Re: [asa] Science's Blind Spot: The Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism

OK, I've gotten an email with the draft of Hunter's book so I could refresh my memory. A quick search for "theological naturalism" doesn't yield a formal definition. But near the beginning he speaks of "theological mandates for naturalism" whose "common theme is God ought not be intimately involved in the creation and care of the world. Nature should operate primarily, or even exclusively, via secondary causes rather than primary causes-the direct intervention of God." He then refers to this as "theological naturalism" (his italics). So I think this can be fairly taken as his definition. [Please bear in mind that I am referring to a pre-publication draft, not the final published book.]

I'll leave historical questions to Ted, Michael, et al. As far as the statement itself is concerned, the only real probelm I see is that it starts out talking about "naturalism" without qualifying it as "methodological naturalism." With that qualification I would certainly be willing to accept "theological naturalism." It is simply theologically motivated methodological naturalism.

Such theological naturalism is certainly not the same as "natural theology," as Ted pointed out. But there is some connection, though of a type very different from that imagined in the review which was posted here. To the extent that God operates consistently through secondary causes with lawlike regularity, what happens in the world can be accounted in terms of natural processes. There will then be no basis for a natural theology independent of revelation.

We're left with the question of why God should adhere to the "theological mandates for naturalism" - i.e., why should God work almost exclusively through secondary causes. Hunter does discuss, later in the book, my arguments for this from a theology of the cross and those of other theologians, though they don't persuade him of the value of "theological naturalism."

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Gregory Arago
  To: George L. Murphygmurphy@raex.com ; David Opderbeck ; Peter Loose
  Cc: asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 9:09 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] Science's Blind Spot: The Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism

  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 Thu Jul 19 17:16:36 2007