Methodogical Naturalism

[itinerant1]

There is no need to acknowledge supernatural causation in mathematics anyway. Mathematics is not about the study of physical things where the power of God is at work. MN does not affect the science of mathematics,it affects they way in which natural sciences explain living things,order,thought,and the origination of the universe – because those are the subjects in which it is necessary to acknowledge God’s power.

It looks like you do not understand the relation of math to the natural sciences. Science studies the measurable aspects of things. Science cannot measure the power of God, and so God’s power is not a proper object of study for the natural sciences.

 

[itinerant1]

anthony022071 argues that methodological naturalism is still naturalism and so MN says that everything can be explained by natural causes. However, Anthony’s assertion falsely characterizes MN, and it is starting to look like the common, disingenuous ploy used by ID advocates.

Intelligent Design creationists intentionally confuse and misuse the terms “philosophical naturalism” and “methodological naturalism”. Philosophical or ontological naturalism is the view that nothing supernatural exists. Methodological naturalism, on the other hand, is not a belief or doctrine, it is an essential aspect of the methodology of science.

“[The] assumption of naturalism need not extend beyond an assumption of methodology. This is what separates methodological naturalism from philosophical naturalism - the former is merely a tool and makes no truth claim; while the latter makes the philosophical - essentially atheistic - claim that only natural causes exist.” ()

ID theory incorporates metaphysical explanations into its theory, claiming that this is the proper way for science to conduct itself. However, ID theory is bad philosophy. As Father Edward Oakes states,

“I also object to the way the ID Movement conflates the Thomistic distinction between primary and secondary causality. The advocates of this movement claim that if it can be proved scientifically that God must intervene on occasion to get various species up and running, then this will throw the atheist Darwinians into a panicked rout.

“I disagree. My view is that, according to St. Thomas, secondary causality can be allowed full rein without threatening God’s providential oversight of the world.” ()

Since ID theory is not science, plus it advocates a rank metaphysics and an even worse theology, it gives the upper hand to the philosophical naturalists.

Now, we can easily compare philosophical and methodological naturalism with positivism as a “philosophy” and positivism as a “method” in science. As a philosophy,

“Positivism is a system of philosophical and religious doctrines elaborated by Auguste Comte. As a philosophical system or method, Positivism denies the validity of metaphysical speculations, and maintains that the data of sense experience are the only object and the supreme criterion of human knowledge; as a religious system, it denies the existence of a personal God and takes humanity, “the great being”, as the object of its veneration and cult.” ()

Positivism, as a “method” in science, is the correct and productive way for the particular or positive sciences to be conducted. Pierre Duhem, a Catholic, physicist and historian of science discusses the proper role of positivism “as a method” in science:

"By denying to metaphysics the right to govern the researches of physics, by denying to the physical theories the right to pose as metaphysical explanations, do we become thereby positivists? We maintain that the positive sciences should be used with methods appropriate to positive sciences. We maintain that these methods rest on self-evident principles and can function independently of all metaphysical research. We maintain that these methods, efficacious in the observation of phenomena and in the discovery of laws, are incapable of grasping the causes and touch on the substances. But this is not to be a positivist. To be a positivist is to assert that there is no other logical method than the method of positive sciences, that what is inaccessible to that method, what is unknowable by the positives sciences, is in itself and absolutely unknowable. Is this what we maintain?

"Do you want to play the game of positivism? Then confuse the domain of metaphysics with the domain of physics, the method of metaphysics with the experimental method, discuss the physical theories by reasons drawn from metaphysical systems, include in your metaphysical system theories of the positive sciences. The positivist will have no difficulty in proving to you that the physical methods cannot lead to consequences that you wished to draw from them and will conclude that metaphysics is condemned by its very consequences.

“If you do not establish a radical separation between physics and metaphysics, if you confuse them, you will be forces to recognize that the method of physics is good even in metaphysics. But this is to give the advantage to positivism.”

(Excerpted from by Stanley L. Jaki; pp.163-4)

 

[anthony022071]

The one problem with your statement is that it is contrary to the facts. I know of numerous scientists who do not fit into the little box you created for them.

You know of many scientists who do not believe in the naturalistic theories that their profession obliges them to accept? Are they the intelligent design crowd?

I didn’t say that all scientists believe and promote naturalistic theories anyway. But if they teach natural science or write books about it or talk to others about it,they probably do believe and promote them.

