Re: A profound disturbance found in Yak butter.

Please excuse this slight detour, but I just wanted to stay in touch and to contribute to a thread with such a wonderful title about Yak butter.
   
  David, I wonder when your language sometimes verges upon (or reverts to) naturalism, even while your beliefs express something beyond the purely natural realm?
   
  You wrote:
  "the coherency of each belief system and the nature of each belief system's view of man and God." (italics mine)
   
  Isn't this a naturalistic view? Why isn't 'the nature of' anything banished from a theist's POV? It just seems to me that we are sometimes putting God in a box with our language, more than with our heart's desire.
   
  It appears to me, David, that you are, as a legal scientist, much less prone to naturalistic thinking than most natural scientists. The natural law versus positive law tradition, however, might have its own contribution to make to the issue of what constitutes non-natural (parts of) knowledge. Laws may come from God, from societies, or from (universal) logic (et al.) - can't they?
   
  Please clarify if this isn't ('the nature of') what you meant.
   
  Thanks,
   
  G. Arago
   
  p.s. already I listened to Glenn's interview from the ASA 2005 meeting, and appreciated his honesty and frankness. It seems there are questions of linguistics, hermeneutics, and reflexivity that are prominent even in the lives of scientists (e.g. geo-physicists) who make their living striving towards 'objectivity.' There seems to be ample, fruitful conversational ground between natural scientists, social scientists, humanitarians and theologians after all the arguing about myths, facts and values finally subsides into professional and personal responsibility to truth.

                
---------------------------------
Share your photos with the people who matter at Yahoo! Canada Photos
Received on Mon May 29 16:55:03 2006