*Science is not restricted to naturalism for religious reasons but
rather for methodological reasons.*
Pim, I think you're missing the point. It seems Hunter is arguing that the
roots of MN lie with the a particular notion of God -- the Deistic God of
the Enlightenment. Thus, MN has "religious" reasons at its root. I think
this is a very interesting point that probably has significant historical
support. Jefferson's God leads to a God who can be elided from "empirical"
history and left to the "emotive" side of life. This paved the way for
empiricism to morph into positivism and pragmatism -- which are
hand-in-glove with atheism -- as well as for the contemporary
epistemological crisis. What we call "methodological" reasons today are
better called "pragmatic" reasons -- which helps us see that MN today is
rooted in pragmatist epistemology, a view not conducive to Christian faith.
OTOH, having only read the review and not Hunter's book, I would question
the notion that returning to Boyle and Newton (and underneath them, Francis
Bacon) is a viable solution. Newton, after all, fused Bacon's induction,
Locke's empiricism, and Descartes' rationalism into the overly deterministic
view that resulted in the present epistemological crisis once Darwin and
Einstein's probabilistic universe came along! I can't see how it's possible
to return to Newtonian / Baconian science without also returning to a
deterministic view of the universe. It seems to me that there are other
contemporary philosophical (e.g., Polanyi) and theological (e.g., Reformed
epistemology) mines with richer resources for a post-Enlightenment
understanding of science and its role in relation to a wholistic theory of
knowledge.
Dave O. (ASA Member)
On 7/15/07, PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It's trivial to point out Hunter's flaw
>
> <quote>> Dr. Hunter begins his book by pointing out the design defect:
> "The problem is that religion has joined science." (Hunter, 2007, pg.
> 9) He goes on to explain that, while today's science is thought to be
> empirical and free of theological premise, nothing could be further
> from the truth.
> </quote>
>
> People may be familiar with Hunter's flawed arguments about
> methodological naturalism
>
> <quote>Dr. Hunter examines the complex interaction between religion
> and science in history and arrives at what may be a surprising
> conclusion for many: the modern design of science is based on
> theological naturalism, a phrase he uses to describe the restriction
> of science to naturalism for religious reasons. </quote>
>
> Science is not restricted to naturalism for religious reasons but
> rather for methodological reasons. IFF people want to propose ways to
> add the supernatural to an empirical examination by science, then all
> they need to do is propose how.
>
> I can see why the DI is happy with Hunter's book but as is usual with
> ID arguments, the underlying flawed logic can be quickly exposed and
> dealt with
>
>
>
> On 7/15/07, (Matthew) Yew Hock Tan <tanyewhock@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Is The Design of Modern Science Defective?: A review of Science's Blind
> > Spot: The Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism
> >
> > [Editor's Note: This post was written by a Discovery Institute legal
> intern,
> > Guillermo Dekat. Mr. Dekat is a law student at St. Mary's University in
> San
> > Antonio, Texas. He holds a bachelor's degree in biology from the Air
> Force
> > Academy.]
> > A review of Science's Blind Spot: The Unseen Religion of Scientific
> > Naturalism
> > By: Cornelius G. Hunter (Brazos Press, 2007)
> > In law, one who sells a product in a defective condition unreasonably
> > dangerous to the user is held strictly liable for the physical harm to
> the
> > injured party. One way for the injured party to win a case is to
> > successfully argue that there is a design defect in the product. Put
> another
> > way, the plaintiff is entitled to damages because there is something
> wrong
> > with the blueprints for the product. At this point, expert witnesses are
> > found to testify to the design's integrity or its defectiveness.
> >
> > Perhaps the most common blind spot that inhibits the proper functioning
> of a
> > product is the quite literal blind spot we experience when driving our
> cars.
> > If modern science and the pre-suppositions that support it were an
> > automobile, then Dr. Hunter's new book would be the testimony of an
> expert
> > witness who has found a significant design defect. The defect has
> created a
> > blind spot that is not necessary for the proper functioning of science.
> > Dr. Hunter begins his book by pointing out the design defect: "The
> problem
> > is that religion has joined science." (Hunter, 2007, pg. 9) He goes on
> to
> > explain that, while today's science is thought to be empirical and free
> of
> > theological premise, nothing could be further from the truth. Dr. Hunter
> > examines the complex interaction between religion and science in history
> and
> > arrives at what may be a surprising conclusion for many: the modern
> design
> > of science is based on theological naturalism, a phrase he uses to
> describe
> > the restriction of science to naturalism for religious reasons.
> > But Hunter goes further and refutes a common argument that naturalism is
> a
> > result of atheism or empirically based findings. Instead, he lays the
> > responsibility for naturalism at the doorstep of theists, who were
> largely
> > thinkers inside the church hundreds of years ago. Hunter explains that
> > theological naturalism is not opposed to religious ideas, because the
> > philosophy is itself religious. It makes theological assumptions for a
> > number of different reasons and then mandates a non-intervening "god."
> This
> > mandate allows the stream of thought to necessarily flow from
> theological
> > naturalism to methodological naturalism—the idea that science ought to
> > pursue naturalistic explanations. According to Dr. Hunter, this
> philosophy
> > of theological naturalism predated the theories that we argue about
> today.
