It’s almist as though they wanted their work to relevant to a wider audience those who share their WV.
2 Likes
-Isms that denote Ideologies
Materialism
Idealism
Naturalism
Evolutionism
Empiricism
Scientism
Rationalism
Environmentalism
Feminism
Creationism
Individualism
Collectivism
Anti-Intellectualism
Egoism
Skepticism
Yup, brilliant BioLogos commentators can’t seem to find any ideologies.
-Isms that do not denote Ideologies
Metabolism
Organism
Mechanism
Aneurism
Terrorism
Criticism
Catechism
Plagiarism
Electromagnetism
Autism
Solipsism
Baptism
Fields:
Journalism
“I reject your assumption that something that ends in -ism is automatically an ideology. That’s a ridiculous assertion, if that is what you expect us to accept.”
Good, reject it, Christy. Obviously, that’s not what I said or believe. Christy was again reading her own thoughts into what I wrote and said.
Your wife wasn’t “doing her analysis from a methodological naturalism perspective”, as awkward and weird as that sounds. If she was doing good sociological research, then she was using social scientific methods, not natural scientific methods. Otherwise, we run into “unity of knowledge” arguments REALLY QUICKLY. I’ve seen it happen many times at conferences and in faculty discussions.
Please ask your wife if what she is doing SHOULD be called “methodological naturalism” in sociology. I would value her feedback much more than anything you’ve written so far, which smacks of reductionism, as is typical of many physicists (a good friend I work with is like this; he’s a SUPER nice guy, and a devout believer, but totally OBLIVIOUS, even loveably so, when it comes to sociology).
Historians don’t require MNism either. You’re just confused such that you exaggerate MNism. That’s ok, Matthew, better proportion is possible. Good wishes with your non-naturalistic (you called her a Christian, and she’s not a natural scientist) wife’s response.
I’m not sure what your point is.
It’s all I saw her doing when she did her analyses.
Those are HIS words, not mine. Maybe my academic historian friend doesn’t realize he’s an incompetent fool (like I am) for calling what he does MNism.
I don’t know what this means either. Let me try one more time.
When my wife, did her social analyses, she did so from a completely naturalistic perspective. There was no difference between her and her atheistic professor in how they did their sociology. But yet, at the same time, she was a Christian. Weird.
Ask your wife. Don’t just tell me what you call what she was doing. I’ve told you already that I find you a biased (physicist) commentor who obviously doesn’t think like a social scientist. Please, allow her her own voice here, ok?
“Those are HIS words, not mine.”
Link me to the paper where he wrote it. If he just said it, perhaps he’s on your philosophical level.
“When my wife, did her social analyses, she did so from a completely naturalistic perspective.”
You don’t know what you’re saying, Matthew. Using “naturalistic” makes NO SENSE here, since the topic is not “nature”, but “society.”
You can argue she was being “scientifically rigorous” or doing “empirical research” or “gathering data” or doing “statistical analysis”, or whatever she was doing.
But to call that NATURALISTIC makes no sense.
And don’t forget the slippery slope into heresy, Matthew, in case you wish to start hailing “Christian naturalism” as a healthy view from inside the Church. It’s the hyper-evolutionists who promote “Christian naturalism”. Are they your role models here? How non-traditionally and loose-liberal Christianity do you wish to get into? Christian Naturalism | Thank God For Evolution
Did you really think that I meant that all were not ideologies?! Reread what I actually said.
Good, Dale. You FOUND some ideologies. That’s welcome! Evolutionism is on the list. Even Christy called it an ideology in a previous thread. Next step: methodological naturalism is an ideology too. It just makes sense as the most accurate way to speak about it.
I see.
Let me phrase it another way.
Maybe…
When my wife wrote her sociology papers, as a Christian, the analyses was no different than an atheist would write using the methods of sociology. The results and methods exclude God, but are more so agnostic or limited to say what God has or hasn’t done to influence segregation and mobility.
