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

George -
   
  Good. Then you are willing to acknowledge that there is more than ONE scientific method and by that you acknowledge that MN is not the ONLY way for doing science. This is all I ask.
   
  You say 'It works' and I say 'It is limited.' That's the difference. Sociology and anthropology and other not-natural academic fields are thus free to use something other than MN...AND actually still qualify as 'science,' as loose or tight as that now-fuzzy term may be. The question is not about whether theology justifies MN or not - theology could just as easily justify methods used in cultural studies or anthropology as it could studies in natural sciences.
   
  Natura naturans, as used by one of its main proponents B. Spinoza, actually supports my view that TE's, in potentially confronting 'theological naturalism' (TN), will be expected to clarify their allegiances and distinguish scientism from responsible science. 'Nature in the active sense' is what intelligent design would mean if it got around to proposing what 'designing' is. Only Ian S. in this thread got around to addressing 'information,'which is not merely 'natural' as NS's study things.
   
  Natura naturata refers to 'already created' nature (and other things), which is well suited (via front-loading) to a deist position whereby a continuing creation is misplaced. I see no help in your appeal to Ted's position in that the only thing he was willing to admit a few months ago that doesn't evolve is God. That's not very risky and certainly not full of potential according to Lakatos, Popper or Feyerabend. Such a position (TE) gives far too much credit to (neo-)Darwinism and leaves little room for flexibility, curiousity and novelty about where science may still make discoveries. We are highly likely to become post-Darwinists someday, despite the coming protests of TE's who are too close to Darwin's agnostic (scientific) method!
   
  "far from being an invention of the scientific revolution or the Enlightenment, it is an old scholastic distinction." - George
   
  Then welcome to the 21st century! :-) There is little place for old scholasticism in light of our new paradigms. Please don't foist obsolete views on me as if they are current - they are not. Natural/Supernatural is passe - it's time you deal with this! What is called into question in this thread is whether scientific naturalism is a religion. By leaning on a convenient dichotomy, nothing new is offered. MN is still just a crutch. The definition Janice provided seems to suit your (physics/theology) approach to a T (i.e. justifying naturalism for religious reasons).

  "Theological naturalism has no way to distinguish a paradigm problem from a research problem." - C. Hunter (theist)
   
  I don't disagree with George's theology of the cross (how could a Christian do such a thing?). What I do disagree with is the smuggling in of physicalism and naturalism into one's definition of 'science' and then suggesting that it is somehow a kind of 'universal' expectation for all scientists to adhere to just because it (sometimes) works! Such a position is over-reaching and an attempt to force natural science upon all other spheres (in a Kuyperian sense) of knowledge in the academy which should rather be left free to investigate phenomena as they see fit. In other words, don't try to tie knots around anthropology, sociology, culturology, economics and other social-humanitarian fields (i.e. as if they are merely 'natural,' end of story) just because you presume a kind of 'naturalism' that tentatively holds for your own specialized field(s) of knowledge. Rather leave them free (by openly expressing their freedom) than attempting to passively constrain them with methods
 that do not properly fit.
   
  The idea of 'MN works - end of discussion' is a kind of intolerant bias that damages rather than encourages interdisciplinary dialogue. After Pope Benedict's recent statement challenging Christian unity, what an ecumenical view might hope for (which Lutherans sometimes support) is a salutary approach rather than a hierarchical negative privileging of natural sciences in the name of theological naturalism.
   
  The supposed fact that more social-humanitarian thinkers are agnostics or atheists than natural scientists indicates that the dominance of natural scientific approaches to philosophy and sociology is already overrun and due for change. It is time that natural scientists step outside of their comfortable box of discourse to recognize that this era demands more than they have thus far given. By acknowleging the limits of 'theological naturalism,' adequate space can be provided for non-naturalistic thinkers who are still methodologically inclined.
   
  After all, when speaking theologically one could call upon the Methodists (i.e. a branch of Protestants) for their contribution, which would thoroughly undermine George's claim that MN is the only way (eh?). Instead, by admitting that MN is one way among other ways, a more equitable playing field can be prepared for discourse where natural sciences are not privileged, yet still respected for their contextual contribution to knowledge and understanding of human life, meaning, purpose and values. This is, after all, what natural science should supplement, rather than stifling.
   
  Or so it seemeth to me,
  G.
  
George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote:
      Those who know anything about my views know that I have always been very critical of the notion that there is "just one singular scientific method." E.g., more than once on this list quoted approvingly the statement of Percy Bridgman that "science is doing your damedest with your mind with no holds barred." & on p.60 of The Cosmos in the Light of the Cross I state clearly, "Scientists do not follow a single recipe-like 'scientific method.'" Examples could be multiplied greatly. This means, inter alia, that the methods appropriate to physics or chemistry are not all the same as those appropriate to sociology or anthropology.
   