It looks like you do not understand the relation of math to the natural sciences.

The science of mathematics is not related to the natural sciences.

Science studies the measurable aspects of things. Science cannot measure the power of God, and so God’s power is not a proper object of study for the natural sciences.

That’s true,but it does not mean that the natural sciences should ignore outside knowledge that is relevant and even necessary to the proper understanding of nature. It is reasonable to believe that God is the power,or cause,behind the workings of nature,especially in regard to life,order,and the coming into being of matter. As long as science ignores this truth about nature’s dependency upon God is ignored,science will misrepresent the workings of nature and attribute to natural causes what they cannot do by themselves.

 

[anthony022071]

Not everything can be explained by means of natural causes, and if it can’t, then it remains outside the scope and competency of science to address it.

My point is that science does explain all phenomena with natural causes alone. That is the purpose of MN. If you take the “special perspective” of science,then everything is explainable with natural causes alone,because that is all you see in nature.

Huh?

Just what I said. If you trust in MN,you will uncritically accept naturalistic theories for all phenomena,because they proceed from that perspective. It doesn’t seem like you have any doubts about the theory of evolution. You defend it rather than test it,trusting that the approach that leads to it is valid.

 

[itinerant1]

If you take the “special perspective” of science,then everything is explainable with natural causes alone,because that is all you see in nature.

Fortunately, what you said is not the case, not to mention your logic leaves much to be desired. You statement above is hopelessly convoluted. Here’s how:

First, you stated, “If you take the “special perspective” of science”. That clause is so ambiguous as to include philosophical naturalism while you are pretending to discuss MN. Only a philosophical naturalist or positivist “takes the special perspective of science” as a general outlook on nature, one that makes a truth claim about the nature of the world.

The second part of you statement is also highly ambiguous. You stated, “everything is explainable with natural causes”. However, science does not pretend that “everything” is explainable by natural causes. For example, it does not claim that God is explainable by natural causes. What science does claim, rather, is that natural effects have natural causes. That fact is above dispute.

Next, you say “because that is all you see in nature”. This is not true of MN, and you are being intellectually dishonest by making that implication for the hundreth time. For example, Bro. Consolmagno, the curator of the Vatican’s meteorites, gives natural explanations only for the causes, motions, and types of meteorites. As a scientist, he cannot, and should not, inject supernatural causes into the mix. Yet, it does not follow that “all he sees”, as a person, are natural causes. Your claim is contradicted by the reality of the situation in science.

You are continuing the same ID obfuscation that I mentioned in the previous post of deliberately confusing and misusing the terms and concepts of methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism. Apparently, you learned nothing from Pierre Duhem, either, as you are merely replaying the same tired script over and over again, without addressing the critical objections to your position. There is no point in you pretending to carry on a discsussion when you keep your eyes closed to the facts.
Your position has already been thoroughly debunked in this thread. It’s time for a little intellectual honesty on your part.

 

[anthony022071]

anthony022071 argues that methodological naturalism is still naturalism and so MN says that everything can be explained by natural causes. However, Anthony’s assertion falsely characterizes MN, and it is starting to look like the common, disingenuous ploy used by ID advocates.

Of course it is is still naturalism. Hence the name. To claim that it is not naturalism is disingenuous. MN is about the use of the naturalistic perspective in science. What else would you call that perspective if not naturalism or materialism or positivism? The idea that only nature exists does not cease to be naturalism just because it is used as an operational hypothesis in science.

Intelligent Design creationists intentionally confuse and misuse the terms “philosophical naturalism” and “methodological naturalism”. Philosophical or ontological naturalism is the view that nothing supernatural exists. Methodological naturalism, on the other hand, is not a belief or doctrine, it is an essential aspect of the methodology of science.

The distinction between MN and PN is besides the point. Naturalism itself is not always philosophy,it is a simple idea or a view of reality. There is nothing philosophical about saying “nature is all that exists”,just as there is nothing philosophical about saying “there is no God”. It is just a belief.

“[The] assumption of naturalism need not extend beyond an assumption of methodology. This is what separates methodological naturalism from philosophical naturalism - the former is merely a tool and makes no truth claim; while the latter makes the philosophical - essentially atheistic - claim that only natural causes exist.” ()

The assumption of naturalism in science does extend beyond methodology,because it determines how science explains phenomena. MN is not about methodology,it is a way of viewing and explaining phenomena. It is the adoption of the claim that only nature exists for use in science as a working hypothesis. The perspective is the same as it is outside of science.

