On the Necessity of Proving Things

[anthony022071]

I don’t see that you would recognize when you are talking about philosophy and when you are not.

I’m talking about the way things are perceived and explained in scientific theory,not something like the speculations of Spinoza. He had a naturalistic perspective,but it is the purely intellectual way in which he elaborated upon it that makes his perspective “philosophical”. You would agree with me that MN is a perspective on nature,so isn’t it reasonable to think that scientific accounts for the origin of species that proceed from this perspective are naturalistic? We can know by reason as well as Catholic doctrine that God gives existence and life to creatures. So if science ignores this truth and attributes to natural causes alone the origin of species,is it not giving a naturalistic account? It isn’t really a matter of neutrality to ignore the power of God in nature. Perhaps you will say,“No,it is a scientific account”. Well,then,is it the purpose of science,is it “scientific”,to explain nature as if God is not involved with it? That would mean science is indeed naturalistic!

 

[itinerant1]

I’m talking about the way things are perceived and explained in scientific theory,not something like the speculations of Spinoza. He had a naturalistic perspective,but it is the purely intellectual way in which he elaborated upon it that makes his perspective “philosophical”. You would agree with me that MN is a perspective on nature,so isn’t it reasonable to think that scientific accounts for the origin of species that proceed from this perspective are naturalistic? We can know by reason as well as Catholic doctrine that God gives existence and life to creatures. So if science ignores this truth and attributes to natural causes alone the origin of species,is it not giving a naturalistic account? It isn’t really a matter of neutrality to ignore the power of God in nature. Perhaps you will say,“No,it is a scientific account”. Well,then,is it the purpose of science,is it “scientific”,to explain nature as if God is not involved with it? That would mean science is indeed naturalistic!

Your interminable confusion lies in thinking that if science explains only natural causes, which is its proper domain, it therefore rules out supernatural causes.

 

[itinerant1]

Sorry,I got him mixed up with Kenneth Miller. Philip Johnson does not come across as a fundamentalist in his writings and interviews. He likes the post-modern perspective.

The word “fundamentalist” usually refers to someone who believes in certain Protestant doctrines. If you take it to mean someone who believes that created the world in six days,and that all species are created directly by God,it does not mean that.

I never have heard of anyone referring to Philip Johnson as a post-modernist, or as liking the post-modernist perspective. Are you sure you understand what the term “post-modern” indicates?

Fundamentalists are usually biblical literalists and believe in a literal creation of the world in six days. In modern times this is, in fact, characteristic of Protestant fundamentalism. However, there are Catholics, who may not be in agreement with the Protestant list of “fundamentals”, yet accept the creationist view point, which is primarily a Protestant sectarian view.

 

[Moonstruck888]

And I did reply to Moonstruck, as much as I think he (or she?) wanted to hear, and then some.

Not at all. If you have an answer to the points I made in post #960, bring them forth and I guaranatee I’ll either refute it or learn to love it.

 

[itinerant1]

I’m glad to hear it. Perhaps you could spread the word to some other philosophers and start taking your own advice to heart yourself?

What is it specifically, that you did not understand? Your vague allusion to “whatever”, means nothing to me that I am able to figure out.

I was referring to what Bhor is most famous for, which is the Bhor model. You didn’t imagine that it was called the “Bhor” model by conicidence did you?

Glad you realize Neils Bohr (note that the name is spelled B-o-h-r) gave us a working model of the atom. However, the atomic model is not what I was talking about.

I was referring to Bohr’s rank epistemology and metaphysics, which is actually an anti-metaphysics, that has been bought into by all those who physicists who have thoughtlessly accepted Heisenberg’s pompous claim that he conclusively disproved the law of causality.

As for the Copenhagen School’s interpretation of quantum events, I believe it’s in my office somewhere filed under B for bunkum.

The interpretation is balderdash, indeed!

Three phase space dimensions for every particle in the Universe. Particles that switch to being waves when you stop watching them. Far too much metaphysical baggage for my liking.

The metaphysical baggage that has determined the non-sensical interpretation is a German idealism of the most perfidious nature. It has an historical background in the ideology of Mach and later mixed with a rank form of pragmatism.

