Schönborn & Coyne on Science Methodology

[Geremia]

Defending reason, in 2005 against neo-DarwinismNew York Times and an in-depth follow-up in First Things. Fr. Coyne, then head of the Vatican Observatory, wrote a critical response to Cardinal Schönborn in The Tablet and on Catholic Online. Could someone please clarify how Cardinal Schönborn’s and Fr. Coyne’s views differ?

They appear to revolve around a misconception of what exactly neo-Darwinism is; I would define it as a deterministic, positivistic, naturalistic, mechanistic, anti-teleologic, and applicable not just to biology but also to the other empiriological sciences, not necessarily beneficially, though. Also, I would say that—while Fr. Coyne and Cardinal Schönborn are definitely both anti-materialism, anti-New Earth Creationism, and anti-“intelligent design,” despite what Fr. Coyne says in his articleCatholic Online—only Cardinal Schönborn appears to be explicitly anti-positivism. He says in his First Things article “The Designs of Science”:

[T]he overwhelming trend of Catholic commentators on the question of neo-Darwinian evolution …] gladly discuss[es] its compatibility with the truths of faith but seldom bother to discuss whether and how it is compatible with the truths of reason.
…]
Let us return to the heart of the problem: positivism. Modern science first excludes a priori final and formal causes, then investigates nature under the reductive mode of mechanism (efficient and material causes), and then turns around to claim both final and formal causes are obviously unreal, and also that its mode of knowing the corporeal world takes priority over all other forms of human knowledge. Being mechanistic, modern science is also historicist: It argues that a complete description of the efficient and material causal history of an entity is a complete explanation of the entity itself—in other words, that an understanding of how something came to be is the same as understanding what it is. But Catholic thinking rejects the genetic fallacy applied to the natural world and contains instead a holistic understanding of reality based on all the faculties of reason and all the causes evident in nature—including the “vertical” causation of formality and finality.

 

[NowAgnostic]

Well they do seem to be different.

Schonborn:

The Catholic Church, while leaving to science many details about the history of life on earth, proclaims that by the light of reason the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design in the natural world, including the world of living things.

Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not. Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.
…
Now at the beginning of the 21st century, faced with scientific claims like neo-Darwinism and the multiverse hypothesis in cosmology invented to avoid the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science, the Catholic Church will again defend human reason by proclaiming that the immanent design evident in nature is real. Scientific theories that try to explain away the appearance of design as the result of “chance and necessity” are not scientific at all, but, as John Paul put it, an abdication of human intelligence.

Schonborn is taking the “hard line” so to speak. There is overwhelming evidence for design and purpose in the natural world, especially living things, since we, the Church, have always said so; anyone who denies this is an irrational ideologue, and scientific claims to the contrary were simply “invented” to avoid the evidence.

Coyne:

Science is completely neutral with respect to philosophical or theological implications that may be drawn from its conclusions. Those conclusions are always subject to improvement. That is why science is such an interesting adventure and scientists curiously interesting creatures. But for someone to deny the best of today’s science on religious grounds is to live in that groundless fear just mentioned.
…
This process of continuous evolution, called by scientists chemical complexification, has a certain intrinsic natural directionality in that the more complex an organism becomes the more determined is its future. This does not necessarily mean, however, that there need be a person directing the process, nor that the process is necessarily an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection as Cardinal Schonborn describes it. It is precisely the fertility of the universe and the interaction of chance and necessity in that universe which are responsible for the directionality. Thus far science.
…
For those who believe modern science does say something to us about God, it provides a challenge, an enriching challenge, to traditional beliefs about God. God in his infinite freedom continuously creates a world that reflects that freedom at all levels of the evolutionary process to greater and greater complexity. God lets the world be what it will be in its continuous evolution. He is not continually intervening, but rather allows, participates, loves.

Coyne’s position is much more measured. Having studied science much more than Schonborn, he well knows that what appear to the scientifically naive and unlearned as “overwhelming evidence” for purpose and design are not so, and it will not do simply to trumpet the Church’s authority and claim hypotheses without design (e.g. neo-Darwinism or multiverse) were simply “invented” to “avoid” the evidence. Rather, he says such theories are philosophically and theologically neutral. But what role for God then? Well he admits modern science provides a “challenge to traditional beliefs about God” and postulates, not a “designer” God, but a “parental”, or “encouraging” God that doesn’t “dictate” how the universe should go in its development. I doubt Schonborn would agree with that!

 

[tonyrey]

Coyne’s position is much more measured. Having studied science much more than Schonborn, he well knows that what appear to the scientifically naive and unlearned as “overwhelming evidence” for purpose and design are not so, and it will not do simply to trumpet the Church’s authority and claim hypotheses without design (e.g. neo-Darwinism or multiverse) were simply “invented” to “avoid” the evidence. Rather, he says such theories are philosophically and theologically neutral. But what role for God then? Well he admits modern science provides a “challenge to traditional beliefs about God” and postulates, not a “designer” God, but a “parental”, or “encouraging” God that doesn’t “dictate” how the universe should go in its development. I doubt Schonborn would agree with that!

Coyne’s position is illogical. If he rejects the concept of Design God took no part in the origin and development of life and rational beings. He is reduced to a redundant, absent parent whose existence is not required…

 

[NowAgnostic]

Well they do seem to be different.

