What is this "scientific method" you all speak of?

[Al_Moritz]

Yes, the multiverse hypothesis is more philosophy than science, but as philosophy it doesn’t seem to sail. It may well be the only atheist alternative to explaining the roots of our universe since the Big Bang itself suggests more Creation than the eternal universe hypothesis assumed by scientists before the discovery of the Big Bang. If there is no Creator, and the Big Bang can only be shown to be a one-time event, the multiverse must be allowed by the atheist to be the only plausible explanation. But as you pointed out above, that is more science fiction than science, and it’s not convincing philosophy at all since atheism is not very convincing.

More specifically, the multiverse hypothesis does not fail because atheism is not very convincing: atheism (or naturalism) is not very convincing because, among others, the multiverse hypothesis fails as design explanation.

My article continues:

Yet if it would solve the design problem, the multiverse would nonetheless be a serious philosophical alternative to the God hypothesis. Does it succeed?

1.4. The multiverse does not solve the design problem

The multiverse concept solves the fine-tuning problem of our particular universe, but it is generally overlooked by its proponents that it does not really solve the overall design problem.

In fact, it creates another fine-tuning problem. In order to solve the fine-tuning problem of our particular kind of universe, the multiverse would have to make the occurrence of that universe by a pure chance process statistically inevitable, against all overwhelming odds. Yet this would require a truly random distribution of physical constants in extremely fine grades among the members (universes or domains) of the multiverse, in order to allow for a sufficient variety of physical constants between them (trillions times trillions times trillions etc. variations), so that ours would be guaranteed to arise by chance out of a huge possible parameter space of physical constants. This could only be achieved by careful design of the underlying many-universe generator. Thus, instead of solving the design problem, the multiverse theory just pushes it back one step.

As Stephen Barr concludes in his book Modern Physics and Ancient Faith (p.154):

“having laws that lead to the existence of domains of a sufficiently rich variety to make life inevitable would itself qualify as an anthropic coincidence. There seems to be no escape. Every way of explaining anthropic coincidences scientifically involves assuming the universe has some sort of very special characteristics that can be thought of as constituting in themselves another set of anthropic coincidences.”

(Here the term ‘universe’ includes also the multiverse as an overarching ensemble.)

Robin Collins makes a similar point and explains the very special requirements for a multiverse that would explain the random appearance of our particular universe:

Universe or Multiverse? A Theistic Perspective
(Heading “Multiverse Generator Needs Design”.)

George Ellis agrees. In his lecture linked to above he states:

“All the same anthropic issues arise as for a single universe: Why this multiverse, and not another one?”

The well-known cosmologist Paul Davies, who cannot exactly be called ‘religious’, appears to agree as well, in his essay Taking Science on Faith:

“The multiverse theory is increasingly popular, but it doesn’t so much explain the laws of physics as dodge the whole issue. There has to be a physical mechanism to make all those universes and bestow bylaws on them. This process will require its own laws, or meta-laws. Where do they come from? The problem has simply been shifted up a level from the laws of the universe to the meta-laws of the multiverse.”

I do not know, however, in which way to make much sense of his own alternative postulated in order to avoid involvement of God,

“In other words, the laws should have an explanation from within the universe and not involve appealing to an external agency. The specifics of that explanation are a matter for future research.”

This may move too close to the idea of an ‘intrinsic necessity’ of the laws of nature, something that cannot be considered valid, as I pointed out. By the way, in his essay A Brief History of the Multiverse Davies raises similar concerns of scientific observability of the multiverse as George Ellis does, with some additional critical thoughts on the multiverse issue.

The multiverse design problem is also not adequately addressed by the hypothesis of Cosmological Natural Selection, see chapter 3 below.

 

[Peter_Plato]

While I don’t quite agree on the ID issue, you do raise very good points. The God hypothesis should then also qualify as science, especially since the concept of God in classical theism indeed is one of “elegance and internal consistency”, unlike the folk concept of the white-bearded Big Man in the Sky.

To be clear, I don’t think the God hypothesis should, necessarily qualify as science. Science should restrict itself to naturalistic assumptions in order to understand nature. God, however, is an entirely different question.

Nature cannot “prove” God because God is not a necessary aspect of nature. Nature, however, does not explain itself and, thus, requires a sufficient explanation outside of itself.

Carroll, et al, seem dissatisfied with the conclusion that nature does not provide for its own sufficiency which is why they are pushing to have their “explanation” become the de facto one on the merit that they are scientists and scientists should be trusted to know.

