Re: [asa] Polkinghorne, 'natural' Science and 'intelligent design'

  Thank you George, I accept your suggestion and encouragement as they are. Let me add that I am pleased to hear you are still working on theoretical physics/cosmology. I’ve read a few of your papers, since you regularly reference them on the ASA list. But none of them (i.e. those that you’ve referenced) have been printed anywhere other than in specifically Christian publications until this mention (this is of course, my recollection; it doesn’t mean you’ve never referenced others at ASA, which you probably have). If your viewpoint does allow for social-humanitarian views that identify alternatives to 'supernatural' as opposites to 'natural,' then that seems to be a step forward. – Gregory
   
   
  p.s. why would I argue with the distinction between natura naturans and natura naturata (neither of which contains one of the divine names, and is it really B. Spinoza that you're following in using those terms?) when that is obviously the predecessor to today's natural/supernatural dichotomy? Why go backwards particularly to ‘there/then’ when we are dealing in today’s world? I already admitted in private to you the relevance and importance of distinguishing our Creator from “the totality of created things.” Surely you remember this. The point remains that from your physics-theology perspective you refused to take a step forward to (recognize) my (or even 'a') social-humanitarian perspective. That is the main point here. But then again, it seems that an impasse has been declared, so I’ll leave it at that for now.

George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote: Gregory -
   
  Gregory -
   
  I had 2 purposes in my previous post. The 1st was to explain briefly why I did not feel it a good use of my time to continue to discussions with you which semed to have reached an impasse. I did that without trying to argue my position further. Since you have made some incorrect statements about me & my views in your response, corrections are in order. These are not points for debate.
   
  1) Your presumption that I am "no longer a practising theoretical physicist" is wrong. It's true that most of my work is in pastoral ministry & the science-theology dialogue but I've never intended to "get out of physics" & I do occasionally publish some work in the field. A few months ago a paper on quantum cosmology which I did with Robert Mann was published in the International Journal of Theoretical Physics.
   
  2) However, one does not have to be working actively in a science to advance science-theology dialogue. The real question is whether one is working actively on science-theology issues. That is almost tautological. Of course in order to do that the person must know something about the current state of the relevant sciences.
   
  3) Contrary to your repeated statements, what I have insisted on is not a "natural-supernatural" distinction. It is rather the distinction between natura naturans - God - and natura naturata - the totality of created things.
   
  4) Consequently your claim that my "position doesn't allow social-humanitarian views that identify alternatives to 'supernatural' as opposites to 'natural' a way in the door to conversation" is wrong.
   
  My 2d purpose was to encourage you to set out your views on the role of social sciences in the science-theology dialogue in a journal article - in particular, in PSCF. I would again suggest that you consider that. The discussion list format has its good features but also obvious disadvantages.
   
  Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

       
---------------------------------
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 Fri Nov 23 18:12:58 2007