Methodogical Naturalism

[itinerant1]

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.

Invidual acts of conception and the subsequent generation of the invidual are not, by themselves, evolution Evolution pertains to changes that species undergo over time, both micro changes and specific changes. Specific changes are such that species themselves are instrumental in the production of new forms; that is, the general theory of common descent. Your attempt to focus on conception to exclusion of everything else in nature that is involved misrepresents both creation and evolution.

Actually, Darwin attempted to address how different characteristics are transmitted in conception and reproduction. He did not have the right information available so he formulated the hypothesis of pangenesis.

Decades later, Mendelian genetics entered the scene to provide the required scientific information. Since evolution is about how species change over time, the key factor is how the individual’s phenotype and environment interact, that is, natural selects acts on the phenotype and determines which characteristics survive; these are the individuals that are best fit. Mutations, of course, play some role in conception.

 

[itinerant1]

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.

No doubt, the Darwinian notion of species has some serious philosophic problems. The practical notion of species, though, that species are, in themselves, rerpoductively isolated, is a good workable definition.

Conception was addressed in my previous post.

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.

First, there is the generation of the individual as a member of a specific type; and second, to be considered is the the production of a new type or form – the origin of a species. Show that you have not confused the two situations and thereby created a pseudo-problem.

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.

You have misconceived the notion of creation, which is one of the reasons why you do not understand divine providence and so must resort to the false theological ideas of creationism, which assert that creatio ex nihilo must happen again and again as God intervenes into creation.

However, to use an analogy, *creatio ex nihilo, *is more like a song, which begins when the flute starts playing. The song continues being heard as the melody is carried through the air. The song will only continue for as long as the flute player plays.

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.

Take some sound Catholic advice:

“We cannot say: creation “or” evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the “project” of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particualar nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary — rather than mutally exclusive – realities.”

(from ’In the Beginning…’ : A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall, by Pope Benedict XVI; p. 50.)

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.

This represents your denial of the Catholic position. Your views are not Catholic, they are Protestant fundamentalism. It’s your choice: Door # 1; or,
Door # 2.

 

[anthony022071]

Originally Posted by itinerant1 forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=429193&page=66 post no. 986

The proof is in the scientific explanation itself. I have never seen a strictly scientific explanation that “denies” divine causality. If you think such exists, then you should post some examples. So far, you have presented absolutely no evidence to support your contention. Do you think having evidence to support one’s opinion is important? Or, do you think that evidence does not matter? Do you think we are entitled to whatever opinion we want to hold regardless of whether there exists any supporting evidence, or whether the evidence that does exist is actually a contra-indication of the position?

1. MN denies divine causality as a possible factor to be acknowledged in the study of natural phenomena. That is the purpose of MN. It is unjustifiable to deny the possibility of divine causality in nature,whether for scientific purposes or otherwise.
2. “Evidence” is not limited to natural things or natural causes only,and it certainly does not mean a naturalistic view of how nature works. Evidence is also in the perceived connections between things (as with the self-evident truths of natural law). The perceivable connections may be physical or invisible. In a court of law,as you know,the material evidence that is presented does not necessarily speak for itself,it is spoken for by lawyers. The same evidence may be interpreted differently by the prosecution and the defense,and the jury must decide between different interpretations over the same evidence,tracing out logical connections between one thing or event and another.
3. With MN,outside (non-scientific) knowledge about supernatural causality is inadmissible evidence,even though it is reasonable and directly relevant to understanding nature and natural causes. Theology and philosophical thought and common experience have much to say about nature,and the truths of these outside sources of knowledge should not be excluded from scientific thought if they touch upon the questions that science seeks to answer. So if the question is “How do species originate?”,science should not ignore what common experience shows,that living creatures,and therefore species,originate through acts of conception by parents. And science should not ignore what philosophical thought would teach,that life itself is spirit,and therefore supernatural,not merely the functions of a living organism,and that a creature or species is essentially what it is at conception,and does not change from being what it essentially was at its beginning (conception). And science should not ignore what theology teaches,that living creatures are created by God at the moment of conception (beginning),and that all life comes from God.

