[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index

Re: "Natural Law" in Rosennean Theory



It's always dangerous to bring "God" into discussions about science, for many reasons.  Regarding the excerpt of John K's below:
John K. wrote:
Traditional physics allows creativity only at the beginning of reality itself, and thus supports the division of science and theology. God had to act, according to physics, but He acted once and then remained silent. If we allow local creativity, then we can't get rid of God as well as was wanted back when science and religion parted ways. So, then you have the fear of losing science again to the creationists. But it is an unjustified fear for two reasons. First, it is system wholeness that supports creativity, not a separate and distant God that intervenes in systems. Second, there is no actual incompatibility with discussing God in terms of living creative experience, and describing a system in terms of objective events. I have used these arguments to dismiss even the latest version of creationism, "intelligent design theory" on the grounds that it proposes a separate intervening God rather than a systemic one. If it is a systemic one, in our case, He is indistinguishable from us in principle. Religion can deal with the difference between the actual and the ideal (specific system models vs. the ultimate "best" ones or ultimately unified one), while science works to explain what is happening in present experience.
The aspect of this worth discussing, in my view, is the notion that traditional physics "supports the division of science and theology"-- with the view as stated above. I think it's the other way around. To say "God acted once and then remained silent" is to support and reinforce the notion of "creationism". The "big bang" theory of how the universe was created that is so prevalent nowadays makes no sense to me and doesn't hold with the way complexity works either. I further suggest that my father's idea (with complex systems) that each system contains, in a sense, its own beginning is the one scientific explanation that truly DOES allow the complete separation of science and theology.
 
Judith
 
 
 

Judith Rosen wrote:
What he proposed was to enlarge the definition of "material world" to include causal agents that are "non-physical" or not made up of "particles" (matter) but are still part of material reality. That's what he meant by "natural world" (not to be confused with terms like "supernatural" or religious or "spiritual", etc).
 
So, you read it right, Tim. Relational analysis would admit the existence of something that has no physical form but acts as a causal agent upon things that do. Namely, a relationship between parts of a complex system or a relationship between relationships, and so on. "Conventional" analysis would not accept the existence of a relationship between parts as a real "thing". Conventional approaches would say that the viewer is imputing a relationship to inanimate parts.
 
Judith