Talk:Theistic realism/Archive 1

message: Theistic realism is a very narrowly defined idea relating taking the theistic conceit to mean that one should do science with an acceptance of a theistic creator. As such, the following two antecedent ideas are seemingly oblique:
"Although not using the term "Theistic realism," many others have held to the same basic tenets.
:"The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'"  -- Psalm 14:1.
In the Timaeus, Plato wrote the following question and answer sometime around 350 BC.
:Is the world created or uncreated? -- that is the first question.
:Created, I reply, being visible and tangible and having a body, and therefore sensible; and if sensible, then created; and if created, made by a cause, and the cause is the ineffable father of all things, who had before him an eternal archetype."
I agree that these two quotes can be viewed as relevent to theistic realism, but they also can be viewed from the contrary position that they aren't dealing with science in the case of the Psalms quote and that they aren't dealing with theism in the case of the Plato quote. Since the article is devoted to basically outlining Johnson's argument, it seems a bit disingenuous to include these two bits. I think the Chesterton and the Bergman quotes are more in-line, though they could probably be editted down a bit and the stuff not relating directly to theistic realism could be removed. Please, Ungtss, consider this. Joshuaschroeder 19:32, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're right.  what do you think about moving them all over to wikiquote?  Ungtss 22:20, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Might be a good idea. Joshuaschroeder 00:17, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Antecedent ideas

message: Since two editors support the version with the rebuttal and only one supports the version without it, i placed the minority version on the "other page" of the twoversions tag.  Ungtss 20:51, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a unilateral invention of policy and I do not consider it legitimate. Joshuaschroeder 21:39, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: i think it has more support in policy and reason that "schroeder gets whatever he wants, whenever he wants it, no matter what anybody else thinks."  Ungtss 21:47, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like you're gearing up for a discussion of policy. That doesn't belong on this page, though. Joshuaschroeder 21:50, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, "Schroeder's views" are the only thing that belong here, on the page, or anywhere.  Ungtss 21:53, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if that's the case, this seems to be an indication of your agreement with me. Joshuaschroeder 21:56, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow.  just when i thought you couldn't make less sense.  Ungtss 21:58, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an incomplete sentence, Ungtss. It's nice you've decided to get all literary on the talkpage. Let me know when you're ready to get back to editting the encyclopedia. Joshuaschroeder 22:03, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: i've been trying to do that for months.  quit limiting articles to your pov and we'll start getting somewhere.  and incidentally, talkpages are conversational.  it's improper to use contractions in writing too, but that doesn't stop either of us.  Ungtss 22:06, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: twoversions

message: There were three distinct arguments made in the defense section. The ID argument clearly can be included above. The strawman argument can be addressed in the criticism section itself. The supernatural being natural argument needs to be rewritten if it is to be included in the article at all since it seems to be critiquing a notion of supernatural that no one holds to and isn't evinced in the article. Therefore it is submitted that the section is not needed. Furthermore, in the interest of maintaining a manageable style to the article, it is better to have a description of the topic and criticisms but no rebuttals since this would only encourage counterrebuttals and counter-counterrebuttals, etc. As it stands right now, there are good rebuttals for each of these arguments in the defense section, but rather than make a new section, I have reincorporated the rebuttals into the main body of the article. Joshuaschroeder 22:59, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: All of the above points have been addressed on this talkpage repeatedly.  Your repetition of them is a tactic to make it appear that i am reverting without justification.  i will not be drawn into more filibustering, and i will not allow you to pretend i have not obliterated your nonsense.  the rebuttal section is brief and to the point, and addresses points made in your personal research, unattributed, pov criticism section that are not brought up in the article.  Ungtss 23:03, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Is there justification for a defense section?

message: Restoring my 3rr notification.  you violated the 3RR, schroeder.  Would you like to revert your edit, or shall i report you to the admin noticeboard so you can have your 24 hour block?  Ungtss 23:00, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 3RR

message: Thank you, superchav.  your edits are excellent.  Ungtss 23:16, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Superchav

