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

Gregory -

Let's cut to the chase: Is it legitimate to invoke God as an explanatory factor in sociology? If a sociologist, as sociologist, explains the rise of some popular movement (e.g.) by saying, at greater or lesser length, "God did it," will such an explanation be considered appropriate by the community of sociologists as a whole?

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Gregory Arago
  To: George Murphy ; Vernon Jenkins ; David Opderbeck ; Ted Davis
  Cc: PvM ; asa@calvin.edu ; (Matthew) Yew Hock Tan
  Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 7:57 PM
  Subject: 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.

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 21:14:43 2007