Re: [asa] God as Cause

> Nature is not a 'thing-in-itself' but is rather mediated, a human-social
> construction. In this sense I would agree with A. McGrath that accepting
> nature as a neutral starting point for understanding the sciences is
> misleading. It is being suggested that I hold a 'narrow' view of nature (and
> I guess this would then apply to virtually *all* non-natural scientists and
> scholars!), then perhaps the opposite holds true for many here at ASA: too
> 'w-i-d-e' a view of n-a-t-u-r-e. Sometimes Christian natural scientists'
> view of nature seems to show that 'natural' (science) is swallowing up their
> 'theology!' In an epoch of hyper-science, this phenomenon is not difficult
> to imagine.

Apart from the question of philosophical associations, I think there
are two fairly distinct definitions of nature being confused in the
discussion. Nature is perhaps most frequently thought of as "things
outside of human agency". "Natural" foods, nature preserves, etc.
exemplify this usage. However, in the context of discussing God's
action, the concept of natural as opposed to supernatural is more
relevant. It's important to recognize that the distinction is not of
great theological importance; God is sovereign over what happens no
matter whether secondary causes are involved. Rather, it is a
practical difference-do the regularly observed patterns in the working
of creation hold true here?

> This is precisely the problem it seems Bill Green has had with the responses
> in this thread in distinguishing exactly how God's divine action can be
> understood apart from/through nature

Part of the problem is that this may be approached as if it were a
scientific question. We don't know just how God interacts with
creation in terms of physical parametes, but we can make some general
statments based on the Bible. E.g., God is in control of everything
yet distinct from it; the origin and moment to moment existence of
everything is dependant on Him; God's plan is achieved yet things have
their role as well. It may be helpful to consider the analogy of
history. We accept that God is sovereign over history, yet the vast
majority of historical events involve no evidence of miraculous
intervention. God's normal interaction and direction is evidently
much more subtle, and often it's hard to see what good God may be
doing in a situation, except sometimes by hindsight. If we accept by
faith that God is working history, including non-human history, to His
ends we don't need to worry about the details of how, though we might
be interested in the question.

> We are, in spite of things, living 'after' the modern age (e.g.
> post-Enlightenment), even if expression of this knowledge-understanding has
> not yet trickled down to all (natural) sciences. What we are seeking now is
> more integrative knowledge (e.g. science *and* religion) that does not allow
> privileging of natural science above other 'sciences' (such as theology,
> sociology or psychology) that study human choice, agency and the
> involvement of hermeneutics in observing 'nature,' 'meaning,' 'purpose' and
> other challenging topics like 'creation.'

It's important to recognize that one's viewpoint, social influences,
etc. etc. influence science and its reporting. At the same time, it's
necessary to recognize that there is an objective reality out there
that constrains the working of science. For example, there are three
major factors in the ongoing revolution in evolutionary (and to
varying extents, all the rest of) biology. One is the success of
cladistic ideas in becoming established, which certainly has a lot of
human elements. However, the other two are the major increases in
computer ability and the invention of and major improvements in DNA
and other biochemical analysis techniques. Science is influenced by
social constructs, but it is not purely a social construct. Other
"sciences" in the sense you list are better than natural science at
addressing some issues and worse at others.

> The difference between nature-made and human-made is rather significant; in
> fact, it is what the IDM has not yet come to grips yet with in its general
> theory of agency. Mousetraps, Easter Island, Mt. Rushmore – these do
> nothing to make one's argument for the (intelligent) origin of biological
> information. Human beings obviously did not 'design' the first bio-genetic
> elements. The concept of 'design' fits perfectly well (sometimes
> intelligent, sometimes not), however, into contemporary social scientific
> discourses. ID does not.

This is a major failing of popular ID detection methods. They don't
match well with real criteria for determining human design versus
"natural" (animal, weather, etc.). Number of pieces and complexity
aren't the criteria; rather, what we know about human purposes and
what other things can do are the main guides. For example, one early
cause for doubt about the authenticity of Piltdown material was that
an accompanying object looked like a cricket bat made from an elephant
bone, not a very useful addition to a prehistoric hunter's toolkit.

Another type of example would be sepiolite. Composed of a repeating
structure, each unit of which has over 80 atoms in a precise
configuration, this mineral has unique properties making it useful in
a variety of human applications. It's thus not hard to qualify it
under irreducible complexity or specified complexity, much less the
often much weaker filters used in popular ID. It forms by ordinary
chemical reactions in the soil.

> Yes, this is agreeable statement, especially given that the burden is on
> TE's (who are still in the minority) to show how their views are not
> materialist or even naturalistic. If they are simply 'methodologically
> naturalistic' but not 'philosophically (or metaphysically) naturalistic'
> this seems rather to avoid the problem than to display an appropriate
> forward-looking solution. Some 'forms of TE' are very close to
> materialistic, that is, especially those pantheistic or panentheistic
> versions of TE. Bill Green's question about God as cause was/is an
> opportunity to show how TE is not naturalistic, aside from an MN/PN alibi.