  On the whole question of what should be considered "nature" I'm going to quote a few sentences from a recent offlist post of mine to Gregory:
   
      But as I pointed out to you some time ago, there is an old & quite respectable tradition in which (natura naturata), the totality of created things, is distinguished from natura naturans, God. (Dictionary of Philosophy, s.v. "Nature 'naturing.'") The type of definition of MN which Ted gives is using words like nature, natural &c in the sense of natura naturata, "nature "natured." In that sense human beings, societies &c are "natural."
   
  This distinction expresses the fundamental theological distinction between God and the world, creator and creation, and is thus most appropriate for a theological discussion of the issues under consideration. & far from being an invention of the scientific revolution or the Enlightenment, it is an old scholastic distinction. The issue here is not angels, bodhisattvas, bogeymen or anything else "supernatural" but simply the distinction between God and everything that isn't God.
   
  I'm really getting tired of having to repeat this kind of thing.
   
  Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
    ----- Original Message -----
  From: Gregory Arago
  To: George Murphy ; Vernon Jenkins ; David Opderbeck ; Ted Davis
  Cc: PvM ; Gregory Arago ; asa@calvin.edu ; (Matthew) Yew Hock Tan
  Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 3:00 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] Science's Blind Spot: The Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism
  

  Please excuse the brief return to this thread. I find Vernon's point quite relevant. Adding to it, if George's view is simply (and rather obviously so) that 'science based on MN works' then it is easy to write off his views as 'scientific naturalism' rather than just as a 'naturalism' which uses (a) certain method(s). Notice that George has not admitted there are many methods and not just one singular scientific method. Admitting plurality would create space for dialogue that an 'MN works' approach disallows.
   
  As one example, scientists, and by this on this occasion I mean 'natural scientists,' refuse to examine meaning, purpose, value and teleology. Nuf said - George said science isn't about 'first cause,' when this is not exclusively true.

  "MN must fail to satisfy the Christian in science." - Vernon
   
  The problem may not be that George refuses to examine things that are not exculsively 'natural,' but rather that he stretches the definition of natural to include things that should be examined independently of (pure) naturalistic thought. It may be the aftermath of a physics-trained perspective, if not physicalism (physics uber alles) which George does not subscribe to. Nonetheless, I think it would be helpful for ASA if George would distinguish physicalism from naturalism, according to his particular views of 'nature' and 'the nature of things.'
   
  I have repeatedly given several examples, in the names of 'cultural' and 'social', yet George simply wants to call both of these things 'natural' according to his sweeping view of naturalism. On the one had it is absurd, yet on the other it is faithfully in keeping with the ideology of MN and the apparently theologial perspective that only two things dichotomously exist: natural and supernatural. Wow - this sure makes it easy to be a natural scientist holding such an exclusivistic view!!
   
  I guess we just have to deal with it or try to constructively correct it.
   
  Arago
   
  
George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote:
          Sigh! 1st, you give no idea of what the supposed unexplainable phenomena are. 2d, The notion that scientists refuse to examine such phenomena is, by & large, fantasy. & 3d, saying that we can't "guarantee" that God will act in a lawlike manner is not at all the same as giving reasons to think he won't.
   
  3 strikes & you're out.
   
  & of course you fail to address my main point in the post you cite, that science based on MN works. Deal with it.
   
  Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
    ----- Original Message -----
  From: Vernon Jenkins
  To: George Murphy ; David Opderbeck ; Ted Davis
  Cc: PvM ; Gregory Arago ; asa@calvin.edu ; (Matthew) Yew Hock Tan
  Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 11:01 AM
  Subject: Re: [asa] Science's Blind Spot: The Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism
  

    George,
  You really are most provocative! A few days ago you wrote, in part,
  "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."
  You will observe that I have highlighted the words I find particularly interesting.
  Of course, if one refuses to examine claims for the existence of 'such phenomena' - seemingly preferring to remain ignorant of facts that MN can't explain - and, manifestly, never will be able to explain - then these words, clearly, are the words of one who, apparently _at any cost_, is intent on defending a lost cause.
  George, you should know that we can never guarantee that our Creator is going to act through things in the natural world in a _lawlike manner_. That is why MN must fail to satisfy the Christian in science.
  Shalom,
  Vernon
  www.whatabeginning.com
  www.otherbiblecode.com
   

    
---------------------------------
  Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail

       
---------------------------------
 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.
Received on Fri Jul 20 19:57:40 2007