Schonborn:

Schonborn is taking the “hard line” so to speak. There is overwhelming evidence for design and purpose in the natural world, especially living things, since we, the Church, have always said so; anyone who denies this is an irrational ideologue, and scientific claims to the contrary were simply “invented” to avoid the evidence.

Coyne:

Coyne’s position is much more measured. Having studied science much more than Schonborn, he well knows that what appear to the scientifically naive and unlearned as “overwhelming evidence” for purpose and design are not so, and it will not do simply to trumpet the Church’s authority and claim hypotheses without design (e.g. neo-Darwinism or multiverse) were simply “invented” to “avoid” the evidence. Rather, he says such theories are philosophically and theologically neutral. But what role for God then? Well he admits modern science provides a “challenge to traditional beliefs about God” and postulates, not a “designer” God, but a “parental”, or “encouraging” God that doesn’t “dictate” how the universe should go in its development. I doubt Schonborn would agree with that!

Vince: I’m afraid only HE HIMSELF can tell us HIS opinion whether if he agrees or not.

 

[NowAgnostic]

Coyne’s position is illogical. If he rejects the concept of Design God took no part in the origin and development of life and rational beings. He is reduced to a redundant, absent parent whose existence is not required…

What error do you think he made or at least made parts on ?

 

[tonyrey]

Coyne’s position is illogical. If he rejects the concept of Design God took no part in the origin and development of life and rational beings. He is reduced to a redundant, absent parent whose existence is not required…

The fundamental one:

God is reduced to a redundant, absent parent whose existence is not required…

 

[Geremia]

Well they do seem to be different.

Schonborn:

The Catholic Church, while leaving to science many details about the history of life on earth, proclaims that by the light of reason the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design in the natural world, including the world of living things.

It may appear here that Card. Schönborn judges a scientific theory, something outside the Church’s teaching authority, and hence that he is overstepping his bounds as a theologian. But he takes “science” in a broader sense than meaning just “modern science.” Scire means “to know.”

…
Now at the beginning of the 21st century, faced with scientific claims like neo-Darwinism and the multiverse hypothesis in cosmology invented to avoid the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science, the Catholic Church will again defend human reason by proclaiming that the immanent design evident in nature is real. Scientific theories that try to explain away the appearance of design as the result of “chance and necessity” are not scientific at all, but, as John Paul put it, an abdication of human intelligence.

I am not sure what you mean here, that they were “invented.”

 

[Geremia]

Coyne:

Science is completely neutral with respect to philosophical or theological implications that may be drawn from its conclusions.

This is a very bold claim. He says that modern science—based on many bad philosophies like positivism, mechanism, materialism, etc.—is the best it will ever be; it is the best judge, being “completely neutral;” it can never improve. Schönborn would agree that science can improve, hence he says empty explanations of “‘chance and necessity’ are …] an abdication of human intelligence.”

Those conclusions are always subject to improvement. That is why science is such an interesting adventure and scientists curiously interesting creatures. But for someone to deny the best of today’s science on religious grounds

It is not on “religious grounds,” as though mentioning God means invoking irrationality, but on grounds “compatible with the truths of reason.” Card. Schönborn is pro-reason.

is to live in that groundless fear just mentioned.
…
This process of continuous evolution, called by scientists chemical complexification, has a certain intrinsic natural directionality in that the more complex an organism becomes the more determined is its future.

Okay, here he is talking as a modern scientist, passing judgment on something, by the way, that neo-Darwinism has not been able to prove.

This does not necessarily mean, however, that there need be a person directing the process, nor that the process is necessarily an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection as Cardinal Schonborn describes it. It is precisely the fertility of the universe

Besides using vague and ill-defined terms as “fertility of the universe,” he sounds like a pantheist here.

and the interaction of chance and necessity in that universe which are responsible for the directionality. Thus far science.
…
For those who believe modern science does say something to us about God, it provides a challenge, an enriching challenge, to traditional beliefs about God.

Namely, that we have a deist God?

God in his infinite freedom continuously creates a world that reflects that freedom at all levels of the evolutionary process to greater and greater complexity. God lets the world be what it will be in its continuous evolution.

Now that is even more clearly deist. It makes sense he thinks this because modern science is implicitly based on all those false philosophies I mentioned above.

He is not continually intervening, but rather allows, participates, loves.

I wonder how he explains the Incarnation? Is not that an intervention?

Coyne’s position is much more measured.

Meaning less radical?

Having studied science

Modern natural science, yes

much more than Schonborn, he well knows that what appear to the scientifically naive and unlearned as “overwhelming evidence” for purpose and design are not so,

So he is agnostic in that human knowledge cannot ever attain some level of certainty?

and it will not do simply to trumpet the Church’s authority and claim hypotheses without design (e.g. neo-Darwinism or multiverse) were simply “invented” to “avoid” the evidence.

No, but one could invent many far-fetched theories with very little explanatory power. You seem to assume neo-Darwinism and multiverse cosmology are good ideas, but from a solid and commonsense philosophical perspective, such as that of St. Thomas Aquinas, they are hideous. How can something philosophically wrong offer anything to science? What has the multiverse theory, e.g., predicted? As an astronomer myself, I can say: nothing.

Rather, he says such theories are philosophically and theologically neutral.

Which he does not prove… He is just assuming this.