 

[itinerant1]

The assumption of naturalism in science does extend beyond methodology,because it determines how science explains phenomena. MN is not about methodology,it is a way of viewing and explaining phenomena. It is the adoption of the claim that only nature exists for use in science as a working hypothesis. The perspective is the same as it is outside of science.

Unfortunately, you have demonstrated that you are incapable understanding necessary distinctions. Consequently, you are not in a position to intelligently discuss the topic of this thread.

 

[itinerant1]

Have you ever wondered why Thomist philosophers in the Church have not joined the Intelligent Design parade? Michael W. Tkacz, associate professor of philosophy at Gonzaga University, provides some answers:
Aquinas vs. Intelligent Design

 

[anthony022071]

Unfortunately, you have demonstrated that you are incapable understanding necessary distinctions. Consequently, you are not in a position to intelligently discuss the topic of this thread.

There is no distinction between the idea itself that “only nature exists” in science and in philosophy. The view itself is the same even though the context and usage of the view are different. The mere view is not a philosophy in itself,just as it is not a scientific view in itself. You act as if any view of existence which is not scientific must be philosophical. And you refuse to see that the contents of evolution theory are naturalistic for being the result of the special (naturalistic) perspective of science. That is why you continue to claim that I am misrepresenting MN as PN.

 

[itinerant1]

There is no distinction between the idea itself that “only nature exists” in science and in philosophy. The view itself is the same even though the context and usage of the view are different. The mere view is not a philosophy in itself,just as it is not a scientific view in itself. You act as if any view of existence which is not scientific must be philosophical. And you refuse to see that the contents of evolution theory are naturalistic for being the result of the special (naturalistic) perspective of science. That is why you continue to claim that I am misrepresenting MN as PN.

There remains a difference between a view and a methodology. Methodological naturalism is a methodology.

I am not sure why you think you can re-define MN merely to accommodate your wish that the positive sciences should include metaphysical explanations.

 

[itinerant1]

The purpose for which this thread was started was as an attempt to discredit scientific method, particularly methodological naturalism. “anthony022071” argument against MN is one that conflates metholdological naturalism with philosophical naturalism. However, anthony022071, continues to claim that there is no difference between the two.

So, what may we ask is the philosophy of science advocated by anthony022071? So far, he has given no evidence that he has one. Then what method does anthony022071 think the natural sciences should observe? This answer he has made clear is one in which the natural scientist includes metaphysical explanations in his science.

We are justified in concluding that he has adopted this idea from Intelligent Design theorists or advocates. Here we get to the motivation for his attack on MN. It is an attack characteristic of advocates of ID theory who intentionally confuse and conflate methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism.

But does ID have a scientific method? No. Does ID make scientific discoveries? No. Does ID advance our scientific understanding of nature? No. The reason for so many “No” answers is that (1) ID theory is an unproven theory, and (2) it is not a scientific theory. In short, ID is not science and it does not do science.

Yet, this is the position that anthony022071 hopes to persuade people to. It is not a position that will ever prevail in the scientific world, because it does not offer a competing scientific theory to any general scientific theory such as evolution theory.

ID theory is widely understood to be a “god of the gaps” theory, as well as a science killer. On the other hand, methodological naturalism, or positivism as a method in science, have proven their value for advancing scientific knowledge.

If we want metaphysical or philosophical knowledge of the world, we do philosophy. If we want a theological understanding of the world, we do theology. If we want scientific knowledge of the world, we do science. And if our conclusions are true in philosophy, theology and science, there will be no genuine contradictions. ID theory merely confuses these distinct orders of knowledge, while advancing none of them.

 

[anthony022071]

There remains a difference between a view and a methodology. Methodological naturalism is a methodology.

No,it’s a view. You called it a “special perspective” yourself. A methodology is a way of doing something,especially physical acts. It is not a perspective on things. MN is not the experimental method itself. To say that MN is a methodology is like saying that the appearance of things though dark glasses is a methodology.

I am not sure why you think you can re-define MN merely to accommodate your wish that the positive sciences should include metaphysical explanations.

