Mark Harris as a Naturalistic Theist: The Perspective of the Model of Levels of Analysis

• Authors: Bylica Piotr
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

Presently, naturalistic theism is the dominant position in the debate on the relation between science and religion, defending a thesis that the conflict between science and religion is only an apparent one. Also, this version of theism accepts the naturalist assumptions behind contemporary science and attempts to reformulate the beliefs held within the traditional Christian theism in order to present the religious view of reality as not conflicting with the scientific picture of the world. Certain assumptions behind Mark Harris’s views on the relations between science and religion can be described as consistent with naturalistic theism. The model of levels of analysis helps to analyze the most important themes found within naturalistic theism and show how these are described in the works of Harris. The model facilitates the identification of the relations between particular kinds of assumptions behind the position taken from the point of view of naturalistic theism in the debate on the relation between science and religion. The list of most frequently recurring assumptions — that are also important in Harris’s writings — include: the general division of epistemic competence, which assumes theology (religion) to be competent in dealing with the metaphysical issues (Levels 1 and 2) and science to be the only one competent to deliver the empirical statements describing processes and entities found within the empirical sphere (Levels 4 and 5); the acceptance of the naturalistic assumptions behind contemporary science (Level 2) and skepticism toward the religious notions found in the traditional Christian theism describing supernatural interventions and toward the dualist interpretation of human soul (Level 3). This leads to the acceptance of purely scientific, naturalistic, explanations of the events found within the empirical sphere and to skepticism toward the literal meaning of descriptions of empirical events (Level 5) that are not consistent with the anti-interventionist assumptions behind science. Harris’s acceptance of naturalistic theism in terms of the relation between science and religion and his use of the techniques found in the modern biblical scholarship have led him to the ideas of plurality of meanings and the lack of one definite truth with respect to the specific issues he deals with. From the point of view of MLA it is the rejection of super-naturalistic assumptions of the traditional Christian theism and the acceptance of the naturalistic assumptions of science that seems to be the cause of lack of definite truth in his theological explanations.

Keywords

EN

theism; naturalism; naturalistic theism; science and religion; Mark Harris; biblical studies

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Zielonogórski. Instytut Filozofii
• Journal: Filozoficzne Aspekty Genezy
• Year: 2015
• Volume: 12
• Pages: 7-36

