On the Necessity of Proving Things

[anthony022071]

I would have to disagree. Methodological naturalism is by no means an application of philosophical naturalism to the study of nature. They are very different. A philosophical naturalist, if he is a metaphysical materialist, will assume a position of atheism or agnosticism.

 

[anthony022071]

Methodological naturalism makes no assumptions in regards to matters that are above the competence and proper scope of the natural sciences. Suppose we drop the expression methodological naturalism and consider this: If an astronomer says that he believes in a Creator of the cosmos, he is not speaking “as an astronomer.” He is speaking “as a man” or “as a philosopher.”

He never saw God through his telescope. He did not chart God’s location in the galaxy, etc. What he did was to engage in philosophical reflection on nature and arrived at a “meta-scientific” conclusion: God exists. God’s existence, though, will not provide a scientific explanation for the 2.7k background radiation or the red shift. God wants us to figure that out on our own.

My problem with methodological naturalism is not that it does not allow science to say outright “God exists” but that it is an unjustifiable view of nature to begin with,and it leads scientists to attribute powers to natural things that they cannot possibly have.
For example,it does not make sense to say that proteins and amino acids cause living cells to come into existence. There is no reason to believe that the elements of cells have the power to create functional order by themselves. Life in a cell could only happen by a power over the physical matter. That is,it is super-natural power. It cannot reasonably be reduced to the physical elements themselves. Science should look for proper causes and effects. But naturalism leads them to attribute to nature things or so-called mechanisms the power to do what only power over nature can do.

 

[anthony022071]

Newton tried to fill in what were to him at the time, inexplicable parts of his scientific theories, by saying God does such and such. Later scientists were able to fill in Newton’s gaps with the proper scientific explanations.

 

[anthony022071]

Newton tried to fill in what were to him at the time, inexplicable parts of his scientific theories, by saying God does such and such. Later scientists were able to fill in Newton’s gaps with the proper scientific explanations.

Scientific explanations are only proper if they use proper causes and effects,or to put it another way,causation (power) that is proper to phenomena. When it comes to the coming into existence of things,order and life,naturalistic explanations do not make sense,because these phenomena entail power over nature.

Does that mean these later scientists are saying God does not exist? By no means, though by invoking a “god of the gaps” explanation in scientific theories, as Newton was prone to doing, tends to contribute, as it actually has historically, to a disbelief in God; disbelief is tempting when a scientists properly explains the natural phenomena based on proximate causes that were previously explained by a “god of the gaps” argument.

When scientists exclude knowledge of God’s power in the world and make out nature to be self-sufficient,they are making God unnecessary to the world. That is tantamount to a denial of the existence of God. God known to be God firstly because of his omnipotent power over the world. The belief in God is not just a matter of religious faith but of reason and observation of the world. As Saint Paul said of the heathens in his letter to the Romans,what can be known about God,his divine attributes,is evident through the things that he has created.

Science can only deal with proximate causes. Whenever a scientist invokes ultimate causation he has stepped outside the competence and proper limitations of natural science. The proper limitations of science have been described by many terms. Methodological naturalism just happens to be the popular term. Thomists have had other terms for explaining the methodology and proper object of study for the natural sciences.

As long as science ignores ultimate causation for how nature works,it will give false accounts of even natural causation. “Mechanisms” do not have power of themselves to do what science claims they do. Science should ask,“By what power does this happen?” and “What power is necessary for this to happen?” and “What power does this factor have to do that?”

 

[itinerant1]

Scientific explanations are only proper if they use proper causes and effects,or to put it another way,causation (power) that is proper to phenomena. When it comes to the coming into existence of things,order and life,naturalistic explanations do not make sense,because these phenomena entail power over nature.

When scientists exclude knowledge of God’s power in the world and make out nature to be self-sufficient,they are making God unnecessary to the world. That is tantamount to a denial of the existence of God. God known to be God firstly because of his omnipotent power over the world. The belief in God is not just a matter of religious faith but of reason and observation of the world. As Saint Paul said of the heathens in his letter to the Romans,what can be known about God,his divine attributes,is evident through the things that he has created.

