I wasted about an hour of my life responding seriatim to some of your statements in which you repeatedly ignore & misrepresent what I've said & what I meant. I wish I had read over the whole thing more carefully before I started because when I came to the end I realized that your statement "There is no content to his saying such outwardly fine words; it is just a formal acknowledgement, nothing more" was just your own "fine words" for "George is lying." & at that point I thought, "Why am I bothering to talk to this guy?"
My responses, in red, are still here down to that point, for what they're worth. But don't bother to reply because I'm not going to read anything more from you.
Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
----- Original Message -----
From: Gregory Arago
To: George Murphy ; asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 5:18 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] Re: Silent MNism was [Definition for MN in PSCF 2007]
It is true, George that I've made mistakes in my days, but I'm afraid you've not exactly got the picture right. At least, let me try to show how my perspective differs from yours and give me a chance to persuade you that MN is not the only, single, monolithic way to 'do science,' as it seems you are suggesting, with retro- appeal.
The charge that I leave theology out of theology-science discussions is misleading because 1) there are science-religion, science-faith and science-theology discussions, not just science-theology discussions, and 2) since I am not a theologian by education-training, it only makes sense that I don't challenge George's theological views (for example, asking him specifically to clarify his relationship with 'process theology').
I clearly do not leave out theology from academic legitimacy or deny it a place at the contemporary table of discourse. In fact, I just wrote a (sociological) paper on this very topic recently and there agreed with George's meaning of theology and 'not religious studies'!
Sure, theology isn't identical with religion or faith. How does that keep one from talking about theology? I have argued that the limitation on science commonly referred to as MN is grounded in theology. If you don't talk about that then we're talking at cross purposes.
I am glad that George 'doesn't disagree in a fundamental way with' my 'intent on marking off and defending turf for human-social sciences.' This is meaningful (especially if there is anything behind it)! Unfortunately, he still seems unwilling to cross-over to the positive side of things, by dignifying human-social science and getting outside of his 'naturalist' perspective. It makes complete sense, doesn't it, for a natural scientist, to think that everything that is capable of studying is 'natural'. This is just tautological indeed!
Most of this rhetoric about "natural" & its cognates is a waste of time. It is a very elastic word to which people have attached many meanings. The definition of "nature" in the 1942 edition of Dictionary of Philosophy begins "A highly ambiguous term..." & then gives 4 basic definitions plus variations & a description of the Aristotelian concept. This then is is followed by the distinction between "Nature naturing" & "Nature natured" which I've used. With this ambiguity it is no surprise that when people speak of "methodological naturalism" they don't necessarily use "natural" in the same way as when they speak of "the natural sciences." In particular, to say that the sciences - including sociology - should be limited by MN does not imply that it must be seen simply as a branch of physics. To say this is not a matter of not caring about definitions but simply realism about the way people speak.
I have stated quite clearly what my "naturalistic" perspective is, & your charge that that perspective fails to dignify human-social sciences is simply false. You know what I mean when I say "natural" but when you try to criticize my position you insist on attributing another meaning to me.
Natural scientists study nature! We could even rather speak of physical scientists studying physical things. But it would surely be wrong to represent George as a 'physicalist,' though many of his physics colleagues plainly so qualify.
George is applying his dichotomy of natural/supernatural evenly across the board. This move is, unfortunately, unfair and biased! It simply doesn't work in our contemporary academy (which includes theology, though not where I live it doesn't because theology is 'restricted to' or 'dignified in' seminaries), that has moved beyond 'natural philosophers' to 'natural scientists' (coined by the Brit, W. Whewell) to 'scientists' today.
See, you've done it again. I have said several times that I am not making the common "natural/supernatural" distinction, but here you are, having me "apply" it!
"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." - George
This is over-reaching on the one hand and true on the other. It is inaccurate to bunch 'natural' and 'human-social' together under one category, 'science' or 'scientist.' This should be elementary and obvious for those who are up-to-date in philosophy and sociology of science. 'Not invoking God' is yet again a negative argument.
a) OK, if you don't want to be called a scientist, I won't call you one. b) So it's negative. So what?
"Neither physicist nor a sociologist will be content with 'God did it' as a scientific explanation - it's that simple." - George
Again, this offers nothing positive, only negative (neither/nor) and is frankly boring (because it's already been heard repeatedly). And btw, who ever said a sociologist could be content with 'God did it' as an explanation? No one I know. It seems you're projecting a discussion onto me that I have never represented, George. This is confusing because I am being accused of holding positions that I have never held.
