Re: [asa] Re: Reductionism

From: PvM <>
Date: Sat Jun 16 2007 - 20:11:35 EDT

On 6/16/07, James Mahaffy <> wrote:
> Folks:
> > Moorad's approach does well on it's own, as for pointing to the difference
> > between (other) animals and human beings. I would include another view also
> On 6/15/07, Gregory Arago <> wrote:
> > to share their views, lifting up the spirit of Christian dialogue! There is,
> To which Pim replied:
> "Why does a Christian dialogue rely on discussing non-physical
> concepts? Is ASA not about science?"
> Pim, This is illustrative of some previous comments that make me think you try
> to assume that everything can be logically reduced to reason or scientific methodology.
> You may not believe it [it is hard to know what you believe] but it sure sounds like that.

No, I believe that we should at least attempt to reduce things to
reason or scientific methodology before concluding that there is
something non-physical involved. I have seen IDists recently move to
assert for instance that information, altruism etc are all non
physical entities (after all they have no mass (really...)). Such
'arguments' have little impact on me due to their vacuous nature.
While I am not saying that all can be reduced to such, it seems the
logical approach to first try reason and the scientific method before
invoking the supernatural.

> Yes we are scientists and yes we are committed to integrity in our empirical methodology,
> but we work from a Christian perspective. Underneath it we are or should be driven by
> aspects of our Christian world an life view (paradigms of Kuhn, meta views of Ted, or
> presuppositions of C. Van Til). That also means the Dawkins and others are driven by world
> views of a different kind.

Yes, what we do with knowledge is far less constrained by reason and
logic necessarily.

> The work of the Holy Spirit in my life can be scientifically explained. The trinity has defied easy
> logical explanation and in fact those who have tried sometimes end up in hearsay.

A real problem with concepts which are ill defined. In the end is the
trinity not something we assigned to something whose concept we may
not have fully understood?

> So back to what Greg is saying it may be possible that our created in the image of God might
> mean that we can not explain human functioning entirely in terms of functioning of God's other
> creatures. At the same time of course we must seriously look at the biological side of altruism or
> other aspects of our behaviour.

I am more than willing to entertain that we may not be able to fully
explain human functioning, but I find it difficult to assign our lack
of understanding to supernatural terms.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Jun 16 20:12:20 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Jun 16 2007 - 20:12:21 EDT