Naturalism

[vossler]

You might want to check this out:

"First, the demonstrable role of theology in evolutionary explanation provides evidence (or counterarguments) against the soundness of the philosophical doctrine of methodological naturalism. Methodological naturalism has lately come under critical scrutiny. [6] This essay provides some raw materials for that project, by showing how theological premises bear directly on the content of evolutionary explanations."

http://www.arn.org/docs/nelson/pn_jettison.htm

Don't believe for a second that this is purely objective, there are presumptions involved.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Fascinating article; just what we need something to help clear this already cloudy mess up.

 

[Nightson]

Well Carl Sagan, he certainly wasn't a creationist , was famous for saying "all that is or ever was or even will be" when describing nature. This certainly isn't a methodological statement.

Don't put to much weight on one scientists choice of words. I'm sure if asked Sagan would have explained that science itself does not say that nature is "all that is or ever was or even will be"

 

[Vainglorious]

You might want to check this out:

"First, the demonstrable role of theology in evolutionary explanation provides evidence (or counterarguments) against the soundness of the philosophical doctrine of methodological naturalism. Methodological naturalism has lately come under critical scrutiny. [6] This essay provides some raw materials for that project, by showing how theological premises bear directly on the content of evolutionary explanations."

http://www.arn.org/docs/nelson/pn_jettison.htm

Don't believe for a second that this is purely objective, there are presumptions involved.

Colour me unimpressed. The whole article rests on the weird proposition that if an "evolutionary" author makes side comments on a potential theological implication of Evolution Theory then Evolution Theory itself is a theological argument. That is totally nuts!!

This argument is like saying because the Theory of Gravity proposes a force of attraction between masses proportional to the square of distance therefor there are no angels pushing the planets around. But because I have just argued against angels pushing planets then the Theory of Gravity is a theological argument.

 

[Tomk80]

Colour me unimpressed. The whole article rests on the weird proposition that if an "evolutionary" author makes side comments on a potential theological implication of Evolution Theory then Evolution Theory itself is a theological argument. That is totally nuts!!

This argument is like saying because the Theory of Gravity proposes a force of attraction between masses proportional to the square of distance therefor there are no angels pushing the planets around. But because I have just argued against angels pushing planets then the Theory of Gravity is a theological argument.

Does anyone else find it extremely ironic that Mark's post comes directly after Hydra wrote:

When creationists use the term, naturalism, they often mean ontological naturalism, and methodological naturalism is frequently conflated with ontological naturalism.

But maybe Mark was posting the article as an example to illustrate Hydra009's point?

 

[Dannager]

You might want to check this out:

"First, the demonstrable role of theology in evolutionary explanation provides evidence (or counterarguments) against the soundness of the philosophical doctrine of methodological naturalism. Methodological naturalism has lately come under critical scrutiny. [6] This essay provides some raw materials for that project, by showing how theological premises bear directly on the content of evolutionary explanations."

http://www.arn.org/docs/nelson/pn_jettison.htm

Don't believe for a second that this is purely objective, there are presumptions involved.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Critical scrutiny? From whom? ID proponents?

 

[Tomk80]

Critical scrutiny? From whom? ID proponents?

If you trace the reference, yes.

 

[Erock83]

If you trace the reference, yes.

But that would require research.
One Love

 

[Tomk80]

But that would require research.
One Love

That's true, and I know that's sounds frighteninig. But I've already done some of it for you in an earlier post. You need the scrollbar to do it.

First, you click on the link Mark provided, and search for this paragraph:
"First, the demonstrable role of theology in evolutionary explanation provides evidence (or counterarguments) against the soundness of the philosophical doctrine of methodological naturalism. Methodological naturalism has lately come under critical scrutiny. [6] This essay provides some raw materials for that project, by showing how theological premises bear directly on the content of evolutionary explanations."

Then, you note the number I bolded ([6]). Scroll all the way down, to where you see a series of footnotes, also with numbers. You'll find:
6. From Phillip Johnson, Stephen Meyer, Alvin Plantinga, Jitse van der Meer, and J.P. Moreland, among others.

The bolded number (6.) indicates that this number is referred to with the number in the text ([6]).

Look at the names mentioned. I, for one, only know the first three, and they're all members of the ID-niche. The last two mentioned I do not know. I'm not sure what there commentary specifically entails, and how valid it is.

 

[danaman5]

Side note:

I attend the University of Chicago, so I was disgusted to see that this article was written by someone at my beloved institution. However, Paul Nelson does not come up in a directory search of people on campus, so he might not be here anymore.

 

[Janus]

The one thing I disagree with is the way Loudmouth defines nature, i.e. "our observable reality". The supernatural could be observed and still be considered supernatural.

I posted an explanation of my view in another thread in General Apologetics (http://www.christianforums.com/t2565037-natural-vs-supernatural.html), so I'll just cut 'n paste it here. Of particular interest the second-last paragraph, which addresses the use of naturalism in the scientific method.

"I think there is a meaningful definition of the supernatural, but it's a relative definition rather than an objective one.

...
...
...

For those who bothered to read my post, I need to say that I've changed my position on what the correct definitions of natural/supernatural are. It's not a big modification, but it's a significant one. Basically, I don't think we can consider a phenomenon "natural" if we only know it can be understood (by a greater intelligence), anymore. A phenomenon is only natural if we and sentient beings of comparable intelligence can understand it.

The natural is "that which can be understood by the relevant intelligence level".
The supernatural is "that which can be perceived but is inherently beyond the comprehension of the relevant intelligence level".

In our case, the "relevant intelligence level" is the entire human race.


