Re: [asa] God as Cause

Perhaps, but I wasn't trying to relate the line to the author's original intent.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: David Opderbeck
  To: George Murphy
  Cc: Gregory Arago ; dfsiemensjr@juno.com ; pleuronaia@gmail.com ; williamehamiltonjr@yahoo.com ; wgreen82004@yahoo.com ; asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 2:05 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] God as Cause

  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.
  Hmmm.., I don't think this is what Yeats had in mind. I was hiking in Connemarra and Yeats Country last summer. You have to stand on top of one of those green hills, with mist and wind and peat smoke all around, to understand what he means. ( http://www.flickr.com/photos/dopderbeck/327581455/)

   
  On 1/12/07, 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.
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Gregory Arago
      To: gmurphy@raex.com ; dfsiemensjr@juno.com ; pleuronaia@gmail.com ; williamehamiltonjr@yahoo.com ; dopderbeck@gmail.com
      Cc: wgreen82004@yahoo.com ; asa@calvin.edu
      Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 12:09 PM
      Subject: Re: [asa] God as Cause

       
      If people would sometimes substitute the word 'character' for 'nature,' especially when speaking about 'the nature of' (i.e . 'the character of') something, it would be much more equitable and acceptable to non-natural scientific/scholarly ears.

      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.

      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 – how God as cause is (in)compatible with a post-modern worldview? This shows a divide between naturalists and non-naturalists, though perhaps it would be better say 'physicalists' and 'non-physicalists,' in which case there might be more agreement regarding terms. 'Nature' is a broader concept than 'physical.'

      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.'

      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 why the infamous leaked 'Wedge' document contended that the future of ID was to be found in the social sciences, 'after' it was inevitably accepted in *all* natural sciences. M. Behe claimed ID would influence "all humane studies" (1999).

      "I disagree with the attempts to label all forms of TE as materialistic, with the usually unanalyzed assumption that ID (or YEC) is the Christian approach, and with the frequent absence of Christianity from ID and YEC." – David C.

      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.

      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.

      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!

      "[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.

      "Getting a degree in science leaves little time for other fields unless one makes a particular effort." – David C.

      Likewise, getting a degree in most rigorous academic disciplines, including social sciences and humanities, leaves little time for other fields. This is precisely the point I'm making – we need cooperation rather than condescension and arrogant claims (not by those here at ASA) to pseudo-objectivity, as if natural sciences were somehow 'harder' than non-natural sciences. It would be as if natural scientists had something important to learn from humanities and social sciences, for example, regarding our post-modern age, the hermeneutic turn and reflexivity (Bruno Latour's "Science in Action" comes easily to mind). The 'objective science' that is presented by many natural scientists is after all still something that is (human-made and thus) socially constructed. It is open to formal criticism on these grounds, as well as by scientists' criticism on the content of science.

      "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!

      "[T]he classic rift between empirical science and the humanities…the empirical is only ultimately what really counts as knowledge. That project, IMHO, is dead, and rightly so." – David O.

      Amen to David O. in the lion's den! Who, after all, is still uplifting the Enlightenment project, privileging Science and Reason as the most valid form of socially important knowledge? 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?

      Arago

      p.s. please excuse if I don't walk with light feet on this important issue for discussion between science and religion

      "It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors." – Oscar Wilde

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

  --
  David W. Opderbeck
  Web: http://www.davidopderbeck.com
  Blog: http://www.davidopderbeck.com/throughaglass.html
  MySpace (Music): http://www.myspace.com/davidbecke

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Jan 16 14:14:25 2007