Re: The naturalist Philosophy

From: jan@dekoning.ca
Date: Tue Sep 03 2002 - 21:29:03 EDT

  • Next message: jan@dekoning.ca: "Re: The naturalist Philosophy"

    D. F. Siemens, Jr. writes:

    etc.

    As I said before, explaining your objections, and explaining a Christian
    Philosophy took me a long time to learn. I cannot give a philosophy course
    here, I am sorry, but there are books of which I gave the titles which can
    do the job, though not quite as good as a good teacher. I do not have the
    time to go in detail answering objections, especially since my wife came
    home after having had a shoulder operation.

    Just a few remarks again. Mathematics is often said the base of physics
    etc. However there were in my time already three very distinct philosphies
    of mathematics, discussed by Vollenhoven in 1918: Empirism, Formalism, and
    Intuitionism (later after WWII, maybe earlier by some called
    constructivism). All of them have to discuss "time", which is maybe
    supposed to be without beginning and without end? That is in itself already
    a difficult thing to grasp, but which has a lot to do with Creation, and the
    Coming back of our Lord. This would make at least a fourth philosophy of
    math. These questions are not trivial, but are still discussed more or less
    by students and their teachers. I have helped three students who were very
    much interested in the subject, and produced theses on it.

    As doing physics without mathematics is very difficult, these different
    views on math have results in the philosophy of physics. Unfortunately,
    many people in physics do not realize the background of modern thinking, and
    thus the background of their assumptions, which most of us (myself included)
    accept without any questioning. I am more familiar with math, and I know
    that "new" math has results in other areas.

    In studying nature, there are things from which, I believe, investigators
    should stay away. For example, some research in biology involving embryos.
    Some students are paying the price already by refusing to be part of that.
    These are things which can be easily reasoned. It is much more difficult to
    show that much of modern research is motivated by men wanting to play God.
    That is not necessarily a naturalist attitude, but it does result in natural
    studies.

    I would love to give yet a course in Christian philosophy, but I am afaid
    that I could not keep it up, partly because of my age, and partly because of
    other commitments. At the Free University it used to be a prerequisite for
    any study field, that you take a two semester course in philosophy, one
    about the backgrounds of a Christian philospohy: there is nothing in
    creation of which Christ does not say "It is mine". Another about the
    history of philosphy showing the backgrounds of modern philosphies, going
    back to Greek philosophy and its influence in modern Western society. That
    does not only influence what you study but as well how you study it.

    I regret, that I simply do not have the time to go into detail upon your
    questions. I can point you to a book of essays in Honour of D.H.Th.
    Vollehoven, titled "the Idea of a Christian Philosophy." published by Wedge
    Publishing Foundation, at that time (1973) in Toronto. I don't think the
    company exists any longer, but maybe you can borrow it from some library. I
    have in the past pointed to the four-volume work of Dooyeweerd, with whom I
    don't agree in all respects, but who on many basic points says the same as
    Vollenhoven.

    Jan de Koning



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Sep 03 2002 - 22:56:25 EDT