On 6/15/04 10:17 AM, "Steve Petermann" <steve@spetermann.org> wrote:
> Most strong swings in ideology seem to be a reaction to something else. I
> suspect the resurgence of interventionist views is a reaction to the
> prominence of materialist and eliminativist views in the media coming from
> the likes of Dawkins, Dennett, Stinger, Pinker, etc. Teleology in
> traditional religions is one of the non-negotiables. In order to maintain
> this notion of teleology requires some grounding and connection with
> ultimate reality. I think it appears, although imo unwarranted, to many in
> traditional religions that science threatens this telic view.
Yes, I agree that it "appears" so to many. I also agree that this is
unwarranted. Griffin's reading is that this is the outcome of "...a double
mistake: the equation of theism with supernaturalism and the equation of
scientific naturalism with ... an atheistic, materialistic worldview."
> Faced with the threat of loosing a teleological
> footing, the easiest (non-systematic) way to hang on is to posit
> supernatural interventions. The intellectual and systematic price, however,
> is high. Question is, are there alternative approaches that remain faithful
> to the essence of the faith without bankrupting the intellect?
That is, I believe, the question we need to pursue. The follow-up question
is, how specifically must we articulate "the essence of the faith"?
Disagreements on this listserve tend to be about how to construct this list
of, pardon the expression, "fundamentals." :)
Howard Van Till
Received on Tue Jun 15 11:59:34 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jun 15 2004 - 11:59:35 EDT