Re: The naturalist Philosophy

From: jan@dekoning.ca
Date: Mon Sep 02 2002 - 16:42:06 EDT

  • Next message: Walter Hicks: "Re: Web Page reference"

    John Burgeson writes:

    > Jan wrote: "in my first year's
    > basic philosophy course I learned to divide "science"= (German
    > "Wissenschaft") in 14 categories, from Theology to Arithmetic, but all
    > bound
    > together by our relation or nob-relation to God: "From the heart are the
    > issues of life.""
    >
    > What I see here is simply a different definition of the word "science."
    > Using the word "science" to encompass all knowledge is OK, but then we
    > need a word for the part that has to do only with methodological
    > naturalistic investigations of the material world.

    Why? "naturalistic investigations" are based on a philosophy as well, a
    philosophy which is not Christian and has its own rules, rules which have
    pre-suppositions as well, only they are very much hidden. For example, the
    discusions on the age of the earth have several bases, depending on who you
    take as your pre-decesessor. Several take Aristotle, or Plato, or .... but
    all have pre-suppositions. "Naturalism" as such has a foundation as well,
    but now I get into a discussion for which I do not have the time at the
    moment. The closest description (in English) I know of, is Dooyeweerd's A
    New Critique. If you read Dutch, read Vollenhoven or any of his followers.

    Jan



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Sep 02 2002 - 16:56:06 EDT