point out, "random" must also be defined
How about "matter in A-THEISTIC motion"? it seems accurate, but seems
likely to be a red-flag term. Nope.
"matter with NORMAL BEHAVIOR"?
"matter in NORMAL OPERATION"? This term is consistent with my own terms
(see http://labweb.soemadison.wisc.edu/users/rusbult/ism.html#theory ) for
characterizing an "explanatory theory" that claims to describe a system in
terms of its composition (what it is) and operation (what it does)
Let's return to Terry's comment that our terms should not "essentially
beg the question and then force us to come up with convoluted models about
how God interacts with the world." In order to more accurately describe
theistic views, this suggestion can be combined with some principles for
good communication and education, to help us set a GOAL for selecting (or
constructing) useful terminology. How about this:
A useful term should allow an accurate description (and representation,
in the mind of a learner) of a concept as-it-is, and should allow an easy
cognitive transformation (in the mind of a learner) into an accurate
description of a new concept.
Specifically, a useful term for MIRM should accurately describe an
atheistic/deistic view, and should allow an easy explanation (that can be
understood by nonbelievers) of a theistic view. {again, check my "nat or
mat" post for some possibilities}
In contrast with some suggestions (by Terry, Allan, George,...), I think
there may be a place for MIRM in a theistic worldview, if God sometimes
(for some phenomena in some situations) *allows* things to run in a
hands-off deistic way. For example, a falling leaf, or the motion of
hydrogen in a star in a distant galaxy. I won't say that some motion *is*
MIRM, but I think it *could be* MIRM with a well-designed universe. This
is different than a "functional integrity" that makes claims (way beyond
its theological or scientific bases of support, I think) that there *was
not* or *could not be* any "theistic action" in nature.
****************************
>I separately questioned whether it
>was useful to think of this category (wherein God's sustenance,
>concurrence, etc. would fall) as distinct from what you call Natural
>Appearing Theistic Action (NATA), but that is a separate issue.
...snip...
>Whether the categorization
>works at all is an independent question.
I agree with Terry that our choice of terms is important.
And I don't think that the issue is whether we should refuse to allow a
word that describes a concept we don't agree with. But what is the issue?
I'm trying to think clearly about this, but it isn't easy.
It seems a bit like Orwell's "1984" and the intended function of
Newspeak -- to prevent the cognitive conceptualization of ideas that are
not approved by those who control the language. {a negative spin, to be
sure}
But it also seems similar to my complaints about our use of
"naturalism", especially that making a distinction between natural and
supernatural seems to imply that nature does not include the supernatural.
You haven't convinced me that you're right, but I'm beginning to doubt
the == of my own positions and terms. (logically defensible?)
>While I'm here, I note that in Craig's other post was a statement
>defending his MIRM category on the grounds that, even though we
>Christians know that nothing takes place without "theistic action" (at
>least on the level of concurrence, etc.), the rest of the world does not
>see it that way. I would argue that we should not let the rest of the
>world define our categories; acceptance of categories created by atheists
>is already a big source of trouble ...
>If we are going to classify, let's get the
>categories right from the standpoint of Biblical theology, and then worry
>about explaining it to the world.
in my non-trivial definition of TA, some MIRM is possible (or at least
it is *way* to the "unguided"/uncontrolled" imagine the
>I would argue that we should not let the rest of the
>world define our categories; acceptance of categories created by atheists
>is already a big source of trouble (I'm thinking of the unthinking
>acceptance by much of the church of the view of God's identity as a
>gap-filler who is therefore squeezed out by evolution and other
>scientific advances).