Mike
On Thu, 11 Jun 1998 15:56:50 -0700, Mike Hardie wrote:
>SJ>Burgy was saying (in effect) that MN (ie. Methodological
>>Naturalism) is true because it works. I was pointing out that "it
>>works" is based on a philosophy called pragmatism which in the
>>end denies truth. That MN works in many cases does not establish
>>that it is true.
MH>What would it mean for Methodological Naturalism to be
>"true", exactly? It's a methodology, not a metaphysical system.
Disagree. MN seamlessly becomes "a metaphysical system", ie.
metaphysical naturalism, when it is ceases to be a limitation on
science and becomes a limitation on reality. This is most obvious
when it is applied to origins and Christianity.
[...]
>SJ>...Johnson's point is that MN...if carried out consistently (eg.
>>origins, Christianity) it would become Metaphysical Naturalism
>>and deny *any* theistic worldview. It is precsiely MN that was
>>used by the 19th century German `higher critics' like Bultmann
>>who denied the supernatural as a matter of methodology and
>>ended up with a Jesus who was just a man who did not really
>>perform any miracles and who did not rise from the dead.
MH>But Methodological Naturalism would deny things like God
>*only for the purposes of the methodology*, not in any general or
>ultimate sense.
If there really is a God, why deny Him "for the purposes of the
methodology"? This makes sense only if there really is no God, ie. if
metaphysical naturalism is true. To clam that there really is a God but
the best way to study His creation is to assume there there really isn't
a God is absurd.
Do you really think that the God of the Bible is pleased with denying
Him for *any* purpose? Jesus (who was God) said: "But whosoever
shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father
which is in heaven." (Mt 10:33).
MH>Science does not, and *cannot*, address metaphysical claims, so
>it has to eliminate any metaphysical questions (like the existence of
>God) simply for its own purposes.
The very claim that "Science does not, and *cannot*, address
metaphysical claims" is itself a metaphysical claim!
To eliminate any metaphysical questions (like the existence of God)"
is to come down on the side of a "metaphysical question", ie. atheism,
"the" *non-"existence of God"!
MH>This is not to say that science disbelieves in God, but merely
>that God is a question science cannot address.
Why not? Books on popular science are addressing the question of
God all the time:
"It was barely tenable as a philosophical position as long as the
leading scientists believed, or pretended to believe, that science is a
limited research activity which does not aspire to occupy the entire
realm of knowledge. Today many of the world's most famous
physicists are proclaiming the imminent prospect of a "theory of
everything"-and they do mean everything. It may be that these
physicists-and the evolutionary biologists who talk just like them-are
no longer practicing "science" and have become metaphysicians.
What is important is that they mix metaphysics and science together
and present the whole package to the public with all the awe-inspiring
authority of science. I have read that 500 million persons have seen
Carl Sagan's Cosmos series, many of them in the public schools, and
very few of them were warned that "What you are about to see is
metaphysics, not science." The Time cover story for December 28,
1992 says it all: the title asks "What Does Science Tell Us About
God?" The answer is plenty, and more all the time."(Johnson P.E., in
Van Till H.J. & Johnson P.E., "God and Evolution: An Exchange",
First Things, 34, June/July 1993, pp32-41. http:
//www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9306/johnson.html)
MH>Basically, then, I don't see any necessary connection between
>Methodological Naturalism (used by science) and Metaphysical
>Naturalism (used by some philosophers).
I don't claim that there is a "necessary connection between
Methodological Naturalism...and Metaphysical Naturalism", because
clearly Methodological Naturalism can be practiced by people who
are not Metaphysical Naturalists. But in*in practice* there is a
connection, because if MN is carried out consistently it becomes
Metaphysical Naturalism when it gets to origins and Christianity.
The first is seen by MN's postulation of mutliple universes to avoid
admitting that God may have created the universe. When this is
denied (explicitly or implicitly) it becomes Metaphysical Naturalism.
The second is seen in so-called "Critical Scholarship" of Christianity.
Following MN, it is assumed in advance that there must be a
naturalistic explanation of the Biblical miracles and therefore Jesus
becomes just another religious leader.
>SJ>Which just concedes the point! If MN can't even explain the
>>origin of theuniverse, but TR can, then TR is the more inclusive
>>theory and MN its subset.
MH>That really does not follow at all. MN *should* not address
>metaphysical questions. That does not make it necessarily a subset
>of "TR", or anything else for that matter. It simply means that MN
>and metaphysics/philosophy are two different things.
Disagree. See above.