It is not reasonable to assume that a naturalistic explantion rules out philosophical or theological interpretation. The facts speak for themselves. That is, any strictly scientific explanation of organic evolution can be supplemented with philosophical explanation to explain what cannot be explained by natural science alone.

1. Naturalistic explanations for all phenomena do rule out theological interpretations,because obviously they rule out the supernatural. The Catholic doctrines of creation and divine providence cannot be true if the naturalistic theory of evolution is true. This isn’t a case where we should say “truth cannot contradict truth”,this is a case of falsehood contradicting truth. Science and religion do not necessaily contradict each other,but naturalistic theories and Catholic doctrines about God and nature do contradict each other.
2. Facts do not always speak for themselves,they often need to be spoken for. For example,the skeletal remains of two different dead species from many thousands of years ago that have similar bone structures does not determine that they must have had a common ancestor. Ancestry and descent happen vertically not laterally and they have everything to do with acts of reproduction. It isn’t by way of bones that species descend,but by way of the flesh,and the flesh of dead species from many thousands of years ago is gone. The structural similaries between species are only proof positive of common descent if you forget about the fact that creatures descend by way of acts of reproduction.
3. What makes a fact a fact? Whenever science says it is? Science does not have a monopoly on facts. In some instances,science invents “facts” in order to fill in the gaps of its own theories,as with the supposed mechanisms that cause life to emerge from amino acids and proteins. With enough reductionist mechanisms and enough time and the right conditions,nature seems capable of making anything happen.
4. Isn’t supplementing a naturalistic theory of science with a theological or philosophical explanation like “God of the gaps” thinking? What is the point of putting a theistic spin on a naturalisitic theory? You can’t say “God created the world,and science shows us how he did it”,because scientific theories don’t require or allow God to be doing anything. Mechanisms and processes are doing everything by themselves. People who really believe in scientific explanations the way they are intended to be read are dismissive or even hostile towards theistic evolutionists.

 

[itinerant1]

1. MN denies divine causality as a possible factor to be acknowledged in the study of natural phenomena. That is the purpose of MN. It is unjustifiable to deny the possibility of divine causality in nature,whether for scientific purposes or otherwise.
2. “Evidence” is not limited to natural things or natural causes only,and it certainly does not mean a naturalistic view of how nature works. Evidence is also in the perceived connections between things (as with the self-evident truths of natural law). The perceivable connections may be physical or invisible. In a court of law,as you know,the material evidence that is presented does not necessarily speak for itself,it is spoken for by lawyers. The same evidence may be interpreted differently by the prosecution and the defense,and the jury must decide between different interpretations over the same evidence,tracing out logical connections between one thing or event and another.
3. With MN,outside (non-scientific) knowledge about supernatural causality is inadmissible evidence,even though it is reasonable and directly relevant to understanding nature and natural causes. Theology and philosophical thought and common experience have much to say about nature,and the truths of these outside sources of knowledge should not be excluded from scientific thought if they touch upon the questions that science seeks to answer. So if the question is “How do species originate?”,science should not ignore what common experience shows,that living creatures,and therefore species,originate through acts of conception by parents. And science should not ignore what philosophical thought would teach,that life itself is spirit,and therefore supernatural,not merely the functions of a living organism,and that a creature or species is essentially what it is at conception,and does not change from being what it essentially was at its beginning (conception). And science should not ignore what theology teaches,that living creatures are created by God at the moment of conception (beginning),and that all life comes from God.
4. Naturalistic explanations for all phenomena do rule out theological interpretations,because obviously they rule out the supernatural. The Catholic doctrines of creation and divine providence cannot be true if the naturalistic theory of evolution is true. This isn’t a case where we should say “truth cannot contradict truth”,this is a case of falsehood contradicting truth. Science and religion do not necessaily contradict each other,but naturalistic theories and Catholic doctrines about God and nature do contradict each other.
5. Facts do not always speak for themselves,they often need to be spoken for. For example,the skeletal remains of two different dead species from many thousands of years ago that have similar bone structures does not determine that they must have had a common ancestor. Ancestry and descent happen vertically not laterally and they have everything to do with acts of reproduction. It isn’t by way of bones that species descend,but by way of the flesh,and the flesh of dead species from many thousands of years ago is gone. The structural similaries between species are only proof positive of common descent if you forget about the fact that creatures descend by way of acts of reproduction.
6. What makes a fact a fact? Whenever science says it is? Science does not have a monopoly on facts. In some instances,science invents “facts” in order to fill in the gaps of its own theories,as with the supposed mechanisms that cause life to emerge from amino acids and proteins. With enough reductionist mechanisms and enough time and the right conditions,nature seems capable of making anything happen.
7. Isn’t supplementing a naturalistic theory of science with a theological or philosophical explanation like “God of the gaps” thinking? What is the point of putting a theistic spin on a naturalisitic theory? You can’t say “God created the world,and science shows us how he did it”,because scientific theories don’t require or allow God to be doing anything. Mechanisms and processes are doing everything by themselves. People who really believe in scientific explanations the way they are intended to be read are dismissive or even hostile towards theistic evolutionists.

