George,
Thank you for your detailed post. First off, let me agree with the dictionary you cite that ‘nature’ is a “highly ambiguous term,” which makes it difficult to have dialogue about it. Likely we would both tire of equivocating, and thus hope we could find a common space for understandable communication.
“It is essentially this latter concept, everything that is not God, for which I have been using the term ‘nature’ in the present discussion.” - George Murphy
This usage of ‘nature’ is one of the last types in my choice of language. “Everything that is not God” would qualify, in the minds (and perhaps hearts) of most sociologists, as EVERYTHING. Thus, everything is natural (just as everything evolves)! This is precisely the problem with taking a negative approach and opposing natural to supernatural.
Let me add that sociology has indeed confronted sub- and super- language head-on in the terminology of Karl Marx, that much attacked and also much misunderstood figure, especially to natural scientists in the 'western' canon. Sub-structure, structure and super-structure – faith is both influenced by and a result of economic conditions.
“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.”
Please be assured that I didn’t take offense at your calling my view of nature ‘narrow(er)’ than yours. :-> In fact, it helped to clarify my thoughts on the topic as well. Yes, I do include a smaller/narrower number of phenomena in the category ‘natural’ than you do! To me it seems obvious that there are other ‘grand categories’ that you are leaving out in bypassing social and cultural, for example. We could find several other major categories that would qualify.
Is mathematics ‘natural’? Is faith something that is ‘natural’? Are ethics ‘natural’? Is language ‘natural’? The argument I am making is that it is unjust to throw all of these things into the category of ‘natural’ simply because they ‘are not God.’ Doing so would simplify the conversation about God as cause than to do it justice. Rather, as it seems Bill Green is confronting ASA out-loud, these things can be discussed without saying that they ‘are not God.’ As human beings made in the image of God, we cannot fragment or divide ourselves by packaging all these things into a not-God category such as ‘natural.’
Btw, nobody here at ASA responded to the first paragraph in my recent post about substituting the phrase ‘the character of’ for ‘the nature of.’ This suggestion comes from a retired Dutch philosopher-theologian, who after some teeth-pulling (likely me irritating him) understood my opposition to ‘the nature of’ and the stretching of ‘nature’ beyond its respective limits. He offered this ‘the character of’ expression out of exasperation, but it does seem to fit well with a Christian understanding of the personhood of God (or ‘bogochilovechestvo’). Please excuse that the more often natural scientists, philosophers and theologians speak with social scientists and social thinkers, culturologists or behavioral scientists, the less likely they can get away with such a broad view of ‘nature,’ without realizing that in so doing they marginalize/disrespect other important categories for human understanding.
“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.”
Please excuse the stark analogy George, but if you were blind, could you still be a physicist? I would answer ‘Yes!’ Social scientists and culturologists don’t privilege vision or ‘observation’ to the same degree as astronomers – though they do not disregard it either! Hasn’t physics moved beyond mere observation? Quantum physics seems to involve things it does not ‘observe.’
“[A]ny science - must observe things & not just think about them”
Here we are agreed, with the caveat that I use the word ‘observe’ in a much broader way than you do, as in a haptic sense. Reason, emotion and imagination are all involved in the scientific enterprise and none of them can be conveniently cut away without repercussions.
“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.)”
This reminded me of a quotation by Marshall McLuhan in The Medium and the Light: “You can’t test anything in science or in any part of the world except on its own terms or you will get the wrong answer.” (1999: xvii)
Yes, and I also agree with your bracketed thoughts. Even those in the IDM, perhaps especially those persons, seem to want to bank-in on the concept of molecular machines. Some of the most challenging discussions I’ve had with IDists have been on the issue of ORGA-MECHA – doesn’t ID seem to treat organisms as if they were machines? Are organisms actually machines? You can imagine how this discussion turns when participants try to move this mechanical ID argument into the human-social sphere! Darth Vader, Terminator, Neo and the Matrix – these visions are ripe and current through science fiction. But in a computer-mediated electronic, plugged-in world they are not so far from our everyday realities.
“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.”
Point 1) is taken with a grain of salt, though it is realistic and commonly accepted in contemporary academic sciences. The term MN is imo a bandage covering all sorts of naturalistic abuses rather than an enlightening concept duo. The modern scientists themselves, including Newton who applied methods of scriptural interpretation to his study of the Book of Nature, understood that they need not and indeed cannot be fragmented and divided when they walk into a science laboratory or perform an experiment. The phrase as ‘though God were not given’ slips on a slope to defend a position of ‘God need not give’ in order for us to ‘do science’ in the first place!
