Science and Materialism

[Tree of Life]

Richard Lewontin is a prominent american scientist (geneticist) and was a professor at Harvard until 1998. He's done a lot of work in evolutionary biology. He said this about the relationship between the philosophical position of materialism and the practice of science:

‘Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

If you're a materialist (or naturalist) is this how you see it? Or is Lewontin wrong?

 

[Halbhh]

When people -- non believers, agnostics really -- try to reason out whether God might or might not exist, or definitely one of those, they at times may think on materialism (or 'naturalism'), that only the material things exist, solely, and nothing not subject to the laws (however incomplete and yet undiscovered) of physics.

From this angle of thinking, one might assume something without even realizing it, and then jump to conclusions. Thus we get questions at times like: "If God exists, then where is He precisely?" (i.e. with the (unconscious often) assumption that only the physical can exist, only things subject to physics, material, then God must be in a distinct location, etc.).

At times I've tried just pointing out that we barely even can find hidden things made of ordinary matter on Earth -- for instance we discover new species routinely, to our surprise quite often -- and that even on Earth alone in just ordinary matter must be many, many hidden things.

And that's not even looking outside Earth, were we have observed to date only a tiny bit of what is out there even in ordinary matter.

And that's not accounting for the fact that physicists consider ordinary matter and energy -- all the stuff we understand -- to be only about 5% of the Universe.

The other 95% of the Universe being the very unknown stuffs we call 'dark energy' and 'dark matter' (because they do not radiate nor interact with electromagnetic radiation), but which we know must exist or something we don't understand yet is happening with all that unknown.

And that's only inside materialism.

But does that even help them, for me to point out, because after all, God doesn't have to be inside nature, subject to physics. Instead, many of us believe He created physics!

And besides, they would never find God by mere reasoning. Not ever.

They would need a leap of faith, and to seek Him with "all of your heart" as He said.

So, I now have 2nd thoughts about answering that way, or at least that I need to instead always include the actual way to find God, and not mere information about physics and ideas.

 

[Uber Genius]

Richard Lewontin is a prominent american scientist (geneticist) and was a professor at Harvard until 1998. He's done a lot of work in evolutionary biology. He said this about the relationship between the philosophical position of materialism and the practice of science:

‘Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

If you're a materialist (or naturalist) is this how you see it? Or is Lewontin wrong?

Know you are just surveying beliefs rather than evaluating claims, but notice how Lewtonin defines science with the limits of material explanations then suggests that causal explanations other than material ones can't be allowed in the door?

What is wrong there?

Is he not concerned with Science's ability to tell us about the real world?

Suppose for a minute I put 10,000 scientists at the bottom of Mt. Rushmore and said tell me how this mountain came to look like four U.S. Presidents? Assuming that they didn't know its cause, using Lewontin's method, they would NEVER BE ABLE TO GIVE ME A TRUE ACCOUNT OF THE WORLD. They would present a baffling array of theories about how wind, erosion, certain combinations of ancient flooding, coupled with quantum tunneling and spooky action at a distance were irrefutably the cause based on their models (where they constantly fudged both the data and the model until it supported their inferences).

Now how does that in any way help us gain understanding?

Lewontin is just using a philosophy of science disaster that turned out to be self-refuting (Logical positivism>verificationism>scientism) to circularly support his naturalism.

So please google "Scientism" before following in the incoherent footsteps of Lewontin, who was a genius as naturalist go.

 

[durangodawood]

Lewontin: "patent absurdity of some of its constructs"....."extravagant promises of health and life"......"unsubstantiated just-so stories".....

Without some specific examples, this reads like just a rant.

 

[Tree of Life]

Lewontin is saying that materialism is an assumption behind his scientific practice and not a conclusion of his scientific practice.

 

[sfs]

I'm not a materialist but I am a scientist, and I have to say -- Lewontin does not speak for me.

 

[Freodin]

It's always difficult to discuss the opinion of someone who is not there to discuss it. I cannot know how this person would respond to my questions or objections. This makes such a discussion a tiny bit futile.

The main problem that I see with Lewontin's position is that he does not offer any reasonable alternative to materialism. The "divine foot" that he mentions, if analysed in any logical, rational, reasonable way, will always come down to "It works in this way, because I need it to work in this way for my view to be correct."

Any form of "supernaturalism" must either be logically inconclusive, or be just a different sort of "materialistic".

 

[Tree of Life]

Without some specific examples, this reads like just a rant.

Keep in mind that he is not ranting against science. He is a scientist who believes that science is the best way to gain knowledge. He's also a naturalist. The interesting thing about the quote is how candidly he admits that his naturalism (materialism in his terms) is an assumption that undergirds his reasoning and is not the result of his reasoning.

 

[Tree of Life]

Any form of "supernaturalism" must either be logically inconclusive, or be just a different sort of "materialistic".

This assumes that materialism is true.

 

[durangodawood]

Lewontin is saying that materialism is an assumption behind his scientific practice and not a conclusion of his scientific practice.

As long as that paradigm produces results that are internally consistent, enable reliable predictions, and are useful, then OK by me.

 

[Halbhh]

It's always difficult to discuss the opinion of someone who is not there to discuss it. I cannot know how this person would respond to my questions or objections. This makes such a discussion a tiny bit futile.

