Gregory -
I have stated over & over what I mean when I speak of "nature," "natural" &c in these discussions. You know what I mean & have acknowledged the validity of the distinction between God as creator, natura naturans, and all created things, natura naturata. The only reason I repeat that, as well as my statement that MN means eschewing appeal to divine action in science, is that, while you acknowledge both these statements & apparently have no problem with them, you immediately seem to forget them when you start off on another of your speeches about (a) how natural scientists don't respect or understand the human-social sciences & (b) how there's something positive about the ID movement.
Instead of continuing the logomachy about "nature" & its cognates, why not, if only for the sake of argument, try discussing these issues in terms of the definitions I've suggested?
Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
----- Original Message -----
From: Gregory Arago
To: George Murphy ; Steve Martin
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 2:18 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] Re: Silent MNism was [Definition for MN in PSCF 2007]
The limitations of 'science' that de Vries was interested in were concerning 'natural science,' pure and simple. This is a question of what 'nature' is, not what 'culture' or 'society' or 'politics' or 'philosophy' are, but of what 'nature' is. If people accept de Vries' version of MN, i.e. the person who coined the duo 'MN,' then to maintain their intellectual integrity they must acknowledge he was speaking about 'natural science' only and not ALL science. Is this fair?
"deVries embraced this understanding of the nature and limitations of science because he saw it as consistent with, and supportive of, a vibrant and vital role for theology." - Keith Miller
Why use the language 'the nature of' science? What does speaking about 'the nature of' science actually add to the sentence? The 'limitations of science' is fine without it. But 'the nature of' science, this is just filler, it is fluff without meaning, trying, I suspect, to get at the signification of 'science,' but really adding nothing at all; just obscuring rather than enlightening.
It is not just Keith, but many, many, many others. For example:
"I am trying to understand the natures of science and religion compared to each other." - Michael Ruse (2005)
I've railed about the grammar of 'the nature of' at ASA before and at least one commentator (I believe it was Wayne) highlighted the importance of being careful with one's language. To me the expression, 'the nature of' is a flashpoint for that which is most problematic with 'naturalism,' especially in this case 'methodological naturalism' (as opposed to 'philosophical naturalism,' which most natural scientists don't understand, the majority not having studied philosophy, anyway). There is a great deal of myopia about what exists outside of 'the nature of' by natural scientists.
If you, dear reader, are a natural scientist, doesn't it just make sense to speak about 'the nature of things' (David Suzuki, CBC) and to smuggle in the expression 'the nature of' as often and as much as possible, perhaps to uplift the appearance of 'natural science,' and thus one's status as a 'natural scientist'? Please excuse the bluntness of such a sociological suggestion. I know such a question as 'status,' which is inevitably a human-social question, is sometimes uncomfortable for those who prefer to stay in 'objective,' fact-based, quantitative, empirical territory. But really, does speaking about 'the nature of' science actually tell us anything other than that science is concerned ONLY with natural things, thus reifying the dichotomy that is still celebrated by some, yet obviously and more often challenged by others. You just need to tune to the right channel at your local university, if you doubt, to discover this!
"If we are free to let the natural sciences be limited to their perspectives under the guidance of methodological naturalism, then other sources of truth will be more defensible. However, to insist that God-talk be included in the natural sciences is to submit unwisely to the modern myth of scientism: the myth that all truth is scientific." - P. de Vries
Please excuse me borrowing Keith's quotes of de Vries; I searched on-line for a copy of the de Vries paper (1986), but couldn't find one. Yes, the issue of 'scientism' is a great one here, and one that natural scientists insisting that science is about nature and that nothing other than nature can be studied by science is witness to. We multilogued at length about this on the ASA list many months ago.
"The point is that science does not appeal to the concept of God to explain phenomena, even if the scientist may believe in God and think that God is involved in what happens in the world." - G. Murphy
No one is arguing with George about this, yet he seems to feel a need to repeat it. Perhaps it is a leftover from many years defending this position to non-theists and atheists or to theists who doubt the value of science. To me, there is no need to repeat it, for it is already agreed.
"God acts by means of natural processes which can be understood in terms of rational laws." - G. Murphy
This would be great, if it could be expanded to be less exclusive of non-natural science disciplines; for example, "God acts by means of social, cultural, and natural processes which can be understood in terms of rational laws." But of course that's a harder sell. Since from the Christian perspective, human beings are 'more than just natural' it only makes sense to take into account those things that natural science cannot explain or describe so that the dialogue is balanced and not a monologue for an 'in-party' of natural scientists-only. The academy today is too diverse to speak 'nature-only' language. However, if one is certain they are speaking ONLY to or with natural scientists, the 'nature-only' language is likely sufficient and well-accepted.
