Previously we defined intelligent design (ID) and asked whether ID is science. Today it seems prudent to examine naturalism a little more closely.
We have to be careful about this because naturalism is used in more than one way. In one sense, it is a philosophy. In another, it is a way of doing things.
What is methodological naturalism?
Modern science revolves around the scientific method which is essentially observe, test, interpret, and predict. The thing is, we really can only observe and test physical things, and since a big part of predicting is testing the predictions, predicting is limited to physical things too.
For example, you observe that falling objects seem to fall at a constant rate. Then you devise some tests to try to determine that rate. You run some experiments and look at your data forward, backward, and sideways, and then you make predictions about how other things should behave when they fall. Then you test your predictions and find that some things don’t behave as predicted, so you run more tests to try to refine your theory.
This is restricted to the physical realm because we have no way of measuring things in non-physical realms. We cannot detect mind or measure hope. We can tell that love affects the body, but we can’t say how much love causes the pupils to dilate to such a diameter.
Science can measure matter and energy. That’s it.
Methodological naturalism is not a problem. I cut my teeth on the scientific method. On those occasions when I get to do research, I use it today. Though there may be other ways to do scientific inquiry, I have no idea what they might be. Methodological naturalism is simply life in the sciences.
Methodological naturalism vs philosophical naturalism
Methodological naturalism says that science can only find material causes of a given event. Philosophical natural says there exists a material cause for any event. (I hope you can see the huge difference between those two statements.)
This seems a little hard to buy if you believe in minds, much less souls, but there are those who are convinced that “hope” is simply a chemical reaction in the brain, that “mind” is an illusion, and everything that happens can be reduced to physical causes and effects.
Philosophical naturalism is a huge honking problem.
From naturalistic methods to naturalistic worldviews (and students)
Naturalistic methods say we have certain tools at our disposal and we can follow our inquiry only as far as they will take us. These tools take us to the birth of the universe, for example, and stop.
The naturalistic philosophy comes in wherever the tools stop and says there is still a physical cause for whatever phenomena that have been observed. Adherents will then look for some way to explain via physical processes what physical tools cannot measure. The results can be rather bizarre.
A great example is the efforts to take the universe back beyond the big bang. Scientific methods tell us that the universe began at a singularity some finite time in the past. This makes naturalists go berserk because that leaves a lot of room for the supernatural, so they have offered a series of physical explanations that range from the untestable to the ludicrous. But they have to find a solution because, by their philosophy, one must exist.
The least unlikely “solution” will then become the dominant explanation for the phenomenon in question for the next generation or two. More importantly, though, this mindset – that a physical solution must exist – is passed on to the next generation as well.
Here’s the problem: naturalistic theories (especially those relating to the big questions of life) are used as evidence that there does not need to be, and therefore is not, a god.
It doesn’t matter that the theories regarding the origin of life are statistically impossible, nor does it matter that the theories regarding the origin of the universe are both philosophically and scientifically ridiculous. These theories exist and are supported by big names, and their support is required to advance in your field. Therefore the next generation will not only accept them, they will all too often accept that they preclude the existence of a creator.
Things go downhill from there.
Aside: The problem with ID
Here we should address one of the naturalists' complaints about ID and creationism. If we will accept “God did it” as the answer to an unanswerable question, we might accept it as the answer to an answerable question. ID, especially for Christians, should make scientists want to dig deeper to learn about God’s work, but it also might make people stop investigating prematurely.
I’m not sure how to answer this. It is a valid concern, and ID proponents need to formulate a response if they want to be given a hearing in the scientific community.
What to do about naturalism:
This has run way long, so let me quickly give some ideas about how we should respond to naturalism.
1 – Watch out for equivocation.
A common example in the ID debate is to say ID isn’t “science.” Science should mean “proper scientific inquiry,” but when it is used in this manner it almost always means “naturalism.” Be on the lookout for equivocation and be prepared to point it out noisily.
2 – Watch out for the switch from science to philosophy.
It is very common to hear scientists, philosophers, and educators jump from science to philosophy in one breath. For example, if someone expounds on the evidence for Darwinian evolution and then jumps to “undirected physical processes,” they have just made a philosophical statement. Point it out.
Especially if it’s at a school board meeting.
3 – Buy your kids the right kinds of books.