>SJ>Again this confirms my point that MN has no answers to the
>orign of life either.
MH>I'm no scientist... but isn't this where abiogenesis comes in?
Yes. "abiogenesis" simply means the origin of life from non-life:
"abiogenesis The origin of living from nonliving matter, as by
*biopoiesis. See also spontaneous generation." (Isaacs A., et. al.,
ed., "Concise Science Dictionary", Oxford University Press: Oxford,
Second Edition, p1)
MN has proved to date a failure in explaining the orign of life from
non-living chemicals. As Francis Crick, co-discover of the structure
of DNA, and avowed atheist, states:
"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now,
could only state that in some sense, the origin life appears at the
moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which
would have had to have been satisfied to get it going." (Crick F.,
"Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature," Simon & Schuster: New York,
1981, p88).
Crick didn't have to put the "almost a" before the "miracle". But his
Methodological Naturalism becomes Metaphysical Naturalism when
he denies that it *was* a miracle.
>>JR>But this is no significant evidence -yet- for what many
>>>Johnsonians seem tosuggest, which is a positive answer to (2)
>>>Are there any scientifically/empirically superior NON-MN
>>>approaches to these issues? The consensus here, even generally
>>>amongst scientists who are serious Christians, is "no" as well.
>SJ>I have read this several times and can't understand it (apart from
>>admitting that MN has no answers to the orign of life either).
>>Perhaps you can make it plainer?
MH>I think what he is saying is that, within the context of science,
>MN is best able to approach the issues. I'd even go one step further
>with that, and say that MN *is* the scientific approach to all issues.
Even though MN has failed in: 1) origins and 2) Christianity? On
what basis do you make your assertion?
>SJ>I've got news for you. Johnson already *has* "serious respect in
>>the scientific community": "In his 1992 book Dreams of a Final
>>Theory, Steven described me as currently "the most respectable
>>academic critic of evolution." (Weinberg S., "Dreams of a Final
>>Theory", 1992, pp247-49, in Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial,"
>>1993, p157).
MH>I'm not sure that's necessarily indicative of great respect.
If Johnson is regarded by a Nobel Prize-winning physicist as "the
most respectable academic critic of evolution", yet you say that even
that is not "necessarily indicative of great respect", then what you are
saying is that *no* "academic critic of evolution" can be respected.
If true, this confirms my point that *in practice* Methodological
Naturalism is just a applied Metaphysical Naturalism.
>SJ>I correspond with leading Intelligent Design theorists and the
>>news is that Intelligent Design is gaining ground in universities
>>across USA and Canada, both among students and faculty
>>members (including scientists).
MH>As a Canadian university student, I find this interesting. Are
>there any statistics, news reports, etc. you can point me to which
>confirm it? It's certainly not a trend I'm personally observing.
I live in Australia, so I am not aware of any Canadian "statistics, news
reports, etc".
>>JR>If ID theory starts showing results, then it may be able
>>>successfully to argue against MN on pragmatic grounds -- it's
>>>success there will be proportional to its empirical success. Until
>>>then, because science seeks truth via theories that show the best
>>>available empirical results, ID theory will be more a philosophical
>>>research program than a scientific one. (Still perhaps very
>>>worthwhile, but not science per se.)
>SJ>That is just a question-begging definition of "science". If
>>Intelligent Design really happened then it is not outside of
>>"science" to study it, any more than intelliegnt design is outside of
>>sciences like archaeology or SETI.
MH>That's not really correct. Remember, the study of ultimate
>reality is metaphysics, which is philosophy. Science is another thing
>altogether, and deals solely with empirical data and inferences from
>it.
And why should those "inferences" rule out the possibility of God's
acting supernaturally, e.g. in the case of the origin of the universe and
the origin of life?
MH> If you believe that there are truths which are not accessible by
>scientific methods (i.e., MN), then (in your opinion, at least) there
>*are* true things that aren't even theoretically within science's grasp.
I have no problem with some "truths which are not accessible by
scientific methods". But I do have a problem in the assumption that
*no* "truths" about God are "accessible by scientific methods". If an
Intelligent Designer really did create the universe and life, I can see
no reason why science can study that up to the point of actual
creation, and acknowledge that it was the work of an Intelligent
Designer.
>SJ>Yes. If Burgy doesn't even get the name of TR right, then it is
>>indicative that he does not understand what TR is.
MH>That seems a bit uncharitable. Should I conclude from the fact
>that you get fallacy names wrong that you don't know what fallacies
are?
You would be entirely within your rights to assume so, and I would
not regard it as "uncharitable". I would much appreciate you
correcting me, where I am wrong.
