Glenn wrote:
"I am unsure of your definition of naturalist. If you use the 19th
century definition, then I am. I have rather large collection of
fossils and ethnological artifacts from around the world (my wife
makes me keep them in my office/library). I have 8 masks from around
the world, a slingshot carved into the shape of a female from the
Thai forest peoples, I have various Buddhist paraphenalia, some folk
scultures of various gods, shoes belonging to a woman with bound
feet, a cap worn by childrend in China to protect them from demons
(the hat looks like a demon) and various musical instruments from
China and prayer wheels from Tibet. In that sense, I am a naturalist.
However, I suspect you might be speaking of my world view as in
naturalistic philosophy. I would not qualify for that as I believe
in miracles. I do however believe that one should strive for truth,
and by truth, I mean verifiable truth. Truths, which are made up
internal to one's mind and which can't be tested against anything,
may be true, but we will never KNOW that they are true. In that
sense, I am a naturalist since I believe natural explanations are the
only ones which can be tested against reality. And if we are not
looking for reality, the only other alternative is to say we are
looking for non-reality." - GRM
Glad you've raised this point Glenn. Is it o.k. to start another
thread, since my questions seem to veer away from the 'Neolithic
Adam' question? If so, then I've shifted the focus here to try to
unpack and have a closer look at what you've suggested.
If collecting fossils and artefacts qualifies one as a
'naturalist', then I suppose many on the ASA list would be considered
naturalists, even if they have not travelled as much (or collected as
much!) as Glenn has. Geographers, geologists, botanists would perhaps
travel a lot also, while physicists, cosmologists and mathematicians
have lower requirements for travel. This message comes from a
sociologist who is currently on a journey. Lamplighters (I'm reminded
of 'The Little Prince') on the other hand, don't travel much at all!
Travel and collecting, even curiosity itself, however, doesn't
qualify one as a naturalist today. Here I agree with Glenn completely
(if I properly understand his message).
In the second paragraph above, I am confused by the language.
First, Glenn says he is not a naturalist as in 'naturalist
philosophy,' for the simple reason that he believes in miracles
(which the vast majority, if not all Christians do as well, granted
in different ways). Later, he writes the following, which I think is
worthy of highlighting:
"I am a naturalist since I believe natural explanations are the
only ones which can be tested against reality. And if we are not
looking for reality, the only other alternative is to say we are
looking for non-reality." - Glenn Morton
Not wanting to get into demarcationist-speak, i.e. Popper and Kuhn
and philosophy of science twirl (please excuse that I've heard a
particular variety of HPS all too often recently, and would suggest
some varieties of HPS are a kind of cul-de-sac of thought rather than
being fruitful), doesn't Glenn's view of 'nature' and what is
considered 'natural' seem a bit skewed or somehow missing something?
Doesn't such an approach simply posit natural = reality or 'can be
tested'? Isn't this a form of reductionism that disqualifies the
possibility of (a) certain important meanings for human existence?
This is my direct question to natural scientists on this list: Can
a natural scientist avoid being a naturalist, and if so, how? What
I'm getting at here is that even if one is a naturalist (c.f. natural
scientist) in the laboratory, on collecting excursions, or fact-
finding missions, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are all of a
sudden aphilosophical or aspiritual, that they check their world view
at the door, i.e. that they are unreflexive.
It might help Glenn to gravitate toward what I'm implying if I
disagree that 'nature' is the only reality. Nature is not the only
reality - does it even sound somehow 'unnatural' (or uncomfortable)
for me to say that? There are indeed other alternatives which,
however, require a new vocabulary to be able to entertain them as a
legitimate possibility.
The point is that we don't need to 'look for non-reality,' but
rather for something that simlpy doesn't fall within (or isn't
dominated by) a 'naturalistic' paradigm - e.g. 'the nature of things'
is all there is. 'Naturalism' is what Glenn seems to want to avoid,
at the same time admitting that nature *is* (in fact) reality, the
only reality. Or am I misreading him here?
Secondly, could we please have a definition or meaning of the term
'anthrospeak'? Certainly I don't consider that 'all views are created
equal' - that would be perceptually relativistic! When I wrote that
people need "to discover ‘when Adam is’ – in her or his own heart or
mind, in a laboratory, at the library, or on a field trip or
expedition," I meant that hermeneutics must be included and not
discarded under the guise of some kind of positivistic or
objectivistic view of reality or science. It is the personal
discovery of Adam and Eve, just as it is the personal discovery of
(relation with) Christ that matters, not the hard rocks evidence of
physics and biology.
The language of "Either there was an Adam or there wasn't" seems
to me to be something of the past (i.e. a modernist view - please
note that I am born into a post-modern generation). It begs for
conflict instead of dialogue and understanding. It divides rather
than unites (with us or against us). It is not fuzzy logic to
acknowledge diversity and pluralism. Instead, it is a reality of our
current age. And if people are discussing 'When Adam Is' instead of
denying him/us through a naturalistic/evolutionistic/scientistic/
materialistic paradigm, then I think humanity will be better for it.
The topic of an original human pair can be at the heart of our
wold view, or it can be rather on the periphery. All the while,
involving personal views (this seems not to be what Glenn means by
anthrospeak) is important to ('the nature of') science, philosophy
and theology alike.
Probably the above is a bit rambling, but if you find something
worth picking up there, then please don't drop it but help me to
realize and to clarify my own views as well (for I am not a finished
or infallible product either)!
Arago
Glenn Morton <glennmorton@entouch.net> wrote:
Dear Glenn,
> While I don’t condone your outdated andropocentric language (e.g.
