RE: [asa] Polkinghorne and 'natural' Science

Gregory,
 
I find it difficult to engage your thought process here, I'm sure because
you're coming from an entirely different disciplinary background. I'm
guessing that many of the "natural scientists" on this list may be similar.
But I'll make an attempt at some intelligent response.
 
You mentioned cultural, social, political, and economic as being "opposite"
of natural. I assume this in context means "social causes vs. natural
causes", etc. My gut-level response is to say, cultural implies presumably
human culture. Social implies human society, although there is a potential
for confusion in the definition of "social" (there are "social animals" such
as bees or ants, which work collectively rather than individually -- are
they engaging in natural or other-than-natural action?). Political comes
from politics, which means "of the people", and thus human. Economics is
distinctly human, as I don't know of any form of economics practiced among
animals.
 
All these activities, at least as I gather from your context, are distinctly
human. This doesn't mean I'm trying to reduce these vast areas of important
social sciences to meaningless homogeneity. Rather, I'm trying to follow
your conclusion of pointing out numerous non-natural, non-supernatural
causes. It looks to me that the only root "cause" underlying those you have
proposed in each of these examples is a human/social cause, taking a variety
of forms. If you then presume that a "social cause" is both non-natural and
non-supernatural, you are by definition implying that humanity (acting
according social pressures, economic pressures, etc.) is non-natural. In
other words, people like Dawkins will say you are making an ad hoc
distinction between "human" and "natural"; in other words, begging the
question of what is natural and what isn't. He would say that all these
human activities are "natural".
 
I would of course agree with you in a sense, that human activity and
intelligence is something other than purely "natural" (if one takes
"natural" to mean simply biological). And here, I think, is one crux of
your argument: is natural simply biological? Does natural only include
biological, chemical, and physical? And what does it mean that science is
restricted to "purely natural causes", if natural only includes biological,
chemical, and physical forces? Can science study human activities,
recognizing them as something other than pure nature?
 
Next, I'd like to question what the social sciences can study
(scientifically) if not natural phenomena. There was a question some months
ago in the same vein, I think from you, that asked whether archaeology,
psychology, sociology, anthropology, etc., are science. Having studied a
bit of psychology and sociology, I know that there are most definitely
scientific methods and procedures employed in those disciplines, equally
rigorous to the "natural" sciences. Hypotheses are constructed, tests are
conducted, statistical analysis is performed, conclusions are drawn.
Theories are developed, tested, overturned or supplemented. These
scientific aspects of these fields are scientific because they work with
observable phenomena, repeatable tests, discernable outcomes or actions. In
other words, "natural" characteristics of human interaction. How would
psychology measure supernatural activity in humanity? However, they do deal
with physical effects of emotional, mental, even spiritual phenomena, such
as trying to explain the mental and emotional causes for why and how people
use self-justification, or the effects of religion on charitable giving.
 
One question is, how do these mental and emotional phenomena differ from
what you describe as "natural"? Are these characteristics distinctly
"human", and further are they different from purely "natural" features?
Why, for instance, does my dog display what appears to be guilt when doing
something she knows she shouldn't, and does this differ (or in what ways
does this differ) from human guilt? In other words, can we say the
emotional characteristic of guilt is something non-natural? I don't presume
to have these answers, and I think questions regarding the mental and
emotional are worthy of scientific study in these disciplines, but I don't
know whether a definite line of demarcation can be drawn distinguishing
these from both natural and supernatural.
 
Is a "mental" cause different from a "natural" cause? If so, how do you
prove it? Is an "emotional" cause different from a natural one? How about
studying the difference between (as C.S. Lewis discusses in Mere
Christianity) the difference between one's natural impulse to flee danger
and the moral conviction that one should stay and pull someone out of the
burning building? Is the moral response of self-sacrifice different from
both natural and supernatural causes? If so, can it be studied
scientifically? If so (I suspect you will say yes, and I tend to agree with
you), then this may be an example of what you're talking about. But going a
step further back, is this really non-supernatural? C.S. Lewis argues that
this underlying "moral law", fundamental to all humanity and crossing all
cultures, is evidence of a universal divine law, and ultimately a divine
nature.
 
Returning to the question of the Intelligent Design Movement for a moment,
as you say they are not engaging these questions, as far as I know. The
invocation of an "Intelligent Designer" is all about explaining the origin
of the natural world in non-natural (theistic) terms, both among the
proponents and their followers, as a reaction to the science or the
caricature of evolution. Here, in so-called "origins science", human causes
aren't appropriate to be invoked. You seem to be invoking your argument in
a similar way in reaction against the evolutionary trends in sociology,
economics, politics, etc. It seems to me this is a correct concern, and
should be for ASA which seeks to promote Christian truth in a culture of
science, but I'm not sure how "intelligent design" (upper or lower case) is
necessarily any help to you. Yes, the action of humanity in such fields as
sociology is (sometimes) an intelligent cause, but where did that
intelligence come from? Dawkins would say from purely natural, evolutionary
pressures. Christians would say our intelligence comes from an intelligent
Creator. Do you have a third alternative? It seems that ultimately it does
come back to natural or supernatural causes and effects, and/or a
combination of the two when it comes to human issues.
 
 
Jon Tandy
 

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Gregory Arago
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 11:08 AM
To: Jon Tandy; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: RE: [asa] Polkinghorne and 'natural' Science

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Nov 20 15:38:22 2007