Re: [asa] Re: Silent Monism was [Definition for MN in PSCF 2007]

I agree that the exclusion of God as an element of scientific explanation seems more debatable for the human-social sciences than for the natural ones. But consider some of the problems that would be raised if we didn't observe this limitation. Christians, Muslims, Hindus & others will have quite different views about how "God" is involved in one or another social process - e.g., what happened in 7th century Arabia or 16th century Germany. Even among Christians, the views of RCs & Lutherans, e.g., about the latter instance will differ.

This is of course not to deny that God is involved in what individual humans or societies - or for that matter supernovae & nucleic acids - do. But God - if we have any kind of mature understanding of God - is not one entity alongside others that are active in the world. Science has made progress by restricting its attention to those entities that are within the world - or, in theological terms, that are creatures. If & when we want to talk about the creator's involvement in anything that happens we ought to recognize that we are talking about theology - theology informed by physics, psychology &c but not simply another science alongside those disciplines.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Alexanian, Moorad
  To: George Murphy ; Gregory Arago ; Steve Martin
  Cc: asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 10:24 AM
  Subject: RE: [asa] Re: Silent Monism was [Definition for MN in PSCF 2007]

  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

    To: Steve Martin

    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.

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 12:28:37 2007