In a message dated 7/3/00 11:49:06 PM Mountain Daylight Time, crossbr@SLU.EDU
writes:
> SteamDoc@aol.com wrote:
>
> > 1) Methodological naturalism seeks natural causes (for physical
phenomena),
> > but it does not insist that such causes always be there. A
methodological
> > naturalist can accept Jesus walking on water, for example, without
> insistence
> > that there must be some "natural" explanation. The methodological
> naturalist
> > would just insist that such an event could not be considered a part of
> > science, since science is concerned with the study of natural phenomena.
> > It is only the metaphysical naturalist who asserts that science exhausts
> > all knowledge.
>
> You are using a different definition of MN than I am.
I believe I am using the standard meaning of the term in science-faith
discussions. *Methodological* naturalism is a view of science, always
looking for natural causes, without necessarily claiming that the scientific
knowledge is all there is. *Metaphysical* naturalism is a view of reality as
a whole. Phil Johnson has recognized this important distinction in the past
(see the quote from an early-90's speech in a footnote in the Appendix to
Reason in the Balance), though these days he seems to more often fudge the
line between the two.
> [SNIP]
>
> I am not talking about a case in which *some* effects are
> explained by natural causes, but about a case where natural causes are
> posited for all *effects*. Is it possible for something to exist and yet
> have no
> effect on anything other than itself. If so, then how would you know of
it?
> If not, then if natural causes are posited to explain every effect, God is
> shaved off. Call it 'God-of-the-Gaps theology if you want; call it any name
> you will. That doesn't falsify it.
First, are you talking about proximate causes or ultimate causes? Science,
even under methodological naturalism, does not address ultimate causes.
More important, your wording suggests a view that "natural causes" and
"things God does" are completely disjoint sets. That is effectively an
unbiblical denial of providence and God's sovereignty over nature. This is
really the crux of the issue -- is it a theological necessity to find gaps in
natural causes in order to make room for God, or is it possible (note I did
not say mandatory) for God's creative work to appear entirely natural? Again
we have the examples of stars and mountains. Do our natural explanations for
their formation "shave off" God from being their creator?
> > 3) I could be more sympathetic to "theistic science" that did not use MN
> if
> > its practitioners affirmed that it is OK for God to create by "natural"
> > processes (providentially) and disavowed gap-based apologetics. The real
> > harm comes not in the search for scientifically detectable fingerprints
of
> > God, but in the propagation and encouragement of the theological
> abomination
> > (shared by Dawkins and too many in the Church) that the truth of theism
> > depends on the existence of such fingerprints.
> > Once you let God-of-the-Gaps theology in, it eats up everything :-)
>
> I agree with you that the truth of theism does not depend on the existence
> of scientifically detectable fingerprints.
This statement is inconsistent with your paragraph above about how God is
"shaved off" if we posit natural causes (at least if you meant proximate
causes) for every physical effect.
> I am not exactly sure what you mean by 'God-of-the-Gaps theology',
> but if by this term you mean that for every gap, a
> divine explanation is posited, then I agree that such a theology is
nonsense.
Since defining terms is important, I define "God-of-the-Gaps" theology as the
metaphysical view that "natural" explanations exclude God. It is not a
positing of direct divine explanation for *every* gap in current
understanding, but it is the position that whichever of these gaps did have
direct divine intervention, and only those gaps, are the places where God has
acted. A corollary being that lack of gaps equals lack of God. This sets up
a "scoring system" where every advance of science counts as points against
God, shaving off the reasons to believe, because only interventionist ways of
acting (as opposed to God acting via his sovereignty over nature) "count" as
God's work.
> However, the opposite error posits a natural cause for every effect. I
> believe
> the solution is to approach every problem with a genuine search for natural
> explanations, but with the willingness to acknowledge the possibility of (
> direct)
> divine action. That avoids the error of occasionalism (which you describe
as
> 'God-of-the-Gaps theology eating everything up) on the one hand, and the
> error of methodological naturalism on the other hand.
I could agree with the above paragraph, provided you said "metaphysical
naturalism" which seems to be what you really mean.
It seems to me that the real problem is with the assertions of some that
methodological naturalism (at least if it is successful as a way of doing
science) logically entails *metaphysical* naturalism as a view of all of
reality. It is that unjustified extrapolation that is the real enemy, and we
should oppose it both when Richard Dawkins does it and when Phil Johnson does
it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Allan H. Harvey, Boulder, Colorado | SteamDoc@aol.com
"Any opinions expressed here are mine, and should not be
attributed to my employer, my wife, or my cats"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 04 2000 - 20:01:29 EDT