Sorry, but it is obvious that you do not correctly understand science. In fact your position is anti-science. Neither do you have a Catholic understanding of Creation. Your view is, rather, “creationist” and fundamentalist creationism is not Catholic.

 

[itinerant1]

For anyone interested in understanding the proper methods for the natural sciences, I am re-posting the following excerpt from a letter by the notable physicist and historian of science, Pierre Duhem. Duhem addresses the ridiculous charge that observing a positivist method in science is tantamount to being a positivist philosophically. Metaphysics, as Duhem correctly explains, has no rightful place in the explanations given by the positive sciences:

"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 positive 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 forced to recognize that the method of physics is good even in metaphysics. But this is to give the advantage to positivism.”

(from Scientist and Catholic: Pierre Duhem by Stanley L. Jaki; pp.163-4)

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=675&pictureid=8028

Pierre Duhem was an exemplary Catholic, a great scientist, philosopher and eminent historian of science. I highly recommend this book by Fr. Jaki for anyone interested in science and Catholicism: Scientist and Catholic: Pierre Duhem And the price is so low right now at Amazon for this wonderful book, anybody can afford to buy it.

 

[anthony022071]

Sorry, but it is obvious that you do not correctly understand science. In fact your position is anti-science. Neither do you have a Catholic understanding of Creation. Your view is, rather, “creationist” and fundamentalist creationism is not Catholic.

That’s not much of an argument against my position. I do have a Catholic and creationist understanding of Creation.

vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p4.htm#I
< God upholds and sustains creation.

301 With creation, God does not abandon his creatures to themselves. He not only gives them being and existence, but also, and at every moment, upholds and sustains them in being, enables them to act and brings them to their final end. Recognizing this utter dependence with respect to the Creator is a source of wisdom and freedom, of joy and confidence:

For you love all things that exist, and detest none of the things that you have made; for you would not have made anything if you had hated it. How would anything have endured, if you had not willed it? Or how would anything not called forth by you have been preserved? You spare all things, for they are yours, O Lord, you who love the living.160

V. GOD CARRIES OUT HIS PLAN: DIVINE PROVIDENCE

302 Creation has its own goodness and proper perfection, but it did not spring forth complete from the hands of the Creator. The universe was created “in a state of journeying” (in statu viae) toward an ultimate perfection yet to be attained, to which God has destined it. We call “divine providence” the dispositions by which God guides his creation toward this perfection:

By his providence God protects and governs all things which he has made, “reaching mightily from one end of the earth to the other, and ordering all things well”. For “all are open and laid bare to his eyes”, even those things which are yet to come into existence through the free action of creatures.161
303 The witness of Scripture is unanimous that the solicitude of divine providence is concrete and immediate; God cares for all, from the least things to the great events of the world and its history. The sacred books powerfully affirm God’s absolute sovereignty over the course of events: "Our God is in the heavens; he does whatever he pleases."162 And so it is with Christ, “who opens and no one shall shut, who shuts and no one opens”.163 As the book of Proverbs states: "Many are the plans in the mind of a man, but it is the purpose of the LORD that will be established."164

304 And so we see the Holy Spirit, the principal author of Sacred Scripture, often attributing actions to God without mentioning any secondary causes. This is not a “primitive mode of speech”, but a profound way of recalling God’s primacy and absolute Lordship over history and the world,165 and so of educating his people to trust in him. The prayer of the Psalms is the great school of this trust.166