Contributors

author

Bylica Piotr

• Uniwersytet Zielonogórski

References

• Mark HARRIS, The Nature of Creation: Examining the Bible and Science, Acumen, Durham 2013.
• Jitse VAN DER MEER, “Review (Mark Harris, The Nature of Creation: Examining the Bible and Science, Acumen, Durham 2013)”, ESSSAT News & Reviews 2015, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 24-27.
• Piotr BYLICA, “Główne założenia i problemy teizmu naturalistycznego w sprawie relacji sfery nadprzyrodzonej i świata przyrodniczego”, in: Wiesław DYK (ed.), Sozologia systemowa: Biosfera. Człowiek i jego środowisko w aspekcie przyrodniczym, filozoficznym i teologicznym, vol. IV, Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Szczecińskiego, Szczecin 2014, pp. 55-95.
• http://www.blogs.hss.ed.ac.uk/science-and-religion/page/2/ (30.06.2014).
• Piotr BYLICA, “Levels of Analysis in Philosophy, Religion and Science”, Zygon 2015, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 304-328.
• Piotr BYLICA, “Zarys modelu poziomów analizy w badaniach relacji nauki i religii”, Filozoficzne Aspekty Genezy 2012, vol. 9, pp. 221-253.
• Ian G. BARBOUR, Myths, Models and Paradigms: A Comparative Study in Science and Religion, Harper & Row Publishers New York — Evanston — San Francisco — London 1974.
• Nancey C. MURPHY, “Theology and Science within a Lakatosian Program”, Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science 1999, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 629-642.
• Kazimierz JODKOWSKI, Metodologiczne aspekty kontrowersji ewolucjonizm-kreacjonizm, Realizm. Racjonalność. Relatywizm, vol. 35, Wyd. UMCS, Lublin 1998.
• Kazimierz JODKOWSKI, “NOMA, cudy i filtr eksplanacyjny”, Roczniki Filozoficzne 2005, vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 83-103.
• Kazimierz JODKOWSKI, “Epistemiczne układy odniesienia i «warunek Jodkowskiego»”, in: Anna LATAWIEC and Grzegorz BUGAJAK (eds.), Filozoficzne i naukowo-przyrodnicze elementy obrazu świata. T. 7, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Kardynała Stefana Wyszyńskiego, Warszawa 2005, pp. 108-123.
• Kazimierz JODKOWSKI, “Dlaczego kreacjonizm jest pseudonauką?”, in: Józef ZON (ed.), Pogranicza nauki. Protonauka — paranauka — pseudonauka, Wydawnictwo KUL, Lublin 2009, pp. 317-323.
• Arthur R. PEACOCKE, Paths from Science toward God: The End of All Our Exploring, Oneworld, Oxford 2001.
• Michał HELLER, “Chaos, Probability, and the Comprehensibility of the World”, in: Robert J. RUSSELL, Nancey MURPHY, and Arthur R. PEACOCKE (eds.), Chaos and Complexity, Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action, Vatican Observatory Publications and CTNS, Vatican — Berkeley 1995, pp. 107-121.
• Stanisław WSZOŁEK, “W obronie argumentu God of the gaps”, Zagadnienia Filozoficzne w Nauce 1999, vol. XXIII, pp. 103-118.
• Francisco J. AYALA, Am I a Monkey? Six Big Questions about Evolution, John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore 2010.
• Ian G. BARBOUR, When Science Meets Religion, Harper, San Francisco 2000.
• Ian G. BARBOUR, Issues in Science and Religion, Harper & Row, New York — Hagerstown — San Francisco — London 1971.
• John C. POLKINGHORNE, One World: Interaction of Science and Theology, Templeton Foundation Press, Philadelphia and London 2007.
• Kenneth R. MILLER, Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution, Cliff Street Books, New York 1999.
• Nicholas SAUNDERS, Divine Action and Modern Science, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2002.
• Dietrich BONHOEFFER, Letters and Papers from Prison: The Enlarged Edition, SCM Press, London, Letter to Eberhard Bethge, 29 May 1944.
• John C. POLKINGHORNE, Beyond Science: The Wider Human Context, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2002.
• Abp. Józef ŻYCIŃSKI, Bóg i ewolucja. Podstawowe pytania ewolucjonizmu chrześcijańskiego, Prace Wydziału Filozoficznego, vol. 89, Wyd. TN KUL, Lublin 2002.
• Mark HARRIS, “Does Jesus Have a Soul?: The Apollinarian Controversy Revisited”, in: Michael FULLER (ed.), The Concept of the Soul: Scientific and Religious Perspectives, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle upon Tyne 2014, pp. 75-81.
