In the latest edition of Philosophia Christi, the Evangelical Philosophical Society’s journal, philosopher Stephen C. Dilley wrote a really nice article titled “Philosophical Naturalism and Methodological Naturalism: Strange Bedfellows?” in which he argued that philosophical naturalists should dispense with the principle of methodological naturalism in science.
For those of you who may be unfamiliar with these terms, philosophical naturalism (PN) is the view that only physical things exist, while methodological naturalism (MN) is the view that we must restrict our method of scientific inquiry to naturalistic processes. MN does not require one to presuppose the truth of PN, but it does require that one investigate the natural world as if God does not exist, or if He does, as if He has no causal relationship to the natural world. According to MN, for an explanation to be considered “scientific” it must be naturalistic; i.e. it must appeal to naturalistic entities and processes.
Dilley argues that philosophical naturalists should reject MN as the defining principle of science because, strangely enough, it prevents them from appealing to science to demonstrate the epistemic superiority of their philosophical view over theism. How so? By eliminating the competition. Theistic theories are dismissed a priori as unscientific. Only naturalistic explanations are allowed. If the only competitor to PN—theism—is prevented from competing in the game of science by definitional fiat, then PN wins by default rather than merit. What if a theistic explanation has greater explanatory power and explanatory scope than a naturalistic theory? It doesn’t matter. A naturalistic explanation will always be the considered the best “scientific” explanation simply in virtue of it being naturalistic—not necessarily because it is an adequate explanation, or the best explanation. So not only does MN set PN above critique and falsification, but it also forces one to accept inferior explanations as the best scientific explanations.
If only one team is allowed to compete in the game of science, it should be no surprise if that team wins every tournament. By defining science in terms of MN, PN ensures itself endless victories, but such victories are worth little. Only if theistic explanations are allowed to compete head-to-head against naturalistic theories could philosophical naturalism be confirmed or disconfirmed. Until then, science cannot be appealed to in support of philosophical naturalism and against theism.
Thinking to Believe 
October 25, 2010 at 7:51 am
Science is the study of natural phenomena. Philosophy is the search for the ultimate truth, or absolute truth, if such exists. Scientists are quite right to have nothing to do with theistic theories, since science is about what can be observed and proved. Science cannot tell us whether God exists. Philosophy (philosophical reasoning) cannot explain lightning — it took experiment and observation to do that.
Science and religion (philosophy) have nothing to do with each other. You can’t find God by searching the universe. You can’t explain a David Hocking painting using observation or experiment. Science can’t find God; God doesn’t give scientific explanations.
LikeLike
October 25, 2010 at 10:23 am
Stephencalder,
If science and religion have nothing to do with one another, then why do scientists think that certain scientific theories/findings disprove religious claims? Darwin himself took his theory to falsify creationist claims. He compared the evidence to what we would expect the natural world to look like if it was designed by an intelligent agent, and concluded that it could not have been designed. Recently, Stephen Hawking has come out saying scientific theories have excluded any room for God as creator. The fact of the matter is that science and religion do touch on one another because they both address some of the same topics, and findings in one area of study have implications for the other. Many scientific findings have metaphysical/religious implications.
Science is the study of natural phenomenon, but the idea that all natural phenomenon must have a naturalistic explanation is not a finding of science, but a philosophical viewpoint that is assumed prior to doing science. What Dilley is arguing is that if you assume this as your definition of science, it sets naturalism up above critique. Only if one assumes naturalism does it make sense to a priori rule out the involvement of an Intelligent Agent in the natural world.
Jason
LikeLike
October 25, 2010 at 3:10 pm
Certain scientific findings DO disprove religious claims. The church claimed that the earth and man were the centre of the solar system/universe and persecuted those who believed the earth revolved around the sun. Remember?
In fact, it’s when religion declares a scientific truth from a theological point of view that it gets in trouble, and you get nonsense like the idea that the world was created 4,000 years ago.