305 Jesus asks for childlike abandonment to the providence of our heavenly Father who takes care of his children’s smallest needs: "Therefore do not be anxious, saying, “What shall we eat?” or “What shall we drink?”. . . Your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things shall be yours as well."167

Providence and secondary causes

306 God is the sovereign master of his plan. But to carry it out he also makes use of his creatures’ co-operation. This use is not a sign of weakness, but rather a token of almighty God’s greatness and goodness. For God grants his creatures not only their existence, but also the dignity of acting on their own, of being causes and principles for each other, and thus of co-operating in the accomplishment of his plan.

307 To human beings God even gives the power of freely sharing in his providence by entrusting them with the responsibility of “subduing” the earth and having dominion over it.168 God thus enables men to be intelligent and free causes in order to complete the work of creation, to perfect its harmony for their own good and that of their neighbors. Though often unconscious collaborators with God’s will, they can also enter deliberately into the divine plan by their actions, their prayers and their sufferings.169 They then fully become “God’s fellow workers” and co-workers for his kingdom.170

308 The truth that God is at work in all the actions of his creatures is inseparable from faith in God the Creator. God is the first cause who operates in and through secondary causes: "For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure."171 Far from diminishing the creature’s dignity, this truth enhances it. Drawn from nothingness by God’s power, wisdom and goodness, it can do nothing if it is cut off from its origin, for "without a Creator the creature vanishes."172 Still less can a creature attain its ultimate end without the help of God’s grace.173 >

 

[anthony022071]

For anyone interested in understanding the proper methods for the natural sciences, I am re-posting the following excerpt from a letter by the notable physicist and historian of science, Pierre Duhem. Duhem addresses the ridiculous charge that observing a positivist method in science is tantamount to being a positivist philosophically. Metaphysics, as Duhem correctly explains, has no rightful place in the explanations given by the positive sciences:

That one can observe positivism in science and not be a positivist philosophically is a moot point. The point is that some scientific theories are naturalistic in themselves,because they ignore supernatural power where it is necessary to acknowledge it,and instead give to natural causes power they do not have.

"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.

Right,experimental methods. Positivism in science is not a method,it is a view of things and a policy.

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.

What methods is he talking about? What causes is he talking about,natural or supernatural? Let’s hope that the methods of science can discover natural causes.

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 positive sciences, is in itself and absolutely unknowable. Is this what we maintain?

To be a positivist is also to take the positivist view and approach to explaining all phenomena in science. You don’t have to assert that there are no other valid ways of knowing.

"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.

Is he talking about scientists or philosophers? Positivist philosophers look to scientific theories for their ideas. They have no problem drawing metaphysical consequences from scientific theories. As for scientists,many of them who believe in scientific theories as satisfactory and true accounts of phenomena do not have a problem drawing the consequence that nature is all there is. And there’s nothing really metaphysical about that belief.

 

[itinerant1]

For anyone interested in understanding the proper methods for the natural sciences, I am re-posting the following excerpt from a letter by the notable physicist and historian of science, Pierre Duhem. Duhem addresses the ridiculous charge that observing a positivist method in science is tantamount to being a positivist philosophically. Metaphysics, as Duhem correctly explains, has no rightful place in the explanations given by the positive sciences:

"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 positive 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 forced to recognize that the method of physics is good even in metaphysics. But this is to give the advantage to positivism.”

(from Scientist and Catholic: Pierre Duhem by Fr. Stanley L. Jaki; pp.163-4)

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=675&pictureid=8028

Pierre Duhem was an exemplary Catholic, a great scientist, philosopher and eminent historian of science. I highly recommend this book by Fr. Jaki for anyone interested in science and Catholicism: Scientist and Catholic: Pierre Duhem And the price is so low right now at Amazon for this wonderful book, anybody can afford to buy it.

 

[steph_86]

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.

I have been following this thread and I am interested in getting anyone’s opinion.

I am of the opinion that indeed, methodological naturalism is part of the sciences. In fact, it is necessary for science to explain the phenomena of nature. The problem resides however, in the fact that methodological naturalism often breeds philosophical naturalism. Someone who is a naturalist, faced with a phenomena that defies scientific explanation, usually appears limited by his worldview.

