[asa] Re: [asa] Rejoinder 6D From Timaeus – for Iain Strachan, Jon Tandy and Others...but not Gregory

Hi George,
 
With a few minutes remaining before catching the train...
 
1) Yes, I think I know what 'positive' means. Well, it is the oppositve of negative. And yes, it was A. Comte who coined the term 'positive philosophy' which posited a (3 stage) transition from theological to metaphysical to scientific (i.e. positive) knowledge. Some people still use this stage argument against theism today. Is this what you are speaking about too? Have you read Comte, in French or English, George?

I would suggest that 'supposed ignorance' confirms 'actual ignorance' if it cannot verify knowledge of some kind. Ted seems ready to acknowledge the lack of social scientific participation at ASA. You George, however, seem not ready to do so, and thus continue to display a 20th century unholistic/fragmented understanding of affairs rather than a 21st century one.
 
Yes, I'll willingly contribute a revised paper of the previous one I submitted to PSCF, when time permits. And I'll be glad to be seen as a pretentious harper, rather than as an unelightened repeater of the status quo in 20th century science and religion discourse. This is, btw, exactly what IDists complain about too (noting again that I am not an IDist)!
 
As for "language echoing yours," I'll take this as a compliment and as a success in massaging your language into something more appropriate for the current age. Human-made vs. non-human-made is well complimented by 'creature-made' vs. 'God-made,' albeit the latter from an obviously theological standpoint. Hopefully we can work together (theology and sociology) on making this something relevant as opposed to a mere personal grammatic fixation.
 
2) "I have not used the natura naturans/natura naturata distinction here but..." - George
 
Actually, yes you have, George. And I called you on it before and am willing to do so again. No, I'm not lying about your record, but rather exposing it and its gratuitous self-referencing. It's not an issue of IDists not wanting to 'get involved' as much as it is TEists and ECists (or those who hesitate to call themselves either) not being able to get involved due to lack of familiarity with human-social sciences. At least the IDists are visibly trying!!!
 
The bridges between natural sciences, social sciences and humanties remain accessible for those who are willing to consider them. Though I wonder about this after such an obvious dismissal if they will ever be carefully approached by those intent on natural science (i.e. not social science) and religion dialogue-centrism at ASA. There is hope for the future, which is exactly what I will present to an audience of the mainly 'uninitiated' in Moscow tomorrow.
 
I'd be glad for your wishes of support on this adventure.
 
Thanks for your prayers!
 
Regards,
Gregory 
 

--- On Tue, 10/21/08, George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com> wrote:
From: George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>
Subject: Re: [asa] Rejoinder 6D From Timaeus – for Iain Strachan, Jon Tandy and Others...but not Gregory
To: gregoryarago@yahoo.ca, asa@lists.calvin.edu, "Ted Davis" <TDavis@messiah.edu>, john_walley@yahoo.com
Received: Tuesday, October 21, 2008, 6:46 PM

Gregory -
 
On 1, do you know what "positive" means?  Again all you've done here is to berate us for our supposed ignorance.  & just listing a bunch of famous names doesn't contribute a lot.  I've suggested before that you submit an article to PSCF dealing with what you see as insights of the social & human sciences on issues relating to creation, evolution & design.  I think Ted & I (at least) have functioned as "emissaries" who (a) recognize that it would be good to have more participation in ASA by human & social scientists & (b) invite you to join &/or write something positive about these matters for the organization's journal.  If you're really interested in making a worthwhile contribution, shut up & do it.  Otherwise you'll continue to be seen as nothing more than a pretentious carper.     
 
On 2, I was not criticizing the human-made/nonhuman-made distinction (though if & when we encounter ETs it'll have to be rephrased, & in fact already should be since SETI has been used in the ID debate).  I was pointing out that there is another distinction that's at least as important, one which I deliberately described in language echoing yours (which accounts for any oddness of the language).  & in fact I, & a number of other theologians, have talked & written about divine action & its relationships with natural & human phenomena quite extensively.  The problem, as I noted, is that IDers generally haven't wanted to get involved in those discussions & have even denied their relevance. 
  
I have not used the natura naturans/natura naturata distinction here but, as I have pointed out more than once, to do so does not make a Spinozan pantheist.  The distinction is a scholastic one.  If I may quote Bob Dole, "Stop lying about my record." 
 
Shalom
George __________________________________________________________________ Reclaim your name @ymail.com or @rocketmail.com. Get your new email address now! Go to http://ca.promos.yahoo.com/jacko/

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Oct 21 12:04:02 2008