But what role for God then? Well he admits modern science provides a “challenge to traditional beliefs about God” and postulates, not a “designer” God, but a “parental”, or “encouraging” God that doesn’t “dictate” how the universe should go in its development.

God does setup the laws by which natures runs; whether that is dictatorial or not does not matter.

I doubt Schonborn would agree with that!

No, I am pretty sure he would agree that there is an underlying Λόγος to the natural world. That was, after all, what Pope Benedict XVI’s Regensburg Lecture was about, even though the media thought it was about Islam .

 

[NowAgnostic]

So, in the first place, you seem to see now there is in fact a very big difference between the way Coyne and Schonborn see things.

This is a very bold claim. He says that modern science—based on many bad philosophies like positivism, mechanism, materialism, etc.—is the best it will ever be; it is the best judge, being “completely neutral;” it can never improve.

That’s a contradiction. If science is based on positivism, materialism, or any “ism” for that matter it cannot be “neutral” to philosophical implications of its findings that would tend to refute that “ism” - that would be pulling out the foundation on which it is based.

But pure empirical science, in fact, is not based on any “ism” - that is why it is and should be neutral to philosophical implications.

Schönborn would agree that science can improve, hence he says empty explanations of “‘chance and necessity’ are …] an abdication of human intelligence.”

Chance is not a scientific explanation. It is a philosophical one. Scientists are not speaking as scientists when they say life arose by “blind chance”. Chance has no rigorous scientific definition.

It is not on “religious grounds,” as though mentioning God means invoking irrationality, but on grounds “compatible with the truths of reason.” Card. Schönborn is pro-reason.

There is no way an empirical finding or inference could be incompatible with any truth of reason. But it may appear such either because scientists are extrapolating beyond what can be legitimately inferred from the data, or because metaphysicians and philosophers are going beyond what can be deduced from first principles. And face it. Much of what philosophers “deduced” about the natural world was just plain wrong.

Okay, here he is talking as a modern scientist, passing judgment on something, by the way, that neo-Darwinism has not been able to prove.

??? How is that video relevant? How is a more determined future direction connected with more information in the genome?

Namely, that we have a deist God?Now that is even more clearly deist.

Questionable. Saying there are natural processes at work does not entail deism.

It makes sense he thinks this because modern science is implicitly based on all those false philosophies I mentioned above.

I deny this - but I’m just curious. If modern science were “based on” the scholasticism you think it should be, just exactly what finding in science would be different than it is now?

Modern natural science, yes

Yes.

So he is agnostic in that human knowledge cannot ever attain some level of certainty?

Not at all, but if inductive methodologies are going to be used the evidence needs to be there.

No, but one could invent many far-fetched theories with very little explanatory power.

Design by an omnipotent entity has no explanatory power either, because it is consistent with any and all data. That’s what you don’t seem to understand. That’s why there cannot be “overwhelming evidence for design” in nature, if the designer is omnipotent. At the end of the day, “Goddidit” has as much explanatory power as “Itjusthappened”: namely, zero.

You seem to assume neo-Darwinism and multiverse cosmology are good ideas, but from a solid and commonsense philosophical perspective, such as that of St. Thomas Aquinas, they are hideous.

I simply fail to see why. Why could God not arrange for all life forms to arise via common descent, or create multiple universes?

How can something philosophically wrong offer anything to science? What has the multiverse theory, e.g., predicted? As an astronomer myself, I can say: nothing.

Yeah, and what did Ptolemaic/Aristotelian cosmology predict? The wrong things.

Which he does not prove… He is just assuming this.

Look, a scientific theory as such can’t have philosophical implications. Of course, you’ve **defined **neo-Darwinism as a philosophy, as “deterministic, positivistic, naturalistic, mechanistic, anti-teleologic”. But then it’s not a scientific theory, it’s a philosophy. Take your pick.

 

[Geremia]

So, in the first place, you seem to see now there is in fact a very big difference between the way Coyne and Schonborn see things.

Yes, but it was hard for me to p(name removed by moderator)oint their differences exactly.

Geremia;6103013:

This is a very bold claim. He says that modern science—based on many bad philosophies like positivism, mechanism, materialism, etc.—is the best it will ever be; it is the best judge, being “completely neutral;” it can never improve.

That’s a contradiction. If science is based on positivism, materialism, or any “ism” for that matter it cannot be “neutral” to philosophical implications of its findings that would tend to refute that “ism” - that would be pulling out the foundation on which it is based.

Yes, I think Fr. Coyne was contradicting himself.

But pure empirical science, in fact, is not based on any “ism” - that is why it is and should be neutral to philosophical implications.

Look at how it has developed. Philosophy has influenced it no matter how free from philosophy it may try to be.

Geremia;6103013:

Schönborn would agree that science can improve, hence he says empty explanations of “‘chance and necessity’ are …] an abdication of human intelligence.”

Chance is not a scientific explanation. It is a philosophical one. Scientists are not speaking as scientists when they say life arose by “blind chance”. Chance has no rigorous scientific definition.

Is a perfect division between modern science and philosophy even possible?

Geremia;6103013:

It is not on “religious grounds,” as though mentioning God means invoking irrationality, but on grounds “compatible with the truths of reason.” Card. Schönborn is pro-reason.