We can’t keep naturalism out of schools right now. So make sure your kids (and you) are equipped to withstand it in their own minds. I’m not advocating kids debating evolution in high school biology (I’m not opposing it either); I’m saying if you want your children to remain theists, you’ve got to oppose naturalism in their minds.
4 – Support Christians in science prayerfully, emotionally, and financially.
Those who go into science professionally are under spiritual warfare on one side and are often looked down upon from the other. It’s an emotionally draining battle to be in, and it’s often an expensive one (science rarely pays well and education is expensive). Look for ways to help the people in your church who are part of fighting the good fight.
Next time we're going to look specifically at some terminology used in debating evolution.
13 comments:
Good job. I found this because of your comment on the Christian Carnival.
Some questions for you:
Even if we do permit non-naturalistic explanations of phenomena how do we know when it is safe to accept a non-naturalistic explanation?
What is your position on other non-naturalistic propositions besides ID? For example the soul, ghosts, telepathy? If you prefer we can discuss some neutral ground, e.g. a non-materialistic claim which is not part of your faith.
It has been said that non-naturalistic explanations are an investigative dead-end: For example in all the time since ID has been discussed no ID proponent has made any progress in determining how the ID was done there's no testable theories... but perhaps I am ignorant. Can you give me an example of where this non-naturalistic science you seem to be proposing fulfills the testability requirements of normal science?
Best Regards
JD
And one more question:
Are you proposing that non-naturalism can benefit all fields of science or just biology? For example might we be able to formulate a non-naturalistic Aeronautics or Computer-Science? If so, can you suggest what a dualist approach might bring to these fields of study?
Best Regards,
JD
Dobson,
Some of your questions are answered in my post "Is Intelligent Design Science?"
"how do we know when it is safe"
I don't know. We're going to have to work that out, though.
"can you suggest what a dualist approach might bring to these fields of study?"
Nope. I'll leave it to you to try to apply it to your field. A physicist doesn't worry about how his work applies to chemistry -- that's the chemist's job.
Thanks for your quick reply. I had read that, it was the article which prompted me to ask about research "dead-ends"
If ID isn’t “science,” how will we know if it’s true? Metatheories cannot be directly tested. Theories based on metatheories can. If theories based on ID assumptions, theories that cannot be based on naturalistic assumptions, are confirmed, then ID gains credibility. Until then, it is just a philosophical argument.
Therein seems to lie the issue:
Naturalism seems to have produced a huge wealth of testable hypotheses, many of which have been confirmed by methodologically sound experiments.
I am not aware of a single testable hypothesis concerning the supernatural. Come to think of it, I cannot think of a single objective statement concerning the supernatural.
So if ID is a philosophy of science it is a funny one because it does not actually seem to lead to any kind of activity that resembles the sort of science research that actually occurs.
I don't know. We're going to have to work that out, though.
Would you be willing to accept that there is some significance to the fact that nobody can answer this question right now?
Nope. I'll leave it to you to try to apply it to your field. A physicist doesn't worry about how his work applies to chemistry -- that's the chemist's job.
Is there a field you can think of which would definitely benefit from the introduction of non-naturalistic ideas?
Did you have an opportunity to consider widely reported non-naturalistic phenomena that I listed in my previous post. I'd love to have your opinion on them.
Thanks,
JD
"Naturalism seems to have produced a huge wealth of testable hypotheses"
I think the majority of the science out there would more accurately be called neutral to this debate.
"Would you be willing to accept that there is some significance to the fact that nobody can answer this question right now?"
No. It's a relatively young endeavour. Science is slow.
"Did you have an opportunity to consider widely reported non-naturalistic phenomena..."
I'm not sure these are the same thing. Non-physical is not non-naturalistic. (I hope that's clear.)
The soul is, obviously, a religious question, so it won't surprise you I believe that exists.
Telepathy should be accessible to naturalistic methods.
Thanks for indulging my love of debate: I have to stay late at work watching a bunch of automated testing systems do their automated tests. They take a long time to run which gives me plenty of time to debate things...
:-)
I think the majority of the science out there would more accurately be called neutral to this debate.
On what basis would you call it neutral?
If anything I'd say scientists are overwhelmingly hostile or at best dismissive of the inclusion of non-naturalistic concepts in science.