Quantum Theory is excellent for making predictions that can be used to build brilliant technologies, including the computer processors we’re using to communicate at the moment, but in explaining reality it’s worse than useless.

Agreed.

This is why I have quoted Einstein against the Copenhagen school. Einstein and a few fellow physicists deplored the “dangerous game” the Copenhagen people were “playing with reality”.

Whenever I cite Einstein there are those on CAF who, without fail, point out the failure of Einstein’s thought experiment, and the success of the Bell theorem. However, these objectors have missed the entire point of my argument. My argument is that any claim like Heinsenberg’s, to have disproven causality, actually destroys the reliability of physics to explain matter and motion, and it leads to the worst form of solipsism. Bohr saw this implication and accepted it. Einstein was merely trying to keep physics and physicists in contact with reality, though he did not have the best arguments for justifying the fact we can know the real world.

In conclusion, for Neils Bohr, et al, physics is not about the real world. It is only about what we choose to say about the world. What we have here is the advocacy of a radical disconnect between language, ideas, and the world.

I sense that some of the physics students on CAF are of a weak spirit and feel compelled to go with the modern flow in QM ideology, rather than stand their ground in defense of common sense and reality.

 

[anthony022071]

I never have heard of anyone referring to Philip Johnson as a post-modernist, or as liking the post-modernist perspective. Are you sure you understand what the term “post-modern” indicates?

Post-modern doesn’t have a clear definition,but it generally refers to the absence in modern culture of a “master-narrative” or paradigm (like with Catholic Church doctrine,Scholastic philosophy,Humanism,18th century rationalism,Hegelian philosophy,Marxism).

arn.org/docs/johnson/commsp99.htm

< CJ: Much has been said about the impact of our entering the post-modern era. How do you anticipate post-modernism will impact the debate?

Phil: Well, It’s already having a big effect. The world that I grew up in was one in which a very confident rationalism dominated all of the universities…scientific rationalism, and the thought was that you could have a rationalism in the world of values as well, but now the idea that there are different rationalities has taken hold. I think it’s positive, on the whole, in the sense that it focuses attention on assumptions that people make, and there really isn’t one single kind of rational system that can combine everything in the world. Then, where it becomes excessive is when it verges over into nihilism or indifference ideas. Post-modernism is like a whole lot of things: taken in the right doses, it’s a healthy antidote to excessive rationalism; taken in overdose, it poisons the mind. But you find the notion that non-Western ways of thinking must be treated with respect, that even ancient traditions of tribes may have their truth value–these are healthy developments, I think, and they help open up the universities to challenges to the dominant scientific materialism. So yeah, it’s having a big effect and I think, on the whole, a healthy one. >

Fundamentalists are usually biblical literalists and believe in a literal creation of the world in six days. In modern times this is, in fact, characteristic of Protestant fundamentalism. However, there are Catholics, who may not be in agreement with the Protestant list of “fundamentals”, yet accept the creationist view point, which is primarily a Protestant sectarian view.

A creationist is anyone who believes in the biblical account of creation. It does not necessarily mean someone who believes that the world was created in six days in the literal sense. Catholics have always commonly believed in a six day creation,because that’s how it reads in the Bible and that’s how it was,and still is,taught to them as children. The figurative interpretations given by the early and medieval theologians were not necessarily meant to replace the literal understanding. It is not against reason to believe in a six day creation,it is against scientific explanations,which are naturalistic and mechanistic.

 

[itinerant1]

Post-modern doesn’t have a clear definition,but it generally refers to the absence in modern culture of a “master-narrative” or paradigm (like with Catholic Church doctrine,Scholastic philosophy,Humanism,18th century rationalism,Hegelian philosophy,Marxism).

arn.org/docs/johnson/commsp99.htm

< CJ: Much has been said about the impact of our entering the post-modern era. How do you anticipate post-modernism will impact the debate?

