Dear Preston,
Your e-mail has so many statements that are muddled! I hope you will see why your suppositions are so
hard to interpret. They are one-sided at best, and hopefully you will realize that there is a better way to
look at these issues, and a more correct way to express the philosophical problems....
PJ: One thing that comes to mind is that theism has the advantage of being able to absorb the findings of
"naturalistic investigations" while naturalism can, at best, hope only to capture some of the ground held by
theism.
GG: This is a very practical problem, but not a very serious one in the grand scheme. Who cares if a body
of knowledge is not accommodating? I thought we were interested in whether it is better at explaining the
natural world. Theists have a difficult time explaining natural phenomena in any reasonable way
consistent with the facts of nature. Humans are a part of nature; theists have a hard time explaining human
nature to scientists who know better.
PJ: Here's what I mean: I'm told that a new subfield called "neurotheology" is now coming into being.
This field involves studying how people seem to be "wired" for religion-and the basic findings suggest
that, yes, at least some people seem to be neurologically (or otherwise) prone to be religious. Another
social scientific finding is that some personality types are more attracted to reli gious commitment and
thought than others. A third is that people, and especially men, tend to think about God the way they think
about their fathers.
The theist should have no problem accepting these findings. In the first case, it makes sense that a being
who, in one way or another, brought humans into existence would wire them in such a way that they would
be interested in him (the being). In the second case, the New Testament observes that, for whatever
reason, God gives some people a larger "measure of faith" than he gives to others. This finding about
personalities and faith seems to support that claim.
Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in
accordance with the measure of faith God has given you.
St. Paul, Letter to the Romans 12:3
In the third case, the New Testament encourages fathers to honor their children (a point of view that I
think is fairly unique in ancient literature). This psychological finding that children tend to think about
God as they think about their fathers might give us some insight into why the N.T. does that. In other
words, the theist can accept all these naturalistic findings and walk away, not with his worldview
challenged, but strengthened.
What would the naturalist who is unwilling to entertain the possibility of metaphysics do with these
findings?
GG: I am a scientist. I am deeply interested in metaphysics. You have made a grave error in judgment
assuming that biologists are not interested in metaphysics. In fact, it is upon the topic of metaphysics that
the entire conflict between evolution and religion hinges. Metaphysics is concerned with the question,
"what exists?"