> ‘we men,’ as if no women are significant or present, e.g. Janice et
> al.) or old school approach to contemporary science and religion
> dialogue, I do think at least one formulation in your message is
> quite delicious and worthy of elaboration.
I don't live in a world of political correctness or even one of
daintiness. Ever worked with a driller (man or woman of course)?
> Glenn wrote: ‘When Adam is.’ Not ‘when Adam was’ or ‘when Adam
> could be.’ Can it really have been said so simply and superbly?
> This trio of words could (if it would) turn into a sort of ‘theme
> song’ for philosophers, anthropologists, psychologists,
> sociologists and theologians to indeed come together in questioning
> topics such as ‘consciousness,’ ‘identity,’ ‘original (self)-
> awareness,’ and ‘common descent’ from a non-origins-of-life
> perspective. Why? Because human-social sciences do not deal
> primarily with such empirical-quantitative measures as natural
> sciences adhere to in their disciplinary policy manuals (c.f.
> 'modern' science). Origins, meaning, purpose and teleology are
> indeed significant to human-social sciences – and yet many social
> scientists have forgotten or marginalized these things, in part due
> to evolutionary logic based on materialism and scientism. The fact
> in this case is that we can’t blame naturalists as being anti-
> origins, anti-meaning, anti-purpose or anti-teleology because the
> author of the statement ‘When Adam Is’ is apparently a (type of)
> naturalist himself! I am left
wondering if the author’s view of anthropology includes cultural
and/or linguistic anthropology or simply physical anthropology?
GRM:I loved the question!!! O course it may be due to you not
looking at the things I have written very closely. I have web pages
on linguistic anthropology http://home.entouch.net/dmd/babel.htm. The
previous Pathway paper is entitled, The Origin of Language, and I
have a paper in the PSCF reporting on some linquistic anthro issues,
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2002/PSCF9-02Morton.pdf so, I think I
cover linguistic anthropology
And I do have lots of info on ethnology and cultural anthropology
(not as much as physical), I do view anthropology as including those
fields. But like anything, one can't be expert in everything so one
must pick and chose his areas. However, I would point out that I have
made some posts on cultural anthropology, looking at some of the
customs of the Scots and the Chinese. Look up my post, Night of the
Xi, which is an account of one of the most interesting nights I spent
in Beijing. You might also look up an earlier post on getting a
haircut in China.
I am unsure of your definition of naturalist. If you use the 19th
century definition, then I am. I have rather large collection of
fossils and ethnological artifacts from around the world (my wife
makes me keep them in my office/library). I have 8 masks from around
the world, a slingshot carved into the shape of a female from the
Thai forest peoples, I have various Buddhist paraphenalia, some folk
scultures of various gods, shoes belonging to a woman with bound
feet, a cap worn by childrend in China to protect them from demons
(the hat looks like a demon) and various musical instruments from
China and prayer wheels from Tibet. In that sense, I am a naturalist.
However, I suspect you might be speaking of my world view as in
naturalistic philosophy. I would not qualify for that as I believe
in miracles. I do however believe that one should strive for truth,
and by truth, I mean verifiable truth. Truths, which are made up
internal to one's mind and which can't be tested against anything,
may be true, but we will never KNOW that they are true. In that
sense, I am a naturalist since I believe natural explanations are the
only ones which can be tested against reality. And if we are not
looking for reality, the only other alternative is to say we are
looking for non-reality.
> Nevertheless, what a wonderful mix of ontology, epistemology, space
> and time, simplicity and complexity, historical realism, social
> understanding and individual meaning this _expression by Glenn
> brings! It simply beckons the import of hermenuetics!
GRM: Thank you, I lay out my hermeneutics in the first paper in
the series, HOwever since we are speaking anthrospeak I would note
this, traditionally hermeneutics are rules written by the powerful
elites who don't want the repressed to interpret things differently
or in a novel fashion. Such rules are used to repress free thought
and ensure neoconservative elite power preservation!! How is that for
a post-modern statement of cultural anthropological relativism! Hope
you enjoyed that brief moment of anthrospeak.
BTW, while I never had formal education in geology, I actually
did have formal education in anthropology--physical as well as a
course in stone tools
> The responsibility really belongs to all scientists, scholars and
> everyday people to discover ‘when Adam is’ – in her or his own
> heart or mind, in a laboratory, at the library, or on a field trip
> or expedition!
Well, this is true anthro-speak. It is why I left philosophy
grad school because there was simply too much of this view that all
views are created equal--except of course, when they violate
political correctness. I would suggest, we are all allowed to have
our own personal private interpretation of the facts, but only the
delusional have their own personal private set of facts. Either
there was an Adam or there wasn't. Fuzzy logic doesn't apply here.
> Arthur Custance’s notion of a ‘second Adam’ then adds urgency to re-
> including discourse about Adam beyond the confines of the
> evolutionary paradigm.
Custance does have some interesting ideas of Adam, but Custance
didn't have the genetic information available to him that we do
today. He knew nothing of the chromosomal similarities to the chimps,
he knew nothing of the pseudogenes that unite us to the apes. His
separation of Adam actually ignored information available in that
day, that the personality doesn't lie in the cell. Thus, any
apologetics today which fails to be evolutionary, is doing what I
simply detest among Christians--stopping up the ears so that no
contradictory evidence can be heard. See Morton's Demon for this
phenomenon. http://home.entouch.net/dmd/mortonsdemon.htm
glenn
They're Here: The Pathway Papers
Foundation, Fall, and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
---------------------------------
Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email
the boot with 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 Tue Oct 31 22:49:07 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Oct 31 2006 - 22:49:07 EST