George –
I’m walking the line, George, walking the line. Thanks for complimenting with a reference to Yeats!
Yes, I saw your ‘error’ message, but it seems the copy I read didn’t include the word ‘NARROW’ in it. So I posted in response to your initial reply. I don’t think a ‘narrow view of nature’ is accurate to describe my position, especially when it includes philosophical and sociological perspectives, in contrast to physics-oriented or theological formulations. Economists (or economic scientists as Nobel committee calls them) surely apply a narrower view of nature than both of us!
Let me address your points one by one:
“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?” – George
No, I am making the common distinction between ‘nature’ and ‘society’ and ‘culture.’ Of course, this is exactly the issue of contention – ‘common’ to you and yours is not necessarily ‘common’ to me and mine. So we hopefully can benefit from the differing background views that we respectively bring to the table.
“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?“ – George
The word ‘supernatural’ rarely enters my vocabulary, as it seems a yesteryear distinction that doesn’t resonate with young minds of today, except in special cases. ‘Transcendent’ might be more appropriate. But the point is simply that yes, ‘social’ and ‘cultural’ are by common definition *something else* than simply ‘natural.’ Human geographers in the UK express this quite accurately, distinguishing nature from society and culture. There was an anti-naturalism movement in social sciences that enabled (some of) them to ‘get outside’ of paradigms that reduce themselves to ‘natural explanations’ for all things. This is something that has impressed me especially at ASA – scientists defending the notion of ‘natural explanations only,’ while also going one step further to contend that those natural explanations are not in themselves holistic or complete for understanding humanity and our larger purpose. It is a paradox I have not yet fully grasped, perhaps because I am not a
natural scientist and find nothing unusual about involving my personal thoughts in research and investigations.
This leads us to a place where natural scientists and naturalists rarely do but simply *must* invite the views of non-natural scientists and non-naturalists to contribute to discourse that exceed simplistic views of nature as if culture and society (and other non-natural things) are encompassed by natural explanations. They are not.
“When I say "natural" in such discussions I mean simply "what we can observe [in a broad sense] in the world."“ – George
If you tie observation to nature, then I fear you’ll exclude all non-natural observations in your wake. I ‘observe’ non-natural things quite often. But I also feel, in a haptic sense, things that cannot be observed. Perhaps eye-based science and ear-based science are thus on a kind of collision course in our post-modern epoch.
“I do not mean "nature in that sense is all there is" or a simple materialism.” – George
Yes, and I appreciate your clarity and dedication to this approach.
“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.”
This reveals the differences in our respective approaches most clearly. First, that which “can be understood by the ‘social’ or ‘human’ sciences” must be understood from within, not from some outside opinion. It seems that your view of the social or human sciences is inadequate for displaying the contribution they can make to issues of creation, evolution and intelligent design, which seems to be one of the most important discourses within science and religion dialogue. Second, I do not ‘exclude’ the activity of God cooperating with human agents. This may seem a subtle difference but imo is quite significant. Perhaps we can overlap our talents when speaking about the imago Dei.
You protect the domain of science. Yet I am content to acknowledge the limitations of science and even present views that might be considered non-scientific (but not anti-scientific). The most important thing is: are they representing the truth? In this sense, I refuse to be contained by natural science, preferring to acknowledge the theistic dimension as just as real as Science. I believe in transcendence and in not reducing society, i.e. humanity as a whole, into categories that deny transcendence.
“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.” – George
Of course I would welcome your words about how social, cultural and historical studies help you as a theologian and physicist to understanding ‘the sciences,’ but I am not asking for or expecting that in this thread. Your view of the ‘fact’ that “what all those sciences are studying is ‘nature’” is unfortunately flawed and not representative of social and cultural thinkers. The topic is much more complex than how you make it out to be (check out, for example, Madonna’s song “Human Nature” – “And I’m not sorry, it’s human nature”). It indeed seems to be a broad sense of ‘nature’ as opposed to a narrower view of ‘nature’ that divides us. It would be a dead end to most of my studies and research if I simply concluded that social and cultural things were simply ‘natural’ and left it at that. There’s a lot more to this than it may appear, coming at it from another direction.
“Very simply, "methodological naturalism" means that God is not to be used as an explanation.” – George
If I understand your position on ‘methodological naturalism’ as meaning “that God is not to be used as an explanation,” then you are insisting that science and religion are fundamentally different. There cannot be a science of religion and there cannot be a religion of science. Scientific investigation is limited to studying what is ‘natural’ (defined very, very broadly) and cannot ever, ever exceed this constraint. Please correct me if I’ve stated the case too strongly as I don’t wish to misrepresent your position.
I do like the comment given by Steven Fuller to the effect that physics is no longer the guiding discipline in science and theology discourse, but rather biology. This was noted in the different positions taken by Kuhn and then by Popper. Physics does not match the complexity of biological reality, nor does the issue of anything but nuclear weapons (developed through the vision of physics) rival the urgency of discussion about things such as bio-technology, genetically-modified foods and genetic engineering. Even still more complex than biology, however, are the social sciences, which take into account the most complex things known in our universe: the human brain, free will and decision-making. When they are written off as simply ‘soft’ (though you didn’t say this) then that is what I mean by condescension.
Warm regards,
Gregory
p.s. in light of the most recent post, would be curious to hear what you make of McGrath's 'scientific theology'
“For the recognising of truth in the sphere of the mathematical or natural sciences the spiritual community of people is irrelevant. But this communalness has to be already the more noticeable, when the talk turns to the social sciences.” – Nikolai Berdyaev (“My Philosophic World-Outlook,” 1937/1952)
George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote: Gregory -
I don't expect you to "walk with light feet" but I do expect you to walk. Of course you are under no obligation to respond to everything (or indeed anything) in my post of 10 January. But the fact remains that you have not explained what you mean by "nature" or said whether or not you think God should be used as an element of explanation in the sciences - & by "sciences" there I mean the physical, biological, human & social sciences but not theology.
Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
Your closing sentence made me think that a line of Yeats, "Tread softy for you tread on my dreams," might be a good motto for the ID movement.
---------------------------------
Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Jan 12 14:08:05 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Jan 12 2007 - 14:08:05 EST