Whether all natural phenomena have a naturalistic explanation is not a matter for science, since science only deals with natural phenomena. There are unexplained phenomena, such as crop circles and ESP, the evidence for which science tends to discount because it cannot see a mechanism. This is rather like scientists who dismissed claims of rocks falling from the sky because they couldn’t understand how this could happen. But it does.
Science need not concern itself with whether there is an intelligent agent (or agents) involved in the natural world. I believe there is, but I don’t believe science has or will have anything useful to say on the subject. I don’t look to science to rationalise that belief. Religion should not be asking science whether it is true. Science has no place declaring the truth or falsity of religious belief, except where such belief is clearly falsifiable, such as the example of the Turin shroud.
LikeLike
October 25, 2010 at 3:37 pm
Originally you said “science cannot tell us whether God exists” and “Science and religion (philosophy) have nothing to do with each other,” and yet now you want to say science can disprove religious claims. While I agree with you, this contradicts your previous points. If science and religion have no relationship, then you can’t say science can disprove religion because that entails a relationship between the two.
Science is a search for causation. They want to know what causes the natural phenomenon they observe, whether it be in the past or present. The notion that every natural phenomenon has a naturalistic cause, however, is a philosophical viewpoint. That’s why it’s hypocritical for people to say positing some non-naturalistic cause is “not science,” but then turn around and say positing that saying all naturalistic phenomenon have naturalistic causes is science. Both claims are philosophical in nature. It may indeed be the case that all natural phenomenon has a naturalistic explanation, but that conclusion would have to be demonstrated empirically. Multiple hypotheses would need to be allowed to compete with one another. If he naturalistic hypotheses always win the show-down as the best explanation of the natural phenomenon, then that would be good evidence that the philosophical presupposition is probably correct.
But what we have going on today is scientists imposing methodological naturalism on the discipline of science, excluding any and all competitors. As such, philosophical naturalism cannot be tested. In certain areas (particularly the historical sciences), there is good evidence for thinking the cause of certain events was an intelligent agent, not purely natural processes. But if you define science in such a way that intelligence cannot be considered a scientific explanation, then naturalism cannot be disproven. And if no evidence can count against naturalism, then no evidence can truly demonstrate naturalism to be true either. That’s why philosophical naturalists should be the first ones to discard methodological naturalism as the defining approach of science.
If you define science as the search for naturalistic explanations rather than the true explanations, then you may actually prohibit yourself from finding the truth about the physical world. As atheist philosopher Bradley Monton wrote, “If science really is permanently committed to methodological naturalism, it follows that the aim of science is not generating true theories. Instead, the aim of science would be something like: generating the best theories that can be formulated subject to the restriction that the theories are naturalistic. More and more evidence could come in suggesting that a supernatural being exists, but scientific theories wouldn’t be allowed to acknowledge that possibility. … But if science is not a pursuit of truth, science has the potential to be marginalized, as an irrelevant social practice.” While the domain of science is explaining physical reality, the goal of scientists should be to find the truth about the physical world, not merely to come up with naturalistic explanations. While scientists are restricted to examining the physical world, they are not restricted from inferring non-physical causes when the physical artifacts they are studying point in that direction.
Jason
LikeLike
October 25, 2010 at 4:48 pm
I didn’t say science can disprove religion; it can’t. Science can disprove religious claims where those claims are scientifically falsifiable; the example of the age of the universe is such a case. But it can’t, and shouldn’t try to, make statements like Hawking’s that science excludes God’s existence, assuming you have correctly represented his viewpoint.
So there is no contradiction or illogicality in what I said. It’s true that science can’t tell us whether God exists, and it’s also true that religion cannot tell us whether an unproven scientific theory, like the multiverse or string theory, is true or not. It’s when religion tries to disprove science that you get nonsense.
