|
Post by noons on Aug 3, 2011 22:31:04 GMT
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Aug 4, 2011 3:57:42 GMT
I think that article makes a number of arguable points as if they are all established. I would challenge almost every one.
1. 'the scope of science has always expanded' The number of things explained by science has always expanded (except when we discover that an existing explanation is wrong after all), but the scope remains exactly the same as it always has - the natural world accessible by observation and experiment - which is a pretty big scope. But whether anything exists outside that scope remains as much a disputed question as it ever was.
2. Non-overlapping magisteria I half agree with the article here. I think SJ Gould's argument for the separation of science and religion is manifestly overstated. We may not be able to experiment with God, not least because he is not predictable like universal laws are, but we can test quasi-scientifically for the efficacy of prayer and other experiences of God, and we can examine historically the evidence for Jesus and the resurrection, etc.
3. "the fact that some scientists are religious is not evidence of the compatibility of science and religion" He makes this statement and offers as support some quotes from J Coyne and M Shermer! I could offer quotes by J Polkinghorne and F Collins to the opposite effect. The truth is that there is no evidence that religion and science are incompatible except in some atheists' minds, and plenty of evidence that they have been compatible in many others people's minds.
This is perhaps the core of his argument, and his discussion is quite inadequate.
4. Undue deference to religious belief Doubtless there are christians who expect this, just as there are scientists who expect us to give greater deference to scientists than we may perhaps wish to. (There is much for science to be proud of, and much for it to be ashamed of - just as for christianity.)
But there are many christians who are not so fragile, and quite willing to discuss all manner of viewpoints. I think some atheists overplay this card.
5. Accommodationism is "a cowardly cop-out .... intellectually disreputable." This statement only has objective reality if and when the atheists have established #3 with evidence rather than vague allegations based on a carefully selected subset of the possible examples.
What Dawkins and others show here is that they are less concerned for science than they are for opposing religion. The estimable Martin Rees is not a believer, but he cares about the science, so he seeks to promote the science in all ways possible. Dawkins and co have allowed their anti-religion to become more important than the science, or, I guess, they see the two as the same - again without having established this view with evidence.
So I think the anti-accommodationist view is mostly hot air, a triumph of disbelief over evidence.
|
|
|
Post by himself on Aug 4, 2011 5:05:09 GMT
The problem with scientism is that it leads believers into seeing all other human endeavors as failed attempts to "do science," and thus to judging them in this light. This usually requires taking religious texts as literally as science texts. This is much like the post-Renaissance viewpoint that saw all medieval art as failed attempts to imitate the Greco-Roman masters. It never occurred to them that the medievals were not attempting to imitate anyone.
It is surely a mistake for religion to try to accommodate science, inasmuch as the science is constantly changing and, even when not, is inherently subject to falsification. But really the conflict is like saying there is a conflict between the science of acoustics and the music of Mozart. The former may shed some interesting sidelight on the latter, but really no one goes to a concert to analyze compression waves in the air.
One could as cogently argue that without the medieval view of things -- secondary causation, lawfulness of nature, worthiness of studying nature (Wis 7:17-22), and so on -- natural science would never have gotten off the ground, as in China, or withered, as in Islam.
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Aug 4, 2011 11:34:36 GMT
It's not much of a war so far one has to say. As far as I can see so called 'anti-accommodationism' is largely confined to Jerry Coyne and his occasionally interesting 'Why Evolution is True' blog, his mates like Sean Carroll and his militant acolytes like the Butterflies and Wheels crowd.
|
|
|
Post by hawkinthesnow on Aug 6, 2011 16:22:50 GMT
As far as I can see, science has not repalced supernatural explanations. The simple fact is that theologically, God is regarded as the primary cause. If this is true, it is true no matter how much science discovers about the laws that govern the universe. The real battle line is where it has always been - between theology and non theistic philosophy.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Aug 7, 2011 4:02:12 GMT
As far as I can see, science has not repalced supernatural explanations. The simple fact is that theologically, God is regarded as the primary cause. If this is true, it is true no matter how much science discovers about the laws that govern the universe. The real battle line is where it has always been - between theology and non theistic philosophy. I agree with you here, hawk, and only wish that many on both sides could at least see this point, if not agree with it. I think the issue of the origin of the universe is the place where we most see this misunderstanding, but I think it also appears in relation to other events. For example, consider evolution: If we say God created the first life, or the human eye, and we say there is no natural explanation for these things, then we are creating a 'God of the gaps' argument that will possibly one day be shown to be wrong. But if we say God did it using natural laws (e.g. by arranging that the original creation would lead to these things occurring, or even by intervening in a more subtle way to ensure they occurred (e.g. by causing certain molecules to be in the right place at the right time), then we have accepted the natural mechanisms but also said that God used those mechanisms, and there is no God of the Gaps (rather a God of the origins). But it then remains true that we will be unable to distinguish God's action from chance, because the mechanisms will be the same. Our view on the cause (God or chance) will depend on probability - how likely we think it is that God exists and how likely we think that the event could occur by chance in a given timeframe. I think most thoughtful christians these days think the 'fine-tuning' of the universe to be extremely unlikely by chance (and even many non-believers agree) whereas we may differ about the probability of abiogenesis or the human eye.