When my friend writes his history papers, as a Christian, the analyses is no different than an atheist would write using the methods of history. The results and methods exclude God, but are more so agnostic or limited to say what God has or hasn’t done to influence history.
When I write my science papers, as a Christian, the analyses is no different than an atheist would write using the methods of science. The results and methods exclude God, but are more so agnostic or limited to say what God has or hasn’t done to influence scientific results in the natural world.
Let me just remind the BioLogos pro-MNism contingent of the words of their friend, James McKay. Thankfully, he and I are in agreement, along with many others who are unfortunately not represented here at BioLogos. At BioLogos, even calling “scientism” an ideology was too difficult for their Templeton Foundation philosopher. Thankfully, James gave me the courage to speak up, so that the pro-MNism ideology at BioLogos would not go unchallenged.
““Methodological naturalism” is a horrible term because different people have different ideas about what it actually means, and like it or not, it does have overtones of trying to drive God out of the picture altogether. And as you rightly pointed out, it also undermines the point that I keep trying to make that those of us who reject YEC do so for reasons that have nothing to do with “secularism” or “Darwinism” or “worldviews.” I think those of us who are Christians at any rate should try to avoid the term and look for alternatives instead.”
It doesn’t sound like you want to give voice to your wife’s views, only to express your own. Again, you sound like a throwback to 30-50 years ago how logical positivists used to speak about “science”. We’ve moved on since then, Matthew. Sorry that your views about this are so outdated.
"Methods of sociology" are not NECESSARILY NATURALISTIC. Can we not at least agree on that, Matthew? You seem to be DEMANDING NATURALISM of sociology, and to me that’s unwise. It’s also exactly the same language as the Soviets used to get rid of religion, theology and “spiritual language” from the nation-state.
I want everyone to know that I find these interchanges entertaining. I read them aloud to my husband in my best dramatic interpretation voice until he asks me to please stop. (In case you imagine an audience where everyone is smirking along with you and I am sitting at my computer in angst and humiliation. That’s not really what’s going on.)
How what works? Your thinking on this issue? No, I do not, it is still a great mystery to me that has not been clarified at all by this thread.
Where do you get this stuff?
Ah, yes, clearly my Wheaton education thoroughly corrupted my mind and I no longer understand English.
I think there are general similarities between research methods in the hard sciences and the soft sciences. My Christianity has been totally irrelevant to every linguistic paper I have written. If I posited divine intervention at the Tower of Babel as the reason heavy morae don’t occur in non-final syllables in the language I study, that would be frowned on in my field. YOU still haven’t enlightened us on what these other scientific methods are. Oh, right, it’s so wrong you don’t even need to respond. That’s less than compelling. At least you could share a link.
Agreed. Remember when David S said creationism vs. evolution was a philosophical debate, not a scientific one and I said:
No, the philosophical debate is over a Creator vs. naturalism. There is no real scientific debate over creationism vs. evolution…
What comparison, now? The comparison someone else made, and I rejected? Tell me more about my wishes. Women love it when men tell them what they think and feel.
Gregory seems to get a lot of “Christy’s philosophy” from things she never said.
An article I’ve never read, by the way. Funny how I get my ideas from it though.
Actually, all this shows is that Josh doesn’t use spell check, which everyone knows already. Typos are like his trademark move.
Who says this? It’s necessary to explain to creationists because they assume it’s atheist and of the devil. That’s not “using it against them,” it’s just defining terms. The way most people in the sciences define them.
(These are the kind of sentences I get the most kick out of reading dramatically.)
I have never experienced this reaction. More like they want evolutionary science to be a parallel and opposed ideology. Most people will gladly affirm that creationism is their way of explaining the world and they think that if everyone adopted it, the world would change for the better. Haven’t you seen the castle cartoon?
