RE: [asa] Polkinghorne and 'natural' Science

Gregory:

Answers can be simple and easy to comprehend, though perhaps less
precise, or answers can be complicated, a bit more precise and more
difficult to comprehend. There are trade offs whatever you do. If this
is an issue that warrants walking the floor, sleepless nights, and
endless hand wringing, then by all means, knock yourselves out. I'm
more inclined along the lines of Michael's comment - "horseplay,"
although I'm not sure "play" is the appropriate ending.

Dick Fischer

Dick Fischer, Genesis Proclaimed Association

Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History

 <http://www.genesisproclaimed.org/> www.genesisproclaimed.org

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Gregory Arago
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 2:35 PM
To: Chris Barden
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Polkinghorne and 'natural' Science

Hurrah and Amen! 'A new category'...to recast the natural/supernatural
distinction. This has been my position all along.

And yet some people wish to exclude any position that denies nature's
only opposite as 'supernatural'!

What may appear to Michael Roberts (geologist, theologian) as horseplay
is actually quite serious to other scientists and scholars. Sadly, he
doesn't show respect for difference, but rather chooses to denigrate
perspectives that differ from his own. Why not recognize that 'nature'
is not a category 'owned' by natural scientists? Why not imagine that
'natural as opposed to supernatural' is incomprehensive? It would make
for friendlier dialogue indeed.

This whole thread began in reaction to Dick Fischer's exclusive
definition: "Causes have to be natural to qualify as science, that's
all." Such a definition, imho, simply needs to be backed away from and
reconsidered. It would allow more inclusive dialogue with people who are
also invested in the discourse of science, nature, religion, society,
culture, et. al. yet who are not among the small percentage of natural
scientists who walk the face of the Earth.

Thank you for considering rather than simply dismissing this, those of
you who are entrenched in the natural/supernatural dichotomy at ASA.

Gregory

Chris Barden <chris.barden@gmail.com> wrote:

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 wrote:
> Are you a social-humanitarian thinker, Michael?
>
>
> Michael Roberts 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

  _____

Instant message from any web browser! Try the new
<http://ca.messenger.yahoo.com/webmessengerpromo.php> Yahoo! Canada
Messenger for the Web BETA

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 16:12:47 2007