Phil: Well, It’s already having a big effect. The world that I grew up in was one in which a very confident rationalism dominated all of the universities…scientific rationalism, and the thought was that you could have a rationalism in the world of values as well, but now the idea that there are different rationalities has taken hold. I think it’s positive, on the whole, in the sense that it focuses attention on assumptions that people make, and there really isn’t one single kind of rational system that can combine everything in the world. Then, where it becomes excessive is when it verges over into nihilism or indifference ideas. Post-modernism is like a whole lot of things: taken in the right doses, it’s a healthy antidote to excessive rationalism; taken in overdose, it poisons the mind. But you find the notion that non-Western ways of thinking must be treated with respect, that even ancient traditions of tribes may have their truth value–these are healthy developments, I think, and they help open up the universities to challenges to the dominant scientific materialism. So yeah, it’s having a big effect and I think, on the whole, a healthy one. >

Johnson is giving his own opinioin of what characterizes the post-modern era. His definition is too general to be considered what is usually understood by post-modern thinking and its relation to deconstructionism. Philosophically, Johnson is out of the loop. He does not grasp the nature of the trends in philosophical thinking that characterize post-modernism.

A creationist is anyone who believes in the biblical account of creation. It does not necessarily mean someone who believes that the world was created in six days in the literal sense.

Your definition of “creationism” is irrelevant to the context of the discussion. This should be obvious by the definition I stipulated. Hence, your equivocating on the meaning of the term serves no purpose. The fact remains, you read the bible as a Protestant fundamentalist would.

Catholics have always commonly believed in a six day creation,because that’s how it reads in the Bible and that’s how it was,and still is,taught to them as children.

What you say does not hold true for any of the Catholics I know, since none of them read the Bible as a child would, but as educated, informed adults.

The figurative interpretations given by the early and medieval theologians were not necessarily meant to replace the literal understanding. It is not against reason to believe in a six day creation,it is against scientific explanations,which are naturalistic and mechanistic.

If you are familiar with what medieval theologians taught then you must be aware that St. Thomas Aquinas said, “A direct creation in six days is favored by a superficial reading of Scripture.”

A literal six-day creation is un-reasonable since it cannot be supported by a careful reading of Genesis 1. That is why St. Augustine after many years of study, ultimately rejected a literal six-day creation. Furthermore, the Church does not endorse a literal six-day creation. Your sources have lead you astray and keep you from growing in an understanding of the Bible.

Furthermore, have you ever read St. Augustine’s warning directed at those Christians who choose to interpret the Bible in ways that contradict what men of science know to be the case about nature? Do I need to quote it for you? It is certainly relevant here.

 

[Moonstruck888]

What is it specifically, that you did not understand? Your vague allusion to “whatever”, means nothing to me that I am able to figure out.

I don’t think it’s really that important.

Glad you realize Neils Bohr (note that the name is spelled B-o-h-r) gave us a working model of the atom. However, the atomic model is not what I was talking about.

I don’t actually speak Dutch, so please endulge me a little if my spelling goes awry.

I was referring to Bohr’s rank epistemology and metaphysics, which is actually an anti-metaphysics, that has been bought into by all those who physicists who have thoughtlessly accepted Heisenberg’s pompous claim that he conclusively disproved the law of causality.

The interpretation is balderdash, indeed!

The metaphysical baggage that has determined the non-sensical interpretation is a German idealism of the most perfidious nature. It has an historical background in the ideology of Mach and later mixed with a rank form of pragmatism.

Agreed.

This is why I have quoted Einstein against the Copenhagen school. Einstein and a few fellow physicists deplored the “dangerous game” the Copenhagen people were “playing with reality”.

Whenever I cite Einstein there are those on CAF who, without fail, point out the failure of Einstein’s thought experiment, and the success of the Bell theorem. However, these objectors have missed the entire point of my argument. My argument is that any claim like Heinsenberg’s, to have disproven causality, actually destroys the reliability of physics to explain matter and motion, and it leads to the worst form of solipsism. Bohr saw this implication and accepted it. Einstein was merely trying to keep physics and physicists in contact with reality, though he did not have the best arguments for justifying the fact we can know the real world.