• Nancey MURPHY, “Divine Action in the Natural Order: Buridan’s Ass and Schӧdinger’s Cat”, in: Robert J. RUSSELL, Nancey MURPHY, and Arthur R. PEACOCKE (eds.), Chaos and Complexity, Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action, Vatican Observatory Publications and CTNS, Vatican — Berkeley 1995, pp. 325-358.
• Robert J. RUSSELL, “Special Providence and Genetic Mutation: A New Defense of Theistic Evolution”, in: Robert J. RUSSELL, William R. STOEGER, and Francisco AYALA (eds.), Molecular Biology, Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action, Vatican Observatory and CTNS, Rome — Berkeley 1998, pp. 191-223.
• Robert J. RUSSELL, “Divine Action and Quantum Mechanics: A Fresh Assessment”, in: Robert John RUSSELL, Philip CLAYTON, Kirk WEGTER-MCNELLY, and John C. POLKINGHORNE (eds.), Quantum Mechanics, Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action, Vatican Observatory Publications, Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences Vatican City State — Berkeley 2001, pp. 293-328.
• Robert John RUSSELL, Cosmology: From Alpha to Omega: The Creative Mutual Interaction of Theology and Science, Theology and the Sciences, Fortress Press, Minneapolis 2008.
• Thomas F. TRACY, “Particular Providence and the God of the Gap”, in: Robert J. RUSSELL, Nancey MURPHY, and Arthur R. PEACOCKE (eds.), Chaos and Complexity, Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action, Vatican Observatory Publications and CTNS, Vatican — Berkeley 1995, pp. 289-324.
• George ELLIS, “Ordinary and Extraordinary Divine Action: The Nexus of Interaction”, in: Robert J. RUSSELL, Nancey MURPHY, and Arthur R. PEACOCKE (eds.), Chaos and Complexity, Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action, Vatican Observatory Publications and CTNS, Vatican — Berkeley 1995, pp. 359-396.
• Arthur R. PEACOCKE, “God’s Interaction with the World: The Implications of Deterministic «Chaos» and of Interconnected and Interdependent Complexity”, in: Robert J. RUSSELL, Nancey MURPHY, and Arthur R. PEACOCKE (eds.), Chaos and Complexity, Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action, Vatican Observatory Publications and CTNS, Vatican — Berkeley 1995, pp. 263-288.
• John C. POLKINGHORNE, Science and Providence: God’s Interaction with the World, New Science Library, Shambala — Boston 1989.
• John POLKINGHORNE, “The Metaphysics of Divine Action”, in: Robert J. RUSSELL, Nancey MURPHY, and Arthur R. PEACOCKE (eds.), Chaos and Complexity, Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action, Vatican Observatory Publications and CTNS, Vatican — Berkeley 1995, pp. 147-156.
• Clive S. LEWIS, Miracles: A Preliminary Study, Collins, Glasgow 1977 (1st ed. 1947).
• Clive S. LEWIS, “Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism”, in: Clive S. LEWIS, The Seeing Eye: And Other Selected Essays from Christian Reflections, Ballantine Books, New York 1986, pp. 203-223.
• Clive S. LEWIS, “Miracles”, in: Clive S. LEWIS, The Grand Miracle: And Other Selected Essays on Theology and Ethics from God in the Dock, Ballantine Books, New York 1983.
• Alvin PLANTINGA, “Divine Action in the World (Synopsis)”, Ratio (New Series) 2006, vol. 19, pp. 495-504.
• Alvin PLANTINGA, “Two (or More) Kinds of Scripture Scholarship”, Modern Theology 1998, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 243- 278.
• Alvin PLANTINGA, “What Is «Intervention»?”, Theology and Science 2008, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 369-401.
• Mark HARRIS, “How Did Moses Part the Red Sea?: Science as Salvation in the Exodus Tradition”, in: Axel GRAUPNER and Michael WOLTER (eds.), Moses in Biblical and Extra-Biblical Traditions, de Gruyter, Berlin — New York 2007, pp. 5-31.
• Mark HARRIS, “Will Resurrection Be a Law of Nature?: Science as Divine Action at the End of the World”, in: Louise HICKMAN (ed.), Chance or Providence?: Religious Perspectives on Divine Action, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle upon Tyne 2014, pp. 21-44.
• William JOHNSTONE, “Review of Humphrey’s The Miracles of Exodus”, Journal of Semitic Studies 2005, no. 50, pp. 373-379.
• Mark HARRIS, “Science, Scripture, and the Hermeneutics of Ascension”, Theology and Science 2014, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 201-215.
• Ian G. BARBOUR (ed.), Science and Religion: New Perspectives on the Dialogue, Harper & Row, New York — Evanston — London 1968.