As long as science ignores ultimate causation for how nature works,it will give false accounts of even natural causation. “Mechanisms” do not have power of themselves to do what science claims they do. Science should ask,“By what power does this happen?” and “What power is necessary for this to happen?” and “What power does this factor have to do that?”

From what you have said, it is evident that (1) you are mis-characterizing science itself, and (2) you have a false understanding of what constitutes the proper object of study of the natural sciences, philosophy, and theology. In fact, you have them confused and overlapped.

On the other hand, in classical philosophy we distinguish between the formal and material objects of the natural sciences, philosophy and theology. This distinction includes but is not limited to the different ways of knowing, which we call perinoetic and dianoetic.

Apparently, you are content with your opinion, so we will have to remain in disagreement.

 

[anthony022071]

From what you have said, it is evident that (1) you are mis-characterizing science itself, and (2) you have a false understanding of what constitutes the proper object of study of the natural sciences, philosophy, and theology. In fact, you have them confused and overlapped.

Natural science is just experimental research. This does not demand a naturalistic perspective in explaining how nature works. Research and explanation are two different things. The natural sciences and philosophy and theology all deal with causation in the natural world. They do overlap when it comes to how creation should be understood. That is why naturalistic theories about natural history are not acceptable to those who believe in the doctrine of creation and divine providence. And even apart from faith,naturalistic theories do not even hold up to the test of rational thinking.

 

[itinerant1]

Natural science is just experimental research. This does not demand a naturalistic perspective in explaining how nature works.

Science requires a “naturalistic” perspective in method if the hypothesis and experiment are to have any scientific meaning. It appears that you know little about the sciences or scientific method. Scientific knowledge is “special experience.” Science studies the quantitative aspects of natural phenomena and their interactions. The hypothetico-deductive method can only yield results that are emperiological. Anything else is not science.

Research and explanation are two different things. The natural sciences and philosophy and theology all deal with causation in the natural world.

The foregoing statement makes it clear that you do not understand the difference between science and philosophy. Science deals with causality in its phenomenal manifestations, which is subject to quantification. Philosophy on the other hand, treats of causality “in itself”. Any attempt to disregard this distinction results in talking nonsense about the subject.

They do overlap when it comes to how creation should be understood.

Your statement is confused. Science and philosophy will have the same subject matter, i.e. created things, however they each consider created things from different perspectives. That is, the formal object under which the subject matter is viewed differs. If this distinction is ignored then the differences between philosophical knowledge and scientific knowledge cannot be rightly understood.

That is why naturalistic theories about natural history are not acceptable to those who believe in the doctrine of creation and divine providence.

The foregoing statement makes no sense. There can be no conflict between the truths of science and the truths of faith. You are creating an pseudo-problem.

And even apart from faith,naturalistic theories do not even hold up to the test of rational thinking.

If by naturalistic theories you mean philosophical naturalism, then I would mostly agree. However, if you include scientific theories that observe a methodological naturalism, then there can be no rational justification for your statement.

 

[itinerant1]

Methodological naturalism is not actually methodological,it is only a way of interpreting how nature works. If you explain the workings of cells in terms of natural causes alone,that is not a matter of method,it is a matter of how you view nature,and

You are deliberately misrepresenting “methodological naturalism.” Once you have mis-characterized methodological naturalism all of your subsequent arguments become straw man fallacies.

But that is,in effect,what chaos theory and other naturalistic theories would have us believe. If a theory explains existence,order,or life in terms of natural causes alone,then it proposes a naturalistic world view,even if it does not explicitly say that nature is all that exists. Theoretical explanations become,in effect,doctrines.

Naturalism as such is not necessarily a philosophy,it is just the belief or world view that only natural causes are real,or that natural causes are adequate to explain the workings of nature. Methodological naturalism is simply the application of that view to the study of nature. Whether or not scientists believe in God outside the context of science,they all explain everything in terms of naturalism within the context of science,rendering the belief in the power of God in nature unnecessary and irrational. It may be considered the proper and professional thing to do,but the naturalistic view is unjustifiable and false,and it leads to theories filled with false causation.