For example, let us suppose that a young man is cured from an incurable disease by bathing in the waters of Lourdes. A doctor examines him and gives him a clean bill of health. Then, the doctor is surprised, dumb-founded by the fact that his disease was in truth incurable. The problem for the scientist, here lies in the fact that he has adopted naturalism as a world view. He only seeks natural causes for natural phenomena, when even the supernatural can intervene in the chain of causality and directly produce a natural phenomena.

In this sense, naturalism is a very pernicious error. It denies the supernatural as an agent and as a cause. The reason why naturalism however, has succeeded is because we have accepted science as the final authority on knowledge. We have assumed in this that, because science has given us electricity and planes, then it is the surest way to arriving at knowledge.

This is where there is a profound error. We have forgotten that religious Faith - Christian Faith - is also a source of knowledge, not only about God but also about the human being. In this sense, science is not the final authority on reality; Faith is.

But the consequences of accepting naturalism as a philosophy and a worldview are social as they are legal and juridical. Because we are convinced that only natural causes can explain the world around us, we produce theories that only admit of natural causes, not realizing the fact that, God who is the source of all, could have created according to laws known only to Him.

 

[anthony022071]

I have been following this thread and I am interested in getting anyone’s opinion.

I am of the opinion that indeed, methodological naturalism is part of the sciences. In fact, it is necessary for science to explain the phenomena of nature. The problem resides however, in the fact that methodological naturalism often breeds philosophical naturalism. Someone who is a naturalist, faced with a phenomena that defies scientific explanation, usually appears limited by his worldview.

MN does breed a naturalistic view of how nature works,because it is itself a naturalistic view,and so are the theories that proceed from it. I think it is a mistake to consider any naturalistic view outside of science to be “philosophical”. Naturalism itself is not necessarily philosophical,it is just a false perspective. Those who defend MN are quick to point out the difference between MN and PN,as if

For example, let us suppose that a young man is cured from an incurable disease by bathing in the waters of Lourdes. A doctor examines him and gives him a clean bill of health. Then, the doctor is surprised, dumb-founded by the fact that his disease was in truth incurable. The problem for the scientist, here lies in the fact that he has adopted naturalism as a world view. He only seeks natural causes for natural phenomena, when even the supernatural can intervene in the chain of causality and directly produce a natural phenomena.

Some scientists would still explain the cure in terms of natural causes alone.

In this sense, naturalism is a very pernicious error. It denies the supernatural as an agent and as a cause. The reason why naturalism however, has succeeded is because we have accepted science as the final authority on knowledge. We have assumed in this that, because science has given us electricity and planes, then it is the surest way to arriving at knowledge.

That’s right. People tend to always defer to science in regard to exact knowledge of natural things and how they work. Science is equated with exact,reliable knowledge.
People assume that because science has led to the development of technological products - which are actually produced by businesses in a thriving economy - that scientific theories about the origins of the universe and of species and life are trustworthy.

This is where there is a profound error. We have forgotten that religious Faith - Christian Faith - is also a source of knowledge, not only about God but also about the human being. In this sense, science is not the final authority on reality; Faith is.

That’s true. Faith enlightens natural reason. Knowledge of the doctrines of creation and divine providence bears upon and sheds light upon the study of natural things. If we know about God’s power in nature,then we cannot accept scientific theories that ascribe to natural causes alone the ability to do what God does through natural things,such as create species,order and life.

 

[itinerant1]

Anthony’s entire argument is based on a false assumption – that science denies supernatural causes. To the contrary, science does not deny supernatural causation. It is only individual scientists who may deny supernatural causes. And when they do they are no longer making scientific statements. Such statements are philosophical in nature. This fact by itself throughly undermines Anthony’s opinion.

In addition, Anthony’s argument is based on his conflation of methodological naturalism and naturalism. He says methodological naturalism in science is naturalism. This statement involves an eqivocation of terms, is inarguably false, and prima facie absurd. Hence, what Anthony is peddling is a strawman argument. His argument is a blatant contradiction of the very quoted definitions of methodological naturalism which he posted and claims he is using. His claim to be using those definitions he previously posted is a false statement.

