Re: [asa] Polkinghorne and 'natural' Science

If I may interject -- Alister McGrath spends nearly half of his
Scientific Theology, vol 1, arguing that "nature" as a category is so
laden with socially constructed views from centuries past (e.g.
nature-as-everything, nature-as-everything-physical,
nature-as-everything-physical-excluding-humanity, etc.) that it cannot
bear the weight of any one position. He suggests we need a new
category, in which case the natural/supernatural distinction needs to
be recast.

Chris

On Nov 14, 2007 3:42 AM, Gregory Arago <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> Are you a social-humanitarian thinker, Michael?
>
>
> Michael Roberts <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Is this horseplay?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Gregory Arago
> To: Alexanian, Moorad ; George Murphy ; Merv ; asa@calvin.edu
> Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 9:26 PM
> Subject: RE: [asa] Polkinghorne and 'natural' Science
>
>
> "Causes have to be natural to qualify as science, that's all." – Dick
> Fischer
>
> "Does this mean that anthropology, philology, economics, sociology,
> culturology, history and psychology (among others) do not qualify as
> 'science' in your estimation? They all study non-natural things." – G. Arago
>
> "Natural as opposed to supernatural." – Dick Fischer
>
> "Yada, yada." – J. Seinfeld
>
> What gives some people such confidence that all that is not 'supernatural'
> must therefore be 'natural'?
>
> The argument is simply that you can't reduce everything to 'natural' so
> easily (i.e. and expect it to hold across the board) as your ancient
> argument seems to do. Doing so not only biases peoples' definition of
> 'nature,' but also unnecessarily compromises their definition of 'science'
> based on false premises (science = the study of what is natural, nature =
> that which science alone can study). There are sciences (cf. scientific
> methods) of many things that are not 'natural' as the term 'natural' is
> known to (believed in by) 'natural scientists.' To admit this is to take a
> step away from naturalism toward a more holistic view.
>
> "Natural forces do not have purpose, direction, etc. of their own." – David
> Campbell
>
> But human beings do have purpose and direction of their own. Does that make
> human beings 'not-natural'? No. Does it make us 'more-than-just-natural'? A
> more realistic scenario.
>
> What this is really about is people's claims to what counts as socially
> important knowledge – natural scientists believing that their knowledge is
> the most important knowledge, authenticated by being 'Science' in the
> Enlightenment sense of the term. But now we are in a post-Enlightenment
> phase, and there's the rub. Of course, for those natural scientists that are
> also theists, such a view about what is the most important knowledge can be
> personally balanced so that science is never elevated above theology.
> Nevertheless, in their professional context as scientists, the fields of
> art, culture, music, sports and other such non-scientific things are
> presumed as less important.
>
> Dave W.'s definition of 'natural' as including "all of mankind's activities
> and characteristics," simply doesn't square with the evidence gathered by
> non-naturalist social scientists. It is blatant over-stretching (which is
> likely why Dave balked with an 'almost' qualifier). To the charge of stamp
> collecting and proto- or immature science I won't dignify an answer. There
> are many 'natural sciences' that are younger than 'social sciences,' and
> that are putting out speculative and unpredictable theories, which still
> gain the trust of their naturalist colleagues as 'in-club.' Trump card of
> Science over theology thrives on such views. Such a perspective is so far
> out-dated, so far missing the boat, so out of touch with what's happened
> since philosophy and sociology of science have made theoretical and research
> progress; it seems difficult to find pathways toward discussion with one who
> isn't in tune with the pulse of the age. I appreciate Dave W.'s views very
> much, but in this case, nature = all things human, just doesn't wash.
>
> Go read some philosophy or sociology of science and then come back and
> repeat the infantile mantra about how sacred science is and how it can only
> study natural causes. It may get your girdles all twisted-up, but this is
> exactly how intelligent design theory's attempted introduction of
> 'intelligent causes' is threatening the comfort zone of natural scientists
> who want to live as naturalists in their labs, as theists in their homes and
> churches, never the twain shall meet. I+d as a potential contribution to
> science recognizes 'intelligent agency,' something that cannot be denied in
> human-social sciences, but which doesn't make much sense in natural sciences
> where a natural/supernatural dichotomy is promoted and 'intervention' is a
> naughty word.
>
> Lest those recovering positivists (read: anti-scientism natural scientists)
> out there might allow that reflexive understanding (preferably aided by
> theology and study of Scripture) is more important to human life and the
> place of meaning, purpose and value than any natural science ever could be!
>
> Huh/Eh, what did he just say?!
>
> G.A.
>
>
> p.s. 'Creation science' is no more 'supernatural science' than I am George
> M.'s distant cousin! Better to call it 'science of Creation' and slam it for
> trying to scientize the Creation than to bring down (or up) the supernatural
> into science. Isn't it true that 'creation scientists' are trying to say not
> how God did it, but when, where and through/with what natural processes?
> There certainly can be a science of creativity and of how people create, by
> studying those things using scientific methods.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> 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 Wed Nov 14 07:51:02 2007