I don't see where there's really an basis for anyone claiming they choose not to believe in God because of a lack of "evidence" as it concerns the Supernatural. And for many saying "Well, it's not testable and there's no evidence..", I wonder what is defined as "adequate evidence"? What one can taste, see, smell or touch? As it stands, many occurrences where others deemed it "supernatural" others simply tried to explain it away....and not because there was not evidence. But rather because of a presuppositon that all things could be explained naturally. That, of course, is assumption on a host of levels and inconsistent in life---especially on the metaphysical level.
Some of this inevitiably gets into the issue of debate as to the merits of Methodlogical Natutalism.....and why many feel there is no adequate "proof" for the supernatural. But it does seem that many times the naturalists falls short.
Two biologists can come from differing backgrounds----one a Deist and the other an Agnostic--and yet they can have common ground in their desire to understand how the botanical world can operate. They can examine the same kinds of plants and come to the same conclusions when rationally studying the makeup of the plant, how it was designed, how long it lives and how important it is to the environment. Both can walk away from their study on how an organism operates naturally and not necessarily have to have a religious view dictate how they study or what they see organically developing.
However, when it comes to the reasons behind why the plant exists and what meaning/purpose it has life, in that area is where the subject of spirituality occurs alongside the realm of the supernatural. For seeing the way something operates does not mean one understands the artistic beauty in it or the back-drop of what significance that plant has in the meaning of life. Essentially, what I'm trying to convey is the entire issue of how there is only explaining the material universe from some particular human perspective, with its own embedded metaphysics.....that if consistent, methodological naturalism leads to a metaphysical (spiritual) level.
Whether or not you may see that, there can be no escaping that you in the lab (or in nature) always begin your investigation with a whole conceptual system...and this connects to what can be found in the Kantian concept of the transcendental. That is, there are certain things which are preconditions for our being able to know, or do any empirical investigation at all, but which are themselves not capable of being the objects of our knowledge, or empirically verified. For the entire structure of our thought, which occurs in language, is transcendental.
Methodological naturalism starts with an entire bucket bag of concepts, such as "causation", the "natural", the "observable", and so forth, all of which are in fact metaphysical concepts, and have metaphysics built into them. As soon as one looks at something and says "that is an X", he or she has brought their conceptual system into play...and the investigation is no longer purely empirical. For the individual is filtering the world through an already existing conceptual system. This was the case even with Newton, who did not make any of his laws on gravity without first having a filter that was well-established in Theism.
Going alongside that is the subject of why science evolved as it did---especially as it relates to others saying today that Methodological Naturalism is the sole basis for all true science. For in all technicality, saying that methodological naturalism is foundational to the sciences is true if one is referring to the material sciences as they manifest in modern Western culture.
However, that is very much a sociological/anthropological observation more so than an argument of how it must be......as it no more proves that methodological naturalism is necessary than my saying "covering women head to toe is necessary because this is foundational to the Syrian people of the Middle East." Many cultures evolved that did not base science on a methodological naturalistic mindset.
What methodological naturalism asks us to do is to take these concepts and use them without, as it were,
requiring us to be commited to the underlying metaphysics. However, the way in which we look for evidence, the way we conceptualize the evidence, the way we evaluate the evidence, and the theories we end up with,
will all have these metaphysical assumptions conceptually embedded within them. Consequently, we're left with the problem of how we are to understand the resulting theory - on a realist basis, as a true description of the world, or on an instrumental basis.
Without a metaphysical framework, we would not be able to entertain notions of what is possible and what is not. For the notion of possibility is fundamentally metaphysical. We can, of course, understand other people's views, but there is always a degree of misunderstanding involved, because it will be our understanding of their views, framed without our conceptual framework, and this will involve some distortion. Science, even methodological naturalism, is teleological to an extent. For when it comes to asking what purpose or specific character does the universe have, it has been shown how it is knowable, constant, intelligible, predictable, stable, etc. These are all presuppositions of science as well as methodological naturalism.
With Methodological Naturalism, what it seems others often forget is that the problem with saying things like the natural is what is observable is that what is observable is purely theory-dependent. ...conceptual in nature. Additionally, there are scientists who study paranormal phenomenon (i.e. angels, ghosts, etc) and choose not to assume that what they are studying is not so much supernatural as much as it is a part of nature that is currently unknown. They assume that how they are generally conceptualized doesn't matter since in their minds, if they exist, and they impact the material universe (whether they are part of it or not), they can be studied using science at least to that extent. However, "
existence" is a concept, and "material universe" is a concept, and what these mean have to be panned out relative to an overall metaphysical system. For concepts are holistic, existing in relation to an entire network of meaning.
