The major reason unbelievers say they reject Gen 1 is because Gen 1 is said to be unscientific, or contrary to science. We know from modern cosmology, geology, botany, and zoology that that’s not how it happened.
But let’s hold that thought for a moment and compare that to another consideration. For many of the same unbelievers who reject Gen 1 on scientific grounds also subscribe to methodological naturalism. Here’s a representative statement of methodological naturalism:
There are two basic principles of science that creationism violates. First, science is an attempt to explain the natural world in terms of natural processes, not supernatural ones. This principle is sometimes referred to as methodological naturalism…Nonmaterial causes are disallowed.
When a creationist says, “God did it”, we can confidently say that he is not doing science. Scientists do not allow explanations that include supernatural or mystical powers for a very important reason. To explain something scientifically requires that we test explanations against the natural world. A common denominator for testing a scientific idea is to hold constant (“control”) at least some of the variables influencing what you are trying to explain. Testing can take many forms, and although the most familiar test is the direct experiment, there exist many research designs involving indirect experimentation, or natural or statistical control of variables.
Science’s concern for testing and control rules out supernatural causation. Supporters of the “God did it” argument hold that God is omnipotent. If there are omnipotent forces in the universe, by definition, it is impossible to hold their influences constant; one cannot “control” such powers. Lacking the possibility of control of supernatural forces, scientists forgo them in explanation. Only natural explanations are used. No one yet has invented a theometer, so we will just have to muddle along with material explanations.
For reasons I’ve given elsewhere, I think methodological naturalism is unscientific. But for the sake of argument, let’s play along with methodological naturalism.
If we take that methodology for granted, then what does it mean to say Gen 1 is unscientific? If would mean that things didn’t happen that way if you leave God out of the picture.
But this also means that if you do take God into account, then you’re in no position to say it didn’t happen that way. In fact, Eugenie Scott’s explicit justification for methodological naturalism is that If there are omnipotent forces in the universe, by definition, it is impossible to hold their influences constant; one cannot “control” such powers.
But in that event, she can’t rule out the possibility (or even probability) that Gen 1 is factual. Moreover, she can’t say Gen 1 has been falsified by the scientific evidence, for on her definition, scientific evidence can’t take divine agency into account. Therefore, it would be viciously circular for her to appeal to the scientific evidence against Gen 1 if, by definition, her method disallows supernatural causes. For in that case, she’s preemptively excluded potential counterevidence. By her own admission, allowing for the possibility of divine agency introduces uncontrollable variables into the process. But if science can’t make allowance for divine agency, then science can’t say what God would or would not have done in that situation. Indeed, on that definition, science can’t even say that divine agency is improbable in that situation. She’s disqualified science from making judgments about divine agency one way or the other. But that leaves the question open-ended.
The problem with including supernatural explanations is the private nature of access to these things. Science is all about public access, to the things of the world out there. Now look at the discussions in the church, how do you arbitrate between baptize children or just adults? There is no final authority, there is no body of publicly accessible knowledge, there is no world out there to make reference to. All we have is private opinion about it, that is why religion is so divisive, there is no way to compel unity but force, there is no arbitrator, no court of final appeal.
ReplyDeleteYou can try to get your personal faith elements introduced but there is no way you will be able to stop all people from introducing their's if you succeed.
Likewise, archeologists and paleoanthropologists interpret the significance of ancient rituals, implements, and buildings, even though they lack direct access to the motives of the long-dead inhabitants.
DeleteWhat exactly is private about supernatural events? Some events, like the parting of the red sea were public.
DeleteWhat exactly would be the problem? You say there is no court of final appeal... but there is no court of final appeal in public knowledge either. How do you stop all people from introducing their faith elements as is? Could you spell out in more detail exactly what the problem is and how it doesn't exist in some other model?
i) To begin with, your complaint is irrelevant to my argument.
ReplyDeleteii) In addition, on your definition, science is about following rules rather than pursuing truth. For your rules preclude a supernatural explanation even if that's the correct explanation.
iii) In reconstructing a crime, homicide detectives have to take the motives of the suspect into account. Yet his motives are private in nature.
re:
DeleteFor your rules preclude a supernatural explanation even if that's the correct explanation.
