This forum was closed on October 1st, 2010. However, the archives are open to the public and filled with vast amounts of good reading and information for you to enjoy. If you wish to meet some Wardrobians, please visit the Into the Wardrobe Facebook group.

A discussion of the writings of Roy A. Clauser

A discussion of the writings of Roy A. Clauser

Postby mitchellmckain » May 13th, 2008, 6:14 am

mitchellmckain
 
Posts: 562
Joined: Jul 2007

Postby postodave » May 18th, 2008, 11:19 pm

So I drew my sword and got ready
But the lamb ran away with the crown
postodave
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 848
Joined: Oct 2004

Postby mitchellmckain » May 19th, 2008, 6:16 am

Just a quick note. I have read your responses. I think the best way to proceed is not to argue any of these points but to continue read and make my comments on the other writings of Clauser. This way I will be making the fullest engagement with his ideas and as a result will be "letting him address my concerns himself", so to speak.

I did read a bit of one of the articles by a collegue of Clouser that refuted some of his ideas and I could see that this person shared some of my own concerns.
mitchellmckain
 
Posts: 562
Joined: Jul 2007

Postby postodave » May 19th, 2008, 10:16 pm

Not a discussion then so much as a monologue. I will be interested in what you have to say but I fear you will continue tilting at windmills. As Ben has pointed out Clouser's style is very terse. In these short essays it is especially so. He does little more than hint at his position. Also you have to remember that Clouser is not trying to be original as a metaphysician; he is making a popular presentation of the ideas of Herman Dooyeweerd. He is probably more successful in doing this than any other writer at least when dealing with philosophical ideas. Because there is this huge metaphysical system in the background it is easy to miss what he is saying. I would strongly recommend a reading of Clouser's published books especially 'The Myth of Religious Neutrality' if you want to grasp the outline of his thought.

Among the essays I would suggest looking at the earlier ones which tend to be less terse and more painstaking. Really these formed the basis for the popular books while the later essays are often further popularizations or extensions of the material in the books. I would suggest that you take a look at the essay on Descartes and Heisenberg because that not only lays bare some of Clouser's thinking but at the end touches on an issue on which I know you have very definite views.

For a general outline of Herman Dooyeweerd's thinking you might like to try Andrew Basden's Dooyeweerd pages Clouser himself is quite open to being questioned. He answered some of my emails a few years ago and sent me one of his essays at a time when they were not on the net. I gather that these days he sometime lurks around the internet at thinknet
So I drew my sword and got ready
But the lamb ran away with the crown
postodave
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 848
Joined: Oct 2004

Postby mitchellmckain » May 20th, 2008, 4:24 am

mitchellmckain
 
Posts: 562
Joined: Jul 2007

Postby postodave » May 20th, 2008, 7:17 pm

So I drew my sword and got ready
But the lamb ran away with the crown
postodave
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 848
Joined: Oct 2004

Postby mitchellmckain » May 20th, 2008, 9:23 pm

mitchellmckain
 
Posts: 562
Joined: Jul 2007

Postby postodave » May 23rd, 2008, 11:37 pm

So I drew my sword and got ready
But the lamb ran away with the crown
postodave
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 848
Joined: Oct 2004

Postby mitchellmckain » May 25th, 2008, 6:14 am

mitchellmckain
 
Posts: 562
Joined: Jul 2007

Postby postodave » June 3rd, 2008, 9:11 am

Hi Mitch

Let me say at once that I have no problem with methodological naturalism. The idea of bringing God in as an alternative to a normal causal explanation is abhorrent to me even to the point that I suspect miracles are really God working through natural causes in ways we do not understand. If anything I would say it is the concept of God as a cause which breaches the boundary between science and religion and along with Clouser I would reject that concept as imprecise.

I have had some further thoughts on your concept of the divine which I has suggested redefining as ''Whatever human beings feel (or intuit) they ought to reach out towards' I wonder whether this definition more accurately fits the sacred rather than the divine. If you then put this definition of the divine alongside Clouser's definition of the divine you get some interesting results. In all of what are usually regarded as the higher religions the sacred and the divine are identified. This seems to be true not only in the theistic religions but also for the non theistic forms of Hinduism and Buddhism, for example the Theravada Buddhist regards Nirvana as divine and sacred. However when you look at pagan (pancosmistic) religion there is a disjunct and the beings regarded as sacred are often not divine as such. It also means an atheist could say, 'I regard matter as divine but not sacred and justice as sacred but not divine.' When an atheist says he is not religious he would then in fact simply be insisting on this disjunct between the sacred and the divine.

I hope your Son is well. On the way in which Medieval thought gives rise to modern science I strongly recommend 'For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery' by Rodney Starkey
So I drew my sword and got ready
But the lamb ran away with the crown
postodave
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 848
Joined: Oct 2004


Return to Religion, Science, and Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered members and 14 guests

cron