In conclusion, for Neils Bohr, et al, physics is not about the real world. It is only about what we choose to say about the world. What we have here is the advocacy of a radical disconnect between language, ideas, and the world.

I sense that some of the physics students on CAF are of a weak spirit and feel compelled to go with the modern flow in QM ideology, rather than stand their ground in defense of common sense and reality.

No disagreement from me on any of this really. I haven’t thought that we could know the “real world” as you call it since I was a very young and naieve man.

 

[LogisticsBranch]

Since we are discussing physics, the following excerpt from The Office of Science - U.S. Department of Energy. I encourage participants to read the entire page on-line. Thank you. Physics is science not philosophy!

What is Physics?

Physics is all around us. It is in the electric light you turn on in the morning; the car you drive to work; your wristwatch, cell phone, CD player, radio, and that big plasma TV set you got for Christmas. It makes the stars shine every night and the sun shine every day, and it makes a baseball soar into the stands for a home run.

Physics is the science of matter, energy, space, and time. It explains ordinary matter as combinations of a dozen fundamental particles (quarks and leptons), interacting through four fundamental forces. It describes the many forms of energy—such as kinetic energy, electrical energy, and mass—and the way energy can change from one form to another. It describes a malleable space-time and the way objects move through space and time.

There are many fields of physics, for example: mechanics, electricity, heat, sound, light, condensed matter, atomic physics, nuclear physics, and elementary particle physics. Physics is the foundation of all the physical sciences—such as chemistry, material science, and geology—and is important for many other fields of human endeavor: biology, medicine, computing, ice hockey, television…the list goes on and on. . . (read on-line)

Mechanics is an important field of physics. Developed by Sir Isaac Newton in the 17th century, the laws of mechanics and the law of gravity successfully explained the orbits of the moon around the earth and the planets around the sun. They are valid over a large range of distances: from much less than the height of an apple tree to much more than the distance from the earth to the moon or the sun. Newton’s laws are used to design cars, clocks, airplanes, earth satellites, bridges, buildings—just about everything, it seems, except electronics.

Electricity is another example of physics, one that you may experience as a spark when you touch a doorknob on a dry winter day. The electrical attraction of protons and electrons is the basis for chemistry. Magnetism is another force of nature, familiar to us from refrigerator magnets and compasses. In the 19th century, James Clerk Maxwell combined electricity and magnetism. He showed that light is an electromagnetic wave that travels through empty space. (Waves had always required a medium, for example, water is the medium for ocean waves.) Other electromagnetic waves besides light also travel through empty space; hence radio signals can reach us from a Mars explorer.

Maxwell’s theory also showed that electromagnetic waves travel with the same speed (the speed of light), even if the person who sees it is moving. This is in conflict with Isaac Newton’s principle of relativity, which said a train’s headlight beam would have one speed as seen by the engineer and a different speed as seen by a person watching the train go by. Newton and Maxwell could not both be right about this matter, and in 1905, Albert Einstein resolved the conflict by allowing space and time to change, depending on motion. His special theory of relativity predicted that an object passing by would look shorter and a passing clock would run slower. These changes are too small to notice unless the object is moving very fast—Newton’s laws work just fine at the speeds of ordinary moving objects. But space really does shrink and time really does expand for particles moving at speeds near the speed of light (300,000 kilometers per second).

Another remarkable consequence of special relativity is the famous equation E=mc2, which says that mass is just another form of energy. This equivalence of mass and energy is the source of the energy that comes to earth as sunlight. In the intense heat at the core of the sun, four hydrogen nuclei fuse into one helium nucleus and the mass difference is converted into radiant energy, which emerges as sunlight. E=mc2 is also responsible for the release of energy from fission of uranium in a nuclear reactor, and this energy is used around the world to make large amounts of electric power.

Einstein went on to replace Newton’s theory of gravity with his general theory of relativity, which says that space and time are changed not only by speed, but also by the presence of matter. Imagine space-time as a large sheet of rubber, and set a bowling ball on the sheet; it will be dimpled near the ball. A tennis ball rolled slowly near the bowling ball will curve around it and may settle into an orbit, just as the earth orbits the sun. Today, the general theory of relativity is well-tested and is used to accurately determine the location of your car if you have a GPS (Global Positioning System) device.

