|
72
|
1 Four Working versions of GA in the files (A--D), plus the reference
|
|
|
2 version
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
4 Plan was to read those. But haven't. Again. So maybe we should do
|
|
|
5 that together. But larger things have
|
|
|
6 been on my mind.
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
8 Did reread most of the reference version. It struck me as extremely
|
|
|
9 compressed, dense. A lot of mulling and consideration has been
|
|
|
10 cmopressed in a small amount of prose.
|
|
|
11
|
|
|
12 Maybe I/we should just read through it and "let the thing breath",
|
|
|
13 [that is, try to expand that sort of density where we find it].
|
|
|
14
|
|
|
15 One consideration of whether the religious (not theological)
|
|
|
16 sensibility/attempt to tie the paper to religious themes -- how much
|
|
|
17 weight should that have? For the moment that sensibility has been in
|
|
|
18 the driver's seat. Not sure if that's best. Another possibility is
|
|
|
19 to let the metaphysical content be given voice, and then to comment on their
|
|
|
20 potential relation to religious sensibilities. In other words, give
|
|
|
21 more emphasis to the world views and ease up on the religious
|
|
|
22 impliciations.
|
|
|
23
|
|
|
24 So, let this be an exposition of the metaphysics, and leave the
|
|
|
25 religious connection until later.
|
|
|
26
|
|
|
27 The undone homework is the get ahold of what the narrative arc of the paper
|
|
|
28 is. It's not clear to me as it stands, but the above distinction is
|
|
|
29 maybe necessary for giving some clarity.
|
|
|
30
|
|
|
31 Brian will have a look at classifying some paragraphs wrt to whether
|
|
|
32 the are primarily addressed towards exposition of the world view, or
|
|
|
33 exposition of its relation to religious sensibility.
|
|
|
34
|
|
|
35 ===== 4 March =====
|
|
|
36
|
|
|
37 Brian has looked at sections 1&2 of the reference version. Doing a
|
|
|
38 classification seemed good, color-coding for yellow for relig-sens,
|
|
|
39 blue for exposition of world-view and green for the relationship.
|
|
|
40
|
|
|
41 Section 2, pp 6--13, is almost all green. On 2nd reading, Brian says
|
|
|
42 "mostly redundant".
|
|
|
43
|
|
|
44 -----
|
|
|
45 Let's say that this thing should be less compressed, more relaxed,
|
|
|
46 easier to access for a non-academic audience
|
|
|
47
|
|
|
48 1) Forget the 'G' part and r-s, just give a non-academic
|
|
|
49 version of the world-view, just stated, not so much defended;
|
|
|
50
|
|
|
51 2) Another, given that, what are the implications for not r-s as
|
|
|
52 such, but the issues which have been dealt with by the religious
|
|
|
53 traditions
|
|
|
54
|
|
|
55 I worry about both of these - that a sort of secular summary (i.e. 1)
|
|
|
56 will just devolve into a secular summary of 03 (Objects book)
|
|
|
57
|
|
|
58 So given limited time, we focus on (2), relating the world-view to
|
|
|
59 r-s.
|
|
|
60
|
|
|
61 Because although that's what R-V is trying to do, but it's pretty bad
|
|
|
62 at it.
|
|
|
63
|
|
|
64 --------
|
|
|
65
|
|
|
66 Trying to mine/milk "the current state of science" to prop up or
|
|
|
67 ... the new world-view (ref. O3) and from that to derive morals.
|
|
|
68
|
|
|
69 But a) the current state of science is not well enough articulated
|
|
|
70 to give the reader a sense of the new world-view
|
|
|
71 b) and it doesn't actually make the connection
|
|
|
72 to lead the reader to a morality
|
|
|
73
|
|
|
74 More seriously, the curret state of science doesn't so much compel the
|
|
|
75 new world view as make room for it
|
|
|
76
|
|
|
77 Does this mean that O3 needs to be updated to take account of what has
|
|
|
78 happened since (e.g. LMMs). And to articulate the new world view.
|
|
|
79
|
|
|
80 So how, given that we can't "full on" deliver the new wv here, what is
|
|
|
81 the minimum necessary to declare victory -- what GA might/should do is
|
|
|
82 to just _state_ the nwv, w/o trying to convincingly/thoroughly argue
|
|
|
83 for it.
|
|
|
84
|
|
|
85 ================10/3=====
|
|
|
86
|
|
|
87 The picture of science as it stands is not clear enough/compelling
|
|
|
88 enough to support the morals I want to draw from it.
|
|
|
89
|
|
|
90 New section 1: Look, these two sets of sensibilities can't be treated
|
|
|
91 as independent anymore, because the subject matter of r-s have in fact
|
|
|
92 been domesticated by scientific results.
|
|
|
93
|
|
|
94 For example, the views that C. was attributing to FK, are that these
|
|
|
95 two world-views. Maybe 'Quietist' should be 'Compatabilist', because
|
|
|
96 FK was saying science is (just) an articulation of the glory of God's
|
|
|
97 creation. _Ad maioram Dei gloriam_
|
|
|
98
|
|
|
99 [HST summarises: The Quietist says "yes, the scientists are doing a
|
|
|
100 great job on Question 1, and it gets better all the time, but that has
|
|
|
101 nothing to do with Question 2: for that I have the Church"]
|
|
|
102
|
|
|
103 The ideological claim wrt the s-r is that it's complete and sufficient.
|
|
|
104
|
|
|
105 This (that these forms of thinking are distinct) is no longer a
|
|
|
106 tenable division. [I.e. the compatibilist is mistaken]
|
|
|
107
|
|
|
108 These two sets of world-views are no longer tenably opposed. Because
|
|
|
109 people are trying to corral a whole bunch of topics into the scientific
|
|
|
110 ones.
|
|
|
111
|
|
|
112 Is there anything like a consensus/received wisdom as to what those
|
|
|
113 two forms of understanding are? On the science side, people might
|
|
|
114 assume that it's causal explanations (mechanism). The (r-s?) critique
|
|
|
115 of that might be that the pure mechanism story can't even account for
|
|
|
116 physical objects, to say nothing of
|
|
|
117 intentionality/reference/social/purpose/beauty/love/humaneness.
|
|
|
118
|
|
|
119 Call the Scientific world=view the scientific _register_.
|
|
|
120
|
|
|
121 We've shifted from what can be said in the scientific register to what
|
|
|
122 the scientific register is incapable of explaining.
|
|
|
123
|
|
|
124 [HST:
|
|
|
125 The Scientific ideological _claim_ wrt the s-r is that it's complete and sufficient.
|
|
|
126
|
|
|
127 The Compatablilist position is that it's self-consistent, but _not_ sufficient.
|
|
|
128 ]
|
|
|
129
|
|
|
130 [HST: what's the other one?]
|
|
|
131
|
|
|
132 [HST: write a two-page version? A skeleton]
|
|
|
133
|
|
|
134
|
|
|
135 ----------------
|
|
|
136 For discussion with Jill:
|
|
|
137 1) Jim's visit;
|
|
|
138 2) Repayment to Catharine
|
|
|
139 3) BCS to New Brunswick in August
|