In effect, they are making themselves the high priests of science by acclamation, providing the background mythology by which not merely the credibility of science will be maintained but to ensure it completely replaces religion by filling the “gaps” previously occupied by God, but which science proper cannot answer.

I question their intentions.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

As Stephen Barr concludes in his book Modern Physics and Ancient Faith (p.154):

“having laws that lead to the existence of domains of a sufficiently rich variety to make life inevitable would itself qualify as an anthropic coincidence. There seems to be no escape. Every way of explaining anthropic coincidences scientifically involves assuming the universe has some sort of very special characteristics that can be thought of as constituting in themselves another set of anthropic coincidences.”

Chapter 26, “Is a Pattern Emerging?” of *Modern Physics *by Barr was my favorite chapter in that book. Many thought provoking points there.

 

[Al_Moritz]

To be clear, I don’t think the God hypothesis should, necessarily qualify as science. Science should restrict itself to naturalistic assumptions in order to understand nature.

Aah, now you do not argue anymore for a ‘wider scope of methodology’ for science, but agree with methodological naturalism!

(This, of course, would make ID not science.)

(Emphasis added)

God, however, is an entirely different question.

Nature cannot “prove” God because God is not a necessary aspect of nature. Nature, however, does not explain itself and, thus, requires a sufficient explanation outside of itself.

Precisely.

Carroll, et al, seem dissatisfied with the conclusion that nature does not provide for its own sufficiency which is why they are pushing to have their “explanation” become the de facto one on the merit that they are scientists and scientists should be trusted to know.

Well, while they are well aware that the universe cannot not explain itself (contra Hee Zen here), they argue that a ‘wider universe’, like in the form of a multiverse, can.

But apart from failing as design explanation of our universe (see above), the multiverse as ‘wider nature’ fails for the same deeper philosophical reasons that you have pointed out for our universe.

I question their intentions.

To put it mildly

 

[Al_Moritz]

Chapter 26, “Is a Pattern Emerging?” of *Modern Physics *by Barr was my favorite chapter in that book. Many thought provoking points there.

Yes, the book is great overall, even though I do not agree with everything in it (such as his ‘observer’ interpretation of quantum mechanics). I found the entire section “What is Man?” about the humam mind spectacularly good.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Aah, now you do not argue anymore for a ‘wider scope of methodology’ for science, but agree with methodological naturalism!

(This, of course, would make ID not science.)

Well, not exactly. There cannot be an a priori assumption that ID is not science.

Forensics is a science or, rather, uses science to distinguish natural causes from human intentional or intelligent causes.

So while I presume nature can only prove nature, the presumption cannot extend, therefore, to a claim that God could not use nature to “prove” his existence to us.

There is no logic that precludes God from having written into nature indisputable proofs for his existence, just as a perpetrator of a crime might leave indisputable evidence of his having committed the act.

So while it is proper to assume nature explains nature, it is not at all proper to exclude the possibility that God, himself, could not use nature to prove his existence to the satisfaction of all scientific principles and methods.

The Heavens being torn asunder and Christ descending in the clouds, would simply put to rest all our imaginings about the supremacy of science regarding knowledge.

I guess the claim could still be made that the event itself would could not be “scientific” but then “scientific” would mean what, exactly?

 

[Al_Moritz]

One more remark about Barr:
Interestingly, while Barr at the time of writing the book (2003) was still somewhat more sympathetic to the idea of biological ID, in later writings he has articulated opinions more in favor of straight evolution.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Well, not exactly. There cannot be an a priori assumption that ID is not science.

Forensics is a science or, rather, uses science to distinguish natural causes from human intentional or intelligent causes.

So while I presume nature can only prove nature, the presumption cannot extend, therefore, to a claim that God could not use nature to “prove” his existence to us.

There is no logic that precludes God from having written into nature indisputable proofs for his existence, just as a perpetrator of a crime might leave indisputable evidence of his having committed the act.

So while it is proper to assume nature explains nature, it is not at all proper to exclude the possibility that God, himself, could not use nature to prove his existence to the satisfaction of all scientific principles and methods.

The Heavens being torn asunder and Christ descending in the clouds, would simply put to rest all our imaginings about the supremacy of science regarding knowledge.

I guess the claim could still be made that the event itself would could not be “scientific” but then “scientific” would mean what, exactly?

To quote YOU from your above post:
“Science should restrict itself to naturalistic assumptions in order to understand nature.”