> > Dr. Hunter then makes the connection between the philosophies and the
> blind
> > spot that was created in science:
> > The problem with science is not that the naturalistic approach might
> > occasionally be inadequate. The problem is that science would never know
> any
> > better. This is science's blind spot. When problems are encountered,
> > theological naturalism assumes that the correct naturalistic solution
> has
> > not been found. Non-natural phenomena will be interpreted as natural,
> > regardless of how implausible the story becomes…. Theological naturalism
> has
> > no way to distinguish a paradigm problem from a research problem. It
> cannot
> > consider the possibility that there is no naturalistic explanation for
> the
> > DNA code. If a theory of natural history has problems — and many have
> their
> > share — the problems are always viewed as research problems and never as
> > paradigm problems.
> > (Cornelius G. Hunter, Science's Blind Spot: Unseen Religion of
> Scientific
> > Naturalism, Brazos Press, 2007, pg. 44-45)
> > Dr. Hunter follows theological naturalism through many of the
> significant
> > ideas of science in the modern era and analyzes how the blind spot
> affected
> > the results. However, he doesn't just analyze the problem, for Hunter
> also
> > suggests another design that will not produce such a blind spot. His
> > suggestion is moderate empiricism in lieu of the heavy reliance on the
> > assumptions of theological naturalism. Hunter explains that moderate
> > empiricism is not a new idea; it was used by Boyle and Newton and
> pursues
> > the experimental sciences largely unhindered by axioms or historical
> science
> > frameworks. He sees this method being used by the intelligent design
> > theorists and applauds them for it.
> > As an expert witness, Dr. Hunter excels. Not only does he examine the
> > current design of modern science, he also offers a design that will
> address
> > the defect and allow science to function properly. Perhaps it may
> function
> > even better. With his testimony complete, the jury is out. Will the
> > scientists of today and the next generation choose to drive an
> automobile
> > with this defect, or will they choose a different design, one without
> this
> > blaring blind spot? Regardless, they would all do well to read Cornelius
> G.
> > Hunters' Science's Blind Spot: The Unseen Religion of Scientific
> > Naturalism.Posted by Guillermo Dekat on July 15, 2007 12:23 AM |
> Permalink
> >
> > Source:
> > http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/07/is_the_design_of_modern_scienc.html
> >
> > The book:
> >
> > Science's Blind Spot: The Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism
> > (Paperback)
> >
> > by Cornelius G. Hunter (Author)
> >
> > Book Description
> > Had evolutionists been in charge, they wouldn't have made the mosquito,
> > planetary orbits would align perfectly, and the human eye would be
> better
> > designed. But they tend to gloss over their own failed predictions and
> > faulty premises. Naturalists see Darwin's theories as "logical" and
> that's
> > enough. To think otherwise brands you a heretic to all things wise and
> > rational. Science's Blind Spot takes the reader on an enlightening
> journey
> > through the ever-evolving theory of evolution. Cornelius G. Hunter goes
> > head-to-head with those who twist textbooks, confuse our children, and
> > reject all challengers before they can even speak. This fascinating,
> > fact-filled resource opens minds to nature in a way that both seeks and
> sees
> > the intelligent design behind creation's masterpieces.
> >
> > From the Back Cover
> > In this thought-provoking book, Cornelius Hunter shows that modern
> science
> > has in fact been greatly influenced by theological and metaphysical
> > considerations, resulting in the significant influence of what he calls
> > "theological naturalism." Naturalism is therefore not a result of
> empirical
> > scientific inquiry but rather a presupposition of science. This bias is
> > science's "blind spot," and it has profound implications for how
> scientific
> > theories are evaluated and thus advanced or suppressed. In the end,
> Hunter
> > proposes a better way—moderate empiricism—and shows how Intelligent
> Design
> > fits into such a method. "Continuing the theme from his previous two
> books,
> > biophysicist Cornelius Hunter surveys the history of science to reveal
> the
> > real source of modern scientists' opposition to intelligent design.
> Turning
> > popular opinion on its head, Hunter convincingly argues that scientists
> who
> > oppose intelligent design do so for theological reasons, not empirically
> > based arguments. Science's Blind Spot is a must-read for anyone wishing
> to
> > understand why those who oppose intelligent design are becoming more
> > entrenched as the evidence for it continues to build." —Guillermo
> Gonzalez,
> > Iowa State University "This book is a scholarly, yet easily understood,
> > description of how difficult it is to work outside the dominant
> paradigm.
> > Hunter provides a perceptive analysis of how we got to be where we are,
> and
> > why `theological naturalism' is an overlooked but critical issue in
> > understanding the current face-off between religion and science. There
> is a
> > depth of perception here, an insight into our most unexamined
> assumptions,
> > that will boggle the mind of anyone conversant with the issues. This
> book
> > will richly reward all those who read it, whether they are new to the
> debate
> > or hardened veterans of the science wars. The author has a great gift
> for
> > clarifying arguments that have long been misunderstood or overlooked."
> —Gene
> > Bammel, professor emeritus, West Virginia University; author of Everyday
> > Philosophy
> >
> > About the Author
> > Cornelius G. Hunter (PhD, University of Illinois) is formerly senior
> vice
> > president of Seagull Technology, Inc., and is currently engaged in
> molecular
> > biophysics post-doctoral and engineering research in Cameron Park,
> > California. He is adjunct professor of science and religion at Biola
> > University and author of the award-winning book Darwin's God and its
> > follow-up, Darwin's Proof.
> >
> > ________________________________
> > Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection.
> > Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta.
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Jul 15 16:45:15 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Jul 15 2007 - 16:45:15 EDT