You've defended ID & it implies (though its practitioners don't say so) that "God (or "the Intelligent Designer") did it is a legitimate scientific explanation. I'm really more interested in talking about something like this than in word games about whether or not sociologists are scientists or whether tomatoes are fruits or vegetables.
"they ['scientists/scholars'] 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." - George
Fully agreed.
"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." - George
After many times repeating my challenge to 'the nature of' grammar construction and 'naturalism' as an ideological perspective on the ASA list, there is no need for George to say 'maybe' other than as a blatant understatement. He many not see the importance of terminology, but others certainly do (e.g. Moorad's insistence on the importance of 'historical'). But I am no longer a beginner, rather someone who thinks George's framework is on the way out while the views I espouse regarding 'naturalism,' which are of course not actually mine but originated by others, are on the way in; in some places of the academy they have already arrived, avant garde.
a) I've already explained why debates about the word "natural" are much ado about not very much. b) A sharp distinction between "historical" & "experimental" sciences is quite misleading, as a number of people including myself have pointed out. c) The fact that something has "arrived" in "the academy" does not, given the state of today's academy, impress me very much.
'Methodological naturalism,' if traced to P. de Vries, is in fact no older than the illustrious concept duo of 'intelligent design,' so it is rather silly to call MN 'established terminology' and to pretend that it gains some kind of authority/relevancy with age when no such dignity is given to ID. MN and ID are both ideologies, after all!
Thus, when George says that "MN in that sense is simply a working rule that virtually all scientists observe & have done so for centuries," he is employing his own personal retro-definition that revises history. None of the following contributors to 'modern science,' Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler or Newton, would have considered MN to be consistent with their 'doing science.' George might want to consider reading philosophical objections to MN instead of only supportive views of MN. Thus his natural/supernatural dichotomy (i.e. the newer version of natura naturan vs. natura naturata) would be more difficult to maintain in the face of more advanced views, which in the end may also be consistent with his religious position.
I said "MN in that sense" - i.e., the simple way I defined it - has been a working rule. I am not using de Vries definition. It's true that this "rule" developed over time, so that Newton could use "God did it" to explain apparent orbital anomalies, but the fact that "natural" explanations were found for these is one of the things that solidified the rule.
I do not have a "natural/supernatural dichotomy" as I have said many times. This is not changed by your attempt to make that "the newer version of natura naturan vs. natura naturata." It isn't. In fact that claim shows your own incoherence: You've agreed that the distinction between Creator & creature is valid but reject the nature - supernature distinction. How then are they the same.
"He [G.A.] 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." - George
There is some truth in this, and it is partly due to the medium on which we are communicating. I don't 'lump all TEs together in one inept group.' But a personal conversation (by phone or in person) would clear this up. There are TEs who are well acquainted with the theological and philosophical roots of their views. These deserve great respect. Yet there are others who use 'evolutionism' as a blanket type of universalism (cf. GUT). It is important to ask a TE why 'evolution' is qualified by 'theological' rather than vice versa.
I would accept, along with surprisingly many others on the ASA list, evolutionary creationism (EC) before accepting theistic evolution (TE). However, it is not a surprise that, particularly in America, people are hesitant to call themselves 'creationists' because of the mainly pejorative meaning attached to that label. D. Lamoureux, who apparently coined the duo 'evolutionary creationism,' as a Canadian, doesn't suffer the same label-environment.
Recently reading H. Bergson and noticing the echo of his views as expressed by common TEs, not to mention Dobzhansky's and Teilhard de Chardin's, the discussion is ripe to be had more deeply than most TEs I've seen on-line can handle. And to support that statement, when new visitors and guest contributors have spoken on the ASA list, many have expressed reservations about one or more aspects of TE. Personal conclusion: no one has presented a bullet-proof paradigm called 'TE.' (Note: I've read Keith Miller's contribution to PoEC and this is not an exception.)
Again I'm not going to spend a great deal of time on terminology. Like it or not, we're probably stuck with "theistic evolution," just the way we're stuck with "big bang." "Evolutionary creationism" is better but it isn't going to catch on.
Sure, there's good TE & bad TE - just as there's good theology & bad theology, & good evolutionary theories & bad ones. Good versions of TE are ones that try to understand evolution in terms of good theology. & frankly I don't know why you feel yourself competent to say whether or not such versions are "bullet-proof" or not since you've admitted that you aren't qualified to debate theology.
