Some clarity (Was Re: [asa] Theological Naturalism - 'The Nature of God' = Naturalism)

There are a number of things that could stand to be clarified on the now rather extended "theological naturalism" thread.

1) Hunter's meaning of "theological naturalism" is simply the idea that God almost always works through secondary causes. That is one very traditional understanding of the doctrine of providence - what Barbour calls a "Neo-Thomist" theology of divine action. Hunter's contribution is to link it with a term that has a negative affect for many people, "naturalism." That is useful for polemical purposes but not very helpful for serious discussion, for which '"Neo-Thomist" theology of divine action,' or perhaps "divine cooperation" would be better.

2) Theistic evolution is a problematic term, as many people have pointed out. Among other things, it reduces God's role to adjectival status. But "evolutionary creationism" is at least equally problematic, for it suggests to many people a variant of the kind of "creationism" represented by ICR & AIG. "Theistic evolution" is now the widely accepted term for the view that biological macroevolution has occurred and that God has been working through that process. It is a very broad term & includes those who do & don't accept a Darwinian view of evolution or who qualify it, those who think there may have been a few miraculous interventions in the process, &c. Those who fit in this broad category are theistic evolutionists. TE is not a formal organization for which one has to sign a membership list or pay dues, but simply a description of a broad viewpoint. Behe is a TE whether he calls himself that or not. I think Gregory is a TE in the sense I've described but I'm not sure: Perhaps he will let us know.

3) Evolution in the broad sense is about as firmly established a fact as anything can be in the sciences. Those who accept that reality & want to argue for some version of ID in connection with it can be helpful partners in science-theology dialogue. Those who reject that reality can be about as helpful as flat earthers. I think Behe is in the "helpful" category, though he doesn't say much about theology. Dembski is more problematic because of his waffling. Johnson is not helpful.

4) It would be best to stick with a minimal version of MN: God is not to be appealed to as part of a scientific explanation. Alternatively - & again to quote my old prof - "Science does not deal in First Causes." Those should be regarded as definitions of what we mean by science, not denials or affirmations of God or a First Cause. Talking about this in terms of "the supernatural" is IMO not the best approach - it gets into the problematic business of trying to specify a boundary between "nature" & "supernature" & deflects attention from the real issue, i.e., God. The possible actions of angels, bodhisattvas &c isn't the primary concern.

The understanding of "science" that I use there is a more limited one than that of the German Wissenschaft, in which one could speak of theology, e.g., as a "science" (& "the most free and happy science" - Barth). That simply isn't the way Americans use the word. Of course we should try to avoid any suggestion that something which is "science" is necessarily better than something that isn't.

5) Gregory may want to note that the idiom "to give the lie to something" does not have, as its primary meaning, to show that someone has been lying. It means 1st of all, as the entries below from http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/give+the+lie+to indicate, "to show that something is not true."
 
give the lie to something (formal)
to show that something is not true. The high incidence of cancer in the region surely gives the lie to official assurances that the factory is safe.
See also: give, lie
Cambridge International Dictionary of Idioms © Cambridge University Press 1998

give the lie to something
to show that something is not true. He did not go into hiding, which gave the lie to the statement that he could not be found for an interview.
Usage notes: also used in the form give the lie to someone to show that someone has not been telling the truth: The latest soil tests give the lie to officials who say that the area is not contaminated.
See also: give, lie
Cambridge Dictionary of American Idioms © Cambridge University Press 2003

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Gregory Arago
  To: Rich Blinne ; George Murphy
  Cc: Gregory Arago ; David Campbell ; asa@calvin.edu ; Rich Blinne
  Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 10:59 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] Theological Naturalism - 'The Nature of God' = Naturalism

  I am not unaware that Dembski and Johnson, add Behe, Gonzales, Minnich, Nancey Pearcy and many others, make theological claims about ID, and not just when speaking to their supporters. George's views are sometimes less than charitable when it comes to ID (but very charitable compared to Michael Roberts, clergyman of England!). Yet I agree that the charge of 'selective theology' is surely a trait of the IDM.

  But I would rather call what the IDM promotes as 'suggestive theology' than anything concrete. They repeat constantly that ID has implications, ID has implications, ID has implications...and Minnich nicely adds, 'So Be It!' This doesn't mean they have to articulate those implications, especially not to theologians who would demand it from them as a necessary feature of promoting ID's science claims. They will promote 'ID as science' and try building research programs in areas that classic TEists don't often represent (not just for the sake of avoiding the comparatively small number of TE's).

  If George wants to discuss the theology of ID, he is free to do so (actually, he has already done so!). There is no lie (nice charge though George!) to the fact that ID contributes to science and religion, science and theology, science and faith dialogue because of those very implications. It is doing much, much more for dialogue than TE is doing, in trying to carve out some un-agreed-upon status quo.

  "If the designer is deliberately not defined then what use is it for apologetics?" - Rich

  It is good for raising questions about the origins and processes of life, about the source of human consciousness, about complexity and simplicity and what concepts like information and mind and reverse engineering might mean, and about actually being a scientifically-minded person and also a Christian. There's a PhD in the USofA doing a dissertation on the IDM that I just heard about yesterday; these things are indeed provoking discussion not just excuses for rigorous thinking! The fact that a majority of IDists are OEC, accept common descent and some aspects of evolutionary theories is even fun to watch!

  It must really ruffle the feathers of you TE folks who had apparently settled into a kind of reserved complacency that the 'contraversy' over evolution was finally settled by accomodationism!

  G.A.

  p.s. this thread was about 'theological naturalism,' which TE's apparently don't wish to confront

  Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com> wrote:

  On Jul 24, 2007, at 11:02 AM, "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote

  2) Gregory is apparently unaware that Dembski & Johnson have made explicitly theological claims about ID when speaking to their supporters, through they have been unwilling to engage in theological dialogue with those who disagree with them. What I have said is that there are theological issues connected with ID (& that would be the case whether or not its supporters had raised them), that they ought to be discussed openly, & I have presented my own theological arguments. The unwillingness of IDers to discuss theological issues gives the lie to Gregory's claim that they have contributed to science-theology dialogue. The fact that a lot of ill-informed people have latched onto the slogan "Intelligent Design" on school boards &c is not indicative of serious dialogue but of the fact that such people have simply found one more excuse to hold on to their preconceptions.
    It was this unwillingness to discuss theology at all -- let alone debate it -- that got me banned from UcD. If the designer is deliberately not defined then what use is it for apologetics?

    Rich Blinne
    Member ASA

    Sent from my iPhone

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  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 Wed Jul 25 09:33:23 2007