Binary file CR_manuscript/CR_v96_full.pdf has changed

Binary file God · R1 ≈ Reference (Sorted).docx has changed

Binary file God, Approximately.pdf has changed

--- /dev/null	Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
+++ b/brian_2025-03-03.txt	Mon Mar 10 16:52:06 2025 +0000
@@ -0,0 +1,147 @@
+Four Working versions of GA in the files (A--D), plus the reference
+version
+
+Plan was to read those.  But haven't.  Again.  So maybe we should do
+that together.  But larger things have
+been on my mind.
+
+Did reread most of the reference version.  It struck me as extremely
+compressed, dense.  A lot of mulling and consideration has been
+cmopressed in a small amount of prose.
+
+Maybe I/we should just read through it and "let the thing breath",
+[that is, try to expand that sort of density where we find it].
+
+One consideration of whether the religious (not theological)
+sensibility/attempt to tie the paper to religious themes -- how much
+weight should that have?  For the moment that sensibility has been in
+the driver's seat.  Not sure if that's best.  Another possibility is
+to let the metaphysical content be given voice, and then to comment on their
+potential relation to religious sensibilities.  In other words, give
+more emphasis to the world views and ease up on the religious
+impliciations.
+
+So, let this be an exposition of the metaphysics, and leave the
+religious connection until later.
+
+The undone homework is the get ahold of what the narrative arc of the paper
+is.  It's not clear to me as it stands, but the above distinction is
+maybe necessary for giving some clarity.
+
+Brian will have a look at classifying some paragraphs wrt to whether
+the are primarily addressed towards exposition of the world view, or
+exposition of its relation to religious sensibility.
+
+===== 4 March =====
+
+Brian has looked at sections 1&2 of the reference version.  Doing a
+classification seemed good, color-coding for yellow for relig-sens,
+blue for exposition of world-view and green for the relationship.
+
+Section 2, pp 6--13, is almost all green.  On 2nd reading, Brian says
+"mostly redundant".
+
+----- 
+Let's say that this thing should be less compressed, more relaxed,
+easier to access for a non-academic audience
+
+ 1) Forget the 'G' part and r-s, just give a non-academic
+    version of the world-view, just stated, not so much defended;
+
+ 2) Another, given that, what are the implications for not r-s as
+    such, but the issues which have been dealt with by the religious
+    traditions
+
+I worry about both of these - that a sort of secular summary (i.e. 1)
+will just devolve into a secular summary of 03 (Objects book)
+
+So given limited time, we focus on (2), relating the world-view to
+r-s.
+
+Because although that's what R-V is trying to do, but it's pretty bad
+at it.
+
+--------
+
+Trying to mine/milk "the current state of science" to prop up or
+... the new world-view (ref. O3) and from that to derive morals.
+
+  But a) the current state of science is not well enough articulated
+        to give the reader a sense of the new world-view
+      b) and it doesn't actually make the connection
+         to lead the reader to a morality
+
+  More seriously, the curret state of science doesn't so much compel the
+  new world view as make room for it
+
+Does this mean that O3 needs to be updated to take account of what has
+happened since (e.g. LMMs).  And to articulate the new world view.
+
+So how, given that we can't "full on" deliver the new wv here, what is
+the minimum necessary to declare victory -- what GA might/should do is
+to just _state_ the nwv, w/o trying to convincingly/thoroughly argue
+for it.
+
+================10/3=====
+
+The picture of science as it stands is not clear enough/compelling
+enough to support the morals I want to draw from it.
+
+---------New section 1-------
+ Look, these two sets of sensibilities can't be treated
+as independent anymore, because the subject matter of r-s have in fact
+been domesticated by scientific results.
+
+For example, the views that C. was attributing to FK, are that these
+two world-views.  Maybe 'Quietist' should be 'Compatabilist', because
+FK was saying science is (just) an articulation of the glory of God's
+creation. _Ad maioram Dei gloriam_
+
+[HST summarises:  The Quietist says "yes, the scientists are doing a
+great job on Question 1, and it gets better all the time, but that has
+nothing to do with Question 2: for that I have the Church"]
+
+The ideological claim wrt the s-r is that it's complete and sufficient.
+
+This (that these forms of thinking are distinct) is no longer a
+tenable division.  [I.e. the compatibilist is mistaken]
+
+These two sets of world-views are no longer tenably opposed.  Because
+people are trying to corral a whole bunch of topics into the scientific
+ones.
+
+There are many topics which classically had been thought to fall into
+the [r-s] category which are being explored in something like the
+scientific one.  So, bottom-line, the whole distinction needs to be
+rethought.
+
+-----End of section-----
+
+Is there anything like a consensus/received wisdom as to what those
+two forms of understanding are?  On the science side, people might
+assume that it's causal explanations (mechanism).  The (r-s?) critique
+of that might be that the pure mechanism story can't even account for
+physical objects, to say nothing of
+intentionality/reference/social/purpose/beauty/love/humaneness.
+
+Call the Scientific world=view the scientific _register_.
+
+We've shifted from what can be said in the scientific register to what
+the scientific register is incapable of explaining.
+
+[HST: 
+The Scientific ideological _claim_ wrt the s-r is that it's complete and sufficient.
+
+The Compatablilist position is that it's self-consistent, but _not_ sufficient.
+]
+
+[HST: what's the other one?]
+
+[HST: write a two-page version? A skeleton]
+
+
+----------------
+For discussion with Jill:
+ 1) Jim's visit;
+ 2) Repayment to Catharine
+ 3) BCS to New Brunswick in August