On Thu, 21 May 1998 16:41:46 -0600, John W. Burgeson wrote:
JWB>Stephen Jones replied at length to my last. A few comments:
>>SJ>Read what I said again. >>
JWB>(sigh). I did, Stephen. If you wrote more briefly, I'd read you stuff
>more carefully.
So I am to blame because *you* did not read more carefully? Here is
the massive amount of text before I wrote "Read what I said again":
---------------------------------------------------------------
Burgy
On Thu, 14 May 1998 12:54:48 -0600, John W. Burgeson wrote:
>SJ>"You, along with your theistic naturalistic colleagues have
>never really understood that if Christianity is true, that there really
>is a God who intervenes in history, then "progressive creation" is
>the default position."
JWB>I happen to think the PC explanation is the better of
>the two, Stephen. But I'm at a loss to the claim that it is a
>"default position." God created us; of this I am sure. But
>I have no knowledge that allows me to claim one way
>in particular must be the "default position."
Read what I said again. I prefaced my remarks with: "if...there
really is a God who intervenes in history...
---------------------------------------------------------------
>>SJ>And you are confusing "respect" for a "position" with "respect for
those holding it.".
JWB>I think not, Stephen.
Well, *I* think so. We will have to agree to differ.
>>SJ>The phrase ( theistic naturalistic) was coined by Johnson to describe
>those theists who assume a priori that God would not (or even could
>not) intervene supernaturally in the history of life:>>
JWB>Fair enough. IMHO you would have done well by defining this term since it
>does not seem to be in common use.
It has been a major feature of Johnson's critique of TE. See for example
Reason in the Balance.
JWB>I think it's a poor term, myself. I'd describe myself as a TN but not
>with that particular definition. If I change the definition to read
>"those theists who assume FOR THE SAKE OF SCIENCE that God did not
>intervene supernaturally in the history of life" then it fits me OK. When
>I "do philosophy," of course, I am not a TN.
That is Methodological Naturalism. Metaphysical Naturalism is when someone
believes that even if there is a God, He would not or could not, intervene in the
closed system of cause-and-effect. Theistic Naturalism is when a theist believes
that.
JWB>Johnson, I believe, thinks that most people cannot keep science &
>philosophy apart and thus my distinction (above) is without usefulness. I
>think he is wrong here; most people CAN keep the two separate. It is a
>question worth discussion, I think.
See above. This is Johnson's position on Methodological Naturalism. His term
Theistic Naturalism is based on the claims of TEs like Howard Van Till, Diogenes
Allen, and Ernan McMullin, that God has created the universe with `functional
integrity' and need not intervene in it, indeed, would be less than God if He did:
"The created world envisioned by Basil and Augustine was a world endowed by
the Creator with a functionally complete economy-no gaps, no deficiencies, no
need for God to overpower matter or to perform theokinetic acts in order to make
up for capacities missing in the economy of the created world." (Van Till H.J.,
"God and Evolution: An Exchange: Howard J. Van Till - Phillip E. Johnson", First
Things, June 1993. http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9306/johnson.html)
>>SJ>While I do not rule out extra-terrestrial intelligent life, I would
>rule out their making contact as incompatible with Christianity. For starters,
>if advanced aliens had visited the Earth, then Jesus could have been
>a spaceman.>>
JWB>May I recommend to you a gem of a book, YOUR GOD IS TOO SMALL, by
>J. B. Phillips?
I own it, and have read it. Where did Phillips say that those believing that if there
was extra-terrestrial intelligent life, their making contact would be incompatible with
Christianity was having a God who is too small?
JWB>Your second sentence above does not make much sense (to me). "could have
>beens aare terribly uninteresting (IMO).
You raised this "could have been" by introducing the future possibility of SETI being
successful. I gave *reasons* why I don't think SETI could be successful, because it
would be fatal to Christianity.
>>SJ>And I regard "PC" (or more correctly MC) as being of more than
>"only passing interest." I regard it as closest to the truth as
>revealed in the `books' of both Scripture and nature. >>
JWBunderstand that you do. I don't; that's OK; we don't need to agree!
I thought we *did* agree! You said you were a PC. I assume that is because
you beleive "it as closest to the truth as revealed in the `books' of both
Scripture and nature." Otherwise, why do you believe it?
JWB>BTW, maybe you can describe the difference(s) you see between MC and PC.
I see MC closest to PC but broader, in giving greater weight to the possibility that
God may have worked through natural causes.
JWB>Of particular interest is what scientific data difference(s) you would
>expect. IOW is your MC a scientific statement, of a philosophical one?
This is a false dichotomy. Doing science is science. Making statements
about science is philosophy.
>>SJ>... as Will Provine says on his Darwin Day slides:
>"Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented." >>
JWB>Good for Will. Whatever he means by that silly statement, it is either an
>obvious truth or a misuse of the word "evolution."
It is not a "silly statement". It is the plain truth. You are just denying
historical and present reality if you deny that.
>>SJ>It (the MN principle of science) is not OK when it extends to
>*origins* (as it does) and apriori assumes that the orgin of the universe, life,
>life's major groups, and consciousness, was fully "naturalistic". >>
JWB>Here, my friend, again we must simply agree to disagree.
Since you don't give your reasons, but just make assertions, I cannot tell what
we "disagree" on!
JWB>What this means to me is that there are necessarily TWO studies of
>origins, one is "science," with its MN presupposition, and one is
>philosophy, which does not have that particular artificial barrier.
>Science (IMO) is a game; philosophy is a search for "reality." Both have
>their place. SCience, with its MN restriction, can accomplish great
>things, things at which philosophers can only gape in amazement. But it
>is wrong to think that the job of science is to find out how nature is!
>Science concerns only what we can SAY about nature. And that about sums
>it up.
You are ignoring the special case of *origins*. If God really was supernaturally
involved in *origins* (as opposed to His natural involvement in operations) then
it is *foolishness* (in the Biblical sense) for Christians to say that maintaining
MN is OK.
As Johnson has pointed out, while MN is useful up to a point, maintaining that
MN is OK past that point (eg. in the case of *origins*) if carried out consistently
would rule out all that is distinctively Christian. That is precisely what the radical
Biblical critics like Bultman in the past, and the Jesus Seminar in the present,
do. It is effectively atheism.
>>SJ>The "scientific differences" between PC and TE are evident in the
>debates we have on this Reflector! Basically TEs downplay design and any
>evidence that natural mechanisms are inadequate to originate life, and life's
>complex design.>>
JWB>Stephen -- that does not answer the question.
I hope I have answered it more fully in this message. Unfortunately I am
pressed for time as I am migrating my computer to an all-Windows environment.
Alas, I have finally abandoned OS/2! (Burgy is an old IBM man for the benefit
of newcomers).
Steve
"Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented."
--- Dr. William Provine, Professor of History and Biology, Cornell University.
http://fp.bio.utk.edu/darwin/1998/slides_view/Slide_7.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------