This is nothing but a straw man argument of your own making, which is what follows from your mis-characterization and profound misunderstanding of methodological naturalism.

 

[anthony022071]

Science requires a “naturalistic” perspective in method if the hypothesis and experiment are to have any scientific meaning. It appears that you know little about the sciences or scientific method. Scientific knowledge is “special experience.” Science studies the quantitative aspects of natural phenomena and their interactions. The hypothetico-deductive method can only yield results that are emperiological. Anything else is not science.

Naturalism has nothing to do with experimental research itself. It is just an erroneous way of viewing nature,and it only affects theory. Since the supernatural cannot be tested anyway,there is no need to adopt a naturalistic view of things in order to properly conduct an experiment on natural causation and get accurate results. A scientist who views nature according to the doctrine of creation and divine providence can get the same results from experimentation as one who views nature according to MN. It is the way that phenomena are explained that

The foregoing statement makes it clear that you do not understand the difference between science and philosophy. Science deals with causality in its phenomenal manifestations, which is subject to quantification. Philosophy on the other hand, treats of causality “in itself”. Any attempt to disregard this distinction results in talking nonsense about the subject.

Scholastic philosophy also treats of causality in its phenomenal manifestations.

Your statement is confused. Science and philosophy will have the same subject matter, i.e. created things, however they each consider created things from different perspectives. That is, the formal object under which the subject matter is viewed differs. If this distinction is ignored then the differences between philosophical knowledge and scientific knowledge cannot be rightly understood.

Philosophy is concerned with causation in the natural world as well as causation in the abstract.

The foregoing statement makes no sense. There can be no conflict between the truths of science and the truths of faith. You are creating an pseudo-problem.

But there is a conflict between naturalistic renderings of the natural world and the doctrines of creation and divine providence.

If by naturalistic theories you mean philosophical naturalism, then I would mostly agree. However, if you include scientific theories that observe a methodological naturalism, then there can be no rational justification for your statement./QUOTE

 

[anthony022071]

Edit:

Naturalism has nothing to do with experimental research itself. It is just an erroneous way of viewing nature,and it only affects theory. Since the supernatural cannot be tested anyway,there is no need to adopt a naturalistic view of things in order to properly conduct an experiment on natural causation and get accurate results. A scientist who views nature according to the doctrine of creation and divine providence can get the same results from an experiment as one who views nature according to MN. It is the way that phenomena are explained,not how they are tested or what the results of testing,that MN affects.

Scholastic philosophy also treats of causality in its phenomenal manifestations.

Philosophy is concerned with causation in the natural world as well as causation in itself or in the abstract. They are not mutually exclusive. Since God is the creator and sustainer of the world,it is proper for philosophy and theology to insist on acknowledging the power of God in the natural world.

But there is a conflict between naturalistic renderings of the natural world and the doctrines of creation and divine providence.

If by naturalistic theories you mean philosophical

 

[anthony022071]

Science requires a “naturalistic” perspective in method if the hypothesis and experiment are to have any scientific meaning.

Edit:

Naturalism (I mean MN) has nothing to do with the act of doing a scientific experiment or the results of experiment. It has to do with how things are explained.

It appears that you know little about the sciences or scientific method.

No,it’s just that I don’t buy into the premise that MN is necessary to properly do scientific research.

Scientific knowledge is “special experience.” Science studies the quantitative aspects of natural phenomena and their interactions. The hypothetico-deductive method can only yield results that are emperiological. Anything else is not science.

Empirical science does not entail the exclusion of the supernatural from the consideration of how nature works in order to yield accurate results. That is,there’s no causal connection between MN and being able to do research properly or getting accurate results. Since the supernatural cannot be tested anyway,there is no need to adopt a naturalistic view of things in order to get proper results from experimentation. Natural phenomena don’t care what the scientists think about them. A scientist who views nature according to the doctrine of creation and divine providence can get the same results from experimentation as one who views nature according to MN.

