function/significance of god in scientific explanation
no time to develop, yet worth to note for now (reading G. Buchdahl, 1988 Metaphysics and the philosophy of science, intro) four general things:
1) three ways to represent a social phenomenon, using empirically, logically and (!) theologically grounded conceptions, where theology is historically related (as well as perhaps to some degree in terms of methodological devices used and developed, I suspect those used in theology and science developing side by side were and at some point remain the same as devices able to produce coherent explanations) that he calls "analogical grammar" ->
2) analogies (I used to employ metaphors to refer to the same thing) are what he calls pictures, or focal analogies thinkers use to construct what some call worldview, and for him is "basic inventory" of the world upon which a reconstruction of the world as it appears to be can rest;
3) god being what he calls "the metaphysical construct, whose analogical grammar is taken from the realm of theology) (p.4) which serves as the model/factor able to link all the separate yet continuous, persisting in time processes in one - doing so logically (and empirically for theology theorists) to uniformly, so to speak reconstruct the world as one apart from space-time differentiations (?)
4) identity being for Descartes as a thinking state(s) of the self (as opposed to - my discussions, a separate socially/psychologically/or even logically existing entity open to examination) which is NOT given. I believe (in agreement with the author) identity as a state of constant, so to speak self-reconstructing, is nothing but a response to what the main necessary condition for reconstructing the world appears to be - the need to see being in its appearing continuity (Bunge's "being and becoming"). That explains the seeming "sameness" of one as "one", different from for example, seeing self as a part of the universal "whole". At the same time the category of identification are social constructions used by an individual to think his self, to make an analysis of his sense of self, and in accord to identify the self as a component of a specific "group" (i.e. male/female, red/black/white/yellow, homo/hetero/intersex, normal/abnormal, etc.).
Finally I like what the author sees as the progress in development of philosophical history, namely - in response to the idea of progress (which is an increase of knowledge/experience/etc..) is "an increased degree of self-consciousness accompanying the construction of different systems." (i.e. philosophical responses/approaches to the question of possibility, nature of scientific knowledge, and knowledge as such. (p.5)
1) three ways to represent a social phenomenon, using empirically, logically and (!) theologically grounded conceptions, where theology is historically related (as well as perhaps to some degree in terms of methodological devices used and developed, I suspect those used in theology and science developing side by side were and at some point remain the same as devices able to produce coherent explanations) that he calls "analogical grammar" ->
2) analogies (I used to employ metaphors to refer to the same thing) are what he calls pictures, or focal analogies thinkers use to construct what some call worldview, and for him is "basic inventory" of the world upon which a reconstruction of the world as it appears to be can rest;
3) god being what he calls "the metaphysical construct, whose analogical grammar is taken from the realm of theology) (p.4) which serves as the model/factor able to link all the separate yet continuous, persisting in time processes in one - doing so logically (and empirically for theology theorists) to uniformly, so to speak reconstruct the world as one apart from space-time differentiations (?)
4) identity being for Descartes as a thinking state(s) of the self (as opposed to - my discussions, a separate socially/psychologically/or even logically existing entity open to examination) which is NOT given. I believe (in agreement with the author) identity as a state of constant, so to speak self-reconstructing, is nothing but a response to what the main necessary condition for reconstructing the world appears to be - the need to see being in its appearing continuity (Bunge's "being and becoming"). That explains the seeming "sameness" of one as "one", different from for example, seeing self as a part of the universal "whole". At the same time the category of identification are social constructions used by an individual to think his self, to make an analysis of his sense of self, and in accord to identify the self as a component of a specific "group" (i.e. male/female, red/black/white/yellow, homo/hetero/intersex, normal/abnormal, etc.).
Finally I like what the author sees as the progress in development of philosophical history, namely - in response to the idea of progress (which is an increase of knowledge/experience/etc..) is "an increased degree of self-consciousness accompanying the construction of different systems." (i.e. philosophical responses/approaches to the question of possibility, nature of scientific knowledge, and knowledge as such. (p.5)