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

The references to /natura naturata/ and /natura naturans/ were picked up
by Spinoza from the earlier usage by scholastics. George's usage is based
on this recognition. Indeed, George is so close to being a contemporary
Renaissance man that challenging him is likely to reveal the ignorance of
the challenger.
Dave (ASA)

On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 18:12:02 -0500 (EST) Gregory Arago
<gregoryarago@yahoo.ca> writes:
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 18:47:03 2007