Minister's Inter-Faith Blog Page 2
The
Re-enchantment of science
|
I have been reading D.R. Griffin's book "The Re-enchantment of Science: Post-modern proposals,", which was among the titles that you recently commended to us. There plainly is a need to try to make some sense of inter-connections between our current mechanistic, cause-and-effect ideas of how humankind and our world function, the concept of a purposeful, caring God, and a creative source that had its beginnings many universes and billions of years away from us, and this book makes a brave attempt to address the conundrum. However, I took issue with several of the propositions advanced by the Editor, as follows: Firstly, he accepts and tries to define the term post-modernism. In days past, I had a number of Faculty members who I suppose considered themselves post-modernists, and indeed superior beings to us who were mere scientists. However, the term is essentially an anachronism. The word modern has its roots in Hodie, which literally means "today," and I think most of those who style themselves as "post-modernists" are essentially trying to reinterpret the present rather than peer into the future. Secondly, Griffin suggests that Skinnerian psychology is now passé. Here, there seems a major disconnect with the reality of a modern Department of Psychology. I doubt if a student could even pass Psychology 101 if he or she were to approach it with this attitude. It is clear to most of us that the majority of our mood states and attitudes are caused by external events that trigger reflexes and chemical changes in our brain, and that some of these same changes of mood can be altered by administration of various chemicals. I would suggest that the basis of a "good" life lies (as Paul suggests) in contemplating that which is good- our reflex responses will then have a happier outcome than if we have followed a less desirable life course. Any realistic account of behaviour probably needs to consider seriously the views of both Skinner and Maslow. Thirdly, Griffin's book includes an extended discussion of how one might bend metal from a distance, using some para-psychological trick- this, plainly, seems a load of nonsense. Finally, Griffin ventures into the domain of genetics, suggesting that Darwinian interpretations of inheritance are now disproven, and that we can manipulate genes and DNA in a Lamarckian manner. We may note in passing that acceptance of Lamarckian views by the Russian scientist Lysenko (Трофи́м Дени́сович Лысе́нко) contributed to the demise of the USSR! Given that modern science is probabilistic rather than definitive, infinitesimal and highly transitory changes in DNA structure are likely to be induced by both our environment and our personal actions; however, an individual's gene composition conforms to a statistical mean that does conform to Darwinian and Mendelian postulates. Just as scientists need the critique of philosphers, philosophers need the humility to have their writings reviewed by the current generation of scientists. Roy Shephard. |
| I also have
reservations about David's use of
parapsychology--he seems to need these odd occurrences to support
his pan-psychism--the idea that experience can be found in all of
creation and not just in human form. I cannot comment on
Darwinian
views, but would like to hear more on this. I would hold to a
pan-psychism of a more limited and rigorous kind than Griffin, and I
have
never felt the need to deny evolution in the name of creation. I
am
interested in sorting out the distinction between arguments from
intelligent design, which still seem to hold a kind of total control by
a
Controlling Deity--as opposed to my Whiteheadian (AN Whitehead was a
Mathematician turned philosopher in his last years) views--that hold to
God as a non-coercive Lure to the good experienced in all creation but
not necessarily controlling all decisions or outcomes. Dan. |
| Submit
a blog |
Blog Listings |
Minister's Page |
Home Page |