Yes, the goal of science is to observe and interact, by experiment, with the physical (natural) world. But there is no incontrovertible evidence that I can see in the natural world for the existence of God. The statement that there is good evidence for a deity in the historical sciences is a statement of faith, not fact. God does not reveal Itself in the natural world, or there would be no controversy about Its existence. If It did reveal itself in the past, as you imply, presumably a reference to the avatar (incarnate deity), it was not in such a way that the evidence is compelling, and the same applies to scripture which is ineffective (to me) as evidence because there is so little agreement about the resulting doctrine, including widespread disagreement about the moral laws that are to be derived from the revelation. Is anal sex really forbidden on penalty of hell? Is sexual activity something God actually cares about?
Science and religion do NOT address the same truths. Science is about trivial truths relating to how the physical world works. Philosophy (rather than religion) is about, or should be about, discovering what, if anything, is beyond the physical world, and discovering ultimate or absolute truth about our origin and purpose. Science is of no help in this. The idea of God is no help to science.
LikeLike
October 28, 2010 at 4:59 pm
stephencalder,
Technically speaking, science cannot prove anything about anything since science works on induction, which only provides us with probabilistic conclusions. Science can lend support for certain religious claims, or detract from certain religious claims, but it cannot prove or disprove those claims or the existence of God in general.
As for Hawking, what he actually claims is that since a fully naturalistic account of creation can be given (which is laughable, but I’ll let that slide), the existence of God is not necessary. But he realizes that even a fully naturalistic account of creation would not prove that God does not exist. It could only “prove” that God is not creator. But that is highly significant because theistic religions teach that God created the universe, and if He didn’t, then those religions would be false.
You noted that there is no incontrovertible evidence from the natural world for the existence of God. In a sense, I would agree because science cannot provide incontrovertible evidence for anything at all. But you go too far in saying that it is just a statement of faith. It’s not. It’s an inference to the best explanation based on our knowledge of the physical thing/processes in need of explanation (as I said in my previous email, the domain of science is the physical world, but when a non-physical cause is inferred, it is “scientific” to conclude that a non-physical cause is the best explanation for the physical effect). This is how the science of archaeology works. They come across a small rock in the ground, and based on its characteristics (its precise shape is highly improbable given our knowledge of natural processes, and it conforms to some independent pattern), they infer that an intelligent agent rather than natural processes created it. The same inference can be made about other objects in the universe, whether inanimate or animate.
Take for instance the origin of the universe. The physical data tells us that physical reality (the universe or multiverse) is not eternal. It began to exist a finite time ago. Seeing that something cannot come from nothing, how did the universe come into being? Here is where inferences about causation come into play, and they point to a theistic being. We know the universe could not have been caused to exist by some physical entity, because physicality is the effect, and an effect cannot exist logically or temporally prior to its cause. By logical inference, then, we conclude that whatever it was that caused the universe, it must be non-physical in nature. Additional logical deductions lead to the conclusion that this cause must be timeless, spaceless, powerful, and personal as well. This is an apt description of the basic properties of the God of theism, and thus scientific findings in the area of cosmogony support the existence of God. Does science prove that God exists in this case? No, but the logical inferences we draw from the physical data turn out to be the best explanation of the physical data.
You said that “Science and religion do NOT address the same truths,” but this seems obviously false. Both science and religion cover some of the same topics: origin of reality, origin of life, etc. Granted, the vast majority of the things science inquires about religion does not and vice-versa, but they do overlap to some degree.
Jason
LikeLike
October 29, 2010 at 4:35 pm
This is fun; thanks for engaging. If science cannot prove anything, how do you know anything you know? Isn’t that the first problem in philosophy, to discover how I know that anything I believe is actually true? Nearly everyone believes the body was born and will die, but very few remember its birth, and no-one still philosophising has yet experienced its death, so most of what we “know” about either is hearsay.