In sum, Anthon’y argument is based on his personal re-definition, and hence mischaracterization, of methodological naturalism in science. Such a position entails a profound misunderstanding of the limited scope and competency of genuine natural science.

Such a position also implies his personal belief that the natural sciences should include supernatural explanations. This is the crux of his attack on science. There is no correct understanding on his part as to why we call them the “natural” sciences. If the natural sciences were to include supernatural explanations, then they would no longer be “natural” sciences. In effect, Anthony is anti-natural science.

No doubt Anthony will once more cite examples from science that he thinks proves his point. However, most his examples merely illustrate where particular scientists, with their theories, have transgressed the proper scope of the natural sciences and mixed ideology with science. This is a failure on the part of scientists to observe methodological naturalism or positivism in science. Hence, Anthony’s examples refute his own argument. The remainder of his examples from science revealed his fundamentalist prejudice against scientific theories that, as he also demonstrated, does not understand.

How anyone can hold to an opinion that is so logically confused, fly in the face of indisputable fact, and, most of all, totally disregard any sound philosophy of science, is beyond me.

Perhaps Anthony can look in any standard botany, chemistry, geology, or genetics text and show us where his supernatural explanations should be inserted. Perhaps Grey’s Anatomy or any standard anatomy and physiology text should have supernatural explanations of how the endocrine or autonomic nervous systems work.

 

[anthony022071]

Anthony’s entire argument is based on a false assumption – that science denies supernatural causes.

Science denies a priori supernatural causation as a consideration in explanations for phenomena. That is the purpose of MN.

To the contrary, science does not deny supernatural causation.

Then does science allow it in scientific theory? If you were a biologist and you proposed a theory of supernatural causation in organisms,would this be allowed by the scientific establishment?

It is only individual scientists who may deny supernatural causes. And when they do they are no longer making scientific statements. Such statements are philosophical in nature. This fact by itself throughly undermines Anthony’s opinion.

What is philosophical about disbelief in the supernatural? Do you have to study philosophy in order to disbelieve in the supernatural?

If a scientific community disallows supernatural causation a priori,how is that not a denial of supernatural causation?

In addition, Anthony’s argument is based on his conflation of methodological naturalism and naturalism. He says methodological naturalism in science is naturalism. This statement involves an eqivocation of terms, is inarguably false, and prima facie absurd. Hence, what Anthony is peddling is a strawman argument. His argument is a blatant contradiction of the very quoted definitions of methodological naturalism which he posted and claims he is using. His claim to be using those definitions he previously posted is a false statement.

In sum, Anthon’y argument is based on his personal re-definition, and hence mischaracterization, of methodological naturalism in science. Such a position entails a profound misunderstanding of the limited scope and competency of genuine natural science.

Does naturalism cease to be itself when you put the adjective “methodological” before the word? Would you say that a running horse is not a horse? Would you say that professional socialism,or socialist ideology put into government practice,is not socialism?

Show me how I am using a different definition.

Such a position also implies his personal belief that the natural sciences should include supernatural explanations. This is the crux of his attack on science. There is no correct understanding on his part as to why we call them the “natural” sciences. If the natural sciences were to include supernatural explanations, then they would no longer be “natural” sciences. In effect, Anthony is anti-natural science.

The scientific study of natural causes does not entail the exclusion of supernatural causation. They are not mutually exclusive,unless science is naturalistic.

No doubt Anthony will once more cite examples from science that he thinks proves his point. However, most his examples merely illustrate where particular scientists, with their theories, have transgressed the proper scope of the natural sciences and mixed ideology with science.

The examples that I have used so far were the claims found in scientific theories themselves.

 

[itinerant1]

Then does science allow it in scientific theory? If you were a biologist and you proposed a theory of supernatural causation in organisms,would this be allowed by the scientific establishment?

Of course not, because the biologist in your example is not speaking as a biologist; he is offering more than the proper and limited scientific explanation. He mixes meta-physical explanation with observation of the strictly physical. Metaphysical causes are not measurable by the natural sciences, and so they lie outside the proper scope and competence of the natural sciences.

Show me how I am using a different definition.

I have showed the fact numerous times, just as I have answered the rest of your objections numerous times.