Newton’s laws also break down on the tiny distance scales of atoms and molecules, and must be replaced by the theory of quantum mechanics. For example, quantum mechanics describes how electrons can only travel around the nucleus of an atom in orbits with certain specific energies. When an electron jumps from one of these orbits to another, the atom will absorb or emit energy in discrete bundles of electromagnetic radiation. Because the energies of different states of an atom are known with high precision, we can create highly accurate devices such as atomic clocks and lasers.

Quantum mechanics is also necessary to understand how electrons flow through solids. Materials that normally do not conduct electric current can be made to conduct when “doped” with atoms of a particular element. This is how we make transistors, microscopic electrical on-off switches, which are the basis of your cell phone, your iPod, your PC, and all the modern electronics that has transformed our lives and our economy.
er.doe.gov/Sub/Newsroom/News_Releases/DOE-SC/2005/What_is_Physics.htm

 

[anthony022071]

Your interminable confusion lies in thinking that if science explains only natural causes, which is its proper domain, it therefore rules out supernatural causes.

Science does rule out supernatural causes,from its own theories. That is the whole purpose of MN,as you must know. And those theories are taught as doctrine in the schools. I don’t see how you can deny that science and evolution theory are naturalistic,when you know about MN is about: viewing nature as if only natural causes exist. It stands to reason that a scientific theory proceeding from that “special perspective” is going to be naturalistic in character. It does not allow for it to be interpreted from a theological perspective because it already gives to “mechanisms” alone what are the powers proper to God,like the ability to create living creatures.

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… >

sandwalk.blogspot.com/2010/02/methodological-naturalism.html
< Here’s the problem. You can’t just arbitrarily restrict science to methodological naturalism. That’s like ruling out supernatural explanations by fiat and not by logic. If God exists, then there’s no reason why supernatural explanations can’t be a legitimate part of science. This is one of the arguments made by Philip Johnson and it hasn’t been adequately addressed by most philosophers.

But there’s another problem with using methodological naturalism as a defense of accommodationism. How do draw the line between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism? Obviously, there’s no difference for an atheist; in fact, the distinction seems rather silly. If supernatural explanations are never found to be necessary in explaining the natural world then doesn’t it make sense to conclude that fairies and Santa Claus don’t exist?

But for theists it’s important to make a distinction so that they can adhere to methodological naturalism as scientists without having to abandon their belief in supernatural beings outside of the laboratory.

Where is the boundary and how do you tell when the line has been crossed? Accommodationists are absolutely convinced that they can tell the difference between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism but they are never very clear about explaining this difference to others. >

 

[anthony022071]

Johnson is giving his own opinioin of what characterizes the post-modern era. His definition is too general to be considered what is usually understood by post-modern thinking and its relation to deconstructionism. Philosophically, Johnson is out of the loop. He does not grasp the nature of the trends in philosophical thinking that characterize post-modernism.

He didn’t give a definition of post-modernism. But he is right in his characterization of it. How would you know if he does not grasp the nature of the philosophical trends that characterize post-modernism? Because he didn’t give a dissertation on them in the interview? He was asked about the impact of post-modernism on the debate,not about all the trends that characterize it.

Your definition of “creationism” is irrelevant to the context of the discussion. This should be obvious by the definition I stipulated. Hence, your equivocating on the meaning of the term serves no purpose.

What definition did you stipulate?

The fact remains, you read the bible as a Protestant fundamentalist would.

If I do,it’s because they sometimes interpret the Bible rightly,the way that the Church teaches. I don’t know if God created the world in six days literally,but there’s no harm to reason in believing it.

 

[fitzyjr]

Why do some believe that things must be proven (rationally) in order be true?

I ask this question because I have come to a realization that every philosophy and worldview is founded on unproven ideas. It is kind of like geometry, I think. There are theorems which are proven truths. But these theorems are based on “unproven truths” called postulates. Every belief is based on unproven ideas, even empiricism.For this reason (including others), I accept neither materialism nor empiricism to be true. Immaterial things could be just like the “unproven truths” (Christianity holds some to be revealed) mentioned previously. Just because something isn’t proven (rationally) does not mean it isn’t true.