"The simplest definition of MN is that science should not appeal to divine action to explain natural phenomena." - G. Murphy
I don't mind re-hashing old arguments if it will help to show another possible perspective. Trying to define MN as 'not appealing to divine action' is a negative, not a positive definition, one that doesn't much compliment natural science. Is that what people think MN really is, just an arbitrary (1986, gosh I was in grade school then) rule against excluding the 'supernatural' in Science?!
'This is what science CAN do, i.e. study ONLY natural things' - i.e. a more positive version of the same philosophy, runs the risk of upsetting all those scholars in the academy who apply 'scientific' methodology to their disciplines, but who are not limited to 'naturalistic' thinking. However, George's definition doesn't seem to include those persons in the discussion, for whatever reason. George doesn't seem to want to acknowledge that one can apply 'scientific methods' to non-natural things as well.
I like George's more diplomatic definition, though it is not the same as his other definitions: "science requires no theological input in order to study the world (methodological naturalism)" - G. Murphy
It doesn't 'require' it, but perhaps would benefit from it. Would the Christian scientists on this list not agree? Or please say otherwise, if theological input has never helped.
Let me quote from Hugo Holding at the Galilean Library:
"If no coherent supernatural explanation is admitted then a rule to methodologically exclude them is without content." (http://www.galilean-library.org/academy/viewtopic.php?t=878&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15&sid=2e428cdd00611caee19f9960ef737171 - An very good on-line discussion about MN, btw)
He continues: "this insistence on methodological naturalism as definitive of science is actually a recent thing, used as a rhetorical ploy to maintain existing power structures."
Ouch! And this is exactly why some here at ASA seem reluctant to dignify or outwardly acknowledge the challenge of non-natural scientific versions of 'evolutionism,' which they stoutly defend using the power structure of 'natural' science. It is where the science overlaps with the theology that the allegiance to evolutionism breaks down.
This is mainly because it would be undesirable that the 'existing power structures' that afford millions of dollars in research funding to bio-physics and genetic-engineering, but peanuts to research into social problems and cross-cultural communication should break down. Iconoclastic, some might call it, but that is exactly what would happen if the current MN/TE ideologies met their match and miraculously had to concede important ground. Theistic naturalists, i.e. religious scientists who are also naturalists, would have a lot of explaining and unpacking of meanings to do, yet they are often without the philosophical and sociological tools to effectively do so.
Let's now add Alvin Plantinga's recent voice, again on naturalism, of course involving evolution too:
"The real problem here, obviously, is Dawkins' naturalism, his belief that there is no such person as God or anyone like God. That is because naturalism implies that evolution is unguided. So a broader conclusion is that one can't rationally accept both naturalism and evolution; naturalism, therefore, is in conflict with a premier doctrine of contemporary science. People like Dawkins hold that there is a conflict between science and religion because they think there is a conflict between evolution and theism; the truth of the matter, however, is that the conflict is between science and naturalism, not between science and belief in God." (Naturalism ad absurdum, Review of "The God Delusion")
For there to be a conflict between 'naturalism' and 'science,' it should be acknowledged that ideology has run wild in our contemporary situation. People's categories are jumbled. Their faith in science is contrasted with the reasonable assumption that natural/supernatural is an appropriate dichotomy to apply across the board. Yet it simply isn't. The board is wider and bigger and deeper than it once was, and this requires adjustment on the part of naturalists of all varieties. The MN/PN dichotomy is just a symptom of a greater misunderstanding. Contributors and readers of ASA's list should recognize this.
It is one-sided research to just look within ASA and other Christian journals to find a definition of 'MN.' One must also consider the definition of MN by those who have an anti-religious agenda to realise that MN/PN dichotomy is booth a blessing and a curse. And it is one that could have happened, as Brooks and Dunn sing, 'Only in America.'
G.A.
p.s. the following is an easy patch to pitch if one hasn't read W. Windelband: "I don't think the distinction between 'experimental' and 'historical' sciences is fundamental or of great importance for theology." - G.M. It is obvious that Moorad's non-Anglo-Saxon perspective bothers those people at ASA who insist that Anglo-Saxonism is 'the only legitimate way' to think (epistemology). This doesn't make Moorad's view false or George's Anglo-Saxon view true, but it points to larger discourses than MN/PN is accustomed to.
George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote:
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 30 15:41:40 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Nov 30 2007 - 15:41:40 EST