Theistic realism

The introduction of this article does not provide enough context for readers unfamiliar with the subject. Please fix the introduction or article itself as you see fit, and remove this notice when you are finished.

Theistic realism is a philosophy based on the idea that God is real, acts in the universe, and is knowable through the senses and reason. As such, theistic realism stands as a middle ground between philosophical naturalism and fideism. While philosophical naturalism holds that the universe is self-explanatory, theistic realism holds that the universe can only be comprehensively explained with reference to God. While fideism holds that reason and evidence cannot lead to God, theistic realism holds that the design and works of God are manifestly evident in nature, particularly Creation, so that evidence and reason lead inevitably to belief in God.

The basic tenets of theistic realism have been held by a number of philosophers throughout time under different names and different degrees of sophistication. Many of its arguments were articulated by St. Paul in the biblical book of Romans. It was further systematized by St. Thomas Aquinas in the philosophy of Thomism. Later writers such as G.K. Chesterton and C.S. Lewis also held to many of its precepts. These ideas have recently been labeled "Theistic Realism" by a number of academics, including Phillip E. Johnson, Gerald L. Gutek, and professors at Baylor College of Medicine.

1 Tenets of theistic realism
2 Theistic realism in the Bible
3 Theistic realism in Thomism
4 Theistic realism and philosophical naturalism
5 Theistic realism and theistic naturalism
6 Minimal theistic realism
7 Criticism
8 External links
9 Sources

Tenets of theistic realism

Some of the basic tenets of theistic realism are as follows[1]:

Physical existence does not comprehensively explain itself. Rather, the universe is derivative of a deeper, ultimate reality — an aspect of God's creation, thus only part of it. Consequently, the laws of nature in our universe are not inviolable, and events appearing supernatural to us may be fully in accord with the deeper ultimate reality.[2]
Observable features of the physical universe imply that a nonphysical, mind-like reality is "behind" physical reality. Further, the universe appears to have been designed for the existence of human beings to be possible. Just as a person can reasonably infer from another person's actions that the other person has a mind capable of thought, feeling, reason, choice, and purpose, it is just as reasonable to infer from the existence, order, and intelligibility of physical reality that there is thought, feeling, reason, choice, and purposeful mind (God) behind it.
As stated on the Baylor course page: "Real science, as opposed to philosophical scientific materialism, cannot be and does not claim to be a comprehensive or exclusive source of knowledge about reality." Belief in God is not antiscientific or irrational, but stems from phenomena and experience which, although fully real, are beyond the realm of empirical science.
Ethics should be grounded in Moral objectivism. "What is" is not necessarily what "ought to be." "What ought to be" must be determined with reference to something beyond the material systems in which we live so as not to be self-referential and meaningless.
Human explanations for facts aspire to reflect the true facts, but are limited by our partial knowledge and error. Explanation of a physical systems must transcend the system itself so as not to be cannot be self-referential and meaningless.

Theistic realism in the Bible

In describing theistic realism in his book Reason in the Balance, Phillip E. Johnson grounded his argument in several verses in the New Testament of the Bible. Particularly:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being." John 1:1–3

"Ever since the creation of the world [God's] eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse; for though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools; and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling the mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles." Romans 1:20–23.

"The fear of God is the beginning of Wisdom." Proverbs 1:7

Theistic realism in Thomism

Theistic realism has also been described by Gerald L. Gutek as the synthesis of the Greek rational philosophy of Aristotle and Christian theology that was systematized in Thomism. According to Gutek, theistic realism draws from Christianity a belief in divine revelation, a divine creation of the world and humanity by God, and divine grace, while also drawing from the aristotelian ideas of teleology, empiricism, and rationality. Thus, to the theistic realist, the empirical and rational methods of aristotelean thought lead inevitably to belief in the Christian God.

Theistic realism and philosophical naturalism

Johnson argues that in the theistic worldview, true knowledge begins with acknowledging that we and the universe are created, and then progresses by exploring the nature of that creation, and through it, seek to understand God. By contrast, philosophical naturalism involves the rejection of that creator, therefore seeks to understand creation without reference to the creator, and therefore leads to inevitable failure.

Johnson argues that philosophical naturalism and theistic realism are diametrically opposed, because:

"Naturalistic evolutionary theory, as part of the grand metaphysical story of science, says that creation was by impersonal and unintelligent forces. The opposition between the biblical and naturalistic stories is fundamental, and neither side can compromise over it. To compromise is to surrender."

He clarifies further that:

"Naturalistic science tells us something completely different from what Romans 1 tells us, something that contradicts not just the Genesis account but the fundamental principle of creation that is the common ground of all creationists — Christian, Jewish, and Islamic. It tells us not that we collapse into intellectual futility and confusion when we discard the Creator as a remnant of prescientific superstition, but that it is precisely by the 'death of God' that humankind comes of age and becomes ready to receive the truth that Darwinism is all too ready to provide."

