minsocal

An example of the term "progressive" in science: " Social representations theory: a progressive research programme for social psychology Abstract The study "Psychoanalysis—its image and its public" intimates that common sense is increasingly informed by science. But common sense asserts its autonomy and, in turn, may affect the trajectory of science. This is a process that leads to many differentiations—in common sense, in scientific innovation and in political and regulatory structures. Bauer and Gaskell's toblerone model of triangles of mediation provided a distillation of their reading of "La Psychanalyse." Here it was argued that representations are multi-modal phenomena necessitating the use of multiple methodologies (comparative and longitudinal; qualitative and quantitative). In this paper we briefly summarise these arguments and elaborate ways in which social representation theory can be considered a progressive research programme. "Progressive" because as the theory has developed it has extended the range and depth of its conceptual basis; it provides a new synthesis for the social scientific understanding of the phenomena of common sense and of representation; it acts as an antidote to the reductionism of public opinion and, finally, it is a stimulus to depart from disciplinary silos. However, there remain unresolved issues: how to segment the relevant social milieus and how to close the feedback loop from common sense to science? " http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/25647/ The key is in the acceptance and unification of all forms of knowledge, not in territorial in-fighting.

Soma, I agree. I'm going to use a term here that might sound a bit odd. My firm belief is that the term "progressive" applies to science as well as religion, and in this there is a common ground. In recent years I have talked to young grad students who are being trained with a progressive perspective and, if I am not mistaken, have sections in prominent journals to report their work. If there is a difference with these students, allowing for translation of terms, they are taught to always respect the Divinity within. Myron

George, here's that link on Dawkins. He now says that there is "a 6.9 in 7" probability that there is no creator G-d. " LONDON (RNS) A controversial Oxford University professor billed by many as the world's "most famous atheist" now says he is not 100 percent sure that God doesn't exist -- but just barely. In a 100-minute debate with Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, Richard Dawkins surprised his online and theater audiences by conceding a personal chink of doubt about his conviction that there is no such thing as a creator. But, to the amusement of the archbishop and others, the evolutionary biologist swiftly added that he was "6.9 out of seven" certain of his long-standing atheist beliefs. Replying to moderator Anthony Kenny, a noted English philosopher, Dawkins said, "I think the probability of a supernatural creator existing (is) very, very low." http://www.huffingto..._n_1299752.html P.S. This link contains a weatlh of views on the subject. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/religion-science/

Yvonne, Same here. Another thing that grabbed my attention is the statement about science and religion as "valid avenues of knowledge". This, I like. Myron

George, The comment about Dawkins caught my attention also. Dawkins recently backed off a bit ... I'll try to find the article and post a link. Myron

"A majority of scientists say religion and science don't always conflict, according to new survey results released by Rice University. The study, conducted over five years through in-depth interviews with scientists at universities whose fields range from biology and chemistry to social sciences like political science and economics, dispels the widely held notion that religion and science are incompatible. “When it comes to questions about the meaning of life, ways of understanding reality, origins of Earth and how life developed on it, many have seen religion and science as being at odds and even in irreconcilable conflict,” said Rice sociologist Elaine Ecklund. Yet, a majority of the scientists Ecklund and her colleagues interviewed saw both religion and science as “valid avenues of knowledge” she said. Ecklund and her team interviewed 275 tenured and tenure-track faculty members from 21 research universities in the United States. Only 15 percent of respondents said religion and science were always in conflict, while 15 percent said the two were never in conflict. The majority, 70 percent, said religion and science are only sometimes in conflict." http://www.huffingto...eligion-science This seems to run counter to the more strident voices out there today. As for myself, I like the research because it allows scientists (plural) to speak openly on the subject.

"Quote 101:1.2 The Thought Adjuster has no special mechanism through which to gain self-expression; there is no mystic religious faculty for the reception or expression of religious emotions. These experiences are made available through the naturally ordained mechanism of mortal mind. And therein lies one explanation of the Adjuster's difficulty in engaging in direct communication with the material mind of its constant indwelling." Translation: Emotions exhibit intrinisic intentionalty (Searle, 1992), and are a product ot the Limbic Sytem located in the center of the brain.

George, I understand the 'etch-a-sketch' term, he he. There was another moving comment he made concerning his daughters. He said that they attend school with children of same sex couples and cannot comprehend why anyone should not be allowed to marry. Thanks. Myron

Michele and Barack Obama have been associated with the United Church of Christ for over 20 years. This denomination was the first to endorse marriage equality. He had said for some time that his views were continuously evolving. This I understood, and trusted. BTW, he also gave credit to Michele who appears to have been a strong influence and source of support.

If Jesus would not welcome all at the table, then I'm in the wrong place!