MH>(For example, in this same post, you misuse the term "special
pleading"
Please explain where, with reasons. Thanks.
MH>and in the past you have misapplied "ad hominem".
I don't wan't to rake up old coals on this one, but I disagree with your
assessment that I "misapplied `ad hominem'"
MH> Does this mean that you can't recognize fallacies? Or does it
>just mean that you make occasional minor errors?)
Burgy has said, and I have accepted that he made an "error". But at
the time I I took his words at face value.
>SJ>That you don't even adress the problem but try to trail a red
>>herring, confirms my point that exponents of MN "have a basic
>>problem of explaining why assuming there is no God is the key to
>>understanding reality."
MH>Wouldn't "understanding reality" be metaphysics, as opposed to
science?
I would have thought that science is the actual method of
understanding of reality. Metaphysics (ie. philosophy of science) is
the theoretical underpinning of why science is able to understand
reality.
MH>I think it might be more accurate to say that science allows us to
>organize and make sense of empirical data.
How can we "make sense of empirical data" if we are not
"understanding reality"?
MH> Whether or not that empirical data corresponds to reality, or
>to the entirety of reality, would be a philosophical question.
That's what I said. You have confirmed my point.
>SJ>We are discussing MN as philosophy, ie. thinking about science,
>>not actually doing science.
MH>I think the point is that MN *isn't* philosophy. It *is* "doing
>science", or rather the way to do science.
Make up your mind. Is MN "doing science" or "the way to do
science"? The first is science, the second is philosophy.
MH>Things like metaphysical naturalism or theistic design, on the
>other hand, could be *true*, but they are philosophy and not
>science. (Not that there's anything wrong with that...!)
The point is that assuming a Methodological Naturalism gives and
enormous advantage to "metaphysical naturalism", making it very
difficult for Theistic Realism to make its case. This would be OK if
"metaphysical naturalism" was true. But it is absurd if "theistic
design" (ie. Theistic Realism/Intelligent Design), is true.
Steve
"Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented."
--- Dr. William Provine, Professor of History and Biology, Cornell University.
http://fp.bio.utk.edu/darwin/1998/slides_view/Slide_7.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--_=_=_=IMA.BOUNDARY.HTML_4820800=_=_=_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mike --_=_=_=IMA.BOUNDARY.HTML_4820800=_=_=_--
On Thu, 11 Jun 1998 15:56:50 -0700, Mike Hardie wrote:
>SJ>Burgy was saying (in effect) that MN (ie. Methodological
>>Naturalism) is true because it works. I was pointing out that "it
>>works" is based on a philosophy called pragmatism which in the
>>end denies truth. That MN works in many cases does not establish
>>that it is true.
MH>What would it mean for Methodological Naturalism to be
>"true", exactly? It's a methodology, not a metaphysical system.
Disagree. MN seamlessly becomes "a metaphysical system", ie.
metaphysical naturalism, when it is ceases to be a limitation on
science and becomes a limitation on reality. This is most obvious
when it is applied to origins and Christianity.
[...]
>SJ>...Johnson's point is that MN...if carried out consistently (eg.
>>origins, Christianity) it would become Metaphysical Naturalism
>>and deny *any* theistic worldview. It is precsiely MN that was
>>used by the 19th century German `higher critics' like Bultmann
>>who denied the supernatural as a matter of methodology and
>>ended up with a Jesus who was just a man who did not really
>>perform any miracles and who did not rise from the dead.
MH>But Methodological Naturalism would deny things like God
>*only for the purposes of the methodology*, not in any general or
>ultimate sense.
If there really is a God, why deny Him "for the purposes of the
methodology"? This makes sense only if there really is no God, ie. if
metaphysical naturalism is true. To clam that there really is a God but
the best way to study His creation is to assume there there really isn't
a God is absurd.
Do you really think that the God of the Bible is pleased with denying
Him for *any* purpose? Jesus (who was God) said: "But whosoever
shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father
which is in heaven." (Mt 10:33).
MH>Science does not, and *cannot*, address metaphysical claims, so
>it has to eliminate any metaphysical questions (like the existence of
>God) simply for its own purposes.
The very claim that "Science does not, and *cannot*, address
metaphysical claims" is itself a metaphysical claim!
To eliminate any metaphysical questions (like the existence of God)"
is to come down on the side of a "metaphysical question", ie. atheism,
"the" *non-"existence of God"!
MH>This is not to say that science disbelieves in God, but merely
>that God is a question science cannot address.
