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

Keith:

On one level, everything you say here is common sense and I am not inclined to disagree with it. However, this thread began with a discussion of NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria). In other posts I've set forth how I understand Gould's original notion of NOMA. As I read your discussion, it seems to me that much of it is not at all incompatible with NOMA as Gould understands it.

Let me take parts of your description and put in the responses that I imagine Gould would make, based on the essay in which he introduced the NOMA concept:

***

>Theology does not dictate to science the content of it[s] theoretical constructions.

Gould: Amen.

>The scriptural revelation, and the revelation of the person of Christ, do not speak to us of the history and operation of the physical universe in scientific terms.

Gould: Amen.

>They speak to us about these (as well as human history, and our individual life stories) in relational terms. What we can learn of the physical creation through science must be seen within that larger relational context.

Gould: If this means that revelation and theology speak about purposes and meaning and values, including the purpose and meaning and value of nature, and the appropriate moral response of human beings to nature (attitudes toward the environment, etc.), Amen.

>Christian theology provides a framework within which to understand and apply scientific knowledge.

Gould: In the sense that any theology -- Hindu, Muslim, pagan, Promethean humanism, etc. -- provides a framework of intellectual assumptions and meaning and purpose, Amen.

>Theology also provides the larger theological/philosophical framework within which science itself is given legitimacy.

Gould: If this means that Christians have theological conceptions that provide for them a metaphysical foundation for science, and/or that justify science as an intellectual, moral or spiritual pursuit, Amen. If it means that science needs permission from Christianity, either to exist at all, or to begin the investigation of any particular area of nature that it has not yet investigated, I dissent. If it means that Christian theologians get to decide whether or not a particular study, e.g., psychology, is scientific or not, I dissent.

>As I have written previously on many occasions, MN is a thoroughly Christian perspective on the nature and limiations of science. MN is not a concession to science, but a theologically informed understanding of its limitations.

Gould: If this means that Christians fully acknowledge methodological naturalism, and make it an unbreakable rule for scientific investigations, Amen. As for the rest, If Christians have their own theological reasons for supporting MN, that is very convenient for science, but as a scientist I do not need to know those reasons.

>Below is a list of some questions that need to be asked with regard to scientific research or its application:

>Does it empower people or control them?
>Does it broaden the gap between the rich and poor, or narrow it?
>Does it meet needs or generate wants?
>Does it value life or demean it?
>Does it heal or endanger health?
>Does it respect people's dignity as God's image bearers?
>Does it appropriately use resources -- is it sustainable?
>Does it preserve and care for the creation?
>Does it restore and heal what has been broken?
>What is its potential for evil?

Gould: all of these questions involve making judgments of good and evil, just and unjust, valuable and non-valuable, etc. Even questions about health and the proper care of the environment, while they require scientific knowledge as a preliminary to their answer, ultimately involve evaluations (what constitutes good health? what constitutes a proper balance between human dominion and the stability of species and ecosystems?) of a moral or spiritual or esthetic kind. These questions therefore fall under the magisterium of theology or the magisterium of philosophy or some magisterium other than that of science. If a scientist chooses to deal with these questions, he does so not in his capacity as a scientist but in his capacity as a human being, a Christian, a theologian, a philosopher, a moralist, etc.

***

What I am saying, Keith, is that the position you have sketched here is, if not identical with NOMA, close to it even in theory, and very close to identical with it in practice. The fact that Gould does not have Christian motivations for parcelling out the magisteria in the way that he does, does not mean that he parcels them out any differently than you would.

I am not arguing at this point that subscribing to NOMA is automatically wrong (though I have some objections to NOMA which I've pointed out to Ted and others). I am just trying to find out if you in fact subscribe to NOMA or something very close to it. Would you say that Gould has mapped out the territories of knowledge quite accurately, and that the main difference between you and Gould is that he personally is not a Christian, and therefore does not handle questions that belong to non-scientific magisteria in the same way that you do? And would you say that Gould's position would make it possible, in principle, for the two of you to study science together for decades, and never disagree on a strictly scientific matter, no matter what the object of investigation -- rocks, fossils, evolutionary mechanisms, the causes of sexual attraction, the causes of emotional responses, the causes of dreams, etc.? Or, to put it another way: what might you disagree with Gould about, that would impair your co-operating with him in describing nature, deriving laws of nature, inferring past or present natural processes, etc.?

Cameron.

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Keith Miller
  To: asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2009 7:08 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] Where does TE differ from NOMA? (was: Re: Schools and NOMA)

  Merv wrote:

> ... similarly, our understanding of

> reality derived from outside of science impacts how we understand and
> interpret our scientific conclusions.

    I lifted this one statement (re-pasted above) out of your post, Keith. This is
    what ID people seem to keep insisting they want to hear TEs explain. The mantra
    is something like "show us how a TE's faith affects their science." While I
    many not be a strong ID person myself, I'm still interested in how you would
    respond.

  Sorry for the delay in responding, I have been distracted with other things for the last few days.

  Others have responded to this general question before, but I will try to state my view as clearly as I can. Firstly the proper categories would be theology and science, rather than faith and science.

  Theology does not dictate to science the content of it theoretical constructions. The scriptural revelation, and the revelation of the person of Christ, do not speak to us of the history and operation of the physical universe in scientific terms. They speak to us about these (as well as human history, and our individual life stories) in relational terms. What we can learn of the physical creation through science must be seen within that larger relational context. Christian theology provides a framework within which to understand and apply scientific knowledge. Theology also provides the larger theological/philosophical framework within which science itself is given legitimacy. As I have written previously on many occasions, MN is a thoroughly Christian perspective on the nature and limiations of science. MN is not a concession to science, but a theologically informed understanding of its limitations.

  I like the comments made recently by Murray on this thread. I extract one quote from one of Murray's posts below --

  "I would particularly affirm the idea that our rational for practicing science, and even our scientific method, can be readily informed by Christian theology, but when it comes to truth claims about the natural order itself, then these should be grounded in the study of the natural order rather than theology itself. And, note, that I think that later is NOT something dictated to Christian theology by science, rather I think it is something permitted to science by Christian theology."

  To further respond to the question Merv asked, I would state that theology provides a context within which to grapple with the ethical and moral dimensions of scientific research and application. Theology speaks to all of the important questions related to scientific practice. What scientific research should we pursue? How many resources should be devoted to these pursuits. How should scientific knowledge used? Are there certain research programs, and certain applications that are off limits. Our theology will have a direct impact on answers to these questions. Science is a communal endeavor -- and is dependent on relationships between individuals, institutions, and governments. As I stated above, these relational aspects are the very focus of theology.

  Below is a list of some questions that need to be asked with regard to scientific research or its application:

  Does it empower people or control them?
  Does it broaden the gap between the rich and poor, or narrow it?
  Does it meet needs or generate wants?
  Does it value life or demean it?
  Does it heal or endanger health?
  Does it respect people's dignity as God's image bearers?
  Does it appropriately use resources -- is it sustainable?
  Does it preserve and care for the creation?
  Does it restore and heal what has been broken?
  What is its potential for evil?

  (see Keith B., and Ruth Douglas Miller, 2008, "Staying on the Road Less Traveled: Fulfilling a Vocation in Science," PSCF vol 60, no. 2, p.115-117)

  None of these questions can be answered from within science, but theology has much to say.

  Keith

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Oct 25 21:27:53 2009