I’m using the same definition of MN that its proponents use.

stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/schafersman_nat.html
Methodological Naturalism and Ontological Naturalism
“Is it true that science does not entail a belief in metaphysical naturalism, but only the temporary, uncommitted adoption of methodological naturalism? Methodological naturalism is the adoption or assumption of naturalism in scientific belief and practice without really believing in naturalism.”

infidels.org/library/modern/barbara_forrest/naturalism.html
“First, naturalism is committed to a methodological principle within the context of scientific inquiry; i.e., all hypotheses and events are to be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events. To introduce a supernatural or transcendental cause within science is to depart from naturalistic explanations. On this ground, to invoke an intelligent designer or creator is inadmissible…”

The natural sciences do not need to be positivistic in the first place. There is no justification for the idea that all phenomena should be explained with natural causes alone,because there is no justification for the belief that only natural causes exist or can be known.

 

[itinerant1]

This is a post I was hoping I would not have to write. I started this response at # 31, but the computer I was using crashed exactly as I hit preview, so this post is a do-over and completion of the incomplete response at # 31.

The purpose of this thread, as it turns out, was not to engage in a serious discussion about methodological naturalism, but rather to discredit it by any means, however illogical. The argument against MN (methodological naturalism) given by anthony022071 is one that conflates methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism. Nonetheless, anthony022071 continues to insist, without justifying argument, that there is no difference between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism. Such an assertion is contrary to fact and constitutes a stubborn refusal to call a thing what it is. Consequently, one cannot carry on a logical discussion with someone who insists that an apple is the same as a rock.

The above mentioned aspect of anthony022071’s argument involves a blatant strawman fallacy. Furthermore, the conclusion he draws from his fallacy, that the natural sciences should include metaphysical and theological explanations, does not logically follow. We can say that the second part of his argument involves the logical fallacy of ignoratio elenchi (also known as irrelevant conclusion or irrelevant thesis).

To probe further, we may we ask what is the philosophy of science advocated by anthony022071? So far, he has given no evidence that he even has one. Then what method does anthony022071 think the natural sciences should observe? His answer is that the natural scientist should include metaphysical and theological explanations in his science. However, I see no merit whatsoever in that position. It is a good way to retard the progress of scientific knowledge.

We are justified in concluding that anthony022071 has adopted these ideas, lock,stock and barrel, from Intelligent Design creationists. Here is where the rubber meets the road – we get down to the motivation for his attack on MN. It is an attack characteristic of advocates of ID creationists who intentionally confuse and conflate methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism in order to make their own view look more reasonable.

But how reasonable is Intelligent Design creationism? Does ID creationism have a scientific method? No. Does ID make scientific discoveries? No. Does ID advance our scientific understanding of nature? No. The reason for so many “No” answers is that (1) ID creationism is an unproven and unprovable theory, and (2) it is not a scientific theory at all. In short, ID creationism is not science, and it does not do science.

The natural sciences are limited to the study phenomenal reality, the quantifiable aspects of things and their relations. Nothing more. But how is science supposed to study intelligent design? That is, how does one measure intelligence? More to the point, how does one measure infinite intelligence? ID creationists have no answers to these kind of questions.

The simple fact is we do not need science to tell us the world exhibits intelligent design. Science presumes design exists. That is, design and order are what make science possible.

Michael Behe said in court that the intelligent designer could be one or many. And that it could even be an alien. What is all that supposed to mean? Does it even sound reasonable?

Nonetheless, this is the position that anthony022071 hopes to persuade people to. ID creationism is not a view that will ever prevail in the scientific world, because it does not offer a competing scientific theory to any general scientific theory such as evolution theory.

ID creationism is widely and correctly understood to be a “god of the gaps” theory, as well as a “science killer”. On the other hand, methodological naturalism, or positivism as a method in the particular or positive science, continually prove their value for advancing genuine scientific knowledge.

If we want metaphysical or philosophical knowledge of the world, we do philosophy. If we want a theological understanding of the world, we do theology. If we want scientific knowledge of the world, we do science. And if our conclusions are true in philosophy, theology and science, there will be no genuine contradictions between any of these disciplines. ID creationism merely confuses these distinct orders of knowledge, while advancing none of them.

In sum, Intelligent Design creationism is not science, it is bad philosophy, and even worse theology. It views God much like one of the pagan nature gods, who are forever intervening in nature. Anthony022071 wrongly presumes that if we do not agree that God is always intervening in nature to create new species then we are denying His providential role in creation. The assumption is unfounded and reveals the typical ID advocate’s stark shortage of classical philosophical knowledge and a shallow understanding of Creation and Providence.