Supposing that we accept hearsay as a source of knowledge; that is, we assume others (sometimes) correctly report the evidence of their senses, it seems to me that there are things science can prove: that the earth is round, that the moon is the cause of the tides, that lightning causes thunder, that DNA is the vehicle of genetic inheritance. These are all pretty much beyond probability (readily and widely accepted) and, if you accept that the world exists, these are facts (objectively true things about the physical world). Do you doubt them? Are they just probabilities and not facts to you? To me, the evidence is incontrovertible.
Science theorises, but has not proven, that the universe is 14 billion years old, that the earth is 5 billion years old. It has pretty much established beyond reasonable doubt that there was a great extinction of dinosaurs 65 million years ago. It’s important to distinguish between unproven theory and theory that represents established fact. The earth cannot be 4,000 years old (I’m not saying I think this is what you believe) unless it is an elaborate hoax, but many Christian fundamentalists hold to this dating in the face of scientific proof to the contrary, and thus make fools of themselves, as religion almost always does when it contradicts science.
“Laughable, but I’ll let that slide” is not a rational argument, I’m afraid. It’s a technique in rhetoric of denunciation by sneer. If causeless events occur at the subatomic level (which they do – subatomic particles spontaneously appear and disappear in a vacuum) then it’s possible the big bang was a causeless event. It’s not likely, I don’t think, but since I can’t argue away apparently causeless spontaneous appearance of particles (it happens) I don’t see any logical argument that proves the universe must have a cause. It does, but there’s no argument for it and by the same token the theory of a causeless universe is in the same boat, and on this point I disagree with Hawking because I say he cannot prove the universe has no cause.
As to natural processes in the natural world, you infer that there are things that require explanation and which science cannot explain, and for this reason there must be a non-natural, or at least non-physical, explanation or cause. First, I agree that there are things science can’t explain: ESP, crop circles, UFOs (whether hallucinations or not), memories from lifetimes ago, poltergeists, spontaneous remission, and so on. All these may be found to have mechanisms and some of the mechanisms may be beyond what we normally consider the physical or natural. It may be that physical “reality” is not what we think but the outcome or product of activity on planes or dimensions other than the physical. It may be that the universe is primarily mental, and that we all have the potential capability of the kind of material manipulation shown by miracle workers, ancient or modern. These questions are beyond science at present, but may not always be.
It’s true that the cause of the physical world, if it has a cause, must be outside the physical world, therefore outside of space and time. But it’s too big a leap to suggest that cosmogony or its findings are evidence of the existence of God (I assume that’s what you mean by “support”). You are arguing from the assumption that the universe must have a cause, which I agree with but which cannot be proved or disproved. It’s not logical to infer creation from design unless design is the only possibility. Once the physical universe exists, or perhaps a multiverse, there is apparently enough time for the extremely unlikely, including the conditions necessary for life to arise spontaneously. That’s the theory, and although it’s not completely proven it’s pretty certain that an evolutionary process of some sort shaped life on earth, even if it didn’t start it.
The inference that a tool was designed and made by an ancient culture rather than the product of nature is not the same as the inference that the physical world was designed. The tool clearly has a purpose that is obvious and unquestioned; because we know why the tool was created, and see evidence of its use and the results, our deduction of design is sound. The same cannot be said of the physical world, who purpose is not obvious (not enough to convince even half the people) from an examination of it. Even its future is uncertain, though apparently the universe is doomed to end in some way. So the inference that an intelligent agent created the physical world cannot be stated with the same level of confidence that we can state a man made the boomerang. It’s obvious that a man made it. It’s not obvious (to everyone) that the world had an intelligent creator.
In fact, close examination of the physical world suggests that if it had a creator, it was negligent or inadequate to the task of ensuring the safety and security of its creations, since the world is neither safe nor secure from pain, suffering, discomfort, old age and death. No distinction is discernible in this regard between faithful believers of any religion and the infidels. All suffer, all die. A God who created such a world is surely less than perfect, which implies less than omnipotent, since omnipotence would perfect itself. The evidence of the physical world is that God allows all his creatures to suffer.
