Peter -- I understand your concerns here. I think the disconnect centers on
what "science" does. Does "science" supply a complete description of
reality, or is it capable of supplying only limited descriptions of a part
of reality? Is "science" the same thing as "Truth?"
I think theists who accept MN suggest that "science" should not be equated
with "Truth" in the sense of being a complete description of reality. There
are pragmatic, historical reasons why it might be advisable and useful to
cabin "science" in this way. Some of those reasons have to do with the
limitations of the tools of science -- which are, at root, the human senses
and extensions thereof, and particular kinds of human logical and
mathematical constructs, which are not capable of fully understanding or
describing God. Some reasons relate to the collapse of the
Enlightenment's effort to craft an all-encompassing "natural philosphy" and
developments in the philosophy of science since then. Other reasons involve
the utility of the MN limitation -- it has led to progress in understanding
and technology in many areas, whereas appeals to non-natural explanations
have tended to close of potentially useful lines of inquiry. Yet other
reasons involve practical distinctions that must be made concerning things
like government research funding.
But maybe most significantly, from a theological perspective, there are
reasons to expect that God endowed creation with "contingent order and
intelligibility," such that we are capable of studying creation as something
possessing its own integrity. The integrity of creation suggests that
creation ordinarly operates according to the "natural" processes with which
God has endowed it. John 1:1, then, isn't a nail in the coffin of MN at
all. When the divine logos spoke the creation into existence, he gave the
creation the very order that makes MN a useful tool!
Having said all that, I would agree that MN can ossify into a philosophical
presupposition. In our culture, it has become anathema to suggest that
science has limits. It's too easy to assume that there *must actually be* a
"natural' explanation for everything simply because the empirical tools of
science are only competent to seek and offer natural explanations. The
contemporary scientific establishment can be filled with hubris. I'm not
sure the answer to that problem, though, is to think of the divine logos as
some kind of property of the universe that can be described through the
scientific method. I'd lean towards thinking of the divine logos as one of
the presuppositions that must cabin any claims to Truth made by science.
The divine logos is above, around, and under science, but it cannot be
captured or owned by the scientific method.
On 7/18/07, Peter Loose <peterwloose@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
> George – hi!!
>
>
>
> 1. Do you really act as if Science shouldn't appeal to God for an
> explanation? MN appeals to entirely 'natural processes'. What are they if
> they're not matter and energy? You've already ruled out, a priori,
> Information or Intelligence or Mind. I note that your definition of MN is 'a
> pre-scription'. The case is rigged then?
>
> 2. I do know that about Einstein – I don't see how your comment is
> relevant. What Einstein so famously shows is that matter and energy are
> equivalent, not that they are other than fundamental aspects of a
> Materialist view of all that is.
>
> 3. Show me then please: why is ON not the logical precursor of MN? If
> the Ontology is a Theistic assumption, then how can MN operate and exclude
> that which is really there as stated in 'our' Ontology?
>
> 4. I find this comment you make George to be quite distressing. Show
> me any substantive place in the entirety of Scripture where the Creation is
> not a special event, a Singularity? Isn't the weight of John 1.1 just that
> final nail in the coffin of MN??? I really am perplexed. God can raise the
> Dead but O dear, He can't be permitted to create life just by His Word??
>
> 5. I don't understand this one at all. Could this be a non sequitur? Would
> you mind unpacking please? Excuse my ignorance.
>
>
>
> Blessings
>
> Peter
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *George Murphy
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 18, 2007 12:56 PM
> *To:* Peter Loose; asa@calvin.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] Science's Blind Spot: The Unseen Religion of
> Scientific Naturalism
>
>
>
> 1) MN is not "based around" the assumptions of matter & energy. It's a
> prescription that science should not appeal to God as an explanation. The
> introduction of intelligence or mind as explanatory elements would not
> violate MN in this sense - as long as those are not simply aliases for God
> (which they are for ID). Of course whether or not such a procedure is
> fruitful is another matter.
>
>
>
> 2) Matter & energy, as concepts in physics, are not at the most basic
> level "two" entities but one - that's the significance of E = mc^2.
>
>
>
> 3) The claim that Ontological Naturalism is the "logical precursor" to
> Methodological Naturalism is false.
>
>
>
> 4) I was neither "setting aside" the Resurrection nor saying that it is
> the only phenomenon (Note my plural - "unique historical event*s* *like*the resurrection") with which science cannot deal. I was recognizing
> precisely the possibility of events, commonly referred to as miracles, which
> cannot be explained adequately without reference to God. OTOH Scripture
> gives us no reason to think that the origin of life is in that category.
>
>
>
> 5) In the vast majority of cases God sustains - & acts - by his powerful
> Word in cooperation with creatures. That is why science constrained by MN
> works - the point of my original post.