He concludes:

"Because in our universe experience unintelligent material processes do not create life, Christian theists know that Romans 1:20 is also true: 'Ever since the creation of the world God's eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made.' In other words, there is absolutely no mystery about why living organisms appear to be the products of intelligent creation, and why scientific naturalists have to work so hard to keep themselves from perceiving the obvious. The reason living things give that appearance is that they actually are what they appear to be, and this fact is evident to all who do not cloud their minds with naturalistic philosophy or some comparable drug."

Theistic realism and theistic naturalism

Johnson asserts that theistic naturalism is an effort by theists to accommodate to academia by "accepting not just the particular conclusions that scientists have reached by also the naturalistic methodology that generated those conclusions." In essence, theistic naturalists do science as though God didn't exist, but then hold "by faith" that he does. This reasoning draws a strict dichotomy between "faith" and "science" and allows for no overlap. Naturally, such a faith is irrelevant to science, and falls to Occam's razor. On the contrary, Johnson argues, Theism can only be rational when we allow for the possibility the God Does things.

Johnson argues that theories of biology grounded in theistic realism present a challenge to philosophical and theistic naturalism:

"I do not urge scientists to give up on any theory or research agenda until they themselves are convinced that further efforts would be fruitless. In view of the cultural importance of the naturalistic worldview, however, and its status as virtually the official philosophy of government and education, there is a need for informed outsiders to point out that claims are often made in the name of science that go far beyond the available evidence. The public needs to learn to discount those claims, and the scientists themselves need to learn how profoundly their interpretations of the evidence are influenced by their metaphysical preconceptions. IF the resulting embarrassment spurs scientists on to greater achievements, leading to a smashing vindication of their basic viewpoint, then so be it."

Minimal theistic realism

In God and Realism, Peter Byrne calls for "minimal theistic realism." According to Byrne, a minimal theistic realism does not address the issue of the existence of God. Instead,

"A minimal theistic realism is any interpretation of theism which holds that the governing intent of core theistic concepts is (or ought to be) to refer to a reality which is epistemically independent of human beings, ontologically distinct from them and transcendent" (p. 16).

To Byrne, this God need not be personal. Instead, he defines the Theos as "a moral and providential causality which transcends both the forces inherent in nature and the power in human action to promote the good and fight against evil" (p. 18).

Thus, to Byrne, the issue is not whether the language of belief successfully refers to a God or whether believers have epistemic access to God, but whether believers intend their concepts to refer to some providential and causal reality with transcends human beings.

Criticism

Theistic realism has been criticized on several grounds. Robert Pennock compared the application of theistic realism in science to its application in law.[3] If "supernaturalism" were admitted in law, he argues, the law would lose its meaning, because any possible explanation could be admitted. For example,

"How, for instance, could the legal system handle torts if it had to consider accusations that a defendant caused plaintiff's miscarriage by casting an evil eye, or hexed plaintiff's cow? We need only look to legal history to see the sorry effects of such a system."

Pennock argues that the legal system did once admit supernatural causes in the law, in the form of witch trials. Because there was no way to falsify such supernatural claims, he argues,

"'the situation of any person accused by malicious neighbors was regularly desperate.' (Shumaker 1972, p. 67) Is there any doubt that we may thank naturalistic science for bringing an end to the need to fear such "possibilities?"

Secondly, he argues, admitting theistic realism into science would a radical dismissal of the rules of evidence, with excessive reliance on the authority of the Bible. He compares such thinking to:

"St. Gregory's first Dialogue telling of a woman 'who thought she was eating lettuce but instead ate a devil in the form of a lettuce or, possibly, invisible within it.' (Shumaker 1972, p. 78) The authority of St. Gregory was supposed to be proof enough of this possible supernatural power. It was apparently inappropriate to ask, as Shumaker suggests a doubter today might, "How do you know it was the lettuce?" (Shumaker 1972, p. 79)

In response to Johnson's argument that allowing divine intervention would not allow unpredictable whimsy, Pennock challenges Johnson to identify an objective test for which types of intervention were "whimsy" and which were not.

Pennock them states a third prong in his critique of theistic realism, arguing that the "purpose" posited by Johnson cannot be determined. He writes:

"Consider the example mentioned in passing of Creationist Jerry Falwell's claim about the purpose of A.I.D.S.. How would Johnson's theistic science test the hypothesis that A.I.D.S. was created by God for the purpose of punishing homosexuals, drug-users and others for their sinful lifestyle? Naturalistic science simply proceeds by seeking a natural explanation and treats A.I.D.S. like other diseases and discovers that it is caused by the Human Imuno-Deficiency Virus, and nothing in its methodology allows it to test such moral or teleological hypotheses about God's possible purposes. The problem of the lettuce is particularly keen here and its implications particularly chilling."

Howard Van Till stated that while he agrees with theistic realists that God created the universe, Theistic realism erroneously attempts to translation "science gaps" — that is, gaps in our knowledge — into functional gaps, in which divine action inferred. He argues that the universe should instead be seen as having "robust and gapless formational economy."[4]

External links

Sources

Gerald L. Gutek, Philosophical and Ideological Perspectives on Education, Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1988.