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

Thank you for this frank response David. I appreciate your statement: "the Christian can be thinking 'I am studying the ordinary patterns in how God runs the universe.' Because they are physical patterns, it is appropriate to use physical methods to study them, while realizing that they are not all that
exists." This shows that one need not check one's religious or spiritual beliefs at the door of the natural science laboratory or classroom. Methodological naturalism sometimes, as one of the recent commentors noted, can display such a bias.
   
  When George writes, "science qua science doesn't talk about God - it's that simple," this is fine. But scientists certainly talk about God. Francis Collins' recent book has God in the title! Thus, it is not so simple when one is speaking about the actors and agents involved in producing science, instead of some abstract, pseudo-objective striving within natural science discipline-language.
   
  In some senses, I think MN is being used as a blocker to defend natural science against the perceived threat of post-modern thought. Post-modern thought would relativise the significance of natural science and thus, in some ways, contextualise its value as a less-than-mythical force in contemporary society. Many natural scientists appear to be fearful of post-modernism, thus they attack it vigorously.
   
  The truth is that most people at ASA appear to accept the limitations of science, while also pressing for its utility, effectiveness and even value for society both today and historically. They walk a tightrope trying to balance science with theology, from their own disciplinary and branch/denominational backgrounds. This is to ASA's credit.
   
  When you write "attacks on MN are not consistent," I need to know whose attacks you are speaking about. First, are they coming from outside of the USA, i.e. the place where MN was coined? Second, are they coming from inside of natural sciences or outside of natural sciences?
   
  My view, which I think has been consistently expressed at ASA, though not always temporally so (due to time constraints), has shown that MN privileges certain voices in the academy at the cost of others. As an example, the idea of invoking MN as if it was significantly relevant in anthropology or economics, is highly questionable. Your contention that then 'those may not be sciences' is an affront to their position as rigourous scholarly disciplines that have an important impact on social and personal lives. This kind of privileging of natural science, seen through the pseudo-philosophy of MN, betrays the integrity of the academy by fragmenting rather than seeking to unite its voices.
   
  After all, my point echoes Feyerabend's contention that there is no single scientific method. There are many scientific methods and these methods need not be applied in biology, chemistry, physics, zoology, ethnology, compartaive anatomy, botany, ecology, etc. ONLY. Scientific methods can be applied in sports, art(s), music, and many other places in our communities.
   
  It is likewise just as ridiculous to suggest there is ONLY ONE theory of evolution! No, there are many theories of evolution; some of them if not most of them based on ideologies and worldviews that support materialism, naturalism and secularism, regardless of the small number of voices at ASA and other TE's who are standing up for balance and best explanation without the ideological baggage of evolution implied. This is expressed with a approach Don Nield in New Zealand would call critical realism, which sometimes stings.
   
  Regards,
  Gregory A.
   
  
David Campbell <pleuronaia@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, your definition is designed, isn't it? It is
> designed with its own presuppositions, as are all such
> claims. In this case, when a natural scientist is
> acting/practising science, that is, according to your
> definition when they are applying MN, they are
> effectively treating the world AS IF 'nature is all
> that there is' because nothing non-natural exists to a
> natural scientist in the laboratory.

The definition of AS IF is important. They are treating the world
using similar physical techniques to the person who assumes that
nature is all that there is. However, the Christian can be thinking
"I am studying the ordinary patterns in how God runs the universe."
Because they are physical patterns, it is appropriate to use physical
methods to study them, while realizing that they are not all that
exists.

Attacks on MN are not consistent. We use the assumption that things
will act according to physical laws all the time. The real question
is when (if ever) and on what basis do we expect to see exceptions to
the usefulness of MN. (I am disagreeing with the Wikipedia definition
as quoted above in my assertion that methodological naturalism is a
method and decisions as to when it applies are philosophical.)

Unfortunately, attacks on MN tend to serve two incorrect functions:
a) You reach that conclusion by assuming that natural laws are valid,
therefore I can dismiss you as a covert agent or dupe of atheism.
b) My supernatural conclusion is valid, regardless of its match for
the evidence.

In reality, we need to ask not whether MN is any good (as George
pointed out, it works very well for a number of purposes) but rather
why we think it is a good method and where its limits are.

> "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)'." - Ted
>
> Here is the problem with your definition of MN:
> 'within the category of the natural' is exclusive of
> all sciences that do not explicitly study 'the
> natural'. There are many sciences, for example, that
> do not study natural laws, but rather positive laws
> (human-social constructions).

By this definition, those may not be sciences, though the exact line
is hard to draw. As long as it is understood that this merely says
"When I use the word science, I am not including several fields often
included under social science", without implications as to the merits
of those other fields, it should not be a problem.

-- 
Dr. David Campbell
425 Scientific Collections
University of Alabama
"I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
       
---------------------------------
 All new Yahoo! Mail - 
---------------------------------
Get a sneak peak at messages with a handy reading pane.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.