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

"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"." - David C.

Maybe it is easier for someone who is not a natural scientist to see the difference between 'nature' and 'character' and to suggest that the two not be communicated as if they are one. Most people on this list find it easy to criticise the IDM for its supposed failings in biological science, yet at the same time they remain quiet on the second front of the 'wedge' which is directed towards naturalism, materialism, physicalism and secularism generally. This was Johnson's intention - to combat the secularization of society, part of which is happening through the diffusion of evolutionary theory, specifically Darwinian and neo-Darwinian evolutionary theories, into social-humanitarian thought.
   
  Johnson's view is actually in some senses supported by the Vatican council on science, which clarifies that evolution does not mean our lives are meaningless or that we are not made (imago Dei) with a purpose. I am not suggesting that David or George or Ted or even Janice would argue our lives are meaningless (though Solomon be consulted). But in order to posit that human life is meaningful, one needs to get outside of the ideology of naturalism to do so. This is where 'theological naturalism' might have something to contribute and could possibly apply accurately to those naturalists (in the functional, professional sense of the term) who are also theists.
   
  Let's try to unpack or uncover this concept duo of 'theological naturalism' because it could go far to bring into relevance the transition from 'natural philosophy' to 'science' and the impact of 'natural theology' on such things as the IDM. It may, however, also expose a great paradox at the heart of theistic evolutionary views, which is why I suspect TE's will prefer not to discuss it and thus why Hunter chose to identify it in the first place. Then again, discussing paradox is not necessarily an unhealthy thing!
   
  There are religious reasons to think that the universe is orderly, filled with patterns, that physical laws provide adequate physical descriptions. Yet 'theological naturalism' ideologically elevates 'the natural' beyond its earthly meaning into the realm of a sort of partnership with theology. Thus, the definition provided for TN of "restricting science to naturalism for religious reasons" seems appropriate and not conflating two things - that is, if one does not posit that natural causes are secondary and supernatural causes are primary. When a person speaks of the 'character' of someone or something in human-social thought, the meaning is much less controversial.
   
  In fact, 'theological naturalism' seems to fit as an accurate description of 'the tradition' which George is drawing on to justify the dichotomy of natural/supernatural, which I think is misleading, probably because I am not a natural scientist and do not wish to reduce the things I study to mere 'nature.' Does that not seem logical to folks at ASA?
   
  G. Arago
    

David Campbell <pleuronaia@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
       
---------------------------------
Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail  
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.