On Mon, 20 Dec 1999 19:25:06 -0600, John E. Rylander wrote:
[...]
JR>Steve quoted the EB:
>
>SJ>"...So long as all of reality is natural, no other
>>limitations are imposed. Naturalists have in fact expressed a wide variety of
>>views, even to the point of developing a theistic naturalism."
>>("naturalism", Britannica.com, Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1999.
>>http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/6/0,5716,56426+1,00.html).
JR>This is a strange and interesting quote. I've never heard of any
>philosopher speaking (seriously or otherwise) of "theistic naturalism",).
Well John has heard of it now! Indeed that was the point of the quote.
TEs/ECs used to dismiss the term "theistic naturalism" as a fiction invented
by Phil Johnson, but now it has been used in *Encyclopaedia Britannica*,
that line of defence is no longer open to them.
AFAIK Johnson pioneered the term:
"There is even a theistic version of naturalism. This takes the form of
arguing that God refrains from interference with the natural realm, which is
the realm accessible to science. Naturalism in scientific explanation is thus
seen as appropriate for that activity, and as fully consistent with a robust
Christian theism in the metaphysical or religious realm. This
"accomodationist" position has been advanced by many scientists,
philosophers, and theologians. For convenience, and because it was cited as
authority by Howard Van Till in a previous debate on evolution and
creation, I will employ as a representative example a 1989 book by
Princeton Theological Seminary Professor Diogenes Allen, Christian Belief
in a Postmodern World: The Full Weight of Conviction. Allen explains that
`our natural sciences seek to describe and explain the relations between the
members of the universe, not their origin. The existence of the universe and
its basic constituents are taken for granted by our sciences.... When we
consider the whole of nature, the relations we find within nature cannot tell
us why the universe exists nor why it is the kind of universe it is. The
continuing increase of scientific knowledge, which discovers the relations
that exist within our universe, does not get us closer to an answer to either
question.' [6] (Allen D., "Christian Belief in a Postmodern World",
Westminster/John Knox Press: Louisville, 1989, p53)."
(Johnson P.E., "Evolution and Theistic Naturalism", Founder's Lectures,
Part 1, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1992.
http://www2.apologetics.org/articles/founder1.html)
So maybe it shows that he is starting to have an influence? Or maybe non-
theistic philosophers are reading some theistic/deistic evolutionists like
Ernan McMullin, Diogenes Allen, and Howard Van Till, etc, who deny that
God would (or even can) intervene His creation, and are drawing the same
conclusions as Johnson?
JR>>simply because it's taken to be an implicit contradiction in
>>terms.
Taken to its *ultimate* and *consistent* sense of the words, indeed it
might be. Arguably then so is "theistic evolution" or "evolutionary
creation". But as a description of those philosophers/ theologians/ scientists
who deny that God would (or even could) intervene supernaturally in His
creation, it is IMHO apt.
JR>While the EB author is right under weird definitions (namely, that one has a
>concept of God as a natural object, or a divine notion of nature [something
>like pantheism]), those definitions are nearly never used (because other
>terms are more suitable -- e.g., "pantheism").
Disagree. The quote says of "naturalism" that "So long as all of reality is
natural" (i.e. there in no supernatural intervention in nature), then "no other
limitations are imposed". It recognised that there are theists who believe
that there has been no "supernatural intervention in nature" (e.g. Bultmann,
and Peacocke), so it is correct when it says that "Naturalists have in fact
expressed a wide variety of views, even to the point of developing a theistic
naturalism."
Some theists like McMullin, Allen and Van Till, do not deny supernatural
intervention in the Biblical miracles, but everywhere else they do. They are
IMHO still theistic naturalists, but inconsistent ones.
JR>It reminds me of the issue : is "2 + 2 = 4" necessarily true? It seems so,
>and deeply clearly so. But this assumes (rightly) the common definitions of
>terms. Someone might mean by saying "2 + 2 = 4 is NOT necessarily true"
>simply that if we have a different meaning for any of the terms, that
>sentence may evaluate to a false proposition.
>
>This is right, but it's nonetheless true that the proposition in FACT
>expressed by "2 + 2 = 4" IS necessarily true.
See above. While maybe one cannot *consistently* be both a theist and a
naturalist, one can *inconsistently* be both.
The same apples to "theistic evolution". If each of these two terms are
given their strongest meaning one cannot *consistently* hold both.
JR>In the same way, "theistic naturalism" is self-contradictory, but only if
>one stays within the common range of definitions of "theism" and "nature".
Agreed that "`theistic naturalism' is self-contradictory". But that
does not stop theistic naturalists from *inconsistently* holding both
views.
JR>The concept expressed is incoherent; but if one adopts new definitions, so
>that the term "theistic naturalism" expresses a different concept, that
>other concept may not be incoherent at all. This will be confusing, though
>(substantial definition/language changes usually are, particularly when
>unnecessary or unannounced
In a sense John is right, if "theistic" and "naturalism" are taken to
their consistent and ultimate conclusions the term "theistic
naturalism" is "incoherent". But it is quite possible for theists (or
anyone else) to inconsistently hold an incoherent position.
Indeed, "theistic evolution", which is really "theistic *naturalistic*
evolution" is similarly ultimately incoherent, given the normal
meanings of both words these days.
JR>Thanks for the interesting quote, Steve.
John *thanking* me for a "quote"??? It must be Christmas! :-) Thanks
to John for his thanks.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"In some instances, the evidence for evolution is meager and/or equivocal.
Creationists focus attention on any tendency to acceptance of such
evidence carte blanche. Perhaps the greatest contribution creationists are
currently making to science is their recognition of "creeping dogmatism" in
the science of evolution Through their efforts, it is likely that science
textbooks in California will have to retreat from such dogmatic statements
as "Life began in the primordial sea at least three billion years ago." An
acceptable revision of this concept might be "Most scientists have
interpreted from the fossil record that life began in the primordial sea at
estimates exceeding three billion years ago." This is as it should be.
Absolutes have no place in science. The scientist should carefully avoid
dogmatic statements, couching all conclusions in relativistic terms. When
the scientist fails to do this, other members of the scientific community
must be ready to correct such errors. If evolutionists do not keep their own
house in order, the creationists stand ready to attack their veracity."
(Stansfield W.D., "The Science of Evolution", [1977], Macmillan: New
York NY, 1983, Eighth Printing, p11)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------