There is no way an empirical finding or inference could be incompatible with any truth of reason. But it may appear such either because scientists are extrapolating beyond what can be legitimately inferred from the data, or because metaphysicians and philosophers are going beyond what can be deduced from first principles. And face it. Much of what philosophers “deduced” about the natural world was just plain wrong.

One cannot make such a blanket statement. For example, I agree that some of what Aristotle wrote on the natural sciences is nowhere as comprehensive as is our knowledge now, but if he was entirely wrong, then why do Galileo et al. up to the present-day scientists use the methods in his Posterior Analytics?

Saying there are natural processes at work does not entail deism.

Saying that God just lets nature run naturally sounds deist, though.

Geremia;6103013:

It makes sense he thinks this because modern science is implicitly based on all those false philosophies I mentioned above.

I deny this - but I’m just curious. If modern science were “based on” the scholasticism you think it should be, just exactly what finding in science would be different than it is now?

I can speculate that impasses, like the current ones regarding “unifying” GR and quantum—and especially interpreting quantum correctly, too—would be more quickly superable.

Geremia;6103013:

No, but one could invent many far-fetched theories with very little explanatory power.

Design by an omnipotent entity has no explanatory power either, because it is consistent with any and all data.

No, I totally agree. Saying “God did it” is like explaining combustion by saying “It has a combustive nature.” See what St. Thomas thinks about this.

Geremia;6103013:

You seem to assume neo-Darwinism and multiverse cosmology are good ideas, but from a solid and commonsense philosophical perspective, such as that of St. Thomas Aquinas, they are hideous.

I simply fail to see why. Why could God not arrange for all life forms to arise via common descent, or create multiple universes?

God could, but He would then be allowing contradictions; we assume He is reason-abiding.

Geremia;6103013:

How can something philosophically wrong offer anything to science? What has the multiverse theory, e.g., predicted? As an astronomer myself, I can say: nothing.

Yeah, and what did Ptolemaic/Aristotelian cosmology predict? The wrong things.

Compared to current theories now they may be wrong, but who knows what future scientists might discover.

Look, a scientific theory as such can’t have philosophical implications. Of course, you’ve **defined **neo-Darwinism as a philosophy, as “deterministic, positivistic, naturalistic, mechanistic, anti-teleologic”. But then it’s not a scientific theory, it’s a philosophy. Take your pick.

Again, there is no hard-line between philosophy and science. To me, modern science is a part of philosophy which in turn is subjected to theology. No one has convinced me that philosophy and science are in two non-overlapping realms. If science were entirely empirical, how would one make sense of data without a philosophy guiding your interpretation of it?

 

[edwest2]

In his New York Times article, Cardinal Schoenborn was very clear: “scientism must be overcome.” He also pointed out the difficulty of asking questions of scientists and compared their attitude to what the Church is sometimes accused of doing.

Father Coyne takes the view that even God was not certain that man would be the result of the proposed process. Cardinal Schoenborn rightly takes issue with that.

In closing, Father Coyne seems to recognize a God that starts a process. Cardinal Schoenborn identifies the same creative reason identified by Pope Benedict who wills things, including human beings. Lengthy discussions are not needed. On the one hand, those who have no belief in God consider this issue important and try to exclude those who do believe in God by saying their scientific knowledge is insufficient. Or, in the alternative, include those who believe in a God that does not behave according to revealed truth but as a kind of bystander. Perhaps like someone who winds up a toy car and lets it go wherever it may. This is not the God of the Bible.

Finally, comments are frequently made here and elsewhere where science is used to criticize theology and is used in an attempt to disprove revealed truth, while strangely saying that science cannot venture into the realm of theology. There is no scientific methodology for studying or testing any supernatural claims except by excluding a “natural” explanation.

Peace,
Ed

 

[NowAgnostic]

Yes, I think Fr. Coyne was contradicting himself.

I don’t see where he says that modern science is based on philosophies like positivism, mechanism, or materialism.

Look at how it has developed. Philosophy has influenced it no matter how free from philosophy it may try to be.Is a perfect division between modern science and philosophy even possible?

A perfect division is possible **in principle **because science deals with contingent truths while philosophy deals with necessary ones. However, scientists, being human, can indeed be influenced by ideology. It has happened in the past, happens now, and will happen in the future. Philosophy becomes **ideology **when it attempts to appropriate for itself the proper realm of science and claim to be necessary truths what are in reality only contingent hypotheses which may be false.

One cannot make such a blanket statement. For example, I agree that some of what Aristotle wrote on the natural sciences is nowhere as comprehensive as is our knowledge now…

Come on. He was wrong. You really think that stating all elements are compounds of earth, air, water, and fire is just merely “nowhere as comprehensive” as our knowledge today?

And I used the word “much” - that’s not a “blanket statement”.

but if he was entirely wrong, then why do Galileo et al. up to the present-day scientists use the methods in his Posterior Analytics?

Well, why wouldn’t they, if they are useful?

Saying that God just lets nature run naturally sounds deist, though.

Honestly, I do not think Fr. Coyne is a deist.

To be fair, scholastics say much the same thing when they talk about secondary causation, miracles, and Divine “intervention” into the natural order. Divine “intervention” implies there can be Divine “non-intervention” which implies letting something take its course in some respect - some kind of “default mode” if you will.