I think that there has been an unfortunate underestimation of intuition and other things excluding the intellect in many materialist and empiricist circles. Intuition is vital to any philosophy. Things must just be known. So, if this is the case, why should the revealed truths of Christianity be thrown away? Why can’t faith and reason work together? Why does the intellect and the intuition have to be separate in our search for Truth?

i referyou good sir/madam to Russel’s Teapot:

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

you see, absence of proof… equals idiocy to prevail

 

[itinerant1]

Science does rule out supernatural causes,from its own theories. That is the whole purpose of MN,as you must know.** …** I don’t see how you can deny that science and evolution theory are naturalistic,when you know about MN is about: viewing nature as if only natural causes exist. … It does not allow for it to be interpreted from a theological perspective because it already gives to “mechanisms” alone what are the powers proper to God,like the ability to create living creatures.

The fundamental error you have committed here is the obvious failure to distinguish between “ignore” and “deny”. From the fact that a scientific explanation “ignores” philosophical or theological explanations, it does not follow that higher causes are being “denied”.

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?

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.

Just FYI: there are necessary reasons why the particular sciences are called particular and natural.

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… >

This is a good characterization of MN

sandwalk.blogspot.com/2010/02/methodological-naturalism.html
< Here’s the problem. You can’t just arbitrarily restrict science to methodological naturalism. That’s like ruling out supernatural explanations by fiat and not by logic. If God exists, then there’s no reason why supernatural explanations can’t be a legitimate part of science. This is one of the arguments made by Philip Johnson and it hasn’t been adequately addressed by most philosophers.

Natural science is not “arbitrarily” restricted to MN. There are very good reasons for the method.

Philip Johnson arrogantly wants to re-define “science”. He think the first words in any science text should be “In the beginning was the Word.” But this is not science. It is theology. And it is absolutely false to say this issue “hasn’t been adequately addressed by most philosophers.” It has been most adequately addressed. Where did you get such an idea that it has not been dealt with? Johnson just does not like the answer.

But there’s another problem with using methodological naturalism as a defense of accommodationism. How do draw the line between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism? Obviously, there’s no difference for an atheist; in fact, the distinction seems rather silly. If supernatural explanations are never found to be necessary in explaining the natural world then doesn’t it make sense to conclude that fairies and Santa Claus don’t exist?

I don’t get your point about fairies and Santa Claus.

Actually, it is not difficult to distinguish between methodological and philosophical naturalism if one has the appropriate training in philosophy.

If an atheist and a theist both publish a scientific explanation of the blood clotting mechanism, or the light and dark reactions of photosynthesis, one should not be able to determine the philosophical or religious beliefs of either scientist based on the publication. And that is the only way science can work and make progress.

Those scientists who transgress the boundaries of MN, while thinking they are doing just science, create inexorable problems for science. Darwin and the extreme Darwinists, Heisenberg, and Stephen Hawking are good examples of transgressors. Johnson would have us transgress at the other end of the ideological spectrum. Either position is problematic for science and correct reasoning.

But for theists it’s important to make a distinction so that they can adhere to methodological naturalism as scientists without having to abandon their belief in supernatural beings outside of the laboratory.

A scientist’s personal beliefs do not come into play when he is exlaining osmosis or star formation. The scientist’s personal philosophical or religious beliefs are irrelevant, as a scientist, to scientific explanation. They are only important as he is also a man or a philosopher.

…Accommodationists are absolutely convinced that they can tell the difference between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism but they are never very clear about explaining this difference to others. >

Who are these accommodationists that you allude to?

In the tradition of classical philosophy, the distinction between the particular sciences and the philosophical and divine sciences are abundantly clear. But you would not know that, because you have no background here.

 

[itinerant1]

He didn’t give a definition of post-modernism. But he is right in his characterization of it. How would you know if he does not grasp the nature of the philosophical trends that characterize post-modernism? Because he didn’t give a dissertation on them in the interview? He was asked about the impact of post-modernism on the debate,not about all the trends that characterize it.