What I argue for is my own version of whatever you want to call it - it's part of what I call chiasmic cosmology.
This thread is not supposed to be about ID, but that 'theory' keeps popping up in the discussion, so I'll briefly address it, drawn-in by others rather than of my own accord.
"The real concern of most ID proponents is theological." - George
So now we're getting subjective and putting forth opinions, showing who we've been listening to and who is ignored? For a main 'real concern' it is surprising how much effort and working-hours Behe, Dembski, Meyer and Nelson, not to mention Wells, have given to trying to be (naturally) 'scientific.' The implications of the argument from/for 'design' for theology are well-known and not new.
Is it "subjective" for me to believe Dembski when he says that ID is the Logos doctrine of John's gospel in the language of information theory.
George likely feels IDists are infringing improperly on his territory (e.g. his repeatedly charging IDists of not talking enough about theology), similar to my feeling that George's (methodological) 'naturalism' infringes improperly on my territory (and the territory of my colleagues). Think about this, please George, it is an accurate comparison. I know of several non-theist IDists, George, and have read their arguments, have you?
No, you've got it wrong. I feel that IDs are pretending that there are no theological issues involved when manifestly there are. Yes, I know that there are "non-theist IDs" & they are insignificant in the public debate, which is what I'm interested in. Please remember that I intend my work in science-theology dialogue to be in service of the church & the larger community in the real world.
"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." - George
My preferred terminology is 'human-social sciences' rather than 'human & social sciences' (here I look east rather than to Anglo-Saxon western views). George is certainly correct that IDM-ID raises issues mainly in natural sciences, particularly biology; the most attractive natural science of today. Yet the meaning of those particular two words/concepts/percepts 'intelligent' and 'design' are much more susceptible to suitability in human-social sciences. Don't you think - IDM-ID aside? Of all the ways 'designing' is attributed in common linguistic usage, biology is far from commonly the first on the list.
Sometimes I've said "human-social" to cover a group of disciplines & sometimes "human & social" to designate them one by one. Do we really have to debate hyphens?
Your point about the meanings of "intelligent" & "design" would be more cogent - if in reality they didn't refer (or anticipate reference to) God.
George seems to give a kind of agency to 'ID' that I simply don't require. To say, 'The issues that ID raises' is to objectify theory, as if perhaps a 'theory' were an agency, which an applied physicist wouldn't likely do. When he admits the IDM is relevant to 'important psychological, sociological &c matters' he is speaking my language, while without expressly acknowledging the actual, legitimate contribution of those academic spheres. There is no content to his saying such outwardly fine words; it is just a formal acknowledgement, nothing more.
"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." - George
The 'superiority' issue is nevertheless presumed in George's position that 'naturalism' hegemonically envelopes ALL things human, incl. cultural, social, political, etc. This he has explicitly stated. If all human things are simply 'natural' then there is no place for discussion of spiritual things in human-social thought. I disagree with such an approach.
The careful reader will thus notice most importantly that George is still unwilling to take any step forward to escaping from his antique dichotomy towards a more contemporary view. This is not a conservative/liberal issue. It is simply dignifying the current diversity in the academy and not privileging 'natural' sciences unfairly above other sciences/scholarship - it is about finding harmony, balance, equilibrium. This argument is not about a demarcation game! Rather, it is about finding ways to communicate across disciplinary boundaries, to cooperate instead of digging more trenches of disciplinary isolation, for the purpose of becoming more and more specialized (and thus narrow) scientists (read: priests of the Modern Age).
I'm relieved to hear that George, in the end, uses the word 'constraint' to describe MN. He writes about "the constraint of a clearly & simply defined version of MN.' Such a constraint is unnecessary for human-social thought, and should not be presumed by someone whose background is not in social-humanitarian thought. Neither theologians nor physicists (nor biologists like E.O. Wilson, nor ethologists like Dawkins) has any business in telling other disciplines what constraints they should have, other than pointing out and respecting their own sovereign spheres of knowledge.
George should not worry that I leave theology out in my science-religion/faith/theology discussions. He should rather try to understand how and why human-social sciences differ from natural sciences, and need not adhere to the (methodological) naturalism that he persists is necessary. It is not necessary. There are many scientific methods and many sciences, not all of which are properly described as 'natural sciences.' The meaning of 'not-natural' is not synonymous with 'supernatural,' as George assumes.
Shalom,
Gregory
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 21:28:13 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Nov 30 2007 - 21:28:13 EST