A possible response to this unlikely scenario is that the world was created perfect, but man by rebellion destroyed its perfection. But since according to theology we are no longer in the garden of Eden, or paradise, then it seems the world must have been created after the rebellion, and the theory that best fits the facts, if there is an intelligent creator, is that the world was made to punish us. This rather repelling idea, combined with an ideal of love that is incapable of delivering punishment, because perfection can see no wrong, leads to a conflict that convinces me there must be a higher truth to be revealed. The experiences I have of inexplicable providence, healing and peace are better evidence to me than any logic.
Now we are definitely in the realm of truths that science cannot address, and these are those that philosophy is really about: eternal truths, as opposed to truths about the world, which are temporal truths, of no more lasting import than the time the next bus leaves. Science should confine itself to those temporal truths and leave philosophy to those capable of really doing it. These are they who have experienced a conviction that love is the essence, goal and purpose of our brief journey into an impossible world, or had an experience of enlightenment that lifts consciousness above the ordinary and life above the mundane.
LikeLike
November 5, 2010 at 10:28 pm
Yes, it is fun. I’m glad you’re enjoying the discussion as well.
Can science prove anything? No, because science works on induction, and induction is based on probabilities and our senses, neither of which can provide us with certainty (i.e. both can be mistaken). If we observe 1 million crows, each of whom are black, we make the induction that all crows are black. But this is not a proof that all crows are black because there could always be a crow we have not yet seen that is white. Induction can give us good reasons to conclude X, but it can never prove X beyond all doubt. That’s not to say science cannot give us knowledge. Clearly it does. But because it works on induction rather than deduction, that knowledge is always being refined as we come across more data. Inductive knowledge can never be known to be true with certainty, even if it can be known beyond reasonable doubt (as some of the examples you provided would be properly categorized as).
You are right. My comment, “Laughable, but I’ll let that slide” is not an argument, nor was it intended to be. But I did not feel the need to offer one since I was not responding to your claim (but Hawking’s), and since Hawking’s claim was not particularly relevant to our discussion.
As for your claim that causeless events occur at the subatomic level, this is a popular misconception. Virtual particles in the quantum vacuum are caused by the vacuum. As philosopher of science Robert Deltete wrote, “There is no basis in ordinary quantum theory for the claim that the universe itself is uncaused, much less for the claim that it sprang into being uncaused from literally nothing.” Besides, even if it were true that the virtual particles were uncaused, they are not coming from nothing. In the Big Bang, however, space-time-matter come into being from absolutely nothing (material).
Now, you note that you don’t think the possibility of causeless events on the subatomic level means it is likely that the Big Bang itself was a causeless event, but claim you don’t see any logical reason to think the universe must have a cause. First, just because something might be possible does not mean it is likely, or more rational to believe it than the alternatives. We have a metaphysical intuition that being only comes from being, and that effects need causes. The mere possibility of uncaused events based on speculative physics is not enough to override this basic intuition—an intuition that undergirds all of science. Why should the universe be the one exception? I see no reason to prefer an uncaused universe to a caused one unless one is predisposed to materialism and against theism. Otherwise, theism is clearly the more rational of the two options.
Tbc…
LikeLike
November 5, 2010 at 10:28 pm
Continued…
You agree that if the universe has a cause, it must be a supernatural cause. Good. But you think it’s too big a leap to suggest that this cosmogony can be appealed to as evidence for God. I don’t understand your logic here. The findings of cosmogony are used as one of the premises in the argument for God’s existence:
P1 Everything that begins to exist has a cause (metaphysical principle)
P2 The universe began to exist (scientific finding)
C Therefore the universe has a cause
The scientific data is not sufficient in itself to demonstrate the existence of God, but since the findings of science serve as one of the premises in the deductive argument, the findings of science do support a theistic conclusion. It’s simple effect-to-cause reasoning. Science provides us with knowledge of the effect, and philosophy tells us what the cause of that effect must be.