It's open to question how appropriate it is to identify pantheism or
panentheism as _theistic_ evolution. If you assume that God created
everything such that it generally behaves in a regular manner and that
humans are able to meaningfully investigate those regular patterns,
then you can take a TE approach without any philosophical naturalism.

> Nature changes almost all the time. Society changes almost all the time.
> What seems to be missing is a natural scientist that isn't afraid to admit
> that 'static' isn't a naughty word, given the focus on dynamics and process
> philosophy that have deeply penetrated many academic fields. It appears,
> since no one answered my question last month about statics and dynamics
> that most at ASA are caught between the horns of process philosophies and
> theologies, in compatibility/connection with their natural scientific views.

I didn't know it was a naughty word, nor that it was especially
relevant to the current issue. There's plenty of stasis as well as
change in evolution, a point missed by anyone who tries to represent
punctuated equilibrium or organisms that have changed little over time
as evidence against evolution. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"
applies to evolution as well as to human activities.

> Though I agree with most of what Dave Siemens wrote (e.g. "thinking in terms
> of the extended sequences of causal activity") on the morning of January
> 10th, 2007, for example, saying "I hold that seldom if ever do we present
> the total causal nexus for a phenomenon," I do not accept that 'science'
> cannot study first causes. Why not? To me this is simply a defeatist
> attitude. M. Bunge speaks about incomprehensive thinking on causality.
> Indeed, "causality involves a multiple array of processes or states." But
> why (above, below and on the earth) must certain causes, especially first
> and formal causes, be summarily *excluded* from what possibly counts as
> the (all hail) 'domain of science?' To me this is just 'philosophy of science'
> run amok and irresponsible to theological priority. When George Murphy
> admitted he thought that God caused/causes cosmological evolution, this is
> a perfectly acceptable thing to discuss in a cosmology lab, without getting
> stuck on the 'but is it science' question!

If one rejects the "all hail", it is possible to assert that science
happens to be no good at addressing a particular topic without
implying that the topic is therefore irrelevant. Discussion of the
topic in the cosmology lab doesn't necessarily imply that the
cosmology lab can do anything in its lab work to address the question.

> "[E]veryone uses natural methods all the time" – David C.
>
> No, this is plainly not true. Only a naturalist projecting their values onto
> others would say this! Everybody is both natural and non-natural all the
> time (to match absolutist language with more of it). Natural scientific
> methods are something different than non-natural scientific methods – this
> ought to be respected rather than neglected. (Echo the chant – science *is*
> natural!) We shouldn't need to call in the behaviorists and socio-biologists
> to discover this.

If everyone is both natural and non-natural all the time, then it is
true to say that they are natural all the time as long as it is clear
that this is not exclusive of non-natural. I do not say that everyone
uses only natural methods all the time but that they use natural
methods as well as non natural ones all the time.

> "You are using natural methods, but you are not only using natural methods."
> – David C.
>
> O.k. then, David, pray tell: what other methods am I possibly using than
> natural methods? Please name the(se) alternative-to-natural methods!

I don't understand your objections. You just asserted that everyone
is both natural and non-natural at the same time but object when I
make that point.
Here's an example that might help show what I mean. Suppose I am
planning a trip. I use supernatural methods, such as praying for good
decisions, safe travel, etc. I also use natural methods such as
planning what to do, getting the tickets or preparing the car,
buckling my seat belt, etc. Accusing TE of automatically being
materialistic is like accusing me of not having faith because I wear
my seat belt instead of relying solely on God's protection.

> Who, after all, is still uplifting the Enlightenment project, privileging Science
> and Reason as the most valid form of socially important knowledge?

Not anyone who keeps stating that science is unable to address
questions of first cause. People who think that one has to have
scientific data that point to a designer or those who think having
scientific support for a young earth view is more important than
honesty have clearly been influenced by such scientism, but it's the
silly atheists who claim science is everything who most fit that
description.

> Would returning strength to the humanities provide a contemporary example
> of Progress? Dare the ASA/CIS invite Steven Fuller to its 2007 annual
> meeting in Scotland?

How? He dismisses science as just a social construct. Therefore, it
would be inappropriate to try to send an email; that depends on
assuming that the laws of physics govern the behavior of the
electrons, etc. are real. Postal mail runs into similar problems
regarding the delivery vehicle, not to mention my assumption that the
pen will behave in a consistent manner. Even if he gets the message,
what if he deconstructs it?

-- 
Dr. David Campbell
425 Scientific Collections
University of Alabama
"I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.