 

[itinerant1]

No,it’s a view. You called it a “special perspective” yourself. A methodology is a way of doing something,especially physical acts. It is not a perspective on things. MN is not the experimental method itself. To say that MN is a methodology is like saying that the appearance of things though dark glasses is a methodology.

I’m using the same definition of MN that its proponents use.

stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/schafersman_nat.html
Methodological Naturalism and Ontological Naturalism
“Is it true that science does not entail a belief in metaphysical naturalism, but only the temporary, uncommitted adoption of methodological naturalism? Methodological naturalism is the adoption or assumption of naturalism in scientific belief and practice without really believing in naturalism.”

infidels.org/library/modern/barbara_forrest/naturalism.html
“First, naturalism is committed to a methodological principle within the context of scientific inquiry; i.e., all hypotheses and events are to be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events. To introduce a supernatural or transcendental cause within science is to depart from naturalistic explanations. On this ground, to invoke an intelligent designer or creator is inadmissible…”

The natural sciences do not need to be positivistic in the first place. There is no justification for the idea that all phenomena should be explained with natural causes alone,because there is no justification for the belief that only natural causes exist or can be known.

You may think you are using MN as defined above, but you are not. I am not sure why you cannot see what is most obvious to others.

First, you said “There is no justification for the idea that all phenomena should be explained with natural causes alone.” Actually, there is ample justification. The natural sciences have no competence in the area of supra-natural causes. They can only describe observable, natural events. By limiting itself to the observable, science in no way denies the existence of higher causes. To assert otherwise, as you do, only suggests that you know nothing about natural science and do not understand the definitions of MN, which you quoted.

And that may be the crux of the problem – that you have never studied any science. This was obvious from previous threads in which you criticized Big Bang theory, but you did not seem to know much of anything about the theory. The same goes for the science of evolution. There is no merit to your criticizing things in which you have no background. Your lack of education in science probably accounts for why your arguments are repetitious, going around and around in a very small circle.

Why don’t you find a science that interests you and spend time studying it. Take some college intro courses to science. Check out some science books from the library. Go on some field trips with nature lovers. Science is fascinating. ID creationism is boring.

 

[anthony022071]

(4)

 

[itinerant1]

Species can only be created individually,because they are themselves composed of individuals,and because the act of creating a form (species) of something different from another form is an act that creates individual species. This holds even if evolution is involved in the forming of species. Evolution or change cannot produce new living species apart from acts of individual creation,that is,acts of conception,because living creatures are concieved into being,never merely evolved. But in the theory of evolution,the reality of conception is glossed over in favor of any other natural factors that might in any way affect the bodies of creatures,individually and collectively.

I am not sure what your point is supposed to be. What it is about conception that is allegedly glossed over in evolution theory remains unclear. Perhaps you can elaborate. I don’t know of any evolutionist who would deny the role of conception in the production of an organism. That is just basic biology.

Is there such a thing as collective creation of species apart from acts of creation? We know that we were conceived into existence as individuals,not evolved into existence,so why should we ignore the reality of conception in regard to our earliest ancestors,or to other kinds of creatures?

Again, I don’t get your point. Who ignores “the reality of conception”. Certainly not the geneticist. Do you have some references?

Your statement that “we were conceived into existence as individuals,not evolved into existence” seems pointless. Individuals are conceived as a specific type. The processes of evolution produced the type. And man’s body has a pre-history in the natural evolutionary processes on Earth.

1. Continued creation does not mean creation ex nihilo. It can be either ex nihilo or it can involve created things.

This is contradictory. First you said that continued creation does “not” mean creation ex nihilo, and then in the second sentence you say it “can” mean that.

Continued creation certainly does mean that God continues to create the natural world. What else do you think it means? Scripture does not say that God ceased forever from creating things,and that is not what the Church teaches. God creates living creatures every time that one is conceived. He didn’t make nature self-sufficient.

No one, except for the philosophical naturalist, claims that nature is self-sufficient.

Your use of the word “creation” is ambiguous. To clarify, in one sense, creatio ex nihilo, has indeed ceased (except in the case of the human soul), but the original creatio ex nihilo is a continuing creation, however paradoxical that may sound at first. That is why St. Augustine eventually concluded that God created everything “at once”, and not over a literal six days, or some other periods of time. God created things at once in their rationis seminalis. New forms emerge over time as opportunities present themselves, yet they were still created in the beginning, in their rationis seminalis.

