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

Gregory -

If we have indeed reached some measure of agreement, as you suggest near the end, great! Let me just add a few comments.

1) If "God did it" is not someone's hang-up - i.e., if that person doesn't want to introduce that sort of explanation into his or her science - then we're in basic agreement with my understanding of what a science constrained by, inter alia, MN is. I would only add that the exclusion of "God did it" means also that coded versions of that claim, such as "An Intelligent Designer did it" must also be excluded.

2) I think your statement that a principle like MN was introduced into the natural scientists "by philosophers and sociologists of science" is a considerable overstatement simply because natural scientists don't pay much attention to philosophers & sociologists who try to tell them how to do science. MN is a working rule that the community of natural scientists has developed, to a considerable extent without conscious reflection, over a considerable period of time, not a law that has been imposed upon them by some external authority.

3) Of course sociologists who study religion will talk about the belief that God was a or the cause of the 2d Great Awakening because that belief is part of the phenomenon that they're studying. But it's another matter for the sociologist of religion as an outside observer (to the extent that one can be an outside observer) finally to make the statement that God was the cause of these events.

4) Part of the problem involved here may become clearer if we reflect not just on the Christian phenomenon of the 2d Great Awakening but on simpliar features in other religions - e.g., "revivals" (I use the term loosely) in the Islamic world. Was "God" the cause of them in the same way & in the same sense that "God" was the cause of revival movements in the USA in the 19th century? A Christian theologian would (or should!) have some hesitation about saying that.

5) "Natural scientific methods, yes, but not naturalism as ideology." To that I can only say a Lutheran Das ist gewisslich wahr! - "This is most certainly true!"

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Gregory Arago
  To: George Murphy
  Cc: asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2007 12:48 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] Science's Blind Spot: The Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism

  Thank you for cutting to the chase. This is one of the first questions in about a year and a half on this ASA list that anyone has asked me about sociology!

  A direct answer to your question is No, an explanation of "God did it" would most likely not be considered appropriate to the community of sociologists. (It would probably be laughed at and not taken seriously at all, though times appear to be changing fast.) Of course, I have never - not once, not now and not before - suggested it should be considered appropriate. This is not my hang-up.

  The 'appropriateness of explanation' situation about whether or not 'God did it' appears to be a philosophical/theological hang-up that the natural scientific community faces in its demarcation game, a game by the way, which was introduced to it (from outside) by philosophers and sociologists of science. It is not that sociologists are somehow 'above' such an explanation, but rather it is just not considered important by a vast majority of sociological practitioners.

  As physicist, George cannot speak as if 'God did it' just as I, as sociologist, cannot speak as if 'God did it' in sociology. Doing so would violate our academic integrity within our respective fields of study. Nevertheless, neither George nor I should be known as 'just physicist' or 'just sociologist' either and so George moves between physics and theology and I between sociology and my others areas of education and interest.

  This being said, there is a sub-discipline in sociology that studies religion and would attribute things, such as what Moorad linked to - the Great American Awakening - to supra-natural or extra-natural explanations. That is, it makes no sense to reduce to 'natural' what obviously requires a more careful, sophisticated, complex answer than mere 'naturalism' can provide.

  This is partly to do with the fact that we are reflexive beings, that is, all humans, not just natural scientists and social scientists. We cannot avoid interpreting and situating ourselves in the context of whatever discourse we enter, whether natural science or social science or otherwise. Reflexivity, however, seems to be at a great discount in most natural sciences and this is where naturalism sneaks in as underlying ideology; humans studying nature are also a part of nature. Since human beings are 'more than just natural,' at least according to most religious persons in the world, we cannot fairly apply naturalism to social-humanitarian contexts. Natural scientific methods, yes, but not naturalism as ideology. Does a person need to have read Marx or Jung to follow this?

  When I offer descriptions or explanations of sociological phenomena, I prefer to leave the door open to supra-natural or extra-natural factors. Of these there are many that qualify. Cultural, social, ethical, linguistic, moral, et al. that cannot be labeled as merely 'natural' and left at that. Themes in psychology and cognitive studies that draw heavily on natural scientific work, for example, those dealing with consciousness, must be careful not to limit themselves to naturalistic conclusions. Doesn't this just make sense to those reading this?

  Sure, socio-biologists and evolutionary psychologists would argue that 'nature' is all that is needed to understand human existence. But then again they are displaying the 'real naturalism' that George would argue against; the naturalism that both obscures and denies the relevance of theology in social thought. Theirs is a view of human nature that does not allow for the spiritual realm and disqualifies theology and religion as illusions. As for me, I prefer leaving space for philosophical and theological contributions to sociology rather than building a sociology based on statistics, empirical studies and quantitative methods - what Pitirim Sorokin called 'quantophrenia' - that privileges naturalistic and materialistic thought above social-spiritual thought.

  One need not invoke Dooyeweerd's modal aspects to promote a view that seeks unity in diversity rather than favouring a dichotomy that says supernatural on one hand and all things natural on the other. This move may work for natural scientists and protect Christian natural scientists from harms way, so that they may be legitimized to their colleagues through studying 'only nature' or 'only the physical world' when they are in the laboratory or promoting a new theory or method. However, doing so suffers from a fragmenting reductionism that is, imo, not healthy in the broader discourse between science and theology, science and religion or science and faith. This is because it privileges natural science at the cost of other legitimate areas and fields in the academy which have important contributions to make.

  "For full temporal reality, which I experience in everyday life, is given to me as an inseparable coherence of all meaning-sides, both of the natural-sides (the mathematical, mechanical, biotic and psychical), as well as from the spiritual sides (the logical, historical, linguistic, social, economic, aesthetic, juridical, moral and faith sides)." - Dooyeweerd (Encyclopedia of the Legal Sciences, 1946: 9)

  Dooyeweerd argued that the physical is merely one aspect among many. I would argue the same thing about nature, while not violating the value of natural scientific methods and their contribution to human-social life. That, friends, is a kind of middle ground that allows George's respectable theological tradition and the physics tradition to be maintained while also respecting the diversity of aspects that are created and not to be confused with the Creator.

  If this can be seen as taking a step forward to meeting George on his own terms, while protecting the right to my own position, then it will be a positive step. Likewise, anyone at ASA who would do the same toward social-humanitarian perspectives that utilize scientific methods but not necessarily MN, would improve the communicative climate.

  Regards,
  Gregory A.

  George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote:
    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.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  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 Mon Jul 23 11:14:26 2007