The main problem that I see with Lewontin's position is that he does not offer any reasonable alternative to materialism. The "divine foot" that he mentions, if analysed in any logical, rational, reasonable way, will always come down to "It works in this way, because I need it to work in this way for my view to be correct."

Any form of "supernaturalism" must either be logically inconclusive, or be just a different sort of "materialistic".

Intellectually, I was really surprised on the thinking level, by the unexpected realness of God. I didn't need to posit God in order to understand reality.

For me, it was very much not "It works in this way, because I need it to work in this way for my view to be correct."

Instead, very much the opposite -- true shock and surprise (that God would, even existing(!!), then deign to intervene to rescue me).

Then facing the unlikely seeming (intellectually) new reality I'd encountered, I had to question a lot of things I'd assumed. I didn't need to question physics though.

The Universe is simply physics in action.

But that doesn't tell us much about God either way (except that if existing He's an elegant creator).

No, to find God, it's only ever possible solely by a leap of trust ('faith') for a moment, to "seek me with all of your heart" as He said to a prophet.

This is because He is a being, not an object. (risking to oversimplify, my simplification is He's a conscious being able to choose whether to interact with us. Therefore, He does so only voluntarily if we meet His criteria of...loving trust in the Good, that is trust in God, aka 'faith', even if just a while, and then willing to seek Him with all of our heart in that moment.)

 

[Steve Petersen]

By Christian definition, God is immaterial, thus beyond scrutiny of science.

 

[Tree of Life]

As long as that paradigm produces results that are internally consistent, enable reliable predictions, and are useful, then OK by me.

Do you likewise say that naturalism is an assumption for you and not the result of reasoning or empiricism?

 

[durangodawood]

Do you likewise say that naturalism is an assumption for you and not the result of reasoning or empiricism?

For sure.

I wouldnt say I'm wedded to it tho. Its just what seems correct. That could change.

otoh, what seems correct is basically an intuitive judgement based on empirical observation.

 

[Tree of Life]

otoh, what seems correct is basically an intuitive judgement based on empirical observation.

Is it also possible that what you observe is interpreted by your assumption so as to always confirm your assumption (almost no matter what)?

 

[durangodawood]

Is it also possible that what you observe is interpreted by your assumption so as to always confirm your assumption (almost no matter what)?

Yes. You need to beware of your own assumptions.

But look at the alternative: everything is up for grabs always. Maybe theres the divine at work. Maybe we're brains in a vat. Maybe last thursday. I could go on. Thats no way to live, or think.

 

[Tree of Life]

Yes. You need to beware of your own assumptions.

But look at the alternative: everything is up for grabs always. Maybe theres the divine at work. Maybe we're brains in a vat. Maybe last thursday. I could go on. Thats no way to live, or think.

Yes we have to land on some assumption and work from it.

But do you see how this might cause you to "bend the narrative" or "twist the evidence"? If you assume that naturalism is true, then any evidence of miracles that I present to you will automatically be interpreted through naturalism. Even if someone should rise from the dead and tell you that Christianity is true you would be liable to interpret this event through naturalistic lenses, looking for (or engineering) a naturalistic explanation.

 

[Freodin]

This assumes that materialism is true.

Well... no. As I said: there isn't any reasonable alternative to materialsm / naturalism offered. How would something like that even look?
Yes, you could just say "the alternative to naturalism is supernaturalism". But that is just a term. It has no content.

If you can give an alternative that is reasonable and logically consistent... I would be very surprised.

 

[Freodin]

Intellectually, I was really surprised on the thinking level, by the unexpected realness of God. I didn't need to posit God in order to understand reality.

For me, it was very much not "It works in this way, because I need it to work in this way for my view to be correct."

Instead, very much the opposite -- true shock and surprise (that God would, even existing(!!), then deign to intervene to rescue me).

Then facing the unlikely seeming (intellectually) new reality I'd encountered, I had to question a lot of things I'd assumed. I didn't need to question physics though.

The Universe is simply physics in action.

But that doesn't tell us much about God either way (except that if existing He's an elegant creator).

No, to find God, it's only ever possible solely by a leap of trust ('faith') for a moment, to "seek me with all of your heart" as He said to a prophet.

This is because He is a being, not an object. (risking to oversimplify, my simplification is He's a conscious being able to choose whether to interact with us. Therefore, He does so only voluntarily if we meet His criteria of...loving trust in the Good, that is trust in God, aka 'faith', even if just a while, and then willing to seek Him with all of our heart in that moment.)

The interesting part in this is that it seems that among all these "lot of things" that you had to question... "God" was not among that. "Loving trust" is all you need. "Faith" is all you need. "Questions" are not needed.

And that brings me back to my original objection: if you were to question this concept - the questions of "how" and "why", the basic questions that all philosophical positions should ask - you can find no answer beyond: "It works because it works because if it didn't work, I would be wrong."

 

[Tree of Life]

Well... no. As I said: there isn't any reasonable alternative to materialsm / naturalism offered. How would something like that even look?
Yes, you could just say "the alternative to naturalism is supernaturalism". But that is just a term. It has no content.

If you can give an alternative that is reasonable and logically consistent... I would be very surprised.

Christianity is an alternative to materialism. It assumes that the material world is the creation of an immaterial person. In materialism, the world is fundamentally impersonal as everything - including persons - can be broken down into impersonal elements. But in Christianity, the world is fundamentally personal because the person of the Creator stands behind everything that happens.