First, they are not "my" rules, i am not involved in science in any way. I am but an observer. 2nd, those "rules" exist not for the sake of excluding the supernatural but for the sake of excluding arguments for which there is no arbitration possible. Modern science arises from the exhaustion of the religious wars, people began to realize that religion had no final arbiter but force. There is simply no court of final appeal in religion because it's domain is fundamentally private. Science as a construct began to realize that the world could be the final court, with reference to what was out there. This is the origin of methodological naturalism, not some reason to exclude God but to exclude arguments for which there was no solution.
re:
motives are private in nature
You misunderstand the "private", i can play what if, putting myself into another's shoes, the whole problem of "other minds". If and only if i can see myself has having similar motives and desires. That is why homicide detectives can play what if with criminal minds, literally thinking like them. Both if you have a private religious experience, say for example, you believe that you ought to baptism children because God the Holy Spirit has informed you through Scripture that this is the proper way to do things, i can not follow you there since i can no reproduce the thinking without having the experience. This is why the nature of religious experience is private while the nature of science experience is public.
rmwilliamsjr
Delete“First, they are not "my" rules, i am not involved in science in any way. I am but an observer.”
They are manmade rules.
“2nd, those ‘rules’ exist not for the sake of excluding the supernatural but for the sake of excluding arguments for which there is no arbitration possible.”
If a natural event was supernaturally caused, methodological naturalism prohibits science from acknowledging the true cause. In that case, methodological naturalism forces the scientist to automatically favor an erroneous explanation, as long as that’s naturalistic, over a supernatural explanation–even if that happens to be the correct explanation. Therefore, science ceases to be an unbiased quest for the truth. Methodological naturalism disallows science from arriving at the true explanation if that happens to involve supernatural agency.
“Modern science arises from the exhaustion of the religious wars, people began to realize that religion had no final arbiter but force.”
That would come as a great surprise to theistic scientists like Kepler, Newton, Maxwell, Faraday, Planck, Polyanyi, &c.
“There is simply no court of final appeal in religion because it's domain is fundamentally private.”
i) That’s a metaphysical claim. So you’re actually positing metaphysical naturalism rather than methodological naturalism.
ii) Your claim also begs the question. If the Christian God exists, then the religions domain is fundamentally public as well as private. God the Creator. Divine providence.
“Science as a construct began to realize that the world could be the final court, with reference to what was out there. This is the origin of methodological naturalism, not some reason to exclude God but to exclude arguments for which there was no solution.”
i) A supernatural explanation involves personal agency. We infer personal agency in many situations.
ii) Methodological naturalism destroys science. Once you ban teleological explanations from nature, then you can no longer assign a function or purpose to anything in nature. You can’t say the heart is a pump. You can’t say lungs are meant to process oxygen.
“This is why the nature of religious experience is private while the nature of science experience is public.”
If God miraculously heals a terminal cancer patient in answer to prayer, that’s not a private experience. You should brush up on the concept of counterflow (a la Del Ratzsch). It would also behoove you to read Lydia McGrew’s paper on “Testability, Likelihoods, and Design.”
re:
DeleteIf a natural event was supernaturally caused, methodological naturalism prohibits science from acknowledging the true cause. In that case, methodological naturalism forces the scientist to automatically favor an erroneous explanation, as long as that’s naturalistic, over a supernatural explanation–even if that happens to be the correct explanation. Therefore, science ceases to be an unbiased quest for the truth. Methodological naturalism disallows science from arriving at the true explanation if that happens to involve supernatural agency.
nonsense.
A miracle itself may not be accessible to science but it's results certainly are. Take a unique creation of Adam & Eve. Say for sake of a specific example that God created them with a unique 3 dna codon to t-rna genetic code(which is not the actual case).