If that is not an unrestricted embrace of methodological naturalism, then I don’t know what is.

 

[Peter_Plato]

To quote YOU from your above post:
“Science should restrict itself to naturalistic assumptions in order to understand nature.”

If that is not an unrestricted embrace of methodological naturalism, then I don’t know what is.

Let me put it another way. Science should not go looking for supernatural causes but if it should encounter inexplicable causation there is nothing in methodological naturalism that says causes CANNOT be supernatural or that supernatural causes MUST be ruled out as an implication of methodological naturalism. That would be metaphysical naturalism.

Methodological naturalism merely holds that no supernatural causes are expected or need be looked for since natural events, presumably, are caused by other natural events.

That presumption, however, is not a metaphysical one, correct?

It would be unwarranted, for example, if a supernatural event smacked you - as a methodological naturalist - upside the head (or burned the bush in your backyard without consuming it,) to insist to your dying day that it could not have been due to a supernatural cause. That would be an irrational commitment to metaphysical naturalism, would it not? One that could not be warranted by mere methodological naturalism, yes?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

So while it is proper to assume nature explains nature, it is not at all proper to exclude the possibility that God, himself, could not use nature to prove his existence to the satisfaction of all scientific principles and methods.

Isaac Newton certainly agreed with you.

“This most beautiful system [the solar system] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”

 

[Al_Moritz]

Let me put it another way. Science should not go looking for supernatural causes but if it should encounter inexplicable causation there is nothing in methodological naturalism that says causes CANNOT be supernatural or that supernatural causes MUST be ruled out as an implication of methodological naturalism. That would be metaphysical naturalism.

Methodological naturalism merely holds that no supernatural causes are expected or need be looked for since natural events, presumably, are caused by other natural events.

That presumption, however, is not a metaphysical one, correct?

It would be unwarranted, for example, if a supernatural event smacked you - as a methodological naturalist - upside the head (or burned the bush in your backyard without consuming it,) to insist to your dying day that it could not have been due to a supernatural cause. That would be an irrational commitment to metaphysical naturalism, would it not? One that could not be warranted by mere methodological naturalism, yes?

You are confusing method with worldview. If a supernatural event smacked me on my head I would have to say, as a methodological naturalist, that science can say nothing on this. Since I am not a metaphysical naturalist though, I would personally of course be open to the supernatural event.

That is all the doctors and scientists (who may include theists, agnostics and atheists) who investigate miracles in Lourdes say. They say there is no scientific explanation for such and such cure. That is all they can say from their scientific viewpoint, which does not necessarily exclude a personal (not scientific) belief that a supernatural cure did occur.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Isaac Newton certainly agreed with you.

“This most beautiful system [the solar system] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”

Here Newton spoke as philosopher, not as a scientist. Don’t you always, rightfully so, complain that atheists often confuse science with philosophy? We theists should lead by example and not do the same.

 

[Al_Moritz]

The problem I suspect, Peter, is that you want science to be open-minded in terms of worldview. Science cannot be open-minded in that sense, since it does not have any worldview. Science is a method, not a philosophy. It is a philosophy only in a few basic assumptions, in that it believes that the world follows regularities and that it is intelligible, down to the deepest core.

Science did arise from a worldview, however, and it was a theistic one. Historically, methodological naturalism was introduced as scientific method by theists who wanted to study the laws of nature that God had given – and the term “laws of nature” itself has religious connotations since it points to a Lawgiver, God.

---

Of course, internal clashes of reality may occur when science tries to explain all of human nature in naturalistic terms. Given the metaphysical nature of humans, this will ultimately not be possible. Yet there is nothing wrong, on the contrary, it should be encouraged, to go as far with, for example, brain science as possibly can be done.

 

[Peter_Plato]

The problem I suspect, Peter, is that you want science to be open-minded in terms of worldview. Science cannot be open-minded in that sense, since it does not have any worldview. Science is a method, not a philosophy. It is a philosophy only in a few basic assumptions, in that it believes that the world follows regularities and that it is intelligible, down to the deepest core.

Science did arise from a worldview, however, and it was a theistic one. Historically, methodological naturalism was introduced as scientific method by theists who wanted to study the laws of nature that God had given – and the term “laws of nature” itself has religious connotations since it points to a Lawgiver, God.

---

Of course, internal clashes of reality may occur when science tries to explain all of human nature in naturalistic terms. Given the metaphysical nature of humans, this will ultimately not be possible. Yet there is nothing wrong, on the contrary, it should be encouraged, to go as far with, for example, brain science as possibly can be done.

