The following email is forwarded to the ASA LISTSERV
by request of the author. Dave has some very pertinent (IMHO)
points to be made.
Burgy
--------- Begin forwarded message ----------
From: dfsiemensjr@juno.com
To: johnburgeson@juno.com
Subject: Re: the "image of God"
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 14:47:06 -0700
On Mon, 14 Feb 2000 11:50:01 -0700 "John W. Burgeson"
<johnburgeson@juno.com> writes:
> Adrian wrote: " the theologian Berkouwer explained that there are at
> least two
> other ways of understanding the imago dei: as an
> office/responsibility/function, and as a relationship in conformity
> to
> God."
>
> That's all very well and good -- perhaps even true. But I see no
> way to approach it scientifically. Such a definition must remain, I
> think,
> in the realm of religious philosophy; untestable.
>
>
> Like most origins arguments -- what constitutes imago dei seems not
> capable of being answered definitively. Or at least with substantive
> agreement.
>
> Burgy
>
> ________________________________________________________________
I think, Burgy, that you have the correct answer to the problem. A
scientist works with descriptions. I note, from time to time, a reference
to a new species, which consists in a list of characteristics that one
can check off. Sometimes there is a note of a difference from a similar
species. This attitude is found in Newton's famous _Hypothesis non
fingo._ He was not declaring that he eschewed what we call hypotheses, a
guess to be tested. He was talking about the old sense, an underlying
philosophical basis. He was not explaining _why_ mass and gravity were as
they were, but describing _how_ they interacted, essentially totally
contained in formulas. The whole is tied to observations which can be
made, either directly or indirectly.
Philosophers, in contrast, normally deal with definitions and reasons
why. Aristotle's declaration that the celestial bodies had to move in
circles because circular motion is perfect and the quintessence of which
they are made is perfect, is an example. It did run afoul of observable
facts, but only after Tycho had refined the positions well beyond
anything previously available and Kepler had 21 unsuccessful tries at
providing circular orbits, with epicycles and deferents. One does not
have to subscribe to Aristotle's dicta concerning definitions, which held
sway beyond the Middle Ages, to recognize the relevance of definitions in
these areas. Definitions do not have to be checkable by means of
observations. _Imago dei_ is at least more definitional than descriptive.
Faced with an entity, I do not ask whether it really is a "rational
mortal animal," or if it exemplifies the _imago dei_. I conclude it is a
person if it looks like a person and sounds like a person. If I don't
know about audioanimatronics, I could be thoroughly fooled by the Lincoln
display at Disneyland. Not having visual contact, it may take me a little
while to determine whether a person is on the phone or I'm being treated
to a recording. I understand that when some aborigines were presented
with recordings in their own language, they decided that it must be
truthful because it always said the same thing. We may be more
sophisticated, but we live with limitations all the same.
There is a further problem because descriptions apply only generally. For
example, _Sus scrofa_ is a quadruped with split hoofs. But I recall a
picture of a two-legged pig, because the hind quarters had not developed,
and there are mule-footed pigs. With human beings, we "solve" the
problems of the standard description by ascribing humanity to all those
who had a function or organ but lost it. This covers amputees and those
brain dead through trauma or disease, for example. For other matters, we
recognize as human anything that has human parents. This covers
thalidomide and anencephalic babies, as well as other congenital
disabilities and deformities. Of course, we usually do not feel the need
to know the parents. If it looks close enough, it's in (except among
those with damnable prejudices). Tragically, those with such prejudices
do not recognize them as such, for they "know" it as the truth.
I hope this helps to clarify the issue rather than confuse matters
further.
Dave
--------- End forwarded message ----------
________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 16 2000 - 22:01:02 EST