I am not sure I agree that studies in "human-social" should not invoke
God. I truly believe that the day a university library is full of an
all-exhaustive psychological, social, human studies, etc., those who
have contributed to all these human studies can say that all our results
are essentially summarized in what the Bible says humans are and how
they ought to behave. Of course, in the building of scientific models
in the natural sciences, God should not appear nor it can appear. The
reason is that such theories or models are limited and deal only with
some limited aspect of reality and not the whole of it---in particular
questions of existence. Of course, if one day we achieve a truly theory
of everything that leads to true and total understanding of all that
there is, then such a theory cannot exclude God.
Moorad
________________________________
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of George Murphy
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 8:51 AM
To: Gregory Arago; Steve Martin
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Re: Silent MNism was [Definition for MN in PSCF 2007]
One of Gregory's basic mistakes is that he leaves theology out of
theology - science discussions. (By "theology" there I mean something
like "the teaching about God and divine things," logos about theos, &
not "religious studies.") He is so intent on marking off & defending
turf for human & social sciences - a concern with which I don't disagree
in a fundamental way - that he fails to understand the role that both
good & bad theology play in understanding MN & the ID debate.
The practical meaning of MN is that a scientist - whether "natural" or
"human-social" - should not invoke God as an explanation for phenomena
in his or her field of study. We are not really concerned about angelic
agents or other "supernatural" entities in these discussions. Neither
physicist nor a sociologist will be content
with "God did it" as an scientific explanation - it's that simple. Of
course either of those scientists may indeed believe that God is
involved in the phenomena he/she studies. & they may go on to speak
about how they think God is involved, but then they aren't doing physics
or sociology anymore but theology. & it may be good or bad theology.
Maybe it's the N in MN that sets Gregory off. I don't think there's a
lot to be gained by trying to change established terminology, even when
it may be confusing to beginners, but am open to suggestions.
MN in that sense is simply a working rule that virtually all scientists
observe & have done so for centuries. I don't leave it at that but
argue for that simple version of MN on the fundamental ground of the
theology of the cross. (See, e.g.,
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2001/PSCF3-01Murphy.html .) Gregory
doesn't want to talk about that - at least he never has in my memory
when I've made the point before - because he wants to lump all "TEs"
together in one inept group. In reality, the ineptitude is displayed by
those who fail to take seriously the T of TE.
Grgeory is partly right when he speaks about biological claims as a
"token gesture" of ID - although the vast majority of ID arguments have
focussed on biological issues. The real concern of most ID proponents
is theological. The issues which ID raises are not in the realm of the
human & social sciences as Gregory implies without exactly saying so (at
least here). There are, of course, important psychological,
sociological &c matters to be studied in connection with the ID movement
but they are at a different level.
The careful reader will have noted that I have not, as a physicist,
proclaimed the superiority of the natural sciences over the human &
social ones & that I have not tried to tell the latter how to do their
jobs beyond the constraint of a clearly & simply defined version of MN.
Sociologists are scientists & they don't have to mimic the methods of
physicists in order to be described as such.
Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
----- Original Message -----
From: Gregory Arago <mailto:gregoryarago@yahoo.ca>
To: Steve Martin <mailto:steven.dale.martin@gmail.com>
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 8:09 PM
Subject: [asa] Re: Silent MNism was [Definition for MN in PSCF
2007]
Hello Steve,
Yeah, MN is a cracked philosophy. I don't use the MN/PN
dichotomy. It is mainly a crutch for TEs to support their view that
'natural evolution' is more important than 'cultural evolution' or
'social evolution'. When closer to the reality of everyday life, few
things could be further from the truth.
Please note that probably no one will raise the issue of
'natural sciences' in relation to 'social-humanitarian sciences' simply
because natural scientists are not trained to think about the
differences and similarities between the two. Yet meaning, purpose,
value, ethics...none of these things is in the domain of natural
sciences. So really, the problem with 'evolutionism' that ID, as an
example, is railing against in its 'culture war' (e.g. the question of
teleology), is happening entirely outside of natural science. It is a
token gesture that IDists are presenting their 'theory' in biology (and
Dembski promises in mathematics!), when the action is really happening
elsewhere. Few will believe this though.
Have they heard of the linguistic-/hermeneutic turn?
Suggestions for non-pro-MN points of view? Well, if the persons
are not natural scientists, then to face up to the sovereignty of their
spheres and not let natural sciences dictate to them what 'science' is
and is not. Biology/biologists is/are living a bit big for
its/their...The philosophers and sociologists of science are the ones
who have played the demarcation game most successfully, not the natural
scientists. Such holistic understanding is especially important in our
epoch of fragmented knowledges and atomistic thinking.
Out of curiosity, are you a natural scientist, Steve?
Good wishes,
G. Arago
Steve Martin <steven.dale.martin@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Greg,
I *think* what you are saying is that a) MN doesn't work
/ can't be supported in those disciplines and that b) "MN is an
acceptable methodology" in the natural sciences. Is this what you are
saying?
re: my reading of other views on MN, I have read some of
Plantinga's stuff as well. Do you have other suggestions for a
non-pro-MN points of view?
thanks,
On 11/29/07, Gregory Arago <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca>
wrote:
Natural sciences require (the flawed ideology of)
methodological naturalism; non-natural sciences don't. When people speak
of MN, in the sense that de Vries meant it, they are referring ONLY to
natural sciences.
Can this be accepted?>?
G. Arago
p.s. to Poe and Mytyk - 'ideas' don't 'evolve'; they are
not biological 'things' ( e.g. 'res cogitans')
________________________________
Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go
to Yahoo! Answers. <http://ca.answers.yahoo.com>
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Nov 30 12:14:36 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Nov 30 2007 - 12:14:36 EST