 

[anthony022071]

I am not sure what your point is supposed to be. What it is about conception that is allegedly glossed over in evolution theory remains unclear. Perhaps you can elaborate. I don’t know of any evolutionist who would deny the role of conception in the production of an organism. That is just basic biology.

Again, I don’t get your point. Who ignores “the reality of conception”. Certainly not the geneticist. Do you have some references?

Evolutionists would not deny the reality of conception in regard to individual organisms,but they do ignore it,or fail to see its consequences,in regard to the origination of new species.
They focus on processes which supposedly produce new species,rather than on parentage and the reality of conception or reproduction. This approach treats living species as if they were like non-living monolithic forms such as rock formations and mountains which gradually evolve into shape.

Your statement that “we were conceived into existence as individuals,not evolved into existence” seems pointless. Individuals are conceived as a specific type. The processes of evolution produced the type. And man’s body has a pre-history in the natural evolutionary processes on Earth.

Parents and their acts of reproduction produce the types,not evolutionary processes. Environmental factors like climate and food resources do not actually produce living creatures. All they can do is affect the growth and appearance and health of creatures that have already been conceived. They do not affect the acts of conception by which creatures originate,because the act of conception happens in a moment,safe from environmental pressures.

This is contradictory. First you said that continued creation does “not” mean creation ex nihilo, and then in the second sentence you say it “can” mean that.

It isn’t a contradicition. Continued creation and creation ex nihilo mean two different things,but they are not mutually exclusive. Continued creation is not defined as creation ex nihilo,but it may happen ex nihilo.

No one, except for the philosophical naturalist, claims that nature is self-sufficient.

The theory of evolution presents nature as self-sufficient,with mechanisms and processes alone having the power to produce living creatures. If nature is not presented as being dependent upon the power of God,then it is presented as being independent.
And both views cannot be true. If you are willing to believe evolution theory,with its naturalistic view,then you are not willing to believe in the doctrine of creation and divine providence in its fullness.

Your use of the word “creation” is ambiguous. To clarify, in one sense, creatio ex nihilo, has indeed ceased (except in the case of the human soul), but the original creatio ex nihilo is a continuing creation, however paradoxical that may sound at first. That is why St. Augustine eventually concluded that God created everything “at once”, and not over a literal six days, or some other periods of time. God created things at once in their rationis seminalis. New forms emerge over time as opportunities present themselves, yet they were still created in the beginning, in their rationis seminalis.

There is no way to know if God has ceased to create natural things ex nihilo. It is not a Church doctrine as far as I am aware,and there is no logical necessity in believing it,even though it may be true. Nor is it possible to know that God created everything at once.

 

[anthony022071]

What it is about conception that is allegedly glossed over in evolution theory remains unclear. Perhaps you can elaborate.

Good question. Evolution theory ignores how the reality of conception pertains directly to the origination of species,in that no connection is made between the question of how species originate and the fact that populations exist and are conceived into existence as individuals,which are essentially and genetically what they are at conception and because of conception. Natural selection cannot actually produce new species,as Darwin thought,because environmental factors and adaptational needs do not affect the acts of conception or reproduction by which species come into existence. Darwin wanted to debunk the belief in individual creation of species. But acts of conception or reproduction are acts of individual creation (of individuals and species),and the question of how species originate cannot be understood without staying focused upon them.

 

[anthony022071]

Now you are actually arguing in favor of observing methodological naturalism. As I have previous shown through a number of posts in the thread from whence you jumped off, the utter scientific illegitimacy of the quantum mechanical idea of particles arising ex nihilo. This idea of QM is not “science”; it is rather, a “philosophy” of QM, which arose out of the Copenhagen school. And as a philosophy or ideology, it transgresses the methods of MN, and goes well beyond the proper scope and limit of the natural sciences.

Where did you get the idea that I was arguing in favor of observing MN?

1. Quantum mechanics is not philosophy,it is scientific theory. It is illegitimate and presumptuous,but it is still scientific. It is based upon scientific research and it does not say anything about wisdom or morality.
2. QM does not trasgress MN,it goes beyond what can be demonstrated by empirical and experimental science. MN does not have its own methods. You’re mistaking MN for the experimental method.

Similar conclusions pertain to the reduction of human thought neuro-physiological processes. This is not proper science as the conclusion often entails a prior investigative ideological assumption of “monism”. Furthermore, from the perspective of proper scientific method, the foregoing reduction violates Lloyd Morgan’s Canon.