Did not give a definition? Johnson’s statement can be considered a definition by description and example. The point is, though, that his characterization omits features that are fundamental, and more significant than many of the elements he described. This tells me he does not really have his finger on the pulse.

Even more to the point is that Johnson’s description of post-modernism reveals his lack of adequate background in philosophy needed to correctly understand current trends. And this lack is consistent with much else Johnson has said on other subjects.

Nonetheless, discussing postmodernism and its relation to structuralism, post-structuralism and deconstruction will take us off-topic at this point and should be dropped for now.

If I do,it’s because they sometimes interpret the Bible rightly,the way that the Church teaches. I don’t know if God created the world in six days literally,but there’s no harm to reason in believing it.

You don’t give any indication that you interpret the Bible according to the mind of the Church. Your next statement about “six-days” is evidence that you do not have much background in biblical exegesis or even bother to follow the Church in interpreting the bible.

There is harm that comes from interpreting Genesis 1 in a way that was not intended by the biblical author. The division of creation into six days teaches the Divine sanction of the sabbath rest. To interepret Genesis 1 as a scientific cosmogony that can be understood literally ignores the genus litterarium of the text, results in a self-contradictory interpretion, and conflicts with what science knows about the evolution of the cosmos.

Thus, there is no reason or rationality in your claim. Biblical truth cannot contradict scientific truth. The choices are to maintain an absurd double-truth theory, or deny the truth of the bible, or deny the truth of science. Hence, harm results, especially since the literalist interpretation, which you propose, throws discredit on the Bible and Christianity. It remains a non-Catholic interpretation, one that is contrary to reason and sound exegesis.

 

[itinerant1]

It does not allow for it to be interpreted from a theological perspective because it already gives to “mechanisms” alone what are the powers proper to God,like the ability to create living creatures.

You are falsely interpreting science and theology. First, the special creation of each species contradicts Church teaching about creation, and the theory of special creation has been conclusively disproved by science in the 19th century.

You appear to confuse creatio ex nihilo and creation from secondary causes which involves generation from pre-existing matter. Science proper only treats of creation from secondary and phenomenal causes only. ( I am excluding from consideration here, the errors of QM ideology, which I discussed ealier.)

 

[anthony022071]

The fundamental error you have committed here is the obvious failure to distinguish between “ignore” and “deny”. From the fact that a scientific explanation “ignores” philosophical or theological explanations, it does not follow that higher causes are being “denied”.

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?

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.

Just FYI: there are necessary reasons why the particular sciences are called particular and natural.

This is a good characterization of MN

Natural science is not “arbitrarily” restricted to MN. There are very good reasons for the method.

Philip Johnson arrogantly wants to re-define “science”. He think the first words in any science text should be “In the beginning was the Word.” But this is not science. It is theology. And it is absolutely false to say this issue “hasn’t been adequately addressed by most philosophers.” It has been most adequately addressed. Where did you get such an idea that it has not been dealt with? Johnson just does not like the answer.

I don’t get your point about fairies and Santa Claus.

Actually, it is not difficult to distinguish between methodological and philosophical naturalism if one has the appropriate training in philosophy.

If an atheist and a theist both publish a scientific explanation of the blood clotting mechanism, or the light and dark reactions of photosynthesis, one should not be able to determine the philosophical or religious beliefs of either scientist based on the publication. And that is the only way science can work and make progress.

Those scientists who transgress the boundaries of MN, while thinking they are doing just science, create inexorable problems for science. Darwin and the extreme Darwinists, Heisenberg, and Stephen Hawking are good examples of transgressors. Johnson would have us transgress at the other end of the ideological spectrum. Either position is problematic for science and correct reasoning.

A scientist’s personal beliefs do not come into play when he is exlaining osmosis or star formation. The scientist’s personal philosophical or religious beliefs are irrelevant, as a scientist, to scientific explanation. They are only important as he is also a man or a philosopher.

Who are these accommodationists that you allude to?