I can speculate that impasses, like the current ones regarding “unifying” GR and quantum—and especially interpreting quantum correctly, too—would be more quickly superable.

Interpretation of quantum mechanics is a **philosophical **problem. A scientist need not adhere to this or that one - he can just “shut up and calculate” as the saying goes. He need not worry about the ontological status of wave functions, measurements and so on. It makes no difference whether one adheres to the Copenhagen, Bohm, or any other interpretation.

Whereas unifying GR and QM is a **scientific **problem, which will almost certainly require a new theory (quantum gravity, string theory, or something). Smith’s interpretation of QM helps not at all in its solution. If you think it will, you will need to provide some support.

No, I totally agree. Saying “God did it” is like explaining combustion by saying “It has a combustive nature.” See what St. Thomas thinks about this.

So then you agree, against Schonborn, that there cannot be “evidence for design” by God in nature in the scientific sense of the term. The reason why there can be evidence for Paley’s watchmaker is because there are other things the watchmaker didn’t design.

God could, but He would then be allowing contradictions; we assume He is reason-abiding.

How are different life forms arising via descent with modification, or the existence of multiple universes contradictory?

Compared to current theories now they may be wrong, but who knows what future scientists might discover.

Current theories may be falsified, but that won’t result in the resurrection of previously already falsified ones - a new theory will need to be developed.

Again, there is no hard-line between philosophy and science.

I disagree. There is no way for philosophy to discover contingent truths, and no way for science to discover necessary ones.

To me, modern science is a part of philosophy which in turn is subjected to theology.

And to me, that just doesn’t make sense. (

Divine revelation **presupposes **the law of non-contradiction and the law of excluded middle. Divine revelation presupposes the existence of a revealer and one to whom the revelation is made. And so on. Thus, Divine revelation needs philosophy. In fact, why the insistence on scholasticism by the Popes (including Pius X, who said that without scholasticism one would not even understand the meaning of the words) if, in fact, philosophy is really unnecessary, only useful to make the teaching clearer.

The analogy made between political and military science is not to the point - yes, indeed military science is ordered to political science, but political science does indeed **need **military science - you cannot bring about the good of the nation whilst completely ignoring the good of the army.

No one has convinced me that philosophy and science are in two non-overlapping realms. If science were entirely empirical, how would one make sense of data without a philosophy guiding your interpretation of it?

Saying science needs philosophy to work (which it does, science always needs to assume things like law of non-contradiction, existence of external reality, and so on) does not imply their realms overlap. Science is concerned with contingent truths, whereas philosophy is concerned with necessary ones.

 

[Geremia]

I don’t see where he says that modern science is based on philosophies like positivism, mechanism, or materialism.

He may not explicitly say this, but I and many others do.

A perfect division is possible **in principle **because science deals with contingent truths while philosophy deals with necessary ones. However, scientists, being human, can indeed be influenced by ideology. It has happened in the past, happens now, and will happen in the future. Philosophy becomes **ideology **when it attempts to appropriate for itself the proper realm of science and claim to be necessary truths what are in reality only contingent hypotheses which may be false.

Yes

Come on. He was wrong. You really think that stating all elements are compounds of earth, air, water, and fire is just merely “nowhere as comprehensive” as our knowledge today?

Yes

Geremia;6104666:

but if he was entirely wrong, then why do Galileo et al. up to the present-day scientists use the methods in his Posterior Analytics?

Well, why wouldn’t they, if they are useful?

Exactly

Geremia;6104666:

Saying that God just lets nature run naturally sounds deist, though.

Honestly, I do not think Fr. Coyne is a deist.

Nor do I, but how do you define the differences between deism and theism?

To be fair, scholastics say much the same thing when they talk about secondary causation, miracles, and Divine “intervention” into the natural order. Divine “intervention” implies there can be Divine “non-intervention” which implies letting something take its course in some respect - some kind of “default mode” if you will.

Really? There can be “non-intervention?” God is responsible for the very existence of created things and their natures. If God is not constantly “intervening,” they would cease to exist.

Interpretation of quantum mechanics is a **philosophical **problem. A scientist need not adhere to this or that one - he can just “shut up and calculate” as the saying goes.

But even that “instrumentalist interpretation” is a philosophy. It is positivism; namely that logic or mathematics is all one needs to explain rationally justifiable assertions.

He need not worry about the ontological status of wave functions, measurements and so on. It makes no difference whether one adheres to the Copenhagen, Bohm, or any other interpretation.

Makes no difference in terms of what the theory can predict? Yes, this may be true for most of the currently proposed interpretations, but that does not ipso facto prove there is not an interpretation that to predict outcomes of experiments even better.

Whereas unifying GR and QM is a **scientific **problem, which will almost certainly require a new theory (quantum gravity, string theory, or something). Smith’s interpretation of QM helps not at all in its solution. If you think it will, you will need to provide some support.

Right, it alone is not going to progress the science, but it is guidance. New experiments and observations are necessary, too.

Geremia;6104666:

NowAgnostic;6103321:

Design by an omnipotent entity has no explanatory power either, because it is consistent with any and all data.

No, I totally agree. Saying “God did it” is like explaining combustion by saying “It has a combustive nature.” See what St. Thomas thinks about this.So then you agree, against Schonborn, that there cannot be “evidence for design” by God in nature in the scientific sense of the term.

