[asa] Re: Reductionism

Folks:
> Moorad's approach does well on it's own, as for pointing to the difference
> between (other) animals and human beings. I would include another view also

On 6/15/07, Gregory Arago <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> to share their views, lifting up the spirit of Christian dialogue! There is,

To which Pim replied:

"Why does a Christian dialogue rely on discussing non-physical
concepts? Is ASA not about science?"

Pim, This is illustrative of some previous comments that make me think you try
to assume that everything can be logically reduced to reason or scientific methodology.
You may not believe it [it is hard to know what you believe] but it sure sounds like that.

Yes we are scientists and yes we are committed to integrity in our empirical methodology,
but we work from a Christian perspective. Underneath it we are or should be driven by
aspects of our Christian world an life view (paradigms of Kuhn, meta views of Ted, or presuppositions
of C. Van Til). That also means the Dawkins and others are driven by world views of a different kind.

The work of the Holy Spirit in my life can be scientifically explained. The trinity has defied easy logical explanation
and in fact those who have tried sometimes end up in hearsay.

So back to what Greg is saying it may be possible that our created in the image of God might mean that we can not
explain human functioning entirely in terms of functioning of God's other creatures. At the same time of course
we must seriously look at the biological side of altruism or other aspects of our behaviour.

James Mahaffy (mahaffy@dordt.edu) Phone: 712 722-6279
498 4th Ave NE
Biology Department FAX : 712 722-1198
Dordt College, Sioux Center IA 51250-1697

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Jun 16 18:05:19 2007