message: So I have made a new edit. I have done the following things:
#I have editted down a lot of Johnson's writings. Trying to be as concise as possible
#I have removed much of the reference to creationist argumentation against science. Theistic realism is about making an assumption about God a priori in scientific investigation. Specific creationist attacks on science are irrelelvent.
#I have removed the quotes from Psalms, Plato, Chesterton, and Bergman. The first two are discussed above. Chesterton is removed because he is talking about an inconsistency argument with respect to the folly of philosophy in general which is different from making an argument about theistic realism. Theistic realism does not hold that inconsistencies are okay -- in fact such a belief is attacked in the theistic naturalism section. Bergman is talking about the antecendents to creationism rather than theistic realism and so his stuff was removed. Thomism is appropriate and I added a few sentences illustrating why.
Joshuaschroeder 23:37, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Removal of the quotes is fine.  however, you did not "trim" johnson's quotes -- you gutted them, and removed the rebuttal again against a 3:1 vote against you.  Ungtss 23:39, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can explain point by point how I gutted them, that would be appreciated. I am trying to make things concise. Explanations for why a particular cut is a "gut" would be appreciated. Joshuaschroeder 23:46, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you justify the gutting?  Why is the text you're deleting not pertinent?  Ungtss 23:48, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can point out a problematic edit, I will happily justify it. Joshuaschroeder 23:56, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your problematic edits include removing a concise description of the idea from the first sentence, the removal of chunks of johnson quotes without any explanation whatsoever, and the deletion of a brief rebuttal section 3 editors support.  Ungtss 23:58, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So do you have any specific criticisms? I haven't removed the description at all. Since Johnson coined the phrase, he should be given credit up fron. I have removed "chunks" of quotes that were not directly relevent to theistic realism's description, more of just Johnson going off on a tirade. The rebuttal section has been retained in the main body of the article with the exception of the supernatural bit which is an argument based out of your own confusion. Joshuaschroeder 00:10, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: the first sentence as you've written it does not explain what TR is.  you have not explained why the chunks are not relevent, only repeatedly deleted them, and your view of the validity of the supernatural argument does not justify its deletion.  Ungtss 00:15, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New article version

message: look at superchav's approach, schroeder.  he is doing npov.  he's adding counterarguments and balancing, rather than censoring.  He is moving articles toward your pov without censoring.  Ungtss 00:20, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I look forward to hearing from superchav about what he thinks about this. Joshuaschroeder 00:30, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  paragon of npov. 

message: There are several articles on Wikipedia - all attributed to Johnson who lacks any qualifications about the subject that he is writing upon. He is a member of the Discovery Institute and both are supported by a man with deep pockets following his own agenda. All of this is being palmed off as a many sided mass movement when in reality it is all coming from one financier and his own sockpuppets who in turn have their own disciples spewing this stuff all over Wikipedia like weeds. Like weeds these articles need killing off to see if there are any plants worth saving among the growth of words. By the way, there is no such thing as "theistic realism", because theism is a belief in God and realism relates to physical reality. Reality and belief are not the same thing. What is known is provable. What is believed about God remains a belief that cannot be proved. MPLX/MH 19:04, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: THIS ARTICLE IS A DUPLICATION

message: I have done some more research on theistic realism. The following things need to be recognized:
1) It is an idea made up by Johnson. It needs to be not only explicit in this, but also clearly delineated as to why.
2) Those that support "theistic realism" do so because they support Johnson. There is no school of thought involving it. There is no such thing as "theistic realists". There are only Johnson-supporters.
3) While certain philosohpical arguments are connected, this idea is not the result of any culmination of thinking -- it is the result of one man's idea about the way the universe works.
We need to consider the following:
1) Does the article deserve to exist? As it is the opinion of Johnson and only referenced as such, maybe it should be merged with Johnson's works.
2) If the article does continue to exist, should it remain a Johnson quotemine? After all, this is an encyclopedia -- not a soapbox.
3) We need some more criticism from the faith-based side. There are a lot of people who disagree with Johnson from YECs to IDers to scientists. We need to be clear that this is a very MINORITY opinion.
Please comment as to whether we should remove the article altogether or merge. Thank you. Joshuaschroeder 01:21, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The page needs to be changed