Why not? Books on popular science are addressing the question of
God all the time:
"It was barely tenable as a philosophical position as long as the
leading scientists believed, or pretended to believe, that science is a
limited research activity which does not aspire to occupy the entire
realm of knowledge. Today many of the world's most famous
physicists are proclaiming the imminent prospect of a "theory of
everything"-and they do mean everything. It may be that these
physicists-and the evolutionary biologists who talk just like them-are
no longer practicing "science" and have become metaphysicians.
What is important is that they mix metaphysics and science together
and present the whole package to the public with all the awe-inspiring
authority of science. I have read that 500 million persons have seen
Carl Sagan's Cosmos series, many of them in the public schools, and
very few of them were warned that "What you are about to see is
metaphysics, not science." The Time cover story for December 28,
1992 says it all: the title asks "What Does Science Tell Us About
God?" The answer is plenty, and more all the time."(Johnson P.E., in
Van Till H.J. & Johnson P.E., "God and Evolution: An Exchange",
First Things, 34, June/July 1993, pp32-41. http:
//www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9306/johnson.html)
MH>Basically, then, I don't see any necessary connection between
>Methodological Naturalism (used by science) and Metaphysical
>Naturalism (used by some philosophers).
I don't claim that there is a "necessary connection between
Methodological Naturalism...and Metaphysical Naturalism", because
clearly Methodological Naturalism can be practiced by people who
are not Metaphysical Naturalists. But in*in practice* there is a
connection, because if MN is carried out consistently it becomes
Metaphysical Naturalism when it gets to origins and Christianity.
The first is seen by MN's postulation of mutliple universes to avoid
admitting that God may have created the universe. When this is
denied (explicitly or implicitly) it becomes Metaphysical Naturalism.
The second is seen in so-called "Critical Scholarship" of Christianity.
Following MN, it is assumed in advance that there must be a
naturalistic explanation of the Biblical miracles and therefore Jesus
becomes just another religious leader.
>SJ>Which just concedes the point! If MN can't even explain the
>>origin of theuniverse, but TR can, then TR is the more inclusive
>>theory and MN its subset.
MH>That really does not follow at all. MN *should* not address
>metaphysical questions. That does not make it necessarily a subset
>of "TR", or anything else for that matter. It simply means that MN
>and metaphysics/philosophy are two different things.
Disagree. See above.
>SJ>Again this confirms my point that MN has no answers to the
>orign of life either.
MH>I'm no scientist... but isn't this where abiogenesis comes in?
Yes. "abiogenesis" simply means the origin of life from non-life:
"abiogenesis The origin of living from nonliving matter, as by
*biopoiesis. See also spontaneous generation." (Isaacs A., et. al.,
ed., "Concise Science Dictionary", Oxford University Press: Oxford,
Second Edition, p1)
MN has proved to date a failure in explaining the orign of life from
non-living chemicals. As Francis Crick, co-discover of the structure
of DNA, and avowed atheist, states:
"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now,
could only state that in some sense, the origin life appears at the
moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which
would have had to have been satisfied to get it going." (Crick F.,
"Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature," Simon & Schuster: New York,
1981, p88).
Crick didn't have to put the "almost a" before the "miracle". But his
Methodological Naturalism becomes Metaphysical Naturalism when
he denies that it *was* a miracle.
>>JR>But this is no significant evidence -yet- for what many
>>>Johnsonians seem tosuggest, which is a positive answer to (2)
>>>Are there any scientifically/empirically superior NON-MN
>>>approaches to these issues? The consensus here, even generally
>>>amongst scientists who are serious Christians, is "no" as well.
>SJ>I have read this several times and can't understand it (apart from
>>admitting that MN has no answers to the orign of life either).
>>Perhaps you can make it plainer?
MH>I think what he is saying is that, within the context of science,
>MN is best able to approach the issues. I'd even go one step further
>with that, and say that MN *is* the scientific approach to all issues.
Even though MN has failed in: 1) origins and 2) Christianity? On
what basis do you make your assertion?
>SJ>I've got news for you. Johnson already *has* "serious respect in
>>the scientific community": "In his 1992 book Dreams of a Final
>>Theory, Steven described me as currently "the most respectable
>>academic critic of evolution." (Weinberg S., "Dreams of a Final
>>Theory", 1992, pp247-49, in Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial,"
>>1993, p157).
MH>I'm not sure that's necessarily indicative of great respect.
If Johnson is regarded by a Nobel Prize-winning physicist as "the
most respectable academic critic of evolution", yet you say that even
that is not "necessarily indicative of great respect", then what you are
saying is that *no* "academic critic of evolution" can be respected.