 

[itinerant1]

Naturalism has nothing to do with experimental research itself. It is just an erroneous way of viewing nature,and it only affects theory.

You were originally criticizing methodological naturalism. Then you arbitrarily flip-flop between referencing methodological naturalism and naturalism per se, or philosophical naturalism. For example, in response to something I say about methodological naturalism you respond by speaking of naturalism. Such equivocating is to no logical purpose.

Since you are deeply confused about MN you should read some of the works of the great Catholic scientist, physicist extraordinaire, and historian of science, Pierre Duhem. Duhem insists a scientist must observe methodological naturalism. He called it the method of “positivism”. Duhem was a positivist in physics but not in epistemology. Fr. Stanley L. Jaki, historian of science and theologian fully justifies Duhem’s stated position for scientific research in “Scientist and Catholic: Pierre Duhem.”

Since the supernatural cannot be tested anyway,there is no need to adopt a naturalistic view of things in order to properly conduct an experiment on natural causation and get accurate results.

Dead wrong. Scientists frequently transgress the boundaries of methodological naturalism. A prime example of this is Darwin’s Descent of Man. Furthermore, the naturalism must only be methodical, otherwise scientific data can be interpreted in a reductionist manner.

A scientist who views nature according to the doctrine of creation and divine providence can get the same results from experimentation as one who views nature according to MN. It is the way that phenomena are explained that

The phenomena can only be interpreted along the lines of methodological naturalism if the explanation is to remain with the proper scope and competence of science. Hence, your point is moot.

Scholastic philosophy also treats of causality in its phenomenal manifestations.

Obviously, you nothing of scholastic philosophy. Philosophy does not deal with natural phenomena as quantifiable. That is the point you fail to see. Science is about quantities. Since science is strictly about the quantitative aspects of natural things and their interactions all of your talk about naturalism misses the mark by a wide margin, and yet you do not see how far off target you are.

Philosophy is concerned with causation in the natural world as well as causation in the abstract.

This is a sloppy statement. Science also deals with causation in the abstract, especially physics which is mathematical, yet the equations of physics have reference to phenomenal causes, yet not in the individual instance, but insofar as it represents a generality of common occurrence according to law, which is what makes it “in the abstract” mathematically, yet very different from how philosophy deals with causation.

Philosophy does not study phenomenal causation in its quantifiable aspects as does science. What part of this statement do you not understand?

But there is a conflict between naturalistic renderings of the natural world and the doctrines of creation and divine providence.

You are equivocating again on naturalism, just as I pointed out above.

 

[anthony022071]

You were originally criticizing methodological naturalism. Then you arbitrarily flip-flop between referencing methodological naturalism and naturalism per se, or philosophical naturalism. For example, in response to something I say about methodological naturalism you respond by speaking of naturalism. Such equivocating is to no logical purpose.

Naturalism per se is not philosophical,it is only a simple belief. And MN is only the application of that perspective to science. That is why I don’t accept the dichotomy between so-called philosophical naturalism and MN.

Since you are deeply confused about MN you should read some of the works of the great Catholic scientist, physicist extraordinaire, and historian of science, Pierre Duhem. Duhem insists a scientist must observe methodological naturalism. He called it the method of “positivism”. Duhem was a positivist in physics but not in epistemology. Fr. Stanley L. Jaki, historian of science and theologian fully justifies Duhem’s stated position for scientific research in “Scientist and Catholic: Pierre Duhem.”

Please spare me the condescending remarks about being confused about MN. It is just naturalism applied to scientific explanations. It is the policy of acting as if only natural causes exist,which is just as bad as saying outright that only natural causes exist.
Positivism is not a method either,it is a belief or perspective. And it is condemned by the Church.

 

[anthony022071]

Dead wrong. Scientists frequently transgress the boundaries of methodological naturalism. A prime example of this is Darwin’s Descent of Man. Furthermore, the naturalism must only be methodical, otherwise scientific data can be interpreted in a reductionist manner.

I didn’t say anything about whether scientists transgress the boundaries of MN.
I wrote: Since the supernatural cannot be tested anyway,there is no need to adopt a naturalistic view of things in order to properly conduct an experiment on natural causation and get accurate results.