|
|
|
Post by himself on Aug 7, 2011 22:52:00 GMT
Chance is not a cause of anything. It is an expression of ignorance about the cause. Typically, a "constant system of chance causes" is simply a host of small causes, no one of which determines the outcome. When a ball is dropped down a quincunx... www.mathsisfun.com/data/quincunx.htmlthe path is caused by the various pins it hits along the way. The result is a random distribution. Aristotle pegged chance as the intersection of two [or more] worldlines: Consider the man who is brained by a hammer slipping off a rooftop while he was walking to lunch. One might be inclined to say he was killed by chance. But we was not killed by a chance. He was killed by a hammer. The hammer killed him because it had such-much kinetic energy. It possessed that kinetic energy because it was falling with *this terminal velocity, which it had acquired per Newton's law. It fell from the roof because of the slope of the roof, the coefficient of friction of the slates, and the initial nudge given it by the foot of the workman as he rose from his task to go eat his own lunch. The nudge was a consequence of the geometric placement of the physical bodies. Likewise, the unfortunate victim was walking beneath at that moment because it was his customary lunch time and he was walking along the sidewalk to a nearby lunch counter that he knew of. Every link in the chain of causation was determined either by natural law or by human volition.
|
|
|
Post by dannym on Aug 8, 2011 11:37:24 GMT
Hi unkleE If we say God created the first life, or the human eye, and we say there is no natural explanation for these things, then we are creating a 'God of the gaps' argument that will possibly one day be shown to be wrong. But if we say God did it using natural laws (e.g. by arranging that the original creation would lead to these things occurring, or even by intervening in a more subtle way to ensure they occurred (e.g. by causing certain molecules to be in the right place at the right time), then we have accepted the natural mechanisms but also said that God used those mechanisms, and there is no God of the Gaps (rather a God of the origins). But it then remains true that we will be unable to distinguish God's action from chance, because the mechanisms will be the same. Our view on the cause (God or chance) will depend on probability - how likely we think it is that God exists and how likely we think that the event could occur by chance in a given timeframe. I think most thoughtful christians these days think the 'fine-tuning' of the universe to be extremely unlikely by chance (and even many non-believers agree) whereas we may differ about the probability of abiogenesis or the human eye. I think, to the Christian, there are no gaps. God is the necessary first cause, the unmoved mover. We as Christians have no gaps because we assume all this in the first place. The only ones holding to a “gaps” kind of argument are the naturalists, who have to hold that someday there will be a naturalistic explanation for everything. This does two things: it a) exhibits an extraordinary amount of faith and b) subjects the advocate to a no-holds-barred position of a naturalism of the gaps. The “gaps” argument is upside down and must be aimed at the atheist.
|
|
|
Post by elephantchang51 on Aug 11, 2011 10:47:39 GMT
Hi unkleE If we say God created the first life, or the human eye, and we say there is no natural explanation for these things, then we are creating a 'God of the gaps' argument that will possibly one day be shown to be wrong. But if we say God did it using natural laws (e.g. by arranging that the original creation would lead to these things occurring, or even by intervening in a more subtle way to ensure they occurred (e.g. by causing certain molecules to be in the right place at the right time), then we have accepted the natural mechanisms but also said that God used those mechanisms, and there is no God of the Gaps (rather a God of the origins). But it then remains true that we will be unable to distinguish God's action from chance, because the mechanisms will be the same. Our view on the cause (God or chance) will depend on probability - how likely we think it is that God exists and how likely we think that the event could occur by chance in a given timeframe. I think most thoughtful christians these days think the 'fine-tuning' of the universe to be extremely unlikely by chance (and even many non-believers agree) whereas we may differ about the probability of abiogenesis or the human eye. I think, to the Christian, there are no gaps. God is the necessary first cause, the unmoved mover. We as Christians have no gaps because we assume all this in the first place. The only ones holding to a “gaps” kind of argument are the naturalists, who have to hold that someday there will be a naturalistic explanation for everything. This does two things: it a) exhibits an extraordinary amount of faith and b) subjects the advocate to a no-holds-barred position of a naturalism of the gaps. The “gaps” argument is upside down and must be aimed at the atheist. Surely naturalists already hold that there are naturalistic explanations for everything,whether these will someday be fully understood by humans is a different question.