From the standpoint of evolution, it seems we should be as eager to profile a friend as an enemy.

George, I have an unusual biological barometer. I like your statement and, literally, it gave me goosebumps. Well said. Myron

When I first encountered TCPC, it was struggling with issues of identity. At that time, the 8 Points seemed to say more about what Progressive Christianity was "not" rather than what it "is". Any effort to achieve an identity in difficult times can be arduous, and it might be appropriate to step back and appreciate the efforts of those involved in the process. Myron

George, I agree with Wilson where he argues in Conscilience that we need to bring biology into the social sciences. However, reading between the lines, it seems that these groups are in competition with each other. As you noted, Wilson himself has only recently moved from out-group to possible in-group status. While I am very concerned about the facts of evolution and social functioning, in recent years I have spent more time thinking about how society should go about developing ethical systms approriate to our time and place. Pinker, in The Blank Slate, says that the whole program has "been hijacked by an effort to legislate the correct answer." If true, this would lead us nowhere? Myron

I agree. His case is strong. What concerns me is this. In Conscilience, Wilson make a strong case that what we need to make a choice to move in the direction of cooperation, or fail to meet the ethical challenges presented by technology. The Dalai Lama shares this view, as well. Wilson has said that religion must remain a force in the development of ethical systems that are capable of constraining technology. There is the power here of a unified voice working towards a common goal. Myron Edit to add: I'm not sure how we go about dealing with Nazi Germany and eugenics in this age. Who will take the lead? This questions bothers me,.

There is an irony here that I think deserves a serious discussion. When Wilson published Sociobiology in 1975, it was met with a storm of criticism. The argument used against his research was that it would be used as the basis for eugenics policies. Taken by itself, this does not seem too controversial. However, the story of eugenics leads back to Hitler and Nazi Germany and I don't think I need to elaborate on how this gets so very sticky. I will say that I like Wilson's work. I get the feeling he is a decent person with a deep concern for the future of humanity. The debate over Wilson's work uncovers some very important issues. Some of Wilson's detractors hold the theory that there is no connection between biology and the realm of culture and society. Wilson was then painted as a strict determinist (which he is not), and that is how these kinds of issues often evolve. I do not think Wilson is a strict determinist. Instead, I think his thinking is more along the line of reciprocal interactionism. The choices we make (volition) can have a huge impact on the course of evolution. The reciprocal is also true. The choices we do not make could also affect the course of evolution. History gives us a mixed bag. After WW II, there were many who would have prevented Wilson from publishing his research. I don't think they were evil in any way, but I do not know them personally. But, in order to plan where we are going, we need to understand where we've been. That is a major theme found in Whithead when he talks about "the art of progress". There is a view that cuts across religious and secular groups. It is a view I share. Technology often advances at a faster pace than the ethics needed to constrain it. I think Wilson is right, we need to be cautious here. Myron

I recently ceased attending a very progressive church after comments that I was a 'shill" for the church (the term being known as insulting). I was also labeled as being from the 'conservative branch', and so on. What can I say?

Hmmm ... is the process of "doing justice" a competitive or cooperative venture?

There have been many pioneers who have sought to find a way for a diverse population to find a "goodness of fit" to the world.

In some respects, I think we are a bit out of line concerning what science "knows". As noted in many other threads, science has no explanation for consciousness. Science cannot explain so-called "dark matter - energy", not even with a theory. One could expand this list consderably. But then, there are humble scientists who admit this, and remain ... curious. Instead of asking questions concerning free will, perhaps it would be productive to ask "What drives our curiousity?" What drives our creativity? The prototype can be found by watching a child exploring, imagining, creating.

Is there any voice in the Bible that represents a 'homosexual' .. a voice that even understood the word?

Sorry Brent, and I mean it without sarcasm. I have an idea where you are coming from. I wish you well. Myron

OK, I'll try this. Heaven and hell are mental states.Mental states need the concept of time in order to be human mental states. The term "eternal" does not relate to intrinsic time, it relates to a state of "non-time". To reach, or strive, to connect means to have a desire to connect with the eternal. Myron

More than a generation ago, some thinkers noted that secularism might just become the new religion.

I'm not very fond of dichotomies, as I have hoped to make clear. These days I doubt whether God created dichotomies (dualities). I am more in line with the development (evolution) of human thought that makes an effort to transcend past limitations of human generated dualities and progress into a view of reality that uses these same dualities to launch us into the future. I am also associated here with Whitehead and Process Thought. I would say that process (evolution) has two components. One is conservative in that it "pulls" us back into the past. The other is progressive in that it "lures" us into the future. A wise God would not dismiss half of Her Creation.