George,
In what way then do you understand 'theological naturalism'? Does it make any sense to you or is it something only Hunter uses when writing about a 'religion of scientific naturalism'? It may well be that there are theological reasons or feelings to accept MN, but MN and TN (theological naturalism) are two different things. Theological reasons to accept MN is not TN. The question of ON (ontological naturalism) was raised earlier in this thread too.
I've read some of Hunter and wasn't overly smitten, though he made some sound points. However, it sure would be more entertaining to see one of you theistic evolutionists (TEs) displaying a defense of 'theological naturalism' instead of TE! Drawing the line between TN and panentheism or pantheism, for example, might be more difficult to do than defending TE as natural scientists and theologians.
Can anyone provide us with a definition, perhaps Hunter's if they have the book, of TN?
Thanks,
Arago
"George L. Murphygmurphy@raex.com" <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote:
Gregory -
To your query below: While I have not addressed "theological naturalism" in the way Hunter understands it, I have repeatedly called attention to what I believe are excellent theological reasons to accept MN, a position which qualifies, I think, as some type of "theological naturalism" - & one a lot more interesting & profitable than what Hunter presents. So if you want to discuss it, go ahead.
Shalom,
George
Arago p.s. still NOBODY has raised the topic of 'theological naturalism' raised by Hunter at the beginning of this thread. Why???
---------------------------------
Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Jul 18 21:10:43 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jul 18 2007 - 21:10:43 EDT