One way you could show neutrality would be if you could demonstrate that a substantial proportion of the research community are willing to consider non-naturalistic explainations of phenomena that they research. I'm not aware that this is happening outside of fringe groups (e.g. DI, AIG).
No. It's a relatively young endeavour. Science is slow.
Lets consider one non-naturalistic idea in particular:
While some concepts in Intelligent Design (e.g. Specified Complexity, Irreducable Complexity) are relatively young the idea that an intelligent creator designed life is older than Bible.
You would expect that if the idea had any scientific validity then we might have been able to formulate some kind of testable hypotheses and have built some body of scientific work in all that time.
One thing that amazes me about ID and it's long history of proponents is how little they have achieved given such a big head-start.
This is significant: It is the ultimate test of a "theory of science"... does it actually produce science?
Materialist science is really quite fast... theology on the other hand is quite slow. Only a theologian could call an ancient idea "relatively young".
I'm not sure these are the same thing. Non-physical is not non-naturalistic. (I hope that's clear.)
Can you give me an example of a phenomena which is non-physical but naturalistic... or conversely a phenomena which is non-naturalisic but purely physical?
Telepathy should be accessible to naturalistic methods.
Do you believe that telepathy actually exists?
Did you have an opportunity to consider my previous question: Is there a field you can think of which would definitely benefit from the introduction of non-naturalistic ideas?
I asked this because I wanted to know if you felt that naturalism was universally inappropriate to science or just wrong for certain fields of science.
"On what basis would you call it neutral?"
On the basis that is takes no position on, nor depends on, either the presence or absence of a god. Of the modern sciences, only cosmology and evolutionary biology have elements that take a position.
Traditionally science was performed by people who believed in a god but assumed that the universe ran under consistent, discoverable principles. Then and today most Christians would say the same thing except for the question of the creation of life.
"Do you believe that telepathy actually exists?"
You seem oddly interested in that. I'm certainly a minority in that I wouldn't rule it out. I have little evidence to either side. The usual "tests" -- cards with pictures, etc -- should be sufficient naturalistic tests for that non-physical phenomenon.
On the basis that is takes no position on, nor depends on, either the presence or absence of a god.
So what you are saying is that the idea of god is pretty much irrelevant as far as science is concerned. I suppose you could call that a a kind of neutrality.
But supernaturalism is not just "god" - I think if you were to consider the entire range of supernatural propositions known to man we see blanket rejection of the supernatural by science.
This is entirely consistent with philosophical naturalism. I'm sure that not every scientist is fully aware of the naturalistic philosophy of science, it seems that every scientist's behavior is fully consistent with this philosophy.
Of the modern sciences, only cosmology and evolutionary biology have elements that take a position.
Have you any evidence to show that biologists and cosmologists work differently to scientists in other fields?
I think the real reason that you single-out cosmology and biology is that these fields present well confirmed findings which strongly contradict your own supernatural beliefs.
Have you had time to consider why it is that the various supernaturalist alternatives to strict materialism seem to be scientific dead ends? ID is the classic example of a research project which has gone absolutely nowhere.
Your persistent, I'll give you that.
"So what you are saying is that the idea of god is pretty much irrelevant as far as science is concerned."
I think that's probably a fair assessment.
"we see blanket rejection of the supernatural by science."
By scientists maybe, but not by science. If you disagree, feel free to cite scientific research rejecting the notion of the soul, heaven, spirits, God, immortality, or miracles.
"every scientist's behavior is fully consistent with this philosophy. "
You're confusing philosophical and methodological naturalism. Newton used methodological naturalism but was a theist as were many of the greats of the past. Today the methods are the same, no matter their feelings on the philosophical question.
"Have you any evidence to show that biologists and cosmologists work differently to scientists in other fields? "
It's not so much that they do their work differently but that their stated motivations are different. In these two fields you will find people whose motivation for their work is anti-theistic. Almost anyone who's trying to explain away the Big Bang today will, if pressed, admit that they want to get rid of the singularity for philosophical reasons.
To that end, some cosmologists will take their work beyond the limits of scientific reason because it is necessary to defeat the notion of the beginning.
"these fields present well confirmed findings which strongly contradict your own supernatural beliefs."
I can't think of any. Feel free to provide one or two.