On the issue, of course it is obvious that scientific methodology is the tool for answering questions about the material universe rather than the only way we have to know, understand, or express anything. Nonetheless, the repeated claim that science only works because of methodological naturalism doesn't seem to have any basis (IMHO). In illustration, as it concerns problems in only going with the observable and saying that's truly "empiracal", one can consider the following analogy: It is true that fundamental theories in physics developed by Europeans are better than those developed by non-Europeans. Does that, therefore, mean we make it a methodological principle that in future no theories developed by non-Europeans should be considered? Of course not, as all that has happened is that an observation has been made....and that observation cannot be taken to assume that something else more may occur. Its why many have taken issue whenever they say that science proves that there's no such thing as God----as there's no way of observing that....and even as it concerns something being "testable", many times things change in our realm of understanding.
THere have been many discoveries in science based in theories with supernatural orgins. Of course, historically, that was rare after the 18th century. Prior to the 18th centuries, work done in many fields (i.e. linguistics, biology, etc) often was based on a supernatural idea of origins, and made progress on that basis....due primarily o cultural/ social reasons (as it concerns the Theistic context). In example, even towards the end of the 18th century in Germany, there was a real debate concerning whether the structure of language was best explained on a supernatural origin basis or not. .
Nonetheless, religious motivations have often played a key role in development of theory/science. In example, Niels Bohr, who layed some of the foundations for quantum physics, was influenced by various mystical ideas and the Chinese yin/yang doctrine (which formed the real basis of his doctrine of complementarity). Additionally, Karl Jung, who developed universally acknowledged psychological categories of introvert and extravert, amongst many other things, was very much basing his work on esotericism. As one who is a Human Services professional/in the field, Jung is very central for the theories/science utilized in dealing with human interactions....and it was never seen as not being "science." With both Jung and Bohr, these scientists felt it necessary to reformulate their doctrines in ways that were passably naturalistic. But their basic explanatory categories were religious, and then were then transformed into naturalistic ones. In both cases, that reflected an underlying belief in the religious metaphysics. Furthermore, even if the original ideas were transformed into naturalistic ones, there is still a teleological connection between them, which in fact raises doubts about whether it is right to interpret them as truly naturalistic anyway. Granted, methodological naturalism does not exclude one being merely inspired in a loose sense by ideas of a religious nature....but in the cases cited, it seems to go beyond a level of "loose." For Bohr believed in complementarity because of his religious metaphysical views, just as Jung did
Gxg (G²);59423164 said:
One cannot use terms such as "good" without showing that there is any sort of absolute concept of what good is..... It's like discussing who is better, Mother Terresea or Hitler, and trying to compare them and yet having no standard that exists outside of what Man creates/deems to be either "good or bad".......like asking someone to compare two differing pictures of a country to see which is the closest to the actual real image of what it looks like: One would need to have that actual image that already existed before asking for comparision to begin. Without it, there could be no discussion of which one is closer.
...What of an evolutionary model for morality? Why not posit that whatever benefits human survival is moral? To some this may be appealing, but first ask some questions. Why, based upon atheistic assumptions, should we logically value human survival? What difference does it all make? Why is life valuable? Isn't belief in human survival itself a moral assumption, a value judgement that has no basis in an atheistic world view? Furthermore, consider what an ethic based solely on survival could lead to: the elimination of those perceived to have less survival value. The Nazi movement, based upon an evolutionary eugenic ideal of developing a super race, destroyed those deemed by them inferior or unsuitable. Reproduction was to be limited to those deemed most fit. Mankind, when left to its own devices to develop its moral basis, commits systemized murder and oppression. Consider the atrocities of Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, and the horrible situations we have witnessed in Rwanda and Bosnia. Both atheists and religious people so easily justify murder.
What of basing morality on one's personal preferences? What of just saying you can know what is wrong by following your heart? Not alot of stock one can place into that. Jeffrey Dahmer's heart led him to murder and cannibalize his fellow humans. Basing morality on feelings is the ultimate in irrationality. This puts moral judgement on the level of personal taste. Dahmer might have thought you suitable to his taste
There are many atheists who are judgmental of religious people who have committed great atrocities, but upon what basis? Does this make any sense? Atheistic assumptions irresistibly lead to the conclusion that morality is nothing more than a matter of personal or societal preference.