Re: [asa] Where does TE differ from NOMA? (was: Re: Schools and NOMA)

Cameron -

I have to be quick here. Your distinction between my view & Gould's at the
end of your post is reasonably close to the mark. FWIW, my review of Gould's
_Rocks of Ages_, in which he sets out the NOMA proposal, is at
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/BookReviews2000-present/3-00.html .

Shalom
George
http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm

----- Original Message -----
From: "Cameron Wybrow" <wybrowc@sympatico.ca>
To: "asa" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 10:26 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] Where does TE differ from NOMA? (was: Re: Schools and
NOMA)

> George:
>
> You are right, the question is crude and oversimplified. Subject lines
> have
> to be short, hence the inaccuracy. But it did catch your attention,
> didn't
> it? :-)
>
> It should have been:
>
> "Does TE affirm or presume the same relationship between science and
> theology as that affirmed by NOMA?"
>
> And, if I understand you correctly:
>
> 1. George Murphy's TE doesn't. (The answer I would have expected from
> you,
> and do not dispute.)
> 2. Ken Miller's TE may.
> 3. Many other versions of TE don't.
>
> Fair enough. I allowed in my exposition for qualifications (all TEs, many
> TEs, some TEs, some TEs on this list, etc.) I'm really looking for
> explicit
> statements from various TEs here about NOMA. If it turns out that every
> single TE here rejects it, that's fine with me.
>
> Though I made an application to evolution, I used a different main
> example -- the example of a thoroughgoing materialistic psychology. I
> think
> it is an interesting question: How successful would a thoroughgoing
> materialistic, deterministic psychology have to be, in terms of
> theoretical
> coherence, prediction and control, before the traditional understanding of
> human beings as possessors of souls with free will (and yes, I'm aware
> that
> both "soul" and "free will" are themselves terms that need discussion)
> would
> become, if not strictly speaking falsified, at least a redundant and
> unnecessary hypothesis, and begin to be abandoned by human beings as part
> of
> their self-conception? Indeed, is it not already the case that such
> conclusions have already shaped the self-conceptions of some scientists,
> philosophers, etc.? [Those who have followed the debates between Dr.
> Michael Egnor (a Christian pediatric neurosurgeon) and an atheist,
> materialist colleague of his (who is representative of a significant body
> of
> opinion regarding the brain and the mind) will understand what, in my
> view,
> is at stake here. Some of them are up on the Discovery web site, I
> believe.]
>
> In my post I did grant, anticipating your objection, that it was possible
> to
> conceive of God's action in terms of a co-operation indetectable by
> science.
> My point was that in such a case, the decision whether to postulate the
> existence of a God is left up to private theological taste. Thus, Gould
> can
> decide that no God is involved in nature, not even as "co-operating" with
> it, and someone else can decide the opposite. That decision takes place
> on
> the "theology" side of the NOMA divide (for those, like Gould, who think
> in
> terms of NOMA). It seems to me that you make an analogous sort of
> extra-scientific judgment, though you don't justify it in terms of Gould's
> framework. Would it be fair to characterize the difference between you
> and
> Gould in this way?:-- Gould says that the "God question" can't be answered
> by science, or even partly answered by science, because the two realms of
> knowledge are completely disjunct; you say that the "God question" can't
> be
> answered by science, because God is not the kind of God who chooses to be
> detectable by scientific modes of investigation. So Gould invokes a
> blanket
> epistemological rule, whereas you have in mind a very specific Christian
> theology. Would that be accurate?
>
> Cameron.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: George Murphy
> To: asa
> Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 8:06 AM
> Subject: Re: [asa] Where does TE differ from NOMA? (was: Re: Schools and
> NOMA)
>
>
> The question in the subject line is very badly posed. NOMA is a fairly
> carefully stated view of the relationship between religion and science
> belonging to Barbour's "Independence" type. TE, OTOH, (waiving for now
> all
> the questions about the appropriateness of the term) covers a broad
> spectrum
> of views about evolution & religion. Those views have in common belief in
> a
> God and acceptance of biological evolution but they are all over the map
> in
> the extent to which they see God as being involved in the evolutionary
> process and the manner of any involvement. Some may indeed hold a
> position
> that amounts to NOMA - Ken Miller seems to be pretty close to that - but
> others are far from it. Obviously Teilhard de Chardin's position was not
> "independence" - he was well into Barbour's "Integration" category. I
> certainly don't see myself as a NOMAist - I wouldn't teach a seminary
> course
> that I titled "The Science-Theology Dialogue" & lead workshops for clergy
> on
> how to deal with scientific issues (including evolution) if I did.
>
> I suspect that the confusion here is due in large part to the idea that
> if
> God is somehow involved in the evolutionary process then that involvement
> ought to be accessible to scientific investigation. That is not the case
> if
> God's involvement is by way of cooperating with creatures in accord with
> regular patterns. Science studies the instruments God uses, not the One
> who
> uses them. Thus if a scientist chooses, he/she can study the world etsi
> deus non daretur. But for a TE, God is in fact "given."
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Oct 23 21:31:39 2009