In the tradition of classical philosophy, the distinction between the particular sciences and the philosophical and divine sciences are abundantly clear. But you would not know that, because you have no background here.

 

[anthony022071]

The fundamental error you have committed here is the obvious failure to distinguish between “ignore” and “deny”. From the fact that a scientific explanation “ignores” philosophical or theological explanations, it does not follow that higher causes are being “denied”.

To ignore or forbid something is a form of denial. If you have a policy of ignoring knowledge of supernatual causation when doing scientific research,then you are denying it entry into your understanding and explanation of natural things. And when you teach your explanation to students and publish books about it,you are promoting the naturalistic view outside of the domain of science.

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?

I have been using methodological naturalism itself as evidence that scientific explanation denies divine causality. MN is about forbidding the supernatural from scientific explanations,and using only natural causes. If you deliberately ignore the power of God in nature where it is logically necessary to acknowledge it,that is a denial by omission. You may not be denying that God exists,but you are denying him,by omission,his power in nature. And if we understand nature in such a way that natural causes suffice to explain everything about it,then we are left with Nature as its own creator (or evolvor) and sustainer,and with a deistic conception of God which is rendered unnecessary by scientific explanations.

It is not reasonable to assume that a naturalistic explantion rules out philosophical or theological interpretation.

The naturalistic explanations of science do rule out the Catholic understanding of nature,because they rule out the power of God in nature and over nature. The doctrine of creation and divine providence cannot be true if the theory of evolution is true,because the latter gives to natural “mechanisms” and processes the ability to do what God does. Theistic evolutionists like to put a theistic spin on evolution theory,but the theory does not allow for it. The theory does not allow for God to be working in nature.

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.

Can you trust that the scientific facts are really factual or true? If it is not a fact that only natural causes exist (as science pretends) or that all phenomena can be adequately explained with natural causes alone,then how can we trust that science is telling us the truth about the origin of species?

 

[anthony022071]

i referyou good sir/madam to Russel’s Teapot:

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

you see, absence of proof… equals idiocy to prevail

If you were to suggest something as absurd and trivial as that,then nobody would feel like they had to disprove you. Humans will perpetuate absurd beliefs,but they have never been so foolish as to do what you imply they do. This is the sort of hypothetical that shallow and flippant philosophers like Voltaire come up with. If you think that the belief in a Creator is comparable to the belief in a man-made object in outer space,it just shows your own unwillingness to think seriously. Instead of using the example of belief in a teapot in outer space,why not just examine the validity of belief in a Creator and see if it amounts to idiocy?

 

[itinerant1]

The naturalistic explanations of science do rule out the Catholic understanding of nature,because they rule out the power of God in nature and over nature. The doctrine of creation and divine providence cannot be true if the theory of evolution is true,because the latter gives to natural “mechanisms” and processes the ability to do what God does. Theistic evolutionists like to put a theistic spin on evolution theory,but the theory does not allow for it. The theory does not allow for God to be working in nature.

First, you show that you do not understand the nature of scientific knowledge, now you show that you know nothing whatsoever about theistic evolution.

The correct view is that when God creates he gives to beings their own efficacy. The efficacy that created things possess of themselves does not preclude God’s efficacy working in created beings.

Your personal, unsupported opinion denies to created things the efficacy that God has given them. Hence, your position remains untenable from a Catholic perspective.

 

[fitzyjr]

If you were to suggest something as absurd and trivial as that,then nobody would feel like they had to disprove you. Humans will perpetuate absurd beliefs,but they have never been so foolish as to do what you imply they do. This is the sort of hypothetical that shallow and flippant philosophers like Voltaire come up with. If you think that the belief in a Creator is comparable to the belief in a man-made object in outer space,it just shows your own unwillingness to think seriously. Instead of using the example of belief in a teapot in outer space,why not just examine the validity of belief in a Creator and see if it amounts to idiocy?

you miss the point. the point is that it is not down to people to disprove a idea, but rather down to those who believe to prove it. of course saying there is a teapot floating in space is absurd, and you would not believe me unless i put forward solid, undeniable proof for its existance