Re: [asa] God as Cause

Comments below in red.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Gregory Arago
  To: George Murphy ; dfsiemensjr@juno.com ; pleuronaia@gmail.com ; williamehamiltonjr@yahoo.com ; dopderbeck@gmail.com
  Cc: wgreen82004@yahoo.com ; asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 2:07 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] God as Cause

  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!

  I think that some of our disagreement has to do with the senses in which the terms "nature," "natural" etc are being used. In one very broad traditional usage everything has a "nature" - phusis - & is thus "natural," so we speak, e.g., of the "divine nature." Neither of us is using the words that way.

  A couple of entries in Runes' The Dictionary of Philosophy are of interest. The article "Nature" begins: "A highly ambiguous term term, of which the following meanings are distinguished by A.O. Lovejoy:" & then 5 meanings, of which the 3d & 4th are (I think) very close to what you mean.

      3. The general cosmic order, usually considered as divinely ordained, in contrast to human deviations from this.
      4. That which exists apart from and uninfluenced by man, in contrast with art.

  OTOH the sense in which I have been using the word is not found here but in the next article, "Nature 'naturing'": There the scholastic distinction bewteen Natura naturans, "Nature 'naturing'" = God and Natura naturata, "Nature 'natured'" = "the complexus of all created things" is set out. It is essentially this latter concept, everything that is not God, for which I have been using the term "nature" in the present discussion.

  OTOH I admit that I use the common phrase "the natural sciences" in the sense in which you (I think) & most others use it: It would be clumsy always to have to list "physics, astronomy, chemistry ..." . & what does one call other sciences? Is the study of human anatomy a "natural science"? while the study of the human mind isn't? Why?

  I don't see how inclusion of philosophical & sociological perspectives changes the scope of what you consider "natural." Assuming for the sake of argument that you have a broader range of perspectives than I, you still include a smaller number of phenomena in the category "natural" than do I. Of course when I say that you have a "narrow" understanding of nature I did not mean that in the sense of "narrow minded" or anything like that. I should have said "a narrower definition of 'natural.'"

  This is not to suggest that our disagreement is only about words, but I think that has a fair amount to do with it.

  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.

  OK, but the distinction between "nature" and "society and culture" has a good deal in common with the distinction between "nature" and "history." OTOH I would include "history" as part of a broader category that includes "natural history."
   
  "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.

  Your arguments here are compelling - IF one accepts the "common definition" that social and cultural phenomena are "non-natural." But that is just what I said I didn't mean by "natural." To repeat, "When I say "natural" in such discussions I mean simply "what we can observe [in a broad sense] in the world."" & I emphasize that qualification "in a broad sense." A sociologist "observes" the way in which people interact in societies - not, of course, with physicist's tools of meter sticks, voltmeters &c but nevertheless, observation. (& of course I am not ruling out the crucial theoretical component of study, but the ultimate test of theory is observation.) When you say that you "'observe' non-natural things quite often," you are of course using your definition of "natural" - but again, it isn't mine.

  I'm not sure what you mean by the distinction between "eye-based" and "ear-based" science. Do you mean by the latter a science that listens to what people say rather than data derived from impersonal sources? I so, I see no necessary collision.

  Any class of phenomena - "natural,"cultural," "social," "theological" or whatever - must be studied by means which respect the character of that phenomena. This means, to begin with, that the basic data about the phenomena in question must be respected - that we must pay attention to what they are rather than what we think a priori that they must be. This is why science - any science - must observe things & not just think about them, & why theology must be based on God's revelation of God's own character and work & not on ideas we impose on God from some "natural theology." (Thomas Torrance has made a point of emphasizing that parallel.) Failure to observe this requirement is the reason that some "hard scientists" deny that things like psychology or sociology are "real sciences": They think that only the tools of the physicist are appropriate for "science." But you don't study the workings of rats' brains by rolling them down inclined planes, any more than you study gravitation by sending balls through mazes. The study of a phenomenon has to be adapted to that phenomenon.

  (BTW, that is not a dig at physicists, of which I'm one. Nowadays it seems that the biologists are often the mechanically minded ones.)

  "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.

  I wonder if in saying that "that which "can be understood by the 'social' or 'human' sciences" must be understood from within, not from some outside opinion" you don't mean something very similar to what I argued above, that the study of a phenomenon must be adapted to the character of that phenomenon, so that alien presuppositions aren't imposed on it.

  Then to the exclusion of God. By that I mean that, given the world as it is, phenomena (& not merely human phenomena) can be explained by agents & processes within the world. There are several reasons for doing so:

  1) Empirically, phenomena have been explained "though God were not given" over the past 400+ years during which MN has been a basic - though often unrecognized - principle of scientific work.

  2) An entity that can do everything can do anything. Invocation of God as a cause within the world obviates any appeal to other cause - or to put it another way, natural processes plus a miracle equals a miracle.

  3) No respectable concept of God allows us to do controlled experiments on that God.

  4) A theology of the cross and the associated divine kenosis, for which I've probably argued sufficiently here, leads us to expect that God's action in the world, while pervasive, is hidden from observations made within the world.

  Thus there are both empirical reasons and theological ones to maintain MN as a guide for science. I regard the latter - theological - reasons as more fundamental. But they have a paradoxical form (not uncommon for Lutherans) because they're saying that creation - "the complexus of all created things" - can be understood without recognizing that it is creation.

  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.

  Nor do I feel constrained by "natural science" if "natural is used in a narrow sense.
   
  "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.

  Social, cultural and historical studies can't help us in the actual investigation of physical phenomena: That would violate the basic principle I stated above. But social &c studies can help us to understand, e.g., why & how scientific research has focussed on some phenomena at the expense of others, why it has sought particular types of explanations, & how it has sometimes been blind to certain limits of its methods (e.g., the tacit assumption that studies of heart disease among men can be applied without change to women). OTOH I reject the notion that such studies can show that knowledge gained by the "natural sciences" is no better than knowledge of the relevant phenomena gained by other means - what I've sometimes called "the sociologists' revenge." Sociologists holding such extreme views can take vengeance on those who don't think sociology to be a science by saying triumphantly that the "hard sciences" at bottom can be explained by sociology!
   
  "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.

  Yes, science and theology are different, but there are places where they have genuine interactions. E.g., as I argued above, proper theology affirms methodological naturalism as a guide for investigation of the world. In turn science, while it should not dictate to theology, can help us to understand the world which theology sees as creation, & thus to see how God's creative activity takes place. & there are other interactions. Some people have understood my view of science and theology to be in Barbour's "Independence" category but they're wrong (though I can see why they think that). I have always understood my view to be in his "Dialogue" category. (& in fact I titled the course I teach at Trinity Lutheran Seminary "The Science-Theology Dialogue.")
   
  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.

  Yes, biology - & especially genetics - has in a certain sense taken over from physics as the sexiest science. I began the column that I write for Lutheran Partners by saying, "It's hard for someone trained in physics like myself to admit, but genetics can now make a good claim to be the cutting edge of science and technology. Being a geneticist today evokes the same type of awe that being a nuclear physicist did 50 years ago."

  But this has much more to do with the fact that genetics (& other biological sciences) get more at our sense of personal identity than does physics, as well as the ethics of biotechnologies, than it does about complexity &c. Relativity, quantum theory & chaos theory have shown us subtelties in nature that many biologists, psychologists &c still haven't appreciated.
   
  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'

  In a post a few days ago I gave links to my reviews of 2 of his volumes. I can send all 3 myself as attachments if you like.
   
   
  "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 Wed Jan 17 09:42:21 2007