Re: [asa] Theological Naturalism - 'The Nature of God' = Naturalism

Greg,
Many years ago, Etienne Gilson was a noted French philosopher. Then he
was invited to a Canadian university and, for the first time, began to
write in English. He was delighted by the new freedom. He said there was
only one way to say things in French thanks to the 40 immortals
(Struldbruggs ?), but English had many ways to communicate the same
thought.

I do not recall the discipline and journal, but years ago a scholar wrote
up a solid report in plain English and submitted it to the journal. It
was rejected. The same material was then rewritten in abstruse jargon and
resubmitted. It was quickly accepted and published. More recently an
article in /Philosophy of Science/ showed that at least some studies in
economics were nonsensical. They had to be to be published as learned
contributions.

Since the communication on this list is by those who enjoy this freedom
and seek to communicate clearly rather than obtusely, we are not about to
go along with your pedantry. Such cant communicates more poorly. No one
except you even imagined that the divine nature could be understood as
involving naturalism.

As to consulting anthropologists, the question has to be, first, what
kind of anthropologist? physical? cultural? Why exclude ethnology when
that is considered a subdivision of anthropology? For that matter, the
problem with Dawkins is not his area of expertise but his
religious/philosophical dogmatism, which even embarrasses other atheists.

Use your jargon in your communications. No one will deny you that, unless
you want to publish. But don't try to impose your affectations on those
of us who have spoken American English from the earliest possible age,
and communicate adequately with our fellows. Of course, if only you are
right, ...
Dave

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 20:14:47 -0400 (EDT) Gregory Arago
<gregoryarago@yahoo.ca> writes:
Merci Dave. - Yes, I am 'hipped' on nature; but there is new jargon to
apply today. This actually supports my avant garde argument. As a
social-humanitarian thinker, no, I don't supercede lexicographers.
However, when it comes to discussing 'human nature,' including our human
needs, wants, values, meanings, purposes and goals, one is better to
speak with an anthropologist than an ethnologist (e.g. R. Dawkins),
wouldn't you agree?

As for 'essential character' vs. 'nature' - this is exactly the point of
this thread! Thank you for noticing this David C. Why not then say
'essential character,' in keeping with three Persons, rather than
subjecting the Divine to naturalistic thought by speaking of God's nature
(even if one 'means' to communicate the same thing)?

Let's get into secondary and primary causes later. For now, people are
asked to discuss their views of 'theological naturalism,' which I am here
contending takes place whenever someone speaks of 'the nature of God,'
Just like TE in contrast to EC (evolutionary creationism), the notion of
TN brings a problemmatic of priority. - Gregory

"D. F. Siemens, Jr." <dfsiemensjr@juno.com> wrote:
There is even more than you note. Greg is, to use an old phrase, hipped
on "nature." The original OED lists 45 meanings of the term under 4 major
categories with 15 divisions. "Nature of God" falls under I 1 a; what
science studies, IV 11 a. But perhaps his social science insight extends
far beyond that of mere lexicographers.
Dave

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 17:35:31 -0500 "David Campbell"
writes:
> > Anytime a person questions or speaks to "the nature of God" they
> are
> > utilizing a type of theological naturalism. It is theological
> naturalism
> > because they are applying the concept of 'nature' to something
> that
> > both created and therefore exceeds nature; what some here call
> 'the
> > supernatural.' Once a person speaks about 'the nature of' the
> Divine,
> > they are compromising their views as a scientist because they are
> > considering an extra-scientific Thing.
>
> Our efforts to understand God are afflicted by our limits as
> humans;
> thus, to some extent talking about the nature of God is imposing
> undue
> constraints. This is not to say that we cannot know anything about
> God but rather that all our theology is imperfect. However, this
> has
> nothing to do with the term "nature of God." That phrase uses
> "nature" in a different sense. The nature of something is its
> essential character, and it is perfectly appropriate to speak of
> God's
> nature in this sense. This has nothing to do with "natural" versus
> "supernatural".
>
>
> > "theological naturalism, a phrase he [Hunter] uses to describe
> the
> > restriction of science to naturalism for religious reasons."
>
> I think this may conflate two things. I expect physical laws to
> provide adequate physical descriptions of what happens in the vast
> majority of cases for religious reasons. However, restricting
> science
> to the study of such secondary cases seems to me to not be so much
> a
> religious issue as a practical or semantic issue.
>
> --
> 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.
>
>

All new Yahoo! Mail

Get news delivered. Enjoy RSS feeds right on your Mail page.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Jul 21 00:32:18 2007