On Tue, 21 Dec 1999 22:35:11 -0600, John E. Rylander wrote:
[...]
>>>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",).
>SJ>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.
JR>You'll notice that the meaning used by the EB article refers to God as a
>natural object.
The EB article does not actually say that "God" is "a natural object". In
fact it does not even mention "God" at all.
What it does say is that: 1) all beings and events *in the universe*...are
natural (my emphasis); and 2) "naturalism denies the existence of truly
supernatural realities"
JR>That's not what Johnson is talking about at all.
Not really. The EB article continues:
"Strictly speaking, naturalism has no ontological preference; i.e., no bias
toward any particular set of categories of reality: dualism and monism,
atheism and theism, idealism and materialism are all per se compatible with
it. 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.
http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/6/0,5716,56426+1,00.html)
Thus the article does say that "theism" is "compatible with" naturalism, and
that there is "a theistic naturalism."
I do agree that the EB article seems to contradict itself, but I assume that is
because there are `strong' and `weak' versions of naturalism. A strong
version of naturalism would deny that there is a God. But a weak
naturalism would just deny God's intervention in the world.
Thus Geisler defines "Naturalism" as "Philosophical or metaphysical
naturalism refers to the view that nature is the "whole show." There is no
supernatural realm and/or intervention in the world " (Geisler N.L., "Baker
Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics", 1999, p521). Note the "and/or".
Over the page Geisler adds:
"Naturalistic views either admit that a deistic sort of God exists or deny
or doubt existence of any divine Being." (Geisler N.L., 1999, p522)
This is the sense in which Johnson uses "naturalism":
"Naturalism assumes the entire realm of nature to be a closed system of
material causes and effects, which cannot be influenced by anything from
"outside." Naturalism does not explicitly deny the mere existence of God,
but it does deny that a supernatural being could in any way influence
natural events, such as evolution, or communicate with natural creatures
like ourselves." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial", 1993, pp116-117).
In the case of Theistic Naturalists, some (e.g. Peacocke) do deny the
Biblical miracles and maybe supernatural revelation (at least as it is
normally understood). Others, like McMullin, Allan and Van Till AFAIK
do only deny God's supernatural intervention in the world (apart from at
least the more important Biblical miracles).
>SJ>AFAIK Johnson pioneered the term:
JR>Johnson coined yet another meaning.
AFAIK Johnson was the *first* to use the term "theistic naturalism". If
that is the case, then his meaning is the *original*.
JR>So there are three so far:
>
>(1) Standard/Incoherent: God (in the ordinary sense) exists, but only nature
>(in the ordinary sense) exists.
Is John saying this is the "Standard/Incoherent" view of "theistic naturalism"?
If so where did he get it from?
JR>(2) EB (quoting someone or other): God exists; but only nature exists, God
>being another purely natural entity. [Again, this could be a strange way of
>saying "pantheism", or it could be that God is just a complex organism,
>or..., but a very non-std defn of "God", "nature", or both. It's a free
>country.]
See above. I don't think the EB is saying that "God exists" - it doesn't
even mention God. But it does says that "naturalism denies the
existence of truly supernatural realities" but later on it says that
"Strictly speaking, naturalism has no ontological preference; i.e., no
bias toward any particular set of categories of reality: dualism and
monism, atheism and theism, idealism and materialism are all per se
compatible with it".
JR>(3) Johnson: God exists, and but never intervenes in nature. [Given
>Johnson's polemical irascibilityy
It is significant how evolutionists in general and John in particular, cannot
seem to hold to a rational argument without descending into ad hominems about
those who they disagree with!
Whether Johnson is irascible or not is *irrelevant* to the truth of what he
says.
But just in case it might be thought that I concede John's point, I definitely
do not. As well as all of Johnson's books and articles, I have many audio
and two video tapes. Only once on one of his audio tapes have I heard him
say anything which could be called "irascible". The fact is that Johnson has
been able to form personal friendships with atheists like William Provine
and Michael Ruse, and only a person of great personal graciousness could
manage that.
JR>iit sure seems, IMHO, he meant to connote
>(1) simply as an insult to those whom he labels.]
No. Theistic naturalism *exactly* describes those theists who believe that
a supernatural "God exists, and but never intervenes in nature".
JR>Only (1) would be standard philosophical usage, AFAIK, based on the std
>defns of "theistic" and "naturalism". (Of course, no one uses the ordinary
>words in tandem because they're incoherent that way.)
The fact is that the EB *has* now used "the ordinary words" `theistic' and
`naturalism' "in tandem"!
And agree that "theistic" and "naturalism" are *ultimately* incoherent. For
that matter so are "theistic" and "evolution", but that does not stop people
from trying to combine them together *inconsistently*.
JR>But people are free
>to make up their own definitions, so long as they're very clear about it.
Agreed. Johnson takes great pains to define his terms. Those who take the
trouble to actually read his works, would find that he is indeed "very clear
about" what he means by "theistic naturalism".
JR>But given that (1) utterly dominates ("theistic" and "naturalism" are
>extremely common words in philosophy), I'd suggest to coiners of (2) and (3)
>that they find other words simply to avoid completely needless confusion
>(and offense).
Words are changing all the time. Even the EB is now using the words
"theistic naturalism"!
And the words "theistic" and "evolution" each has a dominant meaning but
that does not stop theistic evolutionists from joining them together!
I am sure that evolutionists in general, and theistic evolutionists in
particular were to start using words clearly, carefully and consistently
(particularly the words "theistic", "evolution" and creation), then Johnson
would not even *need* to use the term "theistic naturalism" to describe
those theists who inconsistently adhere to a version of naturalism!
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"A favorite example of those trying to find evidence of self-organization is
the human eye. So exquisitely designed, with its adjustable lens and iris,
with its retina capable of rendering images better than any camera-the eye
surely could not have developed from the blind meanderings of evolution.
Or so it seems to Darwin's critics. The eighteenth-century theologian
William Paley considered the eye and other precisely engineered organs as
proof of an intelligent creator. But, again, one doesn't have to be a
creationist to have difficulty accepting that eyes arose purely from random
variation and selection." (Johnson G., "Fire in the Mind: Science, Faith, and
the Search for Order", [1995], Penguin Books: London, 1997, p267)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------