I must have misinterpreted you. When you said that “[d]esign by an omnipotent entity has no explanatory power,” I thought you meant fideistically (blindly) saying, as though there were no relation between God and reason: “God explains [insert anything here].” This is the position of some fundamentalist, Biblical literalist, “new earth creationist” Protestants in the “intelligent design” movement. But since there is a relation between God and reason, saying that God is the first cause of everything is a true and obvious fact to theists, but it has little direct explanatory power of the proximate causes science treats. As St. Thomas says in , lib. 3 cap. 97 n. 17Summa Contra Gentiles:

Accordingly if we be asked the wherefore of a particular natural effect, we can assign the reason to some proximate cause: provided, however, that we refer all things to the divine will as their first cause. Thus if it be asked: Why was the wood heated at the presence of fire? we reply: Because to heat is fire’s natural action: and this, because heat is its proper accident: and this results from its proper form: and so on until we come to the divine will. Hence if we reply to the question Why was the wood made hot? by saying: Because God so willed: we shall answer rightly, if we intend to trace the question back to its first cause, but incorrectly if we intend to exclude all other causes.

Thus we have knowledge of proximate causes—scientific knowledge—“provided …] that we refer all things to the divine will as their first cause.” It follows, then, that atheist science is agnostic; it can never attain certain knowledge.

 

[Geremia]

God, being a cause, is in natural things inasmuch as are proximate causes, e.g., redness in an apple being the cause of its color. Now, one cannot say an apple is redness because redness is not essential to an apple; there are, e.g., green apples. Similarly, one cannot accuse me of pantheism for saying that God is in natural things as their first cause. Also, God is not accidental to things because He is the cause of their very substance and being.

The reason why there can be evidence for Paley’s watchmaker is because there are other things the watchmaker didn’t design.

?

How are different life forms arising via descent with modification, or the existence of multiple universes contradictory?

Within flawed philosophies they might not be, though.

Current theories may be falsified, but that won’t result in the resurrection of previously already falsified ones - a new theory will need to be developed.

I am curious: Are you a Kuhnian?

There is no way for philosophy to discover contingent truths, and no way for science to discover necessary ones.

That is because you setup an arbitrary distinction between science and philosophy.

Geremia;6104666:

To me, modern science is a part of philosophy which in turn is subjected to theology.

And to me, that just doesn’t make sense. (

Divine revelation **presupposes **the law of non-contradiction and the law of excluded middle. Divine revelation presupposes the existence of a revealer and one to whom the revelation is made. And so on. Thus, Divine revelation needs philosophy.

I would say reason. One needs reason first to understand divine revelation.

In fact, why the insistence on scholasticism by the Popes (including Pius X, who said that without scholasticism one would not even understand the meaning of the words) if, in fact, philosophy is really unnecessary, only useful to make the teaching clearer.

What is, to you, the difference between reason and philosophy?

Saying science needs philosophy to work (which it does, science always needs to assume things like law of non-contradiction, existence of external reality, and so on) does not imply their realms overlap.

Sure, there can be various formal objects or ways of perceiving things, but I do not see how the formal object of “science” being difference from that of “philosophy” proves that “science” and “philosophy” are different realms. It seems to be a useless distinction.

 

[NowAgnostic]

He may not explicitly say this, but I and many others do.

Well then you were just putting words in his mouth? Anyway science shouldn’t be based on any “ism”. And in itself, it isn’t, even though individual scientists can be swayed by ideology.

Yes

Come on. Against a fact there is no argument. All material things are not compounds of earth, air, fire, and water.

Nor do I, but how do you define the differences between deism and theism?

I think Wikipedia gives a fair definition:

Deism holds that God does not intervene with the functioning of the natural world in any way, allowing it to run according to the laws of nature that he configured when he created all things. God is thus conceived to be wholly transcendent and never immanent. For Deists, human beings can only know God via reason and the observation of nature but not by revelation or supernatural manifestations (such as miracles) – phenomena which deists regard with caution if not scepticism.

Really? There can be “non-intervention?” God is responsible for the very existence of created things and their natures.

Exactly!! This is whole point!!!

Now, deism doesn’t deny this. But then He can either: 1) allow them to continue to exist and function according to their natures; or 2) radically reconfigure things (having a frog suddenly transform into a pig, or creating a flying zebra or something like that). 2), it seems, requires something extra from God rather than merely willing the existence of created things and their natures. But that needs further explanation.

If God is not constantly “intervening,” they would cease to exist.

Well when they would cease to exist would be “normally” determined by the natural laws God has set up, (I guess in Thomism you would say “laws of nature” are the normal ordering of secondary causes.)

But the question is, is there a real difference** in kind** between 1) and 2)? If “nature” is just “whatever God wills” then any talk of things running according to the “laws of nature” is just a tautology without explanatory power. There’s not really any such thing as a “miracle”, it just means that what we thought were the “laws of nature” were an incomplete description. It also means there’s no difference between deism and theism: there’s no difference between “natural revelation” and “supernatural revelation”. Is there a difference in kind between what “normally” happens and what doesn’t and is termed “miraculous” - or is just the only difference is that we just see what “normally” happens with much greater frequency.

In fact philosophers who have tried to argue either for or against whether “natural causes” are capable of producing life, higher life forms, and so on, have fallen flat on their faces for lack of a precise distinction between “natural” and “supernatural”.