Then an intelligent designer would be the best scientific answer for human existence, furthermore all y and mt dna would point to a recent pair(which it currently does not) as the progenitors of all humanity. The nature of the designer would not be accessible but the existence of one would be.
It is not that science excludes a designer, what is the case is that a designer has not been seen to be necessary as an explanation. a unique genetic code for human beings and all genetic evidence pointing to an original pair 6kya in the middle east would require a designer like God as presented in the Bible.
Under this scenario it would be both reasonable and scientific to propose a unique creation of Adam&Eve by an intelligent designer who created them very different than the rest of living things, although giving them those names would not be scientific.
re:
DeleteYour claim also begs the question. If the Christian God exists, then the religions domain is fundamentally public as well as private. God the Creator. Divine providence.
If the Bible was fundamentally public knowledge then the divisiveness of doctrine would be minimal, everyone reading it would interpret it roughly the same way. Rather than this general agreement we have bitter disagreement over fundamentals to minutia, where the only conversation is a demand to allow the Holy Spirit to speak to you, admitting that the domain is fundamentally accessible only as a private experience.
rmwilliamsjr
Delete"Under this scenario it would be both reasonable and scientific to propose a unique creation of Adam&Eve by an intelligent designer who created them very different than the rest of living things, although giving them those names would not be scientific."
Go back and read Eugenie Scott's exposition of methodological naturalism. What you now say doesn't square with methodological naturalism. You're hopelessly confused.
"If the Bible was fundamentally public knowledge..."
I didn't mention the Bible. I mentioned God's existence, creatorship, and providence. And I didn't say public "knowledge," but public "domain." That was your word.
re:
DeleteGo back and read Eugenie Scott's exposition of methodological naturalism. What you now say doesn't square with methodological naturalism. You're hopelessly confused.
Why should i reread her writings? She is a philosophic naturalist who consistently confuses the issues with her fundamental philosophical allegiance to "nothing butism" Like Sagan she confuses provisional method with the desire to make a sufficiency statement "the cosmos is all there is" or we know for certain that matter in motion is all there is.
rmwilliamsjr
Delete"Why should i reread her writings? She is a philosophic naturalist who consistently confuses the issues with her fundamental philosophical allegiance to 'nothing butism' Like Sagan she confuses provisional method with the desire to make a sufficiency statement "the cosmos is all there is" or we know for certain that matter in motion is all there is."
In that case you're posting off-topic comments. Your remarks are irrelevant to the topic of my post. If you refuse to engage the actual argument presented in the post, you're off-topic comments aren't welcome.
rmwilliamsjr said:
Delete"Take a unique creation of Adam & Eve. Say for sake of a specific example that God created them with a unique 3 dna codon to t-rna genetic code(which is not the actual case). Then an intelligent designer would be the best scientific answer for human existence...It is not that science excludes a designer, what is the case is that a designer has not been seen to be necessary as an explanation. a unique genetic code for human beings and all genetic evidence pointing to an original pair 6kya in the middle east would require a designer like God as presented in the Bible."
On the one hand, I don't know how helpful hypotheticals detached from the real world like this one are in illustrating your points.
But on the other hand, since we're throwing out hypotheticals...
Why should this be the case? Maybe our "unique 3 dna codon" had its origin in some form of directed panspermia separate from and after other organisms had already evolved on Earth. Say this occurred around 6,000 to 10,000 years ago (Earth time).
Or say an advanced species designed us with a "unique 3 dna codon" in a similar way to how scifi stories or shows imagine humans designing A.I. Then they dropped us off onto planet Earth for whatever reason.
Or say we're the direct ancestors of an advanced alien species with a "unique 3 dna codon" that crash landed on Earth 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. Maybe our ancestors were a hippie-type of people from the planet Krypton seeking refuge from their military-industrial complex aligned leaders. They look and function almost exactly like us too. Maybe their "unique 3 dna codon" allows them to eat Earth animals and plants, among many other abilities, because the "unique 3 dna codon" codes for various kinds of super amino acids that serve all sorts of cool functions.
I trust we could come up with other hypotheticals.