As for your claim that there is enough time for life to evolve, this simply is not true. I show why at https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2010/09/23/the-origin-of-life-is-not-a-lottery/ and https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2009/12/19/signature-in-the-cell-part-4-assessing-the-chance-hypothesis-for-the-origin-of-life/.
You say that evolutionary processes could have shaped life on earth, even if they didn’t start it. Two points: (1) If naturalistic processes cannot account for the origin of life, and if the evidence points to an intelligent designer, that is an extremely significant conclusion when it comes to the God debate!; (2) I am not at all convinced that naturalistic processes can account for the diversification of life. We have been able to examine the power of random mutation and natural selection, and while it can explain trivial changes within species, there’s no evidence that it can create the new biological information/systems necessary to change into different species. Indeed, the improvements it does make in species is achieved by breaking existing systems. See the following 4 part series I wrote on the topic:
https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2010/04/07/the-adequacy-of-darwinian-evolution-part-1-what-needs-to-be-demonstrated/
https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2010/04/08/the-adequacy-of-darwinian-evolution-part-2-the-creative-power-of-mutations/
https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2010/04/16/the-adequacy-of-darwinian-evolution-part-3a-the-creative-power-of-mutations-tested-and-found-wanting/
https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2010/04/19/the-adequacy-of-darwinian-evolution-part-3b-the-creative-power-of-mutations-tested-and-found-wanting/
As for the tool analogy, it would not matter if we knew what the tool was for. We recognize design by an improbable arrangement of parts for a purpose, even if we are not sure what that purpose is. Imagine if some disease wiped out all humans, so that there was no trace of intelligent beings left on this planet except for the artifacts we created (buildings, computers, etc.). Now imagine an alien race visiting our planet. They see no intelligent beings around. And the artifacts that they see are entirely foreign to them. They have never seen anything like them, and have no idea what they are for. But would they be able to conclude that intelligent agents produced them? Of course! Why? Because natural processes are not capable of producing such non-random, specified artifacts. So neither knowledge of the designers, nor the purpose for the design is necessary to detect design.
I think it should be obvious that at least certain features of the natural world are designed. Take the cell for example. Inside the cell we literally have a genetic code and decoding system (see https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2009/12/08/signature-in-the-cell-part-2-inner-workings-of-the-cell/). Codes are the product of minds, without exception. If codes are only produced by minds, and we see codes in the cell, then the most rational conclusion is that the cell was designed by an intelligent agent.
You bring up the issue of pain and suffering. At best this might help us determine what kind of intelligent agent created the universe—it does not remove the evidence that there is a designer. But on the Christian worldview God has a morally sufficient reason for permitting pain and suffering, so the data does not undermine Christian theism.
Jason
LikeLike
December 26, 2010 at 5:11 pm
Jason,
Slightly off topic for this thread, but here’s an example of methodological naturalism filling in all gaps:
Discover Magazine mentions that one of the 100 top science stories of 2010 was the realization that the properties of physics vary by location:
http://discovermagazine.com/2011/jan-feb/46
This is yet another answer to the claim that the universe “just happens” to have the properties for life. In fact, it appears that just our little area of the universe may have the properties for life. Taken together with the evidence for the multiverse, naturalism seems more than suffiicent.
Arthur
LikeLike
December 31, 2010 at 1:25 pm
Arthur,
I read the content at the link. A few points. First, I fail to see how this observation shows that everything can be accounted for in purely naturalistic terms.
Secondly, it’s clear from the language of the article that these findings are tenative.
Thirdly, the variation is not much. I’ve heard of similar variations being discovered in the speed of light when looking at distant stars. What of it? If anything it shows that the constants have changed their values slightly over time. It doesn’t explain why they exist, or how life can come into existence (of which the constants only play a small role).
What empirical evidence is there for a multiverse? And citing mathematical models will not do. The steady state theory was a mathematical model as well. Having a consistent mathematical model does not guarantee that it reflects physical realities.
Jason
LikeLike