message: Upon a check on [] (0 hits) and google (A mere 347 hits, mostly propaganda), it seems that this subject doesn't exist. My initial reaction is to either delete or merge with intelligent design. Bensaccount 01:46, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent point, Bensaccount. We might cite the deletion of Creation anthropology as good case-evidence for the removal of this. I have to admit, though, that Philip Johnson does use the coined term in his book. Is there Wikipedia policy that can help us on this? Joshuaschroeder 01:54, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: none that can help you.  Wikipedia:Importance is not policy, and google numbers mean nothing.  look at Wikipedia:VfD and see if this page fits any of those criteria.  Ungtss 04:34, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: We need to be clear that it is Johnson and not just a general “idea” that many ascribe to. Ungtss’ does not make this clear up front and therefore is no good. Here is my proposal:
:Theistic realism is a philosophical justification for intelligent design first coined by Phillip E. Johnson in his book, Reason in the Balance According to Johnson, true knowledge must begin with the acknowledgment of God as creator because he believes that the unifying characteristic of the universe is that it was created by God. Theistic realism, therefore, relies on a God that is real, personal, and acting in the world, through mechanistic creationism.
:Theistic realism is an attack on philosophical naturalism. To Johnson, any attempt to understand nature without acknowledging the creator is doomed to fail. As he and his supporters describe it, theistic realism holds that the universe and life cannot be explained completely naturalistically.
This is a concise and well-worded introduction that doesn’t step on anybody’s toes as far as I can tell. If you disagree, please state your disagreement and offer an edit to it. We are going to have to get rid of the introduction as Ungtss’ version has it because it doesn’t deal with Theistic Realism as an idea of Johnson’s but rather as a commonly held belief.
:my version stood for a month, and you have not articulated a single reason yours is better.  yours makes the intro very awkward -- instead of defining TR in the first sentence, it gives context which is secondary to the idea.  it muddles the intro, which, tho that is your goal, is not a goal consistent with wikipedia policy.  please explain why your new intro is better than the old one before making controversial edits.  Ungtss 21:09, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason this is better is because it states Johnson's involvement with the idea upfront. This is an absolute necessity since Johnson is the reason this article exists. Theistic reason is a philosophical justification for intelligent design. Maybe we could be more specific. Would you agree to "a philosophical justification for intelligent design based on belief in a God that acts in nature"? I'm willing to reword it if you think it is awkward, but the present intro does not seem to indicate this at all. Please tell me substantively what is awkwardly worded about the above introduction. Please let me know so we can work out an agreement. Joshuaschroeder 22:25, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: intro

message: Added:
: This is somewhat in contrast with the overall aims of the intelligent design movement. Johnson lies on the more creationist side of the movement, advocating for a connection between intelligent design and Christianity that certain others in the movement (notably Stephen Meyer) have tried to avoid.
We need to include this because it illustrates the novelty of Johnson’s argumentation. It is not a commonly held belief by any means.
:it is not novel.  it is as old as time.  creationists have two goals -- one for public schools and one for society generally.  ID arguments are for public schools -- the establishment clause requires it, and everybody recognizes that, including ICR.  but "neocreationism" takes place outside the schools, and that's what johnson and everybody else are doing.  it's not new.  it's old. Ungtss 21:09, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've changed it. Does this make more sense? Joshuaschroeder 22:26, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: scriptural basis

message: Completely removed unless you can offer actual proof that Johnson considers it antecedent.
:why not read the book and find out for yourself?  you might be a more useful editor if you actually knew what you were writing about.  Ungtss 21:09, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: and you might be a more useful editor if you knew a lick about science. But no matter, I read the book yesterday and am waiting for your response since Thomism does not play a major role in his development of the subject. Joshuaschroeder 22:31, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Thomism

message: Points, if relevant and not discussed, ‘’should’’ be included in the above article.
:points cannot be addressed in the main portion because you are addressing points beyond the scope of the book in your personal research essay.  i am trying to compromise and be reasonable by allowing you to directly break the rules in that case.  why do you insist on breaking the rules in every case, by not allowing a rebuttal to your personal research essay that goes way beyond the scope of theistic realism?
::It has become apparent to me that this article has become a personal crusade for you. I am going to put it up for VfD. Joshuaschroeder 22:33, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: as expected.  the article describes an idea promulgated by a published author clearly and concisely -- an idea that frightens you.  why wouldn't you vfd it?  Ungtss 22:40, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You inability to compromise is tiring and absurdist. Joshuaschroeder 22:52, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: compromise?  how can one compromise with "all of this needs to be deleted because i think it doesn't make sense" and breaks the 3rr against multiple editors to get what he wants, and when all that fails, he resorts to his umpeenth vfd?  Ungtss 23:06, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How can one compromise with a third-rate editor who makes frequent use of personal attacks on the talk page, pretends to be sole arbiter of the NPOV policy, insists on quoting large swathes of creationist propaganda, mindlessly reverts on a daily basis, and can't articulate reasons for making edits? Joshuaschroeder 23:12, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: that's what i've been trying to figure out.  except for one thing: he seems to be deleting cited, quoted creationist views from pages describing creationism, instead of adding them ... Ungtss 23:19, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rebuttal

message: Ungtss, riddly me this, did you read the book you cited? Are you certain it is talking about theistic realism from Johnson? I just got the book on reserve and will pick it up tomorrow from the library. Joshuaschroeder 23:49, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: i'm at the library now, and just inserted a summary of the pertinent points.  read it to your heart's content tomorrow.  maybe this time you'll add something, instead of deleting everything in sight?  Ungtss 00:21, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a bit on minimal theistic realism by byrne.  hope it's to your liking.  Ungtss 00:43, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: the fact that the same term is used for similar ideas means the idea is bigger than johnson, just as i attempted to reflect in the article, and it should therefore be portrayed as such.  Ungtss 02:08, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Did you read the book?