Thank you, Denyse, we continue to disagree, let me just suggest a third
possibility in response to one comment:
I have no difficulty assuming that there are so
many varieties of theistic evolutionism that I
lose the thread after a while. However, there IS
a thread. TE usually seems to mean that there is
no evidence for God's intelligence or agency in
the world we see. Faith is then an exercise in
irrational choice.
Here's a third possibility: what we have learned from science (e.g. about
fine tuning in the universe) does suggest purpose or "design" if you will.
But we don't need to assume that in order to produce good science. We do
need to ask that kind of question, however, if we want to place the universe
itself into a metaphysical framework; if we want to go "after physics"
(following Aristotle's use of the word metaphysics) into deeper inquiry.
This is only "irrational" by definitions given by positivists, whom the
modernist theologians followed to the letter. (Remember, my own book in
progress is about modernist scientists and theologians, I know a great deal
about them.) This is precisely what the "religion of science" is about.
And it's ironic that PJ seems to accept this definition of "irrational."
It is not "irrational" by less ideological definitions, to look for purpose
beyond science. The fundamental question of modern religion, IMO, precisely
this one: where/how/when to draw a line in the sand against reductionism.
PJ accepts the modernist definition of nonreason and draws his line within
science itself, using modernists categories. Frankly I applaud that, and
I'm watching it with much interest. But surely it is not "irrational" to
question the modernist definition itself, as an alternative way to procede.
The fact that PJ thinks that those of us who do that are either "irrational"
ourselves (thus accepting the modernist definition) or else we are
spiritually dangerous or we lack backbone or we just want to suck up to
science; this fact is what galls me. Why doesn't he just say that his
strategy is different, that he thinks ours has failed (just when it looks
like many others are starting to use it), or that he hasn't been convinced
we can succeed. Any such response would be fine.
It's the *tone* of the conversation emanating from his books that really
galls me. I think he wants it that way--and that galls me further. Doesn't
that bother you?
ted
Received on Fri Mar 12 09:58:52 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Mar 12 2004 - 09:58:53 EST