Re: [asa] Polkinghorne and 'natural' Science

Gregory

I wish you did not decide what other people actually hold on every aspect of science and religion, which comes out so strongly in your post. Possibly some of us have a far greater grounding in the humanities than you think. I think I am more than aware of the differences between the various sciences (and their similarities) and the different but valid approaches in other fields - not surprising as I jump from science to theology to history and back again.

Further you seem to overlook that we humans are not detached from the natural world and have to pee, breathe, eat, sleep etc just like other natural creatures. If I went swimming with my dog (I would in warm water!), would she be swimming naturally but not me? We are part of the natural world and have classified ourselves as such. You seem to overstress humanity so we are not natural and then make things worse but ascribing views to others (eg George and myself) which we do not hold and then get ratty (sounds natural) or react like a puffadder when you poke it with a long stick (natural) when we disagree with you.

What McGrath wrote is old hat and I would have e thought most knew the inadequate nature of nature!

Next time you have a pee , remember one thing. That is very NATURAL!

Michael
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Gregory Arago
  To: Chris Barden
  Cc: asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 7:34 PM
  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 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 17:22:49 2007