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

Ted said: * I also believe it is much more accurate; the term MN itself
probably arose with Christian philosophical reflection on the limits of
science and the reality of a "supernatural" God, and our definition reflects
this.
*
But what Hunter seems to be saying is that what we now call MN is rooted in
the epistemology and method of Bacon and Locke. For the Enlightenment
empiricists, empirical study of the world is an effort to obtain unified
knowledge about reality-as-it-is. If reality-as-it-is includes the
empirically observable hand-of-God, then that observation properly falls
under the umbrella of "science," or, to use an eighteenth century term,
"natural philosophy." The gist of Hunter's argument -- at least what the
book review seems to reflect -- is that "science" should return to this
broader notion of "natural philosophy." The current restrictions of MN
would reflect an improper, a priori skeptical elision of God from nature, as
well as an improper turn away from "empirical," observational,
inductive Baconian science towards more speculative deductive methods ala
Popper.

But my first question about this is how to return to Bacon and Locke after
Darwin, Einstein, and Heisenberg -- in other words, do Bacon and Locke work
after Newton's mechanism has been dethroned? And my second question is how
to return to Bacon and Locke after the collapse -- or at least undermining
-- of foundationalist empistemology's naive view of culture, history and
language.

On 7/16/07, Ted Davis <TDavis@messiah.edu> wrote:
>
> >>> PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com> 7/15/2007 5:01 PM >>>quotes Wikipedia on
> Methodological naturalism, as follows:
>
> <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>
>
> Then, Pim adds the following comment:
>
> 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.
>
> Here are my comments:
> First, this is not an adequate definition of MN, IMO. In fact,
> ironically,
> it lends support to the incorrect argument from ID advocates, that MN
> simply
> collapses into metaphysical or ontological naturalism. Thus, I'm
> surprised
> that Pim quoted it. Note the language: " 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." Here is my paraphrase, aimed at making my point: If
> scientific methods (ie, naturalism) can't detect it, it ain't real, it's
> only a figment of one's imagination. Am I missing something here? If so,
> please be explicit about what I'm missing. I do think this is the tone
> and
> intent of this very poor definition.
>
> Second, Pim, the definition you cite from wiki contradicts your own
> comment, when you wrote: "Science
> neither approves nor disapproves of the supernatural, which for all
> practical purposes is the logical complement of natural." If the
> supernatural is "nonexistent" or "unknowable," (see wiki), then the latter
> part of Pim's sentences is entirely emptied of content. If the
> "supernatural ... is not inherently different from natural phenomena or
> hypotheses," then it collapses into the natural, and I fail to see how it
> becomes "the logical complement of natural." Please have another look at
> that wiki definition, Pim, and clarify your own view in light of it.
>
> Third, I offer a much better (IMO) definition, taken from the entry on
> "Scientific naturalism" that I wrote with philosopher Robin Collins for
> the
> Garland encyclopedia of science & religion
> (
> http://www.amazon.com/History-Science-Religion-Western-Tradition/dp/0815316569
> ),
> a shorter version of which (essays unabridged, however) from JHU press
> (http://www.press.jhu.edu/books/title_pages/2308.html). Here is our
> definition of MN: "the belief that science should explain phenomena only
> in
> terms of entities and properties that fall within the category of the
> natural, such as by natural laws acting either through known causes or by
> chance (methodological naturalism)."
>
> Why do I believe this definition is much superior? First, it spells out
> that MN is a belief; one might even call it a belief about beliefs, in
> terms
> of its implications. Our definition leaves ample ground (as it should)
> for
> one to make reality claims about a God who really is bigger than "nature,"
> and who actually interacts with "nature," which is better called "the
> creation." It simply affirms, properly, that inferences about God go
> beyond
> what science itself can claim. It in no way rules out the legitimacy of
> such inferences. Second, when read in context (our definition of part of
> a
> much longer definition of four types of naturalism), it is clear to people
> that MN does not equate to or collapse into overreaching forms of
> naturalism. Thus, e.g., we define "scientific naturalism" (our term for
> the
> most wide reaching kind of naturalism) as follows: "the claim that nature
> is
> all that there is and hence that there is no supernatural order above
> nature, along with the claim that all objects, processes, truths, and
> facts
> about nature fall within the scope of the scientific method." Our
> definition of MN is designed, properly, to leave this type of speculation
> aside entirely. Whereas the wiki definition, IMO, strongly suggests or
> implies precisely that nature is all there is--at least, all that is
> genuinely meaningful to discuss, which is the spirit of the logical
> positivism that still underlies efforts to ridicule belief in God and keep
> it out of the academy.
>
> The definition Robin and I give, in what is frankly a far more reliable
> and
> academically serious publication that wikipedia, is (I believe and I hope
> others agree) a definition that is much more appropriate to consider on
> the
> ASA list. I also believe it is much more accurate; the term MN itself
> probably arose with Christian philosophical reflection on the limits of
> science and the reality of a "supernatural" God, and our definition
> reflects
> this.
>
> Ted (ASA member, and glad of it)
>
>
>
> 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 Mon Jul 16 11:52:07 2007