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

Greetings David O., Peter and Howard,
   
  Thank you for your recent discussion on this topic. It is refreshing to see both a humanitarian perspective (David) and two scientific perspectives from outside of the U.S.A. on the topic of MN. Of course, the MN/PN dichotomy was conceptualized in the USA and therefore Peter's question of 'What is MN?' is entirely relevant for all of us others who don't live there. However, the MN/PN dichotomy has been used enough that those on the outside can add to the conversation, even if we are already dragged into it by the assumption that ALL SCIENCE marches to the tune of MN (i.e. even if it doesn't want to or mean to).
   
  It doesn't seem necessary to point out that one can 'do science' without subscribing to MN. Observers of that science can indeed call what is being done as consistent with MN, but that does not make the practitioner an MN (ideological) proponent. The label MN is coming from someone - it is not, as Nagel might call it, a 'view from nowhere.'
   
  "So we wait in faith, committed to MN, for the answer to the question of the origin of the single living cell." - Peter

  Yes, this is the only logical option for those committed to the MN/PN dichotomy. And when/if that actually happens, then the issue of 'theological naturalism' will finally be exposed. Decisions will then need to be made by those natural scientists who are committed to naturalism and yet who are also theists. ASA will be uniquely positioned to answer questions at that time.
   
  "MN can ossify into a philosophical presupposition." - David O.
   
  The more one studies philosophy and/or theology the less one seems to need MN as a pseudo-philosophy, while still being able to 'do science' by experimenting, observing, classifying, comparing, etc.. The more philosophically/humanistically fluent one becomes the more they realize the situated relevance of MN/PN discourse - particularly as it fits into American/North American conversations about demarcation, creation vs. evolution vs. intelligent design and in general topics for 'science and religion.' Even if natural scientists do not always outwardly confess their presuppositions does not mean those pre-suppositions do not exist.
   
  Let me then repeat that MN is a pseudo-philosophy, a justification for saying (natural) science can't study the supra-natural. Yet, as David O. wrote: "The divine logos is above, around, and under science, but it cannot be captured or owned by the scientific method." By 'supra-natural' I imply a meaning of 'above, around and under' science. The divine logos is something that human beings, even natural scientists, experience (imago Dei) in their daily lives, even while in the natural scientific laboratories. So why reduce it to the almost pejorative 'supernatural'??
   
  "I think the current Evolutionary paradigm is a real God of the Gaps kind of approach. The gap is the evidence that Energy and Matter do beget intelligently designed systems that make even Windows XP look like a toy! It’s faith in MN that sustains this quest to fill the evidential gap." - Peter
   
  Yes, the gap-approach of some evolutionary theories is blatantly evident. Even those who are 'universal evolutionists' must feel the ground beneath them is not as 'hard' as it once appeared. When Mind, Intelligence and Information are invoked, the conversation becomes complex for natural scientists to engage. Yet, first, I have yet to read an appeal at ASA for more social-humanitarian scholars to join the conversation, nor much effort to engage their literature, involving such things as Mind, Intelligence, Information, agency, actor-network, etc. Second, cooperation with social-humanitarian thinkers would help to reveal to IDists that they are anthropomorphing the concept of Divine Logos into their own little natural science niches; they want ID to begin in biology and chemistry when it really 'belongs' (if you'll allow some flexibility with that word) in social-humanitarian thought where 'design' by 'intelligent' beings is rather obvious.
   
  "In the history of science methodological naturalism is a new belief based on nothing but an arbitrary and recent definition of what science is." - Howard
   
  Yes, it is both new and arbitrary as expressed within the demarcation game that PoS erected for natural scientists to hover about and ponder. This does not mean that natural scientists who embrace it are foolish or philosophically naive. But what it does mean is many voices are being lost or forgotten that would help natural scientists put into context their MN ideology, while still being able to 'do science' at a practical level.
   
  Arago
   
  p.s. still NOBODY has raised the topic of 'theological naturalism' raised by Hunter at the beginning of this thread. Why???
   
  
David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
    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.

       
---------------------------------
Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers.

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 14:35:02 2007