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

George said>>> 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.

George,

Forgive me for saying this, but some people would be a lot happier with
this statement if it came from an atheist and it was said like this:

"I , an atheist, argue for the simple version of MN because it *isn't*
entangled with the fundamental ground of the theology of the cross".

That at least would be, arguably, a purely secular point of view, or at
least a non-Christian point of view.

But, being the way you said it, MN can be nothing but a religious concept,
or associated with a religious concept, derived from theology. Now, I
personally am not against it being a religious concept. Some folks would
however be worried that MN is completely useless to a purely secular
society, having been derived solely for the intellectual pleasures and
concerns of Christian theologians.

So, could you point out a form of MN that isn't entangled with Christian
theology and did not originate from Christian theology?

Thanks and Best Regards,
David Clounch

On Nov 30, 2007 7:50 AM, 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/ <http://web.raex.com/%7Egmurphy/>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Gregory Arago <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca>
> *To:* Steve Martin <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 Sun Dec 2 21:16:49 2007