Point 2) I think we can all still ‘do science’ without invoking God as a cause and yet at the same time not deny God’s causal influence (except perhaps to religious persons who violate George’s principle and seek always to invoke/involve God) as if God were completely out of the picture and thus impotent. It seems that on this issue we are already agreed, as it has been expressed by David C., Keith Miller, Ted Davis, yourself and many others quite eloquently on this ASA list. The central difficulty seems to be: when to invoke or acknowledge God and when not to. If this is not a matter for apologetics, then what is it for?
“[T]hey're saying that creation – ‘the complexus of all created things’ – can be understood without recognizing that it is creation.”
This point seems to have flown over my head. How can someone (e.g. Lutherans) understand without recognizing? Probably this is another topic entirely, but it reminds me of how anyone can deny ‘creation’ simply for the purpose of not looking like a ‘creationist.’ Surely I can believe in ‘creation’ without ‘being a creationist’? ASA ‘believes in Creation!’ Likewise, surely I can believe in nature, study it, test it, experiment on it, draw conclusions from my work and publish papers in reputable journals about it, without necessarily being a ‘naturalist’? And if I could, then calling me a ‘Christian naturalist’ wouldn’t necessarily in itself be such a bad thing! This would be because I’d have balanced my naturalism with my theism and because my natural scientific, professional, career life doesn’t necessarily encroach upon my faith.
It may remain true that for a vast majority of naturalists theism has been wiped off the map entirely (e.g. reading the pre-post-modern R. Dawkins verifies this most acutely). That is because there are natural explanations for almost everything. But perhaps I am diverging from the main theme by arguing against naturalism in some of its forms, while wondering/probing how a ‘Christian naturalist’ is not a contradiction in terms. Please go easy on me when proving how wrong I am! :-)
“Social, cultural and historical studies can't help us in the actual investigation of physical phenomena”
Please explain this further – I suggest here you are incorrect. Those studies can help you understand how you investigate physical phenomena, which surely could help you in the actual investigations. To think otherwise is to undervalue those studies in a unidirectional fashion (i.e. as if you help them, but they do not help you).
“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!”
Well, I am not one of those sociologists. :-> Those sciences you mention cannot be ‘explained’ by sociology. At the same time, I doubt there is as much respect given to the subfield of ‘sociology of science’ by natural scientists as vice versa.
Just recently I made a discovery/articulation on this very topic that helps put things into context. Natural sciences are more limited (note: this does not contain a value-judgement) than social sciences and humanities. This is because there can be a philosophy of biology, philosophy of chemistry, philosophy of geology, etc. but the same does not work in reverse; there cannot be a biology of philosophy, a chemistry of philosophy or a geology of philosophy. Likewise, anthropology, political science, sociology, psychology, economics – these can all be turned to investigate, gather data, experiment on and study natural sciences, with a high degree of rigour. The same does not, however, hold true in reverse.
Yes, social sciences and humanities are ‘broader’ than natural sciences. No, this doesn’t mean they’re better or worse, ‘softer’ or ‘harder,’ but rather that they should be respected as integral parts of human understanding. The ideology of scientism, however, downplays the contribution of ‘less hard’ scholarship at the same time that it uplifts scientists into a kind of new priesthood that (in many cases) have replaced the role of priests in secular societies. Scientists hold what counts as socially important knowledge today (e.g. global warming talk of late at ASA), so the ideology goes, not priests. It has been my impression that most contributors at ASA are against this development, while still valuing the status and prestige of their scientific careers.
“[G]enetics (& other biological sciences) get more at our sense of personal identity than does physics”
Yes. And this topic of ‘personal identity’ is clearly a place where culturologists, sociologists, anthropologists and psychologists should be called upon for more conversation regarding the science and religion dialogue. In the end, I’m rather pleased to follow Pitirim Sorokin’s lead towards a more integrative approach, paying heed to the wise words of Vladimir Solovyov, Sergei Bulgakov and Nikolai Berdyaev, on the need for a synthesis that includes the depths of theological and mystical thought alongside rational (western) natural-scientific methods.
“[T]hus to see how God's creative activity takes place.”
Yes, this brings us after all to a place of agreement. And perhaps it also plants a seed of hope for solidarity: all academic studies can strive to ‘see’ how God’s creative activity takes place. Let us wish that the future will hold for many collaborative efforts, not only in the dialogue between science and religion but also across the gaps of understanding between natural sciences, social sciences, humanities, applied sciences and other fields of scholarship in the academy.
Gregory
---------------------------------
Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Jan 20 09:26:48 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Jan 20 2007 - 09:26:48 EST