But even that “instrumentalist interpretation” is a philosophy. It is positivism; namely that logic or mathematics is all one needs to explain rationally justifiable assertions.

No, it merely means that the scientist is leaving discussion of all that to the philosophers. A scientific theory is successful if it predicts what is observed. If a philosopher makes a compelling case for or against the ontological status of a wave function, so be it. The scientist need not worry about it to do science. I disagree that a scientist must have all the philosophical ramifications figured out before he does the experiment.

Makes no difference in terms of what the theory can predict? Yes, this may be true for most of the currently proposed interpretations, but that does not ipso facto prove there is not an interpretation that to predict outcomes of experiments even better. Right, it alone is not going to progress the science, but it is guidance. New experiments and observations are necessary, too.

Yes it does, the same theory is going to predict the same outcomes, regardless of philosophical interpretations. What you are getting at perhaps is that a new interpretation could result in a better proposed modification to the theory, which allows better predictions. I don’t have an issue with that.

I must have misinterpreted you. When you said that “[d]esign by an omnipotent entity has no explanatory power,” I thought you meant fideistically (blindly) saying, as though there were no relation between God and reason: “God explains [insert anything here].” This is the position of some fundamentalist, Biblical literalist, “new earth creationist” Protestants in the “intelligent design” movement. But since there is a relation between God and reason, saying that God is the first cause of everything is a true and obvious fact to theists, but it has little direct explanatory power of the proximate causes science treats…

How exactly are we disagreeing here? Saying “God did it” doesn’t tell you a thing about the proximate causes science wants to investigate. We agree here. Moreover, science concerns itself with contingent facts, but “design by God” is a necessary fact in theism - everything that exists is designed. It therefore follows that “design by God” is not a hypothesis that can be investigated scientifically - there can be no “evidence” for design in the scientific sense.

Thus we have knowledge of proximate causes—scientific knowledge—“provided …] that we refer all things to the divine will as their first cause.”

It follows, then, that atheist science is agnostic; it can never attain certain knowledge.

I dispute this. Why is there no knowledge of proximate causes if they aren’t referred to the divine will?

 

[NowAgnostic]

God, being a cause, is in natural things inasmuch as are proximate causes, e.g., redness in an apple being the cause of its color. Now, one cannot say an apple is redness because redness is not essential to an apple; there are, e.g., green apples. Similarly, one cannot accuse me of pantheism for saying that God is in natural things as their first cause. Also, God is not accidental to things because He is the cause of their very substance and being.

Well, I am certainly not accusing you of pantheism, I don’t know where you got that from.

?

Do you understand the basics of inductive reasoning and things like Bayes’ theorem. For there to be “evidence for” something (meaning a high likelihood of seeing the evidence given that something), it must also be possible for there to be “evidence against” something (a low likelihood).

Within flawed philosophies they might not be, though.

Then you have to demonstrate those philosophies to be flawed, and why such things are contradictory in a correct philosophy. So far you’ve offered nothing except bare assertion. I put it to you that you actually cannot show a contradiction, and that you are committing what I maintained before as the prime error of philosophers (turned ideologues): making a necessary truth out of a contingent one.

If Darwinism is an ideology, it does not follow that non-Darwinism isn’t one.

I am curious: Are you a Kuhnian?

More or less. Kuhn is describing the social dynamics of science as it is practiced in the real world; that falsified theories sometimes hang on longer then they should because scientists can’t admit they’re wrong until there’s just so much evidence it’s virtually undeniable.

Yet the scientific method is only capable of falsification, not proof; that’s simply the way the inductive method works. For instance, phlogiston theory is falsified. It’s not coming back.

That is because you setup an arbitrary distinction between science and philosophy.

My distinction is not arbitrary.

Philosophy uses deductive methods and first principles. You cannot discover contingent truths using this methodology, only necessary ones.

Science uses inductive methods, observation, hypotheses and experiment. You cannot discover necessary truths using this methodology, only contingent ones.

I would say reason. One needs reason first to understand divine revelation.What is, to you, the difference between reason and philosophy?

There isn’t any. If philosophy isn’t grounded in reason it’s irrational ideology.

Sure, there can be various formal objects or ways of perceiving things, but I do not see how the formal object of “science” being difference from that of “philosophy” proves that “science” and “philosophy” are different realms. It seems to be a useless distinction.

The distinction between necessary and contingent truths is not useless.

 

[Geremia]

The distinction between necessary and contingent truths is not useless.

Please explain. Define necessary truth, contingent truth, and explain how they are different, similar, and how one obtains them. Is the only necessary truth God, being the First Cause of everything on Whom everything else is contingent? Can some necessary truths be contingent? Where do you draw the line between a necessary and a truth contingent on it?

 

[NowAgnostic]

Please explain. Define necessary truth, contingent truth, and explain how they are different, similar, and how one obtains them. Is the only necessary truth God, being the First Cause of everything on Whom everything else is contingent? Can some necessary truths be contingent? Where do you draw the line between a necessary and a truth contingent on it?

Necessary truth = something that must be (logically or metaphysically), something that is the case in all possible worlds.

Contingent truth = something that may or may not be, something that is the case in at least one but not all possible worlds.

A necessary truth is that 2 + 2 = 4.
A contingent truth is that intelligent life exists.