In most people’s usage theistic evolution and theistic evolutionism are synonymous and evolutionary creation and evolutionary creationism are synonymous. You have to do more than just assert I’m wrong to convince me otherwise. I’ve observed lots of people talking about these topics.
No one ever claimed -ism doesn’t apply to ideologies. Just that attaching -ism to a word doesn’t make an ideology.
Thank you for clarifying you don’t think so. It wasn’t clear.
How do these two differ in your mind?
(I know it’s probably easier to just make up things that I allegedly think and feel and then make snarky comments about how silly I am to think and feel that way, but try to answer the question and constructively contribute to the conversation.)
Ah, the irony.
Only to you. Percent of the thread you have spent supporting this contention: Negligible.
Wow, does @jammycakes know how much mileage you think you’re getting out of this? You have a bad track record of representing what people actually said and meant, so I get the feeling that he might not be the ally you are presenting him as.
4 Likes
This time I’m just going to respond to one main point, as it reveals the mirage present in many of Christy’s arguments, which are simply not as “air tight” or coherent as a few of BioLogos’ fans have been pretending. A second short addition at the end aims to help Christy sort out what confuses her, since she’s now stuck busy comparing apples with oranges again, and can’t seem to be persuaded otherwise.
Christy Hemphill wrote, trying to be accurate:
“Remember when David S said creationism vs. evolution was a philosophical debate, not a scientific one and I said…”
Well, let’s go look at what DavidS ACTUALLY said, and not just let Christy make things up out of thin air that she believes are true, but which IN FACT are not true. I care about what is true, and dislike people masking the truth to others.
What DavidS actually wrote was: “the creation/evolution debate is not a scientific debate. It is a philosophical one.” He didn’t use the term “creationism”, as Christy claimed. Will Christy now “walk it back” with some humility at her own reading error?
Christy writes “evolution vs. creationism” in the same style as atheist Eugenie Scott. Then she CLAIMS that “someone else started it.” Again, untrue. Why can’t Christy play fairly?
“What [mis]comparison, now?”
The miscomparison is evolution (science) vs. creationism (ideology). It’s incessant, and you sound just like Eugenie Scott apparently wanted you to sound when you use it.
“Wow, does @jammycakes know how much mileage you think you’re getting out of this? You have a bad track record of representing what people actually said and meant, so I get the feeling that he might not be the ally you are presenting him as.”
Usually, I try to quote people, when possible, to avoid the ungracious accusation you just made. I quoted James directly twice. Not sure how you think that’s misrepresenting him by using his own words.
Meanwhile, you have just been caught misrepresenting what someone actually said and meant. Thankfully for the truth, evidence has a way of revealing the misrepresentation on a person’s “track record”.
Ninety-five posts, to be precise. And I haven’t got a scooby-doo as to who I should “side with.”
The problem here is that we are discussing terminology that is ambiguous. I get the impression that at least part of this debate is about how the term “methodological naturalism” should even be defined in the first place. And that is my problem with it. You can’t have a sensible, constructive discussion about anything if you can’t agree that you’re discussing the same thing.
That’s why I say we should avoid the term, and look for more precise, unambiguous alternatives instead. As I said, I’ve coined the word “anomphalism” to describe my own position on the matter. How each of you would describe your own positions, I shall leave you to decide.
2 Likes
In terms of form, there is only one side, in terms of content one side is Thomistically defending the Cheshire God and the other is completely hatstand.
An ideology (/ˌʌɪdɪˈɒlədʒi/) is a set of beliefs or philosophies attributed to a person or group of persons, especially as held for reasons that are not purely epistemic,[1][2] in which “practical elements are as prominent as theoretical ones.”[3] Formerly applied primarily to economic, political, or religious theories and policies, in a tradition going back to Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, more recent use treats the term as mainly condemnatory.[4]
Methodological naturalism is purely epistemic, so it’s not an ideology.
Creationism is not epistemic, it is beyond ‘the nature, origin, and scope of knowledge, epistemic justification, the rationality of belief’.