Check out pages 2 and 3 of this thread if you want to read the full story: http://www.christianforums.com/t2565037-natural-vs-supernatural.html&page=2

 

[USincognito]

Well Carl Sagan, he certainly wasn't a creationist , was famous for saying "all that is or ever was or even will be" when describing nature. This certainly isn't a methodological statement.

Actually that quote is from the first chapter/episode of Cosmos, where he is defining the word. He was stating that "cosmos" meant all there ever was or will be.

 

[Vainglorious]

The natural is "that which can be understood by the relevant intelligence level".
The supernatural is "that which can be perceived but is inherently beyond the comprehension of the relevant intelligence level".

In our case, the "relevant intelligence level" is the entire human race.

I would disagree with that definition. "Understanding" of phenomena is usually related to the amount of data available. With incomplete data even the most "understandable" concept is incomprehensible.

In other words, there is no way of identifying what is truly supernatural and what is just an absence of data.

 

[Janus]

I would disagree with that definition. "Understanding" of phenomena is usually related to the amount of data available. With incomplete data even the most "understandable" concept is incomprehensible.

In other words, there is no way of identifying what is truly supernatural and what is just an absence of data.[/

Incomplete data is one reason a phenomenon can be inherently beyond our understanding, and therefore supernatural. Another possible reason is that the phenomenon is too counter-intuitive or too complex for our minds to comprehend. If the supernatural exists, most cases would probably be a combination of the two.

If you've read the posts I've linked to, you'll understand that my definition of the supernatural is relative, so that identifying the supernatural is indeed impossible, whether it's supernatural because of insufficient data or because of extreme complexity (or counter-intuitiveness).

This means that supernatural explanations are completely useless (which is why methodological naturalism is an essential part of science). I don't think this can be helped; the best we can do is give "the supernatural" a meaningful definition that is useful, in and of itself (one use being to define science and the scientific method).
In this sense, I think my definition is more meaningful and useful than any other I've come across.

 

[BVZ]

My definition:
Supernatural - Something that causes events we cannot predict. (yet)

Not sure if this works though, it might be too broad. Feel free to expand on it.

 

[Dannager]

Before "supernatural" can be defined, its base (natural, or nature) must be defined. I define something as "natural" if its cause and effects can both be measured by what is considered an objective process.

It follows, then, that something is "supernatural" if it cause and effects cannot be measured by what is considered an objective process.

I am, of course, open to criticism of these definitions.

 

[Janus]

I define something as "natural" if its cause and effects can both be measured by what is considered an objective process.

It follows, then, that something is "supernatural" if it cause and effects cannot be measured by what is considered an objective process.

I am, of course, open to criticism of these definitions.

Imagine you're a scientist living before Newton invented his famous theory. You know things fall, and you can call this phenomenon "gravity", but you don't know that matter (mass) is what causes it. Nevertheless, you can measure both an object's mass and an object's weight (i.e. gravity's effect on it). Would you then be certain you could classify gravity as "natural"?

Of course, now we know gravity is natural, so this example may seem silly. I can't provide you with an example that applies to our current understanding of the universe, but the same scenario could apply. We can measure something's cause and effect, but we don't know they are cause and effect. As long as we don't know this, isn't it possible that we'll never realize there's a connection between cause and effect (because, as I said above, the connection is too complex, or counter-intuitive, or we lack the data to make the connection)?

 

[Dannager]

Imagine you're a scientist living before Newton invented his famous theory. You know things fall, and you can call this phenomenon "gravity", but you don't know that matter (mass) is what causes it. Nevertheless, you can measure both an object's mass and an object's weight (i.e. gravity's effect on it). Would you then be certain you could classify gravity as "natural"?

Of course, now we know gravity is natural, so this example may seem silly. I can't provide you with an example that applies to our current understanding of the universe, but the same scenario could apply. We can measure something's cause and effect, but we don't know they are cause and effect. As long as we don't know this, isn't it possible that we'll never realize there's a connection between cause and effect (because, as I said above, the connection is too complex, or counter-intuitive, or we lack the data to make the connection)?

Ah, yes, I can see your point. How do you suggest reworking the definition, then? One thought I had was to broaden it to include any phenomena that we can measure objectively, whether cause or effect, but I do not think that would properly separate the natural from the supernatural, as it can be said that supernatural effects can be measured while their causes cannot.

 

[Janus]

Ah, yes, I can see your point. How do you suggest reworking the definition, then? One thought I had was to broaden it to include any phenomena that we can measure objectively, whether cause or effect, but I do not think that would properly separate the natural from the supernatural, as it can be said that supernatural effects can be measured while their causes cannot.

Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think defining a phenomenon as natural by saying "its cause and effects can both be measured by what is considered an objective process" and adding that "the connection between cause and effect must be known", is pretty much equivalent to simply saying "it can be understood", if "understood" is used in the scientific sense, of course.

By the way, would you agree with me that what is natural and supernatural is relative, in the sense that it depends on the intelligence level of the individual or species?

 

[Gene2memE]

Wow, you resurrect an 11 year old thread to immediately bring up a No True Scotsman fallacy.

Should we name this the No True Zombie Scotsman?

More Christians accept some form of evolution - Theistic Evolution or wholly naturallistic - than accept some form of creationism. Accepting biblical literalism and rejecting evolution as the underpinning basis of biology is a strong group identity marker in the US, Turkey, Poland and some other states, but internationally, its actually not that common in Christian groups.

 

[AV1611VET]

Accepting biblical literalism and rejecting evolution as the underpinning basis of biology is a strong group identity marker in the US, Turkey, Poland and some other states, but internationally, its actually not that common in Christian groups.

Some believe the Antichrist will come from the EU.