Necessary truths exist in all possible worlds, and can therefore be deduced from reason starting with first principles. However, they cannot be inferred from evidence.

Contingent truths are not the case in all possible worlds. Therefore they cannot be deduced from reason and first principles. But they can be inferred from evidence (if not directly observed).

 

[Geremia]

Well then you were just putting words in his mouth? Anyway science shouldn’t be based on any “ism”. And in itself, it isn’t, even though individual scientists can be swayed by ideology.

How do you think he defines science? As neutral with respect to philosophy? He does think science is neutral and unbiased in this sense as he said in his AAAS speech.

Come on. Against a fact there is no argument. All material things are not compounds of earth, air, fire, and water.

How can you be 100% certain and know that you know 100%?

Geremia;6112251:

Really? There can be “non-intervention?” God is responsible for the very existence of created things and their natures.

Exactly!! This is whole point!!!

Now, deism doesn’t deny this. But then He can either: 1) allow them to continue to exist and function according to their natures; or 2) radically reconfigure things (having a frog suddenly transform into a pig, or creating a flying zebra or something like that). 2), it seems, requires something extra from God rather than merely willing the existence of created things and their natures. But that needs further explanation.

What is there besides something’s natures? I do not see how it seems that way to you.

Geremia;6112251:

If God is not constantly “intervening,” they would cease to exist.

Well when they would cease to exist would be “normally” determined by the natural laws God has set up, (I guess in Thomism you would say “laws of nature” are the normal ordering of secondary causes.)

But the question is, is there a real difference** in kind** between 1) and 2)?

It has to due with time. “1)” says God created, and “2)” says He still creates.

If “nature” is just “whatever God wills” then any talk of things running according to the “laws of nature” is just a tautology without explanatory power. There’s not really any such thing as a “miracle”, it just means that what we thought were the “laws of nature” were an incomplete description. It also means there’s no difference between deism and theism: there’s no difference between “natural revelation” and “supernatural revelation”. Is there a difference in kind between what “normally” happens and what doesn’t and is termed “miraculous” - or is just the only difference is that we just see what “normally” happens with much greater frequency.

There are different types of miracles (, lib. 3 cap. 101Summa Contra Gentiles). Some miracles are still miraculous regardless how much we understand them or not.

In fact philosophers who have tried to argue either for or against whether “natural causes” are capable of producing life, higher life forms, and so on, have fallen flat on their faces for lack of a precise distinction between “natural” and “supernatural”.

Yes, I agree.

Geremia;6112251:

But even that “instrumentalist interpretation” is a philosophy. It is positivism; namely that logic or mathematics is all one needs to explain rationally justifiable assertions.

No, it merely means that the scientist is leaving discussion of all that to the philosophers.

So it is utilitarian? There is always a philosophy it could be. Science is never free from the other areas of humanity. Kuhn shows this well, even if I may not agree with his relativist epistemology.

A scientific theory is successful if it predicts what is observed. If a philosopher makes a compelling case for or against the ontological status of a wave function, so be it. The scientist need not worry about it to do science. I disagree that a scientist must have all the philosophical ramifications figured out before he does the experiment.

But he should not approach it totally blindly with a sort of “Monte Carlo” methodology.

[Philosophy]
alone is not going to progress the science, but it is guidance. New experiments and observations are necessary, too.

Yes it does, the same theory is going to predict the same outcomes, regardless of philosophical interpretations. What you are getting at perhaps is that a new interpretation could result in a better proposed modification to the theory, which allows better predictions. I don’t have an issue with that.

Right

 

[Geremia]

Geremia;6112251:

I must have misinterpreted you. When you said that “[d]esign by an omnipotent entity has no explanatory power,” I thought you meant fideistically (blindly) saying, as though there were no relation between God and reason: “God explains [insert anything here].” This is the position of some fundamentalist, Biblical literalist, “new earth creationist” Protestants in the “intelligent design” movement. But since there is a relation between God and reason, saying that God is the first cause of everything is a true and obvious fact to theists, but it has little direct explanatory power of the proximate causes science treats

How exactly are we disagreeing here? Saying “God did it” doesn’t tell you a thing about the proximate causes science wants to investigate. We agree here. Moreover, science concerns itself with contingent facts, but “design by God” is a necessary fact in theism

Are you using “contingent fact” and “proximate cause” interchangeably?

• everything that exists is designed. It therefore follows that “design by God” is not a hypothesis that can be investigated scientifically - there can be no “evidence” for design in the scientific sense.

Of course not because modern science is very restricted, being based on atheist philosophies. We appear to disagree on what exactly modern science is, what its foundation is that supports it, what its limits are, and what exactly is its epistemology.

I dispute this.

I knew you would . It goes to the heart of the issue.

Geremia;6112251:

Thus we have knowledge of proximate causes—scientific knowledge—“provided …] that we refer all things to the divine will as their first cause.”

It follows, then, that atheist science is agnostic; it can never attain certain knowledge.

Why is there no knowledge of proximate causes if they aren’t referred to the divine will?

If we do not “refer all things to the divine will as their first cause,” we have relativism and subjectivism; we lose our connection to reality. The reason is that we can invent many proximate causes that appear to be self-consistent within their small domain but have no connection in the chain of proximate to remote causes, of which God is the first.