This would indicate an intelligent designer like you said, but it wouldn't necessarily "require a designer like God as presented in the Bible."
Plus, it merely pushes the question back a step. Say the aliens and their genetic code are best explained as having evolved according to the modern evolutionary synthesis.
Point being, given methodological naturalism, why isn't this sort of an explanation a better "scientific" explanation for our "unique 3 dna codon" than the God of the Bible? Indeed, I take it Francis Crick himself would be proud of or at least more inclined to believe these sorts of explanations.
"furthermore all y and mt dna would point to a recent pair(which it currently does not) as the progenitors of all humanity."
This is an assertion without an argument. Sure, many scientists argue our Y DNA and mtDNA do not point to "a recent pair" if by this phrase you mean a single male and a single female human being existing at the same time in the same place no more than say 10,000 years ago. Rather they'd argue the genetic evidence points to modern humans having descended from a small population of several thousand hominids from 200,000 years ago, give or take. I believe Francis Collins and others over at BioLogos make this argument. But there are many scientists who demur from this paradigm and offer their reasons why.
"For reasons I’ve given elsewhere, I think methodological naturalism is unscientific."
ReplyDeleteHi Steve,
Can you provide a link or links to the reasons you've given elsewhere?
As I recall, I discuss that in The End of Infidelity.
DeleteIt is interesting how silent they go when you exercise the scientific method to these verses:
ReplyDeleteGen 1:14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years,
Gen 1:15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth." And it was so.
Gen 1:16 And God made the two great lights--the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night--and the stars.
Gen 1:17 And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth,
Gen 1:18 to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:19 And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.
How unaccurate is that?
Rmwilliamssr,
ReplyDeleteCan you rigorously define how, precisely, you understand experiences had through sense perception to be public in nature?
The domain, the objects out there, are public. i didn't say that the experiences themselves are public. Religious domains don't claim or even attempt to make reference to "out there" but rather are claims of an inner experiential domain. This is a public v private distinction regarding the domain not the experience itself.
DeleteDivine creation is in the public domain. Divine providence is in the public domain. Miracles are public events (in contrast to private mental states).
DeleteYes, but appeals are made to *sense perception*; and moreover, (some of the) "objects out there" are said to be known via "sense perception." And are you claiming "sense perception" to be completely subjective and private? Lastly, as Steve says, unless you're begging the question, the religious adherent claims there is an objective public object that he has an experience *of*.
Delete"If the Bible was fundamentally public knowledge then the divisiveness of doctrine would be minimal, "
ReplyDelete"Public knowledge" is the wrong term, and that you use it is telling re: your ability to understand the issues. Anyway, this aside, you don't make allowance for any cognitive malfunction. If a significant number of our society developed a cognitive malfunction in, say, sense perception, logical reasoning, testimony, etc., would that undermine the objective nature of the phenomena?
So the solution to the extraordinary fragmentation of Christianity is that everyone who believes differently than you do is etymologically malfunctioning? I suppose that is an answer but doesn't it leave you kindof a lone mentally healthy person in the midst of lots of really sick people?
DeleteI wasn't providing a "solution" to the alleged charge of fragmentation, I was addressing your ignorance on its own terms. You're simply begging the question against not only Christianity in particular, but the argument from religious experience in particular. And instead of honestly debating me, you simply appeal to rhetoric and questing begging epithets. Of course, I could answer the red herring you brought up, but you've proven that a discussion with you is a waste of time. M time is important, and unless you pay me to help you and teach you, we're done. I do accept pay pal, FWIW.
DeleteWilliams' comments have been off-the-mark from the get-go. For instance, my post wasn't a direct attack on methodological naturalism. Rather, I granted methodological naturalism for the sake of argument, then considered the consequences of methodological naturalism, if sound–consequences which boomerang on the Eugenie Scotts of the world. Williams never understood my original argument. Instead, he's using my post as a pretext to drag his preexisting agenda into the debate. If he refuses to engage the actual argument, further comments will be stricken.
DeleteIt's cause Williams exhibits a "movement" mentality. :-)
Delete