Re: [asa] Science's Blind Spot: The Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism

We finally agree on something. Of course, stating that there is no
single method of science is somewhat vague and while perhaps relevant
at a philosophical level, science itself proceeds quite well based on
some simple principles.

Wikipedia: Methodological naturalism

<quote>Naturalism does not necessarily claim that phenomena or
hypotheses commonly labeled as supernatural do not exist or are wrong,
but insists that all phenomena and hypotheses can be studied by the
same methods and therefore anything considered supernatural is either
nonexistent, unknowable, or not inherently different from natural
phenomena or hypotheses.</quote>

If all Hunter is interested in is pointing out that there may have
been some who had religious motivations to restrict science, such
should again not be confused with a methodological approach. Science
neither approves nor disapproves of the supernatural, which for all
practical purposes is the logical complement of natural. Certainly the
suggestion that this is somehow leading to a blind spot for science is
ill positioned and worse the claim that intelligent design solves this
blind spot is meaningless as ID merely points to blind spots and calls
the designed, rather than more appropriately 'ignorance'

I am not sure however what Arago's point really is...

On 7/15/07, Gregory Arago <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> "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."
>
> There are many methodologies invoked by scientists.
> There is not only one METHOD of science. Therefore, to
> say that science IS RESTRICTED to naturalism is
> patently absurd. No one can patent science as if their
> definition of it were the only one, such as an
> authoritarian dictator might like to do.
>
> MN/PN continues to be a philosophical red herring, a
> transition dichotomy on the way to better
> understanding that eclipses the dichotomy altogether.
> Likewise, the only alternative to 'natural' is not
> 'supernatural.' I know that in some contexts it is
> presented that way, but that does not make it the only
> way. There are sciences that study things that are not
> 'natural,' just as there are also examples of 'things
> that don't evolve.'
>
> This concept of 'theological naturalism' could cause
> quite a stir at ASA. Facing up to it would help people
> to answer the question that I posed many months ago:
> how can a person be a natural scientist and not an
> ideological naturalist? Aren't theology and naturalism
> contradictory terms?
>
> "'theological naturalism' is an overlooked but
> critical issue in understanding the current face-off
> between religion and science."
>
> Rather than tarrying in MN/PN dichotomy, a more
> forward, integrative approach (methodological,
> philosophical, theological, scientific - all forms of
> naturalism?) is possible that acknowledges the
> rightful role of science, theology and philosophy
> together. Though despair and even cynicism may at
> times appear, schisms can be healed with care, hope
> and faith in what unites us.
>
> G.A.
>
>
> Get a sneak peak at messages with a handy reading pane with All new Yahoo! Mail: http://mrd.mail.yahoo.com/try_beta?.intl=ca
>
> 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 17:02:15 2007