If true, this confirms my point that *in practice* Methodological
Naturalism is just a applied Metaphysical Naturalism.
>SJ>I correspond with leading Intelligent Design theorists and the
>>news is that Intelligent Design is gaining ground in universities
>>across USA and Canada, both among students and faculty
>>members (including scientists).
MH>As a Canadian university student, I find this interesting. Are
>there any statistics, news reports, etc. you can point me to which
>confirm it? It's certainly not a trend I'm personally observing.
I live in Australia, so I am not aware of any Canadian "statistics, news
reports, etc".
>>JR>If ID theory starts showing results, then it may be able
>>>successfully to argue against MN on pragmatic grounds -- it's
>>>success there will be proportional to its empirical success. Until
>>>then, because science seeks truth via theories that show the best
>>>available empirical results, ID theory will be more a philosophical
>>>research program than a scientific one. (Still perhaps very
>>>worthwhile, but not science per se.)
>SJ>That is just a question-begging definition of "science". If
>>Intelligent Design really happened then it is not outside of
>>"science" to study it, any more than intelliegnt design is outside of
>>sciences like archaeology or SETI.
MH>That's not really correct. Remember, the study of ultimate
>reality is metaphysics, which is philosophy. Science is another thing
>altogether, and deals solely with empirical data and inferences from
>it.
And why should those "inferences" rule out the possibility of God's
acting supernaturally, e.g. in the case of the origin of the universe and
the origin of life?
MH> If you believe that there are truths which are not accessible by
>scientific methods (i.e., MN), then (in your opinion, at least) there
>*are* true things that aren't even theoretically within science's grasp.
I have no problem with some "truths which are not accessible by
scientific methods". But I do have a problem in the assumption that
*no* "truths" about God are "accessible by scientific methods". If an
Intelligent Designer really did create the universe and life, I can see
no reason why science can study that up to the point of actual
creation, and acknowledge that it was the work of an Intelligent
Designer.
>SJ>Yes. If Burgy doesn't even get the name of TR right, then it is
>>indicative that he does not understand what TR is.
MH>That seems a bit uncharitable. Should I conclude from the fact
>that you get fallacy names wrong that you don't know what fallacies
are?
You would be entirely within your rights to assume so, and I would
not regard it as "uncharitable". I would much appreciate you
correcting me, where I am wrong.
MH>(For example, in this same post, you misuse the term "special
pleading"
Please explain where, with reasons. Thanks.
MH>and in the past you have misapplied "ad hominem".
I don't wan't to rake up old coals on this one, but I disagree with your
assessment that I "misapplied `ad hominem'"
MH> Does this mean that you can't recognize fallacies? Or does it
>just mean that you make occasional minor errors?)
Burgy has said, and I have accepted that he made an "error". But at
the time I I took his words at face value.
>SJ>That you don't even adress the problem but try to trail a red
>>herring, confirms my point that exponents of MN "have a basic
>>problem of explaining why assuming there is no God is the key to
>>understanding reality."
MH>Wouldn't "understanding reality" be metaphysics, as opposed to
science?
I would have thought that science is the actual method of
understanding of reality. Metaphysics (ie. philosophy of science) is
the theoretical underpinning of why science is able to understand
reality.
MH>I think it might be more accurate to say that science allows us to
>organize and make sense of empirical data.
How can we "make sense of empirical data" if we are not
"understanding reality"?
MH> Whether or not that empirical data corresponds to reality, or
>to the entirety of reality, would be a philosophical question.
That's what I said. You have confirmed my point.
>SJ>We are discussing MN as philosophy, ie. thinking about science,
>>not actually doing science.
MH>I think the point is that MN *isn't* philosophy. It *is* "doing
>science", or rather the way to do science.
Make up your mind. Is MN "doing science" or "the way to do
science"? The first is science, the second is philosophy.
MH>Things like metaphysical naturalism or theistic design, on the
>other hand, could be *true*, but they are philosophy and not
>science. (Not that there's anything wrong with that...!)
The point is that assuming a Methodological Naturalism gives and
enormous advantage to "metaphysical naturalism", making it very
difficult for Theistic Realism to make its case. This would be OK if
"metaphysical naturalism" was true. But it is absurd if "theistic
design" (ie. Theistic Realism/Intelligent Design), is true.
Steve
"Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented."
--- Dr. William Provine, Professor of History and Biology, Cornell University.
http://fp.bio.utk.edu/darwin/1998/slides_view/Slide_7.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------