‘ideology is a ‘coherent system of ideas’ that rely on a few basic assumptions about reality that may or may not have any factual basis’
So far creationism is ideological, methodological naturalism is not.
I score: (1, 0, -1)
'David W. Minar describes six different ways the word ideology has been used:[13]
- As a collection of certain ideas with certain kinds of content , usually normative; 1,0
- As the form or internal logical structure that ideas have within a set; 1,0
- By the role ideas play in human-social interaction ; 0,0
- By the role ideas play in the structure of an organization ; 1,1
- As meaning, whose purpose is persuasion ; 1,1 and
- As the locus of social interaction.’ 1,1
MN 5/6, C 3/6
Well fancy that! MN is more ideological than C so far.
'For Willard A. Mullins, an ideology should be contrasted with the related (but different) issues of utopia and historical myth . An ideology is composed of four basic characteristics:[14]
- it must have power over cognition; 1,-1
- it must be capable of guiding one’s evaluations; 1,0
- it must provide guidance towards action; 0,0 and
- it must be logically coherent.’ 1,-1
MN 3/4, 8/10, C -2/4, 1/10
And more!
'Terry Eagleton outlines (more or less in no particular order) some definitions of ideology:[15]
- The process of production of meanings, signs and values in social life 1,1
- A body of ideas characteristic of a particular social group or class 1,1
- Ideas that help legitimate a dominant political power 1,1
- False ideas that help legitimate a dominant political power -1,1
- Systematically distorted communication -1,1
- Ideas that offer a position for a subject 1,1
- Forms of thought motivated by social interests -1,1
- Identity thinking 0,1
- Socially necessary illusion -1,1
- The conjuncture of discourse and power 0,1
- The medium in which conscious social actors make sense of their world 1,1
- Action-oriented sets of beliefs 0,0
- The confusion of linguistic and phenomenal reality -1,1
- Semiotic closure[15]: -1,1
- The indispensable medium in which individuals live out their relations to a social structure 0,1
- The process that converts social life to a natural reality’ 1,0
MN 0/16, 8/26 C 13/16, 14/26
Phew, that’s more like it.
So C is a majority an ideology but MN is nowhere near YMMV
However from a sociological (or psychological or semiotic) POV, creationism is correlated with right wing politics, methodological naturalism with liberal:
'Sociologists define ideology as “cultural beliefs that justify particular social arrangements, including patterns of inequality.”[50] Dominant groups use these sets of cultural beliefs and practices to justify the systems of inequality that maintain their group’s social power over non-dominant groups. Ideologies use a society’s symbol system to organize social relations in a hierarchy, with some social identities being superior to other social identities, which are considered inferior. The dominant ideology in a society is passed along through the society’s major social institutions, such as the media, the family, education, and religion.[51] As societies changed throughout history, so did the ideologies that justified systems of inequality.[50]
Sociological examples of ideologies include: racism; sexism; heterosexism; ableism; and ethnocentrism.[52]’
Food for thought:
- “We do not need…to believe in an ideology [like creationism]. All that is necessary is for each of us to develop our good human qualities. The need for a sense of universal responsibility affects every aspect of modern life.” — Dalai Lama.[53] -1,1
- “The function of ideology is to stabilize and perpetuate dominance through masking or illusion.” — Sally Haslanger[54] -1,1
- “[A]n ideology differs from a simple opinion in that it claims to possess either the key to history, or the solution for all the ‘riddles of the universe,’ or the intimate knowledge of the hidden universal laws, which are supposed to rule nature and man.” — Hannah Arendt[55]’ -1,1
1 Like
ALLLLLLRIGHTY THEN, FAM. I think @jammycakes about summed this thread up very well, and I think we need to all take a break and be done with this now. This is coming down to splitting hairs of semantics and nobody is going to leave happy. Everybody take a lap.
5 Likes