At 12:02 PM 7/19/2007, Ted Davis wrote:
>Janice,
>
>George asked for Hunter's definition of "theological naturalism,"
>not "natural theology." The similarity in terminology belies a big
>difference in what they refer to, unfortunately. Your recent post
>focuses on H's view of natural theology, not theological naturalism. ~ ted
@ 'scuze me. He already had his definition. I just assumed that he
was looking for a different definition from what was originally
posted by Matthew when he started this thread.
Since it was also posted on Free Republic, I'll just copy and paste
what he showed Hunter's definition of theological naturalism to be in
that commentary, to wit:
Science's Blind Spot: The Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1866825/posts
Is The Design of Modern Science Defective?: A review of Science's
Blind Spot: The Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism
[...]
"..Dr. Hunter begins his book by pointing out the design defect: "The
problem is that religion has joined science." (Hunter, 2007, pg. 9)
He goes on to explain that, while today's science is thought to be
empirical and free of theological premise, nothing could be further
from the truth. Dr. Hunter examines the complex interaction between
religion and science in history and arrives at what may be a
surprising conclusion for many: the modern design of science is based
on theological naturalism, a phrase he uses to describe the
restriction of science to naturalism for religious reasons.
[...]
~ Janice
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 22:00:41 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jul 19 2007 - 22:00:41 EDT