Re: [asa] God as Cause

Gregory -

1st, I should point out to those on the list, as I did to you earlier, that I omitted a word in my post to which you replied. It should have read "It seems to me that many of your criticisms depend on an unnecessarily NARROIW understanding of what is natural." Perhaps you hadn't yet seen my correction when you sent your post.

You have both failed to clarify your own position and have misrepresented mine. I don't know what you mean by "natural" - i.e., what boundaries you think separate "natural phenomena" from "social, cultural or historical" phenomena. Are you making, e.g., the common distinction between "nature" and "history" so that before the appearance of humanity there was no history but only nature? Do you think that social, cultural and historical phenomena are non-natural, or not entirely natural, because they involve human beings who have a component (mind, soul, spirit...) which is in some sense supernatural? I am not trying to put words in your mouth. I just don't know what how you are using the word "natural" in distinction from those other terms.

When I say "natural" in such discussions I mean simply "what we can observe [in a broad sense] in the world." I do not mean "nature in that sense is all there is" or a simple materialism. In saying, e.g., that we can understand how we get our food through "natural processes" which can be explained "scientifically" i include both purely physical phenomena (weather, photosynthesis &c) which can be understood in terms of the physical sciences AND the activities of farmers, bakers, merchants &c which can be understood (though in different ways) by the "social" or "human" sciences. But I do not include the activity of God even though God is cooperating with all those agents. I also recognize that social, cultural and historical studies can help us to understand the sciences, both physical and social/human - but that doesn't change the fact that what all those sciences are studying is "nature" in the broad sense in which I use the term.

Very simply, "methodological naturalism" means that God is not to be used as an explanation. It does not involve any a priori understanding of what "nature" includes. After all, many things that today we consider "natural" - fields, quantum fluctuations, let alone the 10-dimensional spacetime of string theories - would probably have been considered "supernatural" by people of previous centuries. Our understanding of what "nature" includes grows with the course of scientific investigation - but it doesn't include God, and that for an excellent reason. Waiving for a moment my arguments for MN from a theology of the cross, there is the simple fact that no decent concept of "God" allows us to make controlled experiments on God.

On 2 of your other comments -

1) It's quite appropriate to "throw the burden" of explaining what you mean onto you. That's not a matter of advancing my argument, but of making it clear what your argument is.

2) I see nothing "condescending" in my post, & if there has been misunderstanding it may not be the fault of the one who is trying to understand.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Gregory Arago
  To: George Murphy ; David Campbell ; asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 11:11 AM
  Subject: Re: [asa] God as Cause

  Hello George,

  Throwing the burden back onto me doesn't help to win your (natural scientific) argument. Are you suggesting 'natural methods' are enough to understand human choice? I doubt it.

  Rather, the viewpoint I present is simply meant to provide balance against the naturalistic viewpoint that you (and many others at ASA) are presenting, as if 'natural methods' are enough to understand human choice, including human existence (via biological and cosmological evolution). Of course, there *is* a theological dimension to human choice and existence. But when you are willing to recognize that social, cultural and historical methods have/deserve their own sovereign academic place then we'll be getting somewhere. Why it seems you won't recognize the 'meta-natural presuppositions' that David O. speaks about is a mystery to me.

  Let's flip your statement to me around - "You speak [George] as if it were self evident that 'natural' realities are not part of the 'social, cultural and historical' world. Thus, many of your criticisms depend on an unnecessary understanding of what is society, culture and history." - Yeah, that's exactly what a non-natural scientist would say! :-)

  What I'm seeking is some kind of balance instead of pure condescension and misunderstanding.

  Gregory

  George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote:
    Gregory -

    You speak as if it were self evident that "social, cultural and historical" realities are not part of the natural world. It seems to me that many of your criticisms depend on an unnecessarily understanding of what is natural.

    Shalom
    George
    http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Gregory Arago
      To: David Campbell ; asa@calvin.edu
      Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 5:04 PM
      Subject: Re: [asa] God as Cause

      "Everyday experience also shows that the use of natural methods is quite practical for all sorts of things. You are using natural methods to find out what I am saying (e.g., reading email rather thanexpecting the Spirit to reveal my thoughts to you), yet you ought to evaluate my statements from a thoroughly theistic perspective." - David Campbell
       
      There are social, cultural and historical methods also for this task - 'natural methods' are not enough. Are they "quite practical for all sorts of things?" Yes. But still, natural methods are alone not enough.
       
      I would ask David C., on what scientific basis he makes the above claim? What 'science of everyday life' has he accessed to make this claim? Probably such a 'science' has escaped his mind.
       
      David Opderbeck's statement that "Belief in intentional action by autonomous agents requires some sort of meta-natural presuppositions" is right on the mark. The gigantic problem is that natural scientists will not (and possibly cannot) recognize it. They simply cannot 'get outside' of a naturalistic framework to assess it!

      "You are not just using natural methods. But you are using natural methods." - David C.
       
      Perhaps this was a typo?
       
      It is only the theology or the philosophy in/of people here at ASA that allows them to step outside of their naturalistic assumptions, cosmology included, to seek a balance whereby scientism isn't simply the norm.
       
      Arago

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  All new Yahoo! Mail -
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Get a sneak peak at messages with a handy reading pane.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Jan 10 12:50:59 2007