> LH: "I've read a number of Christian authors on this topic, and
> there seems to be two broad perspectives: [1] emphasizing that
> God is active in every natural event (with the same power as in
> miraculous events); [2] emphasizing the fact that creation is
> something _other_ than God (while still being contingent upon God
> for continued existence).
> The second view causes worries about deism and an overly
> mechanistic view of creation; the first view causes worries about
> "monotheistic pantheism" and a confusion of the different types
> of God's Will."
>
> DT: I find it interesting that you present these two perspectives -
> which are not the ones I'd have chosen. This is because although
> I hold to [1], I also hold to [2]! I would say that the doctrine
> of "creation" leads to [2] and that the doctrine of "providence"
> leads to [1].
Agreed. It is not the principles themselves which cause disagreement,
but rather the amount of time one spends emphasizing one principle over
the other --- and/or the use of heavily connotative terms --- which
causes disagreement.
---------------------
> Franklin: "The doctrine that God is the creator of heaven and
> earth is the _Magna_Carta_ of Christian liberal arts. ... The
> confession that God is "the maker of heaven and earth" implies
> that Christian higher education must include considerable
> exposure to the range of scholarship in the arts and sciences."
>
> DT: Agreed. If I were writing this, I would want to add something
> about the doctrine of the Fall here. Man's mind has been
> affected by his broken relationship with God.
Franklin mentions this in his abstract, and talks about it extensively
elsewhere in the article.
> Franklin: "Several important implications for education flow from
> the existence of this "secular" moment within the Christian
> doctrine of creation. Christians are free to accept truth about
> the world no matter what its source -- even if that source makes
> no appeal to religious considerations, as in the case, for
> example, of physics or sociology. ... We may even say that there
> is nothing in principle to prevent one from learning philosophy
> from the pagan Greeks, Muslims, Buddhists, or atheists."
>
> DT: This is where I am finding myself seriously diverging from
> Franklin. He appears to be developing an argument which leads
> to autonomy. Of course we can learn from people who differ from
> us, and from people outside the Christian Way - that is not a
> point at issue here. The question for those involved with
> Christian liberal arts relates to the presuppositions utilised
> by the various scholars being studied. Students need to be alert
> to these presuppositions and to recognise that whether they be
> cultural, religious, or philosophical, no one is free from them.
> Perhaps the greatest need in our own day is to recognise that
> science itself is riddled with presuppositions that reveal it to
> be a human activity - deeply affected by cultural, religious and
> philosophical traditions.
Elsewhere in his article, Franklin spends a great deal of time talking
about presuppositions, being aware of them, analyzing them, and the
importance for Christians to do scholarship from Christian
presuppositions.
Perhaps it would be helpful if I give some "context" to Franklin's
article. If I remember correctly, his article is part of a package
intended to gain accreditation for a Christian liberal arts
college/university in Japan. His intended audience included many
officials who have never even thought about the concept of a "Christian"
world-view or "Christian" scholarship --- let alone the _need_ for such.
For the sake of that audience, he needed to spend a good deal of time
explaining how "Christian" scholarship examines the same data and the
same world as everyone else, and that Christian scholars can
professionally interact with their non-Christian colleagues. He ALSO
spent a great deal of time explaining the distinctiveness of Christian
scholarship. But for the sake of that non-Christian audience, he needed
to avoid jumping too quickly back and forth between those two points.
(At least, that's my _guess_ as to why he chose that style.)
> Franklin: "By using the word "secular," I hardly wish to affirm
> a rigid dichotomy between the sacred and the secular. Within the
> total doctrine of creation, all things are sacred, having their
> source and destiny in God. Thus even a "secular" field such as
> law can be a sacred activity if done in a spirit of worship and
> commitment to Jesus Christ."
>
> DT: I find this fuzzy. Doing law in "a spirit of worship and
> commitment to Jesus Christ" is only part of the way forward.
Yes, Franklin agrees with you (elsewhere in his article).
------------------------------------
> Franklin: "... By the term "secular" I also wish to indicate that
> our primary source for chemical knowledge, for example, is
> experimentation and not revelation."
>
> DT: But this is also very fuzzy. Chemistry is not a matter of
> revelation - but the presuppositions of chemical science are.
O.k., this is me (Loren) talking now; I'm no longer refering to anything
specific in Franklin's article.
The presuppositions of chemical science are a matter of revelation for
you and me and a great many scientists --- including the founders of
chemical science. But the presuppositions of chemical science are not
_necessarily_ a matter of revelation. Chemical science can be
practiced, nearly identically, by someone with very different religious
presuppositions. As you and others have pointed out, "naturalistic
science" and "theistic science" have different presuppositions --- but
the intersection of those two sets of presuppositions (the points on
which the do agree) are sufficient for chemical science.
Perhaps the "secular" part of chemical science is the part which can be
shared and agreed upon by people who have different religious
presuppositions.
That may be a good working definition for "secular knowledge" in general.
"Knowledge which can be gained, shared, and agreed upon by people with a
variety of religious presuppositions." What do you think?
----------------------------
As we've said before, it's important to mention both [1] God's activity
in every natural event and [2] creation's distinctiveness from God.
Most Christian authors I've read spend most --- or even all --- of their
time emphasizing just one or the other.
How do you balance them? You responded to BH in another post by
writing:
> DT: The inference I draw from your post is that we need to:
> (a) Continually emphasise that natural law is DESCRIPTIVE rather
> than EXPLANATORY (at least in any fundamental sense);
> (b) Continually resist any attempts to make the cosmos autonomous
> - whether in the deistic sense or in the naturalist sense. This
> requires Christians to actively promote the teaching of God's
> providential government of his creation.
What would you say to counter-balance? How would you respond to an
attempted _redicio_ad_absurdum_ on the first point? (E.g. "If natural
law is merely descriptive, then God must actively will every event
(including evil) and nature is nothing but an aspect of God's will.") I
hope you'll take the time to respond, because I'm interested to see what
language you would use. Thanks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Why should I have to WORK for everything? |
That's like saying I don't DESERVE it." | Loren Haarsma
--Calvin (_Calvin_and_Hobbes_) | lhaarsma@opal.tufts.edu