Re: [asa] Creation and Incarnation

Just to clarify the intent of a clumsy statement to which you rightly objected. My point simply was that the Holy Spirit works faith in believers but that we can't tell (by scientific means or otherwise) from the way a person acts & speaks whether she/he really does believe or is a hypocrite.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Gregory Arago
  To: Keith Miller ; American Scientific Affiliation ; George Murphy
  Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 2:26 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] Creation and Incarnation

  Welcome back, George. Thanks for re-involving the theological dimension, though it was surely already present in the contributions of scientifically-minded Christians in one way or another as well. Right? Well, so please excuse a slight objection to your message upon your return to discussion at the ASA on-line list.
   
  "All science can deal with is how a person behaves, not why a person behaves that way." - George Murphy
   
  This could be loosely compared with the difference the printing press made in the rise of the Protestant reformation in Europe - put a Bible in each person's hand and tell her or him to interpret for them-self instead of 'reading' the Bible through the authority of the Roman Catholic Church. The 'why' of a person's behaviour can be scientifically investigated by involving that person in the investigation, in the interpretation of the book of Scripture or the book of existence (to speak of more than just 'nature'). Physics and cosmology, of course, cannot do this. Biology, likewise, cannot do this. You can't speak to a gene or a star cluster in the same way that you can to a person. The observer effect transfers into social theory in a way that affects all of the social sciences (which do count as 'scientific' according to the ASA, see below).
   
  It seems to me that Keith Miller is right on clarity regarding this topic. He writes: "I would say that MN is descriptive of the natural and physical sciences. Other disciplines examine aspects of what it means to be human that enter the realm of values, meaning, and morality." Human behaviour is thus open to investigation, though perhaps in a different way than applying 'pure MN' (if David O. would entertain an adaptation on his theme).

  Likewise, when Keith speaks about a "unity of method to different disciplines," which "does not mean that disciplines do not have their own unique area of inquiry and their unique set of possible questions and answers," this leaves open respective space for dialogue where physical scientists are sometimes apt to close it on their social scientific colleagues regarding legitimacy/hierarchy. Recently popular Science Studies, which are demystifying science (i.e. lowering Science from its universalistic Enlightenment mantle), enables discussion between natural and physical scientists and social scientists to happen on a more level playing field. That shouldn't make any of the players mad or sad, though it appears to.
   
  Even when Keith writes, "Evolution is a valid term that can be applied to a wide range of disciplines," I am in agreement with him, and thus against the anti-evolutionists (especially in geology!). Still, I don't see how he can speak coherently about 'the evolution of culture' without deferring to theories in social sciences. When he writes, "Scientific methodology excludes appeals to supernatural agents simply because it has no way to test for the action of such agents," he is at least partially right and speaking carefully and helpfully as a natural scientist to non-natural scientists like me.
   
  Nevertheless, the action of human agents is 'testable,' and the spiritual dimension of human existence is 'confirmed,' included or presumed by most theists who are interested in dialogue between science, religion and philosophy. This doesn't mean people should put spirituality in a box, but it is one reason why I continue to think that social scientists, particularly anthropologists (and philosophers of anthropology), have much to contribute to discussion at ASA. Yet their contribution appears to be insignificant at ASA while the thematic stage is held by natural/physical scientists, allied with theologians. Meaning, value and morality, as Keith identifies them, are therefore lost to the discussion or accorded as only periphery concerns to the 'real' (natural) topics of interest.
   
  At the same time, George is right that a topic called "Creation and Incarnation" should keep on track with the theological dimension more closely. Perhaps I lost track since so many of the themes at ASA interweave in one way or another (and the three language Psalms from which I planned to quote here tonight is locked upstairs). I wonder if George thinks that sociology and psychology, for example, as disciplines in the contemporary academy, should also keep on track with the theological dimension more closely.
   
  If so, what is ASA doing about it? If not, why not?
   
  Greetings from the lakeside at a Christian Children's Camp in Finland,
   
  Gregory
   
  "Science is interpreted broadly to include anthropology, archeology, economics, engineering, history, mathematics, medicine, political science, psychology, and sociology as well as the generally recognized science disciplines. Philosophers and theologians who are interested in science are very welcome." - ASA

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  The best gets better. See why everyone is raving about the All-new Yahoo! Mail.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Aug 24 20:40:30 2006