Re: Who Done It?

Steve Clark (ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu)
Thu, 18 Apr 1996 10:21:21 -0500

>As a layman, I simply cannot understand the debate over whether a
>commitment to methodological naturalism is/is not a prerequisite for doing
>science. Is it overly simplistic to define science as "the study of
>phenomena and their causes?" If so, it would seem that science should
>search for truth, and should go wherever the search leads. Particularly as
>regards the design/descent argument, isn't the pertinent question, "what
>happened?" rather than "what is the proper methodology?" If the true answer
>is, "God did it, all at once," do we not want to know it?

Theoretically, it is appropriate to view science as a search for truth that
should lead scientists to true knowledge, regardless of the direction the
search leads. However, there are philosophical demarcations that
distinguish what we believe to be true whether it is based on science or on
faith. Science justifies belief empirically, faith does not. If belief in
the existence of God can be justified empirically, then it may fall within
the realm of science. But if we attribute origins to God based on biblical
text and personal faith, there is no a priori guarantee from such belief
that it can be justified empirically. Another way of considering this is to
realize that there are things we accept to be true that cannot be proven by
science. One example here might be the "rules of logic". We believe them
to be true, but how do we prove them via science? Much of what we believe
about God falls into this realm.

Steve
__________________________________________________________________________
Steven S. Clark, Ph.D. Phone: (608) 263-9137
Associate Professor FAX: (608) 263-4226
Dept. of Human Oncology and email: ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu
UW Comprehensive Cancer Ctr
University of Wisconsin
Madison, WI 53792

"To disdain philosophy is really to be a philosopher." Blaise Pascal, Pensees
__________________________________________________________________________