Emergent, Pre-Determined Purposes and "Truth"

In the science/religion debate, there are many ways of understanding the interface. Does science define religion, as science is the only truth? Or is religion to drive science, as science is the ultimate end? I believe both with reservation.

In the biological sciences, there is an attempt to describe organizational structure with "emergent properties". These scientific explainations to social constructs are problematic. The emergent properties just happen to be the place that those who have a creative bent, or disagree with the vision or are "pre-determined" of/by the organized structure find themselves. These "emergent" properties, while technically being "free" are "determined" by the "system". The "system" is the social structure that determines what the plan or vision will be and those who don't fit the system find themselves 'creatively' determined as "emergent". This means that the "emergents" are those who don't have a voice other than outside the mainstream, which is like the scapegoat in family systems....Is this a "just form of governing" others?

In utilatarian terms, the ends justify the means, so therefore, determining another's place within the structure is for the greater good of whatever purpose the organization deems fit. My question is; is this ethical or just? Would anyone want another determining their response, their future, and their purpose? I don't believe so. This is why applying the "truths" of biological science is misguided, if not downright evil.

In my husband's John Templeton course, he talks about social construction of reality through models. His students are taken through many ways of understanding that concept and when they get through, they understand that one must live by faith...not by reason alone!! This statement does not negate reason, but helps the student understand the limitations to reason. I find this especially fruitful in a religious institution, as it upholds "faith". And helps the student to understand that sicence does not hold ultimate truth....

Dogs, Training, and Incarnation

Evolutionary biologists, psychologists, and moral philosophers all concur that humans are animals. Animal behavior, such as dogs, must be trained. Without training, dogs are not socialized and may have destructive behavior toward others.

I have been thinking about this, as we just got a new puppy this week-end. Top dog (alpha) behavior must be trained out of the animal, so that the human can control the environment according to ends that meet the humans needs and desires.

In organizational structures, unless "top dogs" have learned to curtail their behavior, then, there are disastarous consequences for the person, organization and others within the organization. Many of the religious traditions have a meditative "arm" that lends itself to self-examination. These meditative "ways' are called various things by the different religious traditions. These "ways" where the tendencies to "run over" others, or to lack self-reflection are recognized and re-directed, re-focused or limited.

On the other hand, those whose tendency is reticence, will find that these self-reflective "ways" will help them to recognize their own limitations and seek help. Dogs who haven't been socialized, as humans that have not had the proper training, also need socialization and someone who knows how to handle them so that resistance, attack or self-defeating behavior can subside.

I do not think that affirming evolutionary thinking in the disciplines is "wrong headed" unless one uses it as ultimate truth. Science does reduce man, but does not affirm man's giftedness, potentialities, etc. That is the re-direction that must happen when one takes evolutionary thinking seriously. In reductionistic thinking, materialist, or physicalist do not give leeway for man's difference from the animal kingdom. Behaviorists who treat man as an animal in "training" wil be implementing a form of legalistic uniformity that ultimately destroys the personability of the person.