After a long lapse, another of the typos you all know & love. Below read "Of course that doesn't mean that what it's able to study exhausts all reality, or that we may NOT encounter observable phenomena that such science can't finally explain."
Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
----- Original Message -----
From: George Murphy
To: David Opderbeck ; Ted Davis
Cc: PvM ; Gregory Arago ; asa@calvin.edu ; (Matthew) Yew Hock Tan
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 1:16 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] Science's Blind Spot: The Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism
2 comments -
1) Those who've been on the list for awhile may remember that Hunter was on it a couple of years ago & that some of us debated these issues then.
2) All the history, philosophy & theology involved in this discussion is interesting, but we shouldn't lose track of one crude empirical fact: Science operating within the constraints of MN works - it has been working for ~400 years & continues to work very well in explaining known phenomena & predicting new ones. Of course that doesn't mean that what it's able to study exhausts all reality, or that we may encounter observable phenomena that such science can't finally explain. But - bracketting off for a moment claims for unique historical events like the resurrection - we don't have any reason to believe that there are any such phenomena. Of course that's where ID raises it's distinctive objection, but the best it's done so far is to point to some phenomena that haven't yet been explained fully. There is simply no good reason for scientists, whatever their religious beliefs, to abandon MN as a presupposition for doing science: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
----- Original Message -----
From: David Opderbeck
To: Ted Davis
Cc: PvM ; Gregory Arago ; asa@calvin.edu ; (Matthew) Yew Hock Tan
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 11:51 AM
Subject: 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 21:19:17 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jul 16 2007 - 21:19:17 EDT