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

David -

Thanks for pointing out an error of Hunter's that I overlooked. Belief that
God operates via secondary causes certainly doesn't require that God not be
"intimately involved in the creation and care of the world. Belief that God
cooperates with creatures to bring about what happens in the world means
just the opposite.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Campbell" <pleuronaia@gmail.com>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 6:21 PM
Subject: 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 would agree that nature operates primarily via secondary causes, and
that there are good theological reasons to expect it to.
Incidentally, ID advocates also believe that nature operates primarily
via secondary causes; they just tend to think that the exceptions are
more common and varied than I do. (There may be potential for
semantic confusion in that one might debate whether one should say
that nature operates via secondary causes as opposed to identifying
nature with things that work by secondary causes and direct
intervention as non-nature.)

However, I reject the claim that God is not intimately involved in the
care and creation of the world. If you recognize that God is
intimately involved in things that happen via secondary causes, then
faith is not threatened by explanations that invoke secondary causes.
"God did it, but how?" is the correct question, not "Did God do it or
did natural causes do it?" An appallingly large chunk of atheistic
and of antievolutionary nonsense is rooted in not understanding that.

-- 
Dr. David Campbell
425 Scientific Collections
University of Alabama
"I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.