|
|
|
Post by dannym on Aug 14, 2011 12:37:19 GMT
Surely naturalists already hold that there are naturalistic explanations for everything,whether these will someday be fully understood by humans is a different question. Well, if you are correct then the above is merely a contradiction. An explanation cannot be called an explanation unless it explains something. If you want to pursue the contradiction and say that naturalistic explanations exist but we just haven’t ‘found’ them yet then you are making a non statement and are begging the question.
|
|
|
Post by elephantchang51 on Aug 15, 2011 8:22:54 GMT
Surely naturalists already hold that there are naturalistic explanations for everything,whether these will someday be fully understood by humans is a different question. Well, if you are correct then the above is merely a contradiction. An explanation cannot be called an explanation unless it explains something. If you want to pursue the contradiction and say that naturalistic explanations exist but we just haven’t ‘found’ them yet then you are making a non statement and are begging the question. Well naturalism does explain what we know about existence very well and there seems little reason to doubt it will continue to do so IMHO,but there will always be more questions than answers so I see no reason why a naturalist has to believe the impossible,that someday it will provide answers for every question.Indeed to hold to a belief in discoverable answers to questions of this size and scale is fatuous regardless of whether they are natural or supernatural. I am quite content to go where the evidence points and humbly accept partial answers if they are the best we have.
|
|
|
Post by dannym on Aug 15, 2011 9:45:18 GMT
Well naturalism does explain what we know about existence very well and there seems little reason to doubt it will continue to do so Does naturalism explain consciousness? but there will always be more questions than answers so I see no reason why a naturalist has to believe the impossible,that someday it will provide answers for every question. Then you have to hold naturalism on faith. Indeed to hold to a belief in discoverable answers to questions of this size and scale is fatuous regardless of whether they are natural or supernatural.I am quite content to go where the evidence points and humbly accept partial answers if they are the best we have. Marvellous. Then you do not appear to be a dogmatic naturalist and you appear to accept that faith plays an important role in your worldview.
|
|
jonkon
Master of the Arts
Posts: 111
|
Post by jonkon on Aug 15, 2011 17:35:23 GMT
Today at 8:22am, elephantchang51 wrote: "Well naturalism does explain what we know about existence very well"
Sorry, but a misunderstanding of the Law of Non-Contradiction does not prove Naturalism. A physical object cannot exist and not exist at the same time. Complex structures are greater than the sum of their individual parts, thereby requiring an outside agency to come into being.
|
|
|
Post by elephantchang51 on Aug 18, 2011 7:36:39 GMT
Today at 8:22am, elephantchang51 wrote: "Well naturalism does explain what we know about existence very well" Sorry, but a misunderstanding of the Law of Non-Contradiction does not prove Naturalism. A physical object cannot exist and not exist at the same time. Complex structures are greater than the sum of their individual parts, thereby requiring an outside agency to come into being. i never used the word,'prove',only,'very well'.
|
|
|
Post by elephantchang51 on Aug 18, 2011 8:42:48 GMT
Well naturalism does explain what we know about existence very well and there seems little reason to doubt it will continue to do so Does naturalism explain consciousness? Then you have to hold naturalism on faith. Indeed to hold to a belief in discoverable answers to questions of this size and scale is fatuous regardless of whether they are natural or supernatural.I am quite content to go where the evidence points and humbly accept partial answers if they are the best we have. Marvellous. Then you do not appear to be a dogmatic naturalist and you appear to accept that faith plays an important role in your worldview. I hope I am undogmatic about all subjects,I wouldn't say I had faith in my worldview as I would happily accept I was wrong if the evidence pointed there.As for consciousness as far as I know nothing explains it.
|
|