John "Burgy," looking for an argument, suggested we think of science this
way: it is a "game" with strict rules against using non-natural
causations; it is a useful game, but we still require philosophy and
theology to understand total significance and "truth."
But it seems to me that this definition of science:
1) Requires an unrealistic demarcation between science and
philosophy/theology.
2) Restricts "science" too narrowly.
3) Applies methodological naturalism too broadly.
4) Doesn't deal satisfactorily with situations in which theologically
significant events have measurable physical correlates.
----------------------------------
1) Science, philosophy, and religion are different ways of searching for
and responding to the truth, and "truth" cannot easily be
compartmentalized. Human thought patterns rebel against the idea of
compartmentalized or dichotomized truth. Insights we gain in one area, or
from one type of procedure, invariably beg for wider application.
2) "Science" has always resisted strong demarcation and narrow
definitions. Positivism is positively flawed. Naive falsificationism is
false. Operationalism is told to "Get real!" Every proscriptive
philosophy of science has crashed, while descriptive philosophy of science
(which studies the _actual_ reasoning process of scientists and the
scientific community) has advanced.
One of my favorite philosophers of science these days is Imrie Lakatos.
He steers a course between Popper and Kuhn, and tries to characterize
differences between fruitful and "degenerating" research programs. I can
well imagine a scientific program which proscribes certain kinds of
explanatory models becoming degenerative.
3) Rather than saying that science is a game with proscriptive rules about
the kinds of causes allowed, I would rather say that "Methodological
naturalism is a game...." (*) We should not equate science with MN.
Methodological naturalism is a very useful tool which can be applied to
various problems and sub-disciplines, both within science and outside of
science (e.g. economics). The natural sciences investigate and build
explanatory models for physical and biological processes, and have found
MN to be a very useful tool, but MN need not be universally applied.
In short: MN should be applied more narrowly than "all of science," and
MN can be usefully applied outside of science.
Personally, I expect that MN will eventually be successful in "explaining"
abiogenesis. But maybe it will fail. In that case, most of the
scientific community would restrict MN more narrowly (to sub-processes of
abiogenesis) and include a (mechanistically unexplained) infusion of
complex/organized chemicals at critical point(s). It would still be
science.
(*) I am _almost_ willing to substitute "MN" for "science" into your
definition of science --- i.e., that "MN is a useful game which still
requires philosophy and theology to understand the total signficance."
However, I believe that this sells short the philosophical and theological
_significance_ of MN's success in certain areas. Crudely speaking,
wherever MN is successful, we learn philosophical and theological truths
about the methods God used in that area. That's exciting!
4) I believe God sometimes influences our thoughts/cognitive states (e.g.
spiritual insights). I also believe that changes in cognitive states have
corresponding physical (brain) correlates, which can be studied
scientifically. Just how measurable "spiritual insights" are is open for
speculation. If some of them ARE measurable, then we have a very real
biological event, which can be studied scientifically, and for which
(presumably) methodological naturalism would be inadequate. (This same
argument can be made for other events, e.g. miracles of healing.)
-----
I hope what I said above makes sense, and isn't hopelessly confused.
-----------------------------
Glenn Morton asked:
> Can you give an example of how God's causation can be
> unequivocally recognized in geology, a very historical science. I am
> not challenging you because I beleive God works behind the scenes in
> these sciences, but I have never figured out how to prove His involvement.
Hmmm. Tough one. I don't think there are, presently, any "examples of
how God's causation could be unequivocally recognized in geology." I
wouldn't be surprised if there never are any such examples. I could
_imagine,_ however, future discoveries which might change this. (e.g.
discovering that the particular distribution of materials in the earth's
core could not be produced via the processes of planetary formation; or
finding evidence that a certain mountain in Jordan erupted about 4000
years ago, with absolutely no geological activity in the surrounding area
which could have caused it.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Don't be too proud of this technological |
terror you have constructed." | Loren Haarsma
--Darth Vader (_Star_Wars_) | lhaarsma@opal.tufts.edu