Sorry George, but that's a strike on point b). Nothing in the post below even mentioned 'intelligent design' or 'ID'. I didn't bring it up! This is just your magnetic imagination, perhaps trying to frame me into an opposition that suits the American discourse (I don't really know the pulse because I don't live there). Unfortunately for you, such a framing is not suitable for this particular opponent to your outdated dichotomy.
Yes, you are welcome to bring up Spinoza and 'created' vs. 'creator' (i.e. your natura naturans vs. natura naturata argument, which no one has engaged). I've certainly not challenged it. Yes, you are free to speak about panentheism and process theology. And yes, you are free to speak about evolutionism as if it is about 'origins' and not about 'processes'; that is your perogative. But please don't insist that your view of 'nature' is justified on the basis of 'natura naturata' vs. 'natura naturans.' That's simply not contemporary enough to spend my effort on, even while respecting ancient links (e.g. Byzantium and Alexandria).
"Why not, if only for the sake of argument, try discussing these issues in terms of the definitions I've suggested?" Right back at you, George.
This is, in fact, my main argument with your position. It appears to be entirely unflexible, while I have already openly demonstrated flexibility. You appear otoh simply unable to even consider a position in which social-humanitarian views are respected as sovereign, that is, as if they are not merely cognates of 'naturalist' epistemology.
You didn't even speak about de Vries' paper, "Naturalism in Natural Sciences" or acknowledge that it speaks ONLY about natural sciences. Why?
Gregory
George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote:
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/
---------------------------------
Looking for a X-Mas gift? Everybody needs a Flickr Pro Account!
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 17:52:41 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Nov 30 2007 - 17:52:42 EST