The definitions in questions, and any accurate definition of MN in science, or a definition of positivism in scientific method only, or of scientific method, simply, will state that scientific method does not deny the existence of metaphysical or supernatural causes. Merely not to treat of metaphysical causes is not the same as denying the existence of same. Any attempt to gloss over the difference is pure sophistry.

Science proper limits itself to natural explanations of the quantifiable aspects of things and their relations. Science is not competent to offer ultimate or metaphysical explanations of natural phenomena. That is the job of the philosopher.

To assert, as you do, that methodological naturalism in science is naturalism (per se) is a pure, unadulterated sophism. Your argument is specious at best.

Definition of “specious”:

1. apparently good or right though lacking real merit; superficially pleasing or plausible: specious arguments.
2. pleasing to the eye but deceptive.

 

[anthony022071]

Of course not, because the biologist in your example is not speaking as a biologist; he is offering more than the proper and limited scientific explanation.

So if a biologist offers a theory about biological organisms in which he brings up supernatural causation,he is not speaking as a biologist? Does that mean he can only speak as a biologist if he speaks as a naturalist? Is naturalism the criteria for what is considered scientific?

And if the scientific establishment does not allow supernatural causation a priori,will they not deny it when a scientist proposes it to them? How has the scientific establishment treated the concept of intelligent design? Have they affirmed,allowed or denied it “as scientists”?

He mixes meta-physical explanation with observation of the strictly physical. Metaphysical causes are not measurable by the natural sciences, and so they lie outside the proper scope and competence of the natural sciences.

Is it within the proper scope and competence of the natural sciences to assume or pretend that only natural causes exist? Isn’t that perspective a non-scientific frame of mind? I mean,it isn’t a scientifically testable hypothesis. More like a world-view.

I have showed the fact numerous times, just as I have answered the rest of your objections numerous times.

Where did you show that I was using a false definition of MN? You’ve only shown me that you acknowledge naturalism in science as a “method” while denying that it makes the scientific theories that proceed from it inherently naturalistic.

The definitions in questions, and any accurate definition of MN in science, or a definition of positivism in scientific method only, or of scientific method, simply, will state that scientific method does not deny the existence of metaphysical or supernatural causes. Merely not to treat of metaphysical causes is not the same as denying the existence of same. Any attempt to gloss over the difference is pure sophistry.

Science does not treat of the supernatural because it is denied a priori.
Whether it is denied in regard to its existence or denied acknowledgement for practical purposes,the result is the same. To pretend that the supernatural does not exist for practical purposes is the same perspective as believing that the supernatural exists.

Science proper limits itself to natural explanations of the quantifiable aspects of things and their relations. Science is not competent to offer ultimate or metaphysical explanations of natural phenomena. That is the job of the philosopher.

Since the supernatural cannot be tested for its presence or quantified,how is it justifiable for science to pretend that it does not exist?

To assert, as you do, that methodological naturalism in science is naturalism (per se) is a pure, unadulterated sophism.

Naturalism per se is the belief that only nature exists. With MN,scientists pretend that belief is true. Is there a practical difference between believing something and pretending and speaking as if it were true? Is there a practical difference between atheism and practical atheism?

Your argument is specious at best.

Definition of “specious”:

1. apparently good or right though lacking real merit; superficially pleasing or plausible: specious arguments.
2. pleasing to the eye but deceptive.

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/naturalism?show=0&t=1292437054
2: a theory denying that an event or object has a supernatural significance; specifically : the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomena

thefreedictionary.com/naturalism
3. Philosophy The system of thought holding that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws.

dictionary.reference.com/browse/Naturalism
World English Dictionary
4. philosophy
a. a scientific account of the world in terms of causes and natural forces that rejects all spiritual, supernatural, or teleological explanations

 

[steph_86]

So if a biologist offers a theory about biological organisms in which he brings up supernatural causation,he is not speaking as a biologist? Does that mean he can only speak as a biologist if he speaks as a naturalist? Is naturalism the criteria for what is considered scientific?

And if the scientific establishment does not allow supernatural causation a priori,will they not deny it when a scientist proposes it to them? How has the scientific establishment treated the concept of intelligent design? Have they affirmed,allowed or denied it “as scientists”?