The reduction of thought to neural-physiological processes follows from the assumption of naturalism (or if you prefer,the naturalistic perspective) in neuro-science. If you take the naturalistic view of science,then of course you must reduce thought,for the purposes of science,to natural causes alone. Why would you disapprove of the naturalisitic view in the study of how we think when you approve of it in the study of how living creatures originate? Thought is conscious life.

Again for “randomness” and “chance”…The assumption that an ultimate randomness resulted in the order of the universe with its laws of nature, violates MN or a positivistic “method” in science by its assumption of metaphysical materialism.

It doesn’t violate MN,it follows from it. MN itself is the adoption of the view that only nature exists,for scientific purposes. If you take that view,whether in science or in philosophy,you have to assume that randomness can produce order. If you don’t approve of reductionist theories,blame them on MN.

There is nothing in the natural sciences, classical philosophy, or Revelation that says *abiogenesis *is not possible. Matter is already very specific and fully capable of fulfilling the purposes for which God created it. Furthermore, you have offered no evidence to support your gripe against abiogenesis.

1. Life itself is spirit,which is from God. Abiogenesis theory attributes the life of organisms to natural causes alone.
2. Matter is not capable of creating life,because God did not invest matter with independent power to create life.

 

[itinerant1]

Where did you get the idea that I was arguing in favor of observing MN?

1. Quantum mechanics is not philosophy,it is scientific theory. It is illegitimate and presumptuous,but it is still scientific. It is based upon scientific research and it does not say anything about wisdom or morality.

If anything, I must say you are indeed persistent. Too bad you are not persistently correct.

For a statement to be philosophical in content, it is not necessary that it say anything pertaining to wisdom or morality. There is obviously a science of QM, and there is also a philosophy of QM. The philosophy of QM makes ultimate claims about the nature of reality and human knowledge. This much should be obvious to anyone who has studied the publications and statements by Werner Heisenberg and Niels Bohr.

1. QM does not trasgress MN,it goes beyond what can be demonstrated by empirical and experimental science. MN does not have its own methods. You’re mistaking MN for the experimental method.

The claims of the Copenhagen school, that it has disproven the principle of causality, and that science is only what we say about the world, are radical philosophical claims that do not acknowledge the proper limit of MN, and actually nullify scientific knowledge.

The problem here is that you do not appear to grasp the difference between a scientific claim and a philosophical claim. But then again this confusion is common with ID creationists.

The reduction of thought to neural-physiological processes follows from the assumption of naturalism (or if you prefer,the naturalistic perspective) in neuro-science. If you take the naturalistic view of science,then of course you must reduce thought,for the purposes of science,to natural causes alone. Why would you disapprove of the naturalisitic view in the study of how we think when you approve of it in the study of how living creatures originate? Thought is conscious life.

The reduction of specifically human thought to neural-physiological processes is a philosophic claim, one that is not proven or provable by scientific method and consequently transgresses the proper scope and limit of natural science itself and therefore of MN.

The aformentioned reduction does not follow from MN, since human thought cannot be observed or measured.

It doesn’t violate MN,it follows from it. MN itself is the adoption of the view that only nature exists,for scientific purposes. If you take that view,whether in science or in philosophy,you have to assume that randomness can produce order. If you don’t approve of reductionist theories,blame them on MN.

Refer back to the definitions of MN, which you quoted. If your are perceptive, you will see how your statement contradicts the definitions you quoted.

1. Life itself is spirit,which is from God. Abiogenesis theory attributes the life of organisms to natural causes alone.

Ah, but here we get down to some ultimate questions regarding the nature of life in itself. Therefore, it won’t do at all to make the vague and ambigious statement that “life is spirit”. You need to define and make the necessary distinctions since your thought is not thought that has been thought out. For starters, define and answer: What is life in itself? Are there different kinds of life? If so, what are the different kinds, and how do they differ? What is “spirit”? Are there ontologically different kinds of “spirit”? If so, what are they?

1. Matter is not capable of creating life,because God did not invest matter with independent power to create life.

Both a blantant *petitio principii *and straw man fallacy in one short sentence!

No one except the philosophical naturalist claims that nature acts independently. This was just addressed in a recent post, but you have ignored the response. Furthermore, you have yet to define your terms, as noted in the response above.