This feedback mechanism is the most natural and convincing argument for the claim that there is a world that causes our experience. It is also the best and most natural reason for thinking of truth as the correspondence between what we say and the way this world works. Of course, our more interesting and important inquiries are rarely corrected by correspondence considerations; rather they depend on coherence, pragmatic, and aesthetic criteria. But the meaning of truth is simply correspondence in the common-sense sense. This was a point of disagreement between C.S. Peirce (who affirmed it) and William James (who denied it), leading Peirce to rename his philosophical position "pragmaticism"an uglier name, he thought, would dissuade people like his friend James from stealing it.
At bottom, the attack of the New Atheists against religion and Christianity is not the voice of reason against irrational faith. It is a spiritual battle–the preachers of one religion challenging other religions with the goal of proselytizing those whose faith they can shake. When their rhetoric is irrational, heated, slanderous, and derisive, they look like religious fundamentalists on a crusade against those whom they regard as benighted and dangerous infidels. Christians ought not to respond in kind but with the truth in love. Our reply should be rational even if it is not rationally compelling. By God’s grace it might become existentially compelling for some scientific naturalists.
Recommended Reading: Philosophical Naturalism, ed
The counter-challenge to scientific naturalism is not mounted by Christians alone. Generations of thinkers from many perspectives have argued that science neither establishes nor favors naturalism’s atheism, materialistic anthropology, or reductive view of religion. I merely summarize the well-known critique. With respect to God, science cannot justify atheistic naturalism because naturalism is a worldview whose basic claims cannot be empirically tested and are not entailed by established facts. Furthermore, naturalism seems insufficient to explain the origin and nature of the world as we know it. In fact the current scientific world-picture provides a basis for forceful theistic arguments. With respect to human nature, developments in computing, genetics, and neuroscience do not corroborate physicalism, which is likewise not an empirical but a metaphysical thesis. In fact the results of these sciences are consistent with an array of philosophies of mind, including substance dualism and spiritual monism. In sum, a broad coalition of philosophers have concluded that current science does not vindicate naturalism or any other position inconsistent with the existence of God or the Christian faith. Some critics even charge that naturalism’s evolutionistic epistemology undercuts it because, according to its own account, knowledge of truth is not a capacity for which evolution has selected.
not dealing with consequences on one's ..
For Griffin, panentheism and naturalismppp finally solve the theodicy problem, for they hold that divine power is persuasive power, rather than omnipotent coercive power. This explains how evil can exist at the same time as a God who is good. In being a non-supernaturalist understanding of God, panentheism avoids many of the arguments against the existence of God and provides new reasons for affirming God’s existence as the reality behind human religious experience. This view of naturalism also protects divine causation, a necessary element for affirming Griffin’s primary doctrines of Christianity. For Griffin, naturalismppp finally provides an integrated worldview in which the truths of naturalism and Christianity are upheld.
Naturalism and Pragmatism - Boston University
Griffin locates the main distortion of Christian truth in the doctrine of for which Griffin argues there is no scriptural basis. Developed in the second century CE in response to Marcion Gnostic theology, was originally a defense of the essential goodness of the created world. When Marcion argued that the world, which was eternal, was created out of evil matter, Christian theologians responded by denying that matter was eternal and instead asserted that the world was created from nothing. This then placed full responsibility for the creation and nature of the world on an omnipotent and good God, directly leading to Christianity’s struggle with theodicy for the next eighteen centuries. Griffin argues that in attempting to address the problem of evil, Christian theologians have not been able to account adequately for human free will. Other distortions of Christian truth Griffin credits to the doctrine are the alignment of Christianity with the status quo (denying the primary doctrine that God desires justice for humanity), the assertion of the exclusivity of Christian truth (denying God’s love for all of humanity), and the development of a supernaturalistic Christology which Griffin identifies as a main contributing factor to the Crusades and Christianity’s charge of deicide against the Jews.