I see. We aren’t very far apart, then.

 

[Hee_Zen]

You are confusing method with worldview. If a supernatural event smacked me on my head I would have to say, as a methodological naturalist, that science can say nothing on this. Since I am not a metaphysical naturalist though, I would personally of course be open to the supernatural event.

And how would you know that the event that “smacked” you on the head was a “supernatural event”? What kind of epistemological method did you use to rule out the natural explanation? Would you care to share it with us? I have been asking repeatedly for the epistemological method which allows one to detect the supernatural. So far the only reply was dead silence. It is the best way to force the apologist to get his tail between his hind legs and sneak away.

That is all the doctors and scientists (who may include theists, agnostics and atheists) who investigate miracles in Lourdes say. They say there is no scientific explanation for such and such cure. That is all they can say from their scientific viewpoint, which does not necessarily exclude a personal (not scientific) belief that a supernatural cure did occur.

There are no properly executed studies at Lourdes. A bunch of anecdotal stories, nothing else.

As a matter of fact the alleged “miraculous” cures would be an indication that there is “something” to the claim about the supernatural, if those studies would follow the proper scientific protocol - test group (at Lourdes), control group (somewhere else), gathering a bunch of people all suffering from the same incurable malady, evaluating the prospective patients before the “cure” is administered, stopping the test at a predetermined point, performing a chi-square analysis, etc… Of course, if such a study would be executed the result would be negative, and then the usual disclaimer would follow: “God does not want to be tested”, so he purposefully tempered with the result to avoid detection. Poor God, depicted as a petty crook who attempts to avoid detection and “cooks the book” to escape.

There is one story about a “miracle” at Lourdes. A priest went to Lourdes, and on his way home his baggage was inspected at the border crossing. There was a bottle in his baggage, and the customs officer asked about the contents of the bottle. The priest said that it is miraculous water from Lourdes. The customs officer pulled out the cork, tasted the liquid and exclaimed: “But this is cognac!”… whereupon the priest proclaimed: “Hosanna! A miracle occurred!”

This kind is the only miracle that happens there.

 

[Peter_Plato]

And how would you know that the event that “smacked” you on the head was a “supernatural event”? What kind of epistemological method did you use to rule out the natural explanation? Would you care to share it with us? I have been asking repeatedly for the epistemological method which allows one to detect the supernatural. So far the only reply was dead silence. It is the best way to force the apologist to get his tail between his hind legs and sneak away.

Nice of you to make your reappearance… with tail wagging, yet.

Caught sight of a nice juicy bone of contention, I see.

 

[Peter_Plato]

What kind of epistemological method did you use to rule out the natural explanation? Would you care to share it with us? I have been asking repeatedly for the epistemological method which allows one to detect the supernatural.

By what epistemological method would you detect the user or beneficiary of the epistemological method?

Assumed or dismissed?

Natural or supernatural?

By what epistemological method would you determine that?

Surely not methodological naturalism?

Do you, Hee_Zen, as a “knower” exist? How would we “know” that?

Can we safely dismiss your existence, as a knower, merely because there is no way that we can know that you, as a knower, exist?

 

[Al_Moritz]

There are no properly executed studies at Lourdes. A bunch of anecdotal stories, nothing else.

It is quite obvious that you know about this issue as much as about Catholic moral theology, namely very little.

For your reading pleasure:

Lourdes Medical Bureau

 

[Al_Moritz]

And how would you know that the event that “smacked” you on the head was a “supernatural event”? What kind of epistemological method did you use to rule out the natural explanation? Would you care to share it with us? I have been asking repeatedly for the epistemological method which allows one to detect the supernatural. So far the only reply was dead silence.

Since I have never encountered a supernatural event myself, I did not have the chance to apply the scientific method to it. At some point I might be convinced that from a scientific point of view there is no explanation, and that, on a personal level of judging the evidence – not on a scientific one, because I would have found that it lies outside what science can explain – I would be forced to believe that it was supernatural.

It is the best way to force the apologist to get his tail between his hind legs and sneak away.

Well, ‘getting your tail between your hind legs and sneak away’ is precisely what you did after you were hammered here on morality a few pages ago (up to page 34 on this thread, now we’re already two days and two pages further). Too bad our memory is not too short to have forgotten.

 

[Al_Moritz]

I see. We aren’t very far apart, then.

Pleased to hear that.