The phenomena can only be interpreted along the lines of methodological naturalism if the explanation is to remain with the proper scope and competence of science. Hence, your point is moot.

Interpretations along the lines of MN would only be necessary if it were true that only natural causes exist. The policy of science is to act as if it were true. And the result is illogical theories wherein natural causes alone,or “mechanisms” and process, are attributed the power to produce order and life,and nothingness is attributed the power to create physical particles.

 

[anthony022071]

Obviously, you nothing of scholastic philosophy. Philosophy does not deal with natural phenomena as quantifiable. That is the point you fail to see. Science is about quantities. Since science is strictly about the quantitative aspects of natural things and their interactions all of your talk about naturalism misses the mark by a wide margin, and yet you do not see how far off target you are.

Science is not just about the quantitative aspects of natural things,it is about discovering natural causes themselves. And quantitative knowledge does not always say anything about what causes what. That question has to do with power,not just mathematics.

 

[anthony022071]

This is a sloppy statement. Science also deals with causation in the abstract, especially physics which is mathematical, yet the equations of physics have reference to phenomenal causes, yet not in the individual instance, but insofar as it represents a generality of common occurrence according to law, which is what makes it “in the abstract” mathematically, yet very different from how philosophy deals with causation.

I did not deny that science deals with causation in the abstract,nor did I deny that science and philosophy have different approaches to causation. All I said was that philosophy deals with causation in the natural world as well as in the abstract. What can be known about causation in itself,or about divine causation,bears upon the proper understanding of the workings of nature. Indeed,what can be known about divine causation comes from the observation of nature. This kind of knowledge should not be excluded from the professional study of nature,since it bears upon natural causation.
We should not accept scientific theories that serve an unjustifiable
view of nature rather than a logical one.

Philosophy does not study phenomenal causation in its quantifiable aspects as does science. What part of this statement do you not understand?

That is not to the point,which is that causation has to do with power. Pointing out the mathematical aspects of nature does not account for what causes the existence of matter and order and life. These things cannot be reduced to mathematics or mechanisms. They entail power over nature.

 

[itinerant1]

Science is not just about the quantitative aspects of natural things,it is about discovering natural causes themselves. And quantitative knowledge does not always say anything about what causes what. That question has to do with power,not just mathematics.

Science traces one specificity to another, and any cause it so discovers it treats as measurable, or quantitatively. Hence, science is about quantities. Nothing more.

 

[greylorn]

Science traces one specificity to another, and any cause it so discovers it treats as measurable, or quantitatively. Hence, science is about quantities. Nothing more.

You and Anthony strike me as a pair of overeducated clowns trying to prove who’s the most educated.

You both persist in talking about the best way to solve problems, but neither one has any solutions.

Which of you is Tweedledum, and which is Tweedledee?

Are either of you arguing to any point or trying to establish a new Guinness record?

 

[anthony022071]

Science traces one specificity to another, and any cause it so discovers it treats as measurable, or quantitatively. Hence, science is about quantities. Nothing more.

You’re portraying science as if it were mathematics. The fact that science treats natural causes as measurable does not mean it is all about quantities. It does not reduce all natural causations to numbers.

 

[itinerant1]

You’re portraying science as if it were mathematics. The fact that science treats natural causes as measurable does not mean it is all about quantities. It does not reduce all natural causations to numbers.

That would be physics. Physics taken for the ideal or exemplary science is highly mathematical. Physics actually involves the quantification of quantities. The various sciences approach the ideal more or less.

To describe a phenomenal cause involves quantification. We measure the energy expended, its duration, pattern or signature, force, etc.

The Book of Wisdom says “You, however, ordered all things by measure, number and weight”. This is a perfect description of nature as science studies it, discerning things in their measure, weight, and number.

As a matter of history, Galileo’s insistence that the “Book of Nature” was written in the language of mathematics changed natural philosophy from a “qualitative” account to a mathematical or “quantitative” one in which experimentation became a recognized method for discovering the facts of nature.