>
>
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:* Peter Loose <peterwloose@compuserve.com>
>
> *To:* asa@calvin.edu
>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 18, 2007 5:12 AM
>
> *Subject:* [asa] Science's Blind Spot: The Unseen Religion of Scientific
> Naturalism
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Wow George – I am amazed! May I as a Brit make a comment?
>
>
>
> What is MN? It's a set of assumptions based around two poles – Matter and
> Energy. Any outcome must be bounded by those assumptions. Now suppose those
> assumptions are wrong in any absolute sense? Will that ever be discovered?
>
>
>
> Probably not – because MN is almost universally now come to be the only
> 'correct' way of doing science. And when MN fails, as it has manifestly, in
> any question about the origin of a single self-replicating cell or indeed on
> the increasingly vast matters shown up by the Encode project, those who
> operate by a commitment to MN fall back on another set of commitments. It's
> deep in the world-view of arguably virtually all scientists. That assumption
> is that MN is linked, to its logical precursor, Ontological Naturalism. So,
> if the answer to for example "the origin of life question" is elusive (it
> is?) then ON informs our Scientism and, by faith, we understand that the
> worlds were framed by MN. So we wait in faith, committed to MN, for the
> answer to the question of the origin of the single living cell.
>
>
>
> Now a third pole of science ought to embrace something akin to
> Intelligence or Mind. We know that Information is at the heart of life. No
> computer engineer can look at DNA without recognising that the cell is
> programmed for life.
>
>
>
> I've spent my life applying computers to Industrial Process Control
> problems. I've lived with the challenges of designing rugged software that
> doesn't fall over and cause, in my case, Steel Mills to crash. What I know
> is how difficult that challenge is. I know that it costs incalculable hours
> to develop software that runs reliably. I know that any 'glitches' or 'bugs'
> in the software didn't get better overnight. No, we pored over the code to
> work out, intelligently, what was going wrong and how to put it right.
>
>
>
> Everything we know about Information tells us that it only arises from
> pre-existing Intelligence. It is neither matter nor energy. Those who hold
> to MN might as well postulate that Windows XP (or any other 'language' )
> could arise simply by squirting a long string of 'white noise' into a
> bi-level device (e.g. - a Schmidt trigger) and expecting as output a
> string of code that when married with an X86 Instruction set would suddenly
> become Windows XP or any other Operating System. The real world simply isn't
> like that. There seems to be a complete absence of empirical evidence to say
> that the biological world is any different. But because we've assumed MN we
> have formed an attachment to it that is so inseparably linked to science,
> that anyone who argues science can be done with an additional pole, such as
> Information, or Mind, then that person is ostracised - "he's not doing
> science".
>
>
>
> I am amazed too that one can set aside the enormous ramifications of 'The
> Resurrection' in a single sweep of the hand *"**But - bracketing 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.*" What do
> you mean by your phrase "Any reason"? Most of the New Testament challenges
> that statement. While the Resurrection is clearly absolutely huge, it is by
> no means the only 'Singularity' in either the NT or the OT.
>
>
>
> Then we come to such themes as spelled out in Hebrews 1:3 (NIV) The Son is
> the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, *sustaining
> all things by his powerful word*. After he had provided purification for
> sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.
>
>
>
> I am engineer, not a scientist or a philosopher – but I am old now and
> I've heard enough and seen enough to know than MN is a limit on science and
> is the territory of the a priori commitment to Naturalism. What's the
> difference between Naturalism and Atheism?
>
>
>
> Peter Loose
>
> Chelmsford
>
> UK
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *George Murphy
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 17, 2007 2:18 AM
> *To:* George Murphy; David Opderbeck; Ted Davis
> *Cc:* PvM; Gregory Arago; asa@calvin.edu; (Matthew) Yew Hock Tan
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] Science's Blind Spot: The Unseen Religion of
> Scientific Naturalism
>
>
>
> 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 <gmurphy@raex.com>
>
> *To:* David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> ; Ted Davis<TDavis@messiah.edu>
>
> *Cc:* PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com> ; Gregory Arago <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca> ;
> asa@calvin.edu ; (Matthew) Yew Hock Tan <tanyewhock@yahoo.com>
>
> *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 <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
>
> *To:* Ted Davis <TDavis@messiah.edu>
>
> *Cc:* PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com> ; Gregory Arago <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca> ;
> asa@calvin.edu ; (Matthew) Yew Hock Tan <tanyewhock@yahoo.com>
>
> *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.
>
>
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.6/902 - Release Date: 15/07/2007
> 14:21
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.8/906 - Release Date: 17/07/2007
> 18:30
>
>
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Jul 18 12:03:01 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jul 18 2007 - 12:03:01 EDT