Re: Occam and FGC
Thu, 8 Apr 1999 13:28:22 -0500

Once one steps out of philosophical naturalism, then,
as you say, Occam's razor cuts in a different way. That
is because FGC is a double vision, nature itself is
endowed by God (and, among other things, we are
intended to be stewards). I predict that philosophical
naturalists will be attracted to FGC as their philosophy
becomes less tenable.

But how do you convince the phil. naturalist to abandon
phil. naturalism? Here, ID and (what I called) paradoxical
naturalism pertain. Each challenges philosophical naturalism
on its own turf. ID points out irreducible complexity.
Paradoxical nat.ism argues that, from a natural perspective,
the religious impulse itself is intrinsic to human nature.
I don't think that FGC, as a philosophical statement,
does what ID and paradoxical nat.ism do.

ID flows from the same double vision that FGC
(fully gifted creation) but they are different approaches.
Paradox naturalism, it seems to me, would be a research
program within the venue of FGC. (David Campbell) on 04/08/99 10:06:16 AM


cc: (bcc: John R Zimmer/Rush/RSH)

Subject: Occam and FGC

>I learned a lot in the recent exchange and I would like to share my
>thoughts. When considering the concepts of intelligent design (ID) and
>fully gifted creation (FGC), one must keep in mind that the disconfirming
>other is the philosophical naturalist, who will dismiss the former as
>'unwarranted conclusions based on insufficient data' and the latter under
>the principle of Occam's razor.

Although that approach is taken by some philosophical naturalists, I see
Occam cutting their way as well. God's intent for us to serve as stewards
of creation explains why natural laws are comprehensible and suited for our
existence, whereas philosophical naturalism relies on a lot of ad hoc
statements of "that's the way things are".

David C.