Is it within the proper scope and competence of the natural sciences to assume or pretend that only natural causes exist? Isn’t that perspective a non-scientific frame of mind? I mean,it isn’t a scientifically testable hypothesis. More like a world-view.

Where did you show that I was using a false definition of MN? You’ve only shown me that you acknowledge naturalism in science as a “method” while denying that it makes the scientific theories that proceed from it inherently naturalistic.

Science does not treat of the supernatural because it is denied a priori.
Whether it is denied in regard to its existence or denied acknowledgement for practical purposes,the result is the same. To pretend that the supernatural does not exist for practical purposes is the same perspective as believing that the supernatural exists.

Since the supernatural cannot be tested for its presence or quantified,how is it justifiable for science to pretend that it does not exist?

Naturalism per se is the belief that only nature exists. With MN,scientists pretend that belief is true. Is there a practical difference between believing something and pretending and speaking as if it were true? Is there a practical difference between atheism and practical atheism?

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/naturalism?show=0&t=1292437054
2: a theory denying that an event or object has a supernatural significance; specifically : the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomena

thefreedictionary.com/naturalism
3. Philosophy The system of thought holding that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws.

dictionary.reference.com/browse/Naturalism
World English Dictionary
4. philosophy
a. a scientific account of the world in terms of causes and natural forces that rejects all spiritual, supernatural, or teleological explanations

I read an article concerning naturalism and its relation to science, religion and evolution. It is written by Phillip E. Johnson, an Attorney of Law at the University of California at Berkeley. I posted it on my blog. You should read it, it is interesting.

philossophiasirach.blogspot.com/2010/10/darwin-on-trial.html

 

[anthony022071]

That’s a good blog you have. Here is a very insightful essay about MN by Craig Rusbult.
asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/mn-cr.htm

< Should science be logical?
If we want science to be a search for truth, should we define science as a search for NATURAL explanations, or a search for LOGICAL explanations? Of course, when we ask “Should science be logical?”, everyone agrees that YES is the answer. But disagreements occur when we ask “If there is a conflict between logical and natural, which criterion should have higher priority?” If we want to be logically rational, should we let methodological naturalism force us to accept a “scientific” conclusion that is less logical — and less likely to be true? — simply because it is natural? For example,…

  Is evidence irrelevant?
  To see the irrelevance of evidence when MN determines the conclusion, compare the evidence-based implausibility (earned by current theories for a "chemical evolution" origin of life) with the naturalism-based confidence of the National Academy of Sciences in claiming that "the question is no longer whether life could have originated by chemical processes. ... the question instead has become which of many pathways might have been followed to produce the first cells."  Yes, with MN the evidence is irrelevant.  Even though each of the "many pathways" is implausible, one pathway must have produced life — because according to MN this is the only possibility — so confidence does not require evidence.  { Words are carefully chosen to avoid technical falsity, by saying "life could have originated" (a statement that cannot be proved false by rigorous logic) and "might have been followed."  But the words are also chosen to clearly express the claim that "the question is no longer" whether it did occur naturally, the only question is how it occurred naturally. }
  Of course, the irrelevance of evidence does not mean there is no evidence, or that MN is leading to the wrong conclusion.  But it does illustrate a logical weakness of MN, since MN requires that we must reach a scientific conclusion before doing any science.

  Bypass the Process, Claim the Support
  The Conclusion of MN-Science — that no matter what is being studied, or what is the evidence, it happened by natural process — is actually The Assumption of MN.  The circular logic of MN, which converts a naturalistic assumption into a naturalistic conclusion, is illogical (because circular logic is bad logic) yet is unavoidable, and it requires no science.  But instead of acknowledging this logical weakness of MN-Science, usually MN-Humility is ignored and there is an implication that the assumption made by MN (that it happened by natural process) is a conclusion reached by science, and is therefore true.  MN provides a way to bypass the process of science and then claim the authority of science as support.
  For example, there is an implication that the declaration by the National Academy of Sciences (speaking with authority in the name of "science") is based on scientific evidence and logic.  But the main reason for believing that life had a natural origin is not science.  Instead, it is a naturalistic assumption that everything had a natural origin. >