RE: [asa] Polkinghorne and 'natural' Science

You’ve displayed exactly the type of behaviour, Michael, that has led me to back away from participating lately on the ASA list. Thankfully, some of the new voices on the list are encouraging and inspiring. They are challenging and engaging the ASA faithful on their views with respect, curiosity and a willingness to share ideas and to ask questions in the interest of our common faith. As one result, the hardcore anti-IDists (sometimes who are also excessive or even absolutistic TEs, much less often they are ECs) seem less persuasive.
   
  For someone ordained, Michael, you can be pretty obtuse and surprisingly cynical! Did you even read what I wrote or just choose to respond with prejudice toward someone who sees things differently than you and honestly calls you out on your views (in this case indirectly, since I didn’t address you)? Obviously you didn’t read what Chris Barden wrote because you simply didn’t address the notion that “the natural/supernatural distinction needs to be recast.” In fact, since two days ago nobody at ASA has addressed it!
   
  If you had read what I wrote, there would be no reason to write: “You seem to overstress humanity so we are not natural,” as you did, when I had specifically written: “Does that make human beings 'not-natural'? No. Does it make us 'more-than-just-natural'? [This is a] more realistic scenario.”
   
  You have not offered a shred of dialogue ON TOPIC, instead choosing to have a monologue with yourself, taking occasional pokes at me. How unfortunate!
   
  I referred specifically to those who are ‘entrenched’ in a natural/supernatural dichotomy. These people do exist Michael, and your complaining, hand-waving away and distracting antics by trying to get personal with me won’t change that fact. In the past I have indicated alternatives to the natural/supernatural dichotomy, but no one seemed to want to hear it or discuss it. For example, Dick Fischer, who wouldn’t dignify anthropology, economics, psychology, sociology, culturology and other social-humanitarian fields as ‘scientific,’ giving no defence other than “natural as opposed to supernatural.” Such a retreat into a classical theological dichotomy is discourteous to the dialogue and shows no willingness to engage with the academy as it currently exists today. I call this retro, not future looking.
   
  There seems to be an unwritten rule that if a person proposes any other opposite to ‘natural’ than ‘supernatural,’ then that person and his or her ideas shouldn’t be addressed, but instead isolated and silenced. A privileging of ‘supernatural’ over against all of the other opposites to ‘natural’ is obviously strongly promoted at ASA. Yet, if ASA isn’t willing to entertain new possibilities, as even the Rev. Dr. A. McGrath suggests in terms of ‘recasting the distinction,’ then ASA will remain a retro organization that is, stuck in the past, defending status quos (repeat after US: evolution really IS scientific, evolution really IS scientific). The IDM and its satellites, branches and network is so far ahead of ASA in being contemporary on this front, it’s astonishing!!
   
  As for your lecture about recognizing that people are partly natural, Michael, I’d most probably skip the course. “We are part of the natural world and have classified ourselves as such.” That’s quite a platitude, really! Did I ever say we are ‘detached’ from the natural world? No, I did not say that. And yet you, Michael Roberts, posture that I have said it and unfairly put words into my mouth. Such e-behaviour is as unbecoming of a chaplain/priest, as it would also be of a respectable common layperson.
   
  The bathroom tip is condescending and trite. Next time you offer communion to a communicant, ask yourself: is this all just a natural event? Next time you observe a cultural custom, ask yourself: is that just natural behaviour, or is there more to it than that, that a geologist-theologian, interested in history (i.e. not a historian), might not be trained to know much about (i.e. that a culturologist might be able to enlighten you about)? The Lord teaches us new things all the time if we are not too stubborn or closed-off to listen and be ready to receive some of the wonders of the world. You, Michael Roberts, or George Murphy, or David Campbell, are not a controlling authority on ‘the nature of things.’
   
  We all have our limitations, roles and purposes Michael, a bit of humility would help to display yours. Sadly, I don’t expect it.
   
  Dismayed by the entrench-ness and apparent unwillingness to care at ASA.
   
  Gregory

Dick Fischer <dickfischer@verizon.net> wrote: 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
  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

       
---------------------------------
 All new Yahoo! Mail -
---------------------------------
Get a sneak peak at messages with a handy reading pane.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Nov 16 17:35:42 2007