"Have you had time to consider why it is that the various supernaturalist alternatives to strict materialism seem to be scientific dead ends? "
I thought we covered that before. Though the scientists of the past were theists, their work was not specifically theistically oriented. That particular field of research is relatively new, and, though people are working toward that it, it has not thus far produced any testable hypotheses.
By scientists maybe, but not by science. If you disagree, feel free to cite scientific research rejecting the notion of the soul, heaven, spirits, God, immortality, or miracles.
There are plenty of studies pertaining to the psychology of religion and belief in the supernatural. As I stated before the overwhelming consensus is that these are purely mental phenomena rather than supernatural phenomena. I'd be happy to google the research for you if you doubt that such research exists.
You're confusing philosophical and methodological naturalism. Newton used methodological naturalism but was a theist as were many of the greats of the past. Today the methods are the same, no matter their feelings on the philosophical question.
Newton was confused about naturalism: Did you know that in addition to his work on dynamics (the stuff every schoolboy learns in Physics) he devoted as much time to his study of the occult: Alchemy, Astrology and other nonsense. Fortunately the brilliance of his naturalistic work means we can forget his useless supernatural dabbling.
Newton lived in an age before philosophical naturalism: He had no rational reason not to inquire into the supernatural.
It's not so much that they do their work differently but that their stated motivations are different. In these two fields you will find people whose motivation for their work is anti-theistic. Almost anyone who's trying to explain away the Big Bang today will, if pressed, admit that they want to get rid of the singularity for philosophical reasons.
That statement might have been true 200 years ago when there was still considerable controversy over the issue of whether the Genesis story was a literal truth.
These days it's a settled matter and not something that scientists pay any attention to... except when they receive emails from kooks demanding that they adapt their research to fit somebody's personal theology.
There are no research grants for disproving utterly discredited bronze-age ideas about life and the universe.
To that end, some cosmologists will take their work beyond the limits of scientific reason because it is necessary to defeat the notion of the beginning.
It's starting to sound like you are proposing a conspiracy theory... you really think that researchers are motivated by an antagonism to your ideas? Christianity is really not that important any more.
Every field has it's fringe elements: There is plenty of really bad science if you care to look for it. Fortunately science (unlike theology) is self-correcting and most scientists are very clear about what we know as a fact and what is merely speculation.
I can't think of any. Feel free to provide one or two.
Shall we start with common-descent? The idea that all life on earth is related. It's one of the most established facts in Biology.
Previously I asked:
"Have you had time to consider why it is that the various supernaturalist alternatives to strict materialism seem to be scientific dead ends? "
And you replied:
I thought we covered that before. Though the scientists of the past were theists, their work was not specifically theistically oriented. That particular field of research is relatively new, and, though people are working toward that it, it has not thus far produced any testable hypotheses.
You are talking about intelligent design, right? It's really not a new idea.
Surely 200 years is enough time to come up with a few testable theories?
This is a tough question, because you either have to show an example where a rejection of philosophical naturalism led to better science or concede that no such example exists. If you do so you might also admit that supernaturalism has no place at all in science.
"There are plenty of studies pertaining to the psychology of religion and belief in the supernatural."
Psychology is not a hard science. And that's being generous.
There are many psychological studies about religion and related notions. They generally assume that mind-brain question has been solved (namely, brain) and assume correlation is causation.
"Almost anyone who's trying to explain away the Big Bang today will, if pressed, admit that they want to get rid of the singularity for philosophical reasons.
That statement might have been true 200 years ago when there was still considerable controversy over the issue of whether the Genesis story was a literal truth. "
"It's starting to sound like you are proposing a conspiracy theory..."
My degree is in physics. Cosmology was my hobby for some time. If my office wasn't such wreck I'd have a better chance to provide quotes, but the sad truth is there are many respected researchers in that field who dislike the Big Bang theory not because of the science but because of the metaphysical implications of a beginning of space and time.
Hawking, though less brazen in his statements, is one whose research has kind of gone into left field in this regard. He's perfectly fine proposing completely untestable notions to get away from the singularity. It's sad, really.
Common descent is not as solid as some would have you think, but it's also not a slam dunk for materialism. There are many who find no contradiction between common descent and theism. The general feeling is that Gen 1 tells us who created everything without going into much detail about the how.
The old design argument is obviously related to ID, but this really is a new endeavor.
Yes, correctly.
Post a Comment