Thanks for your reply @glipsnort. Out of interest, what value would you consider it having as a way of saying “I subscribe to scientific methods but not the idea that science offers a unifying theory of everything (worldview)”? In other words, does it have any value as a way of shorthand way of saying this is what I think about science? In the way that saying ‘I am a baptist’ is a shorthand way of saying that one holds to a set of traditions, theologies, and approaches? Does that make sense?
Thanks to all who have posted will try to reply to some more over the next few days.
I wonder if part of the effort to re-evangelize science doesn’t come from a “everything needs to be subjected to Christ” attitude. And one fundamental difference there is that most of us here would probably insist that it (science and all that it purports to study) is already subject to divine sovereignty. Whereas the conflict pushers want to insist … “not till we’ve eradicated all these ‘godless’ philosophies it’s not!” The problem is that they’ve singled out evolution and not all the other ‘godless’ theories fields like gravitation or germ theory or meteorology.
“Earth’s crammed with Heaven,
And every common bush afire with God.
But only he who sees, takes off his shoes.
The rest sit around and pluck blackberries.” (E. B. Browning)
I really like this idea of MN as “science blinkers”. I think Mr. Dammers is spot on there. I sometimes think science is like a tool in a tool box, and like any tool it helps to know what task the tool is designed for. If I used a circular saw to hammer a nail, I’m using that saw in appropriate because the saw is designed to cut wood not hammer nails. In the same way, science is a tool which is intended to seek out natural explanations for naturally occurring phenomena.
Using science to find supernatural explanations is an inappropriate use of the tool. That doesn’t mean supernatural phenomena don’t exist, it only means that my ‘science tool’ can’t detect them. In that sense, science no more disproves the existence of the supernatural anymore than a circular saw disproves the existence of hammers. So if people want to offer supernatural explanations for naturally occurring phenomena that’s fine, but, based on what others are saying here, they need to understand that they are not doing science when they do that. They are doing something else. Not necessarily something bad, just approaching the task with a different set of tools. Whilst the person who puts science forward as the answer to everything, says science is the only tool in the box worth using.
I know that is really abstract. Hopefully it makes sense.
Good analogy. We could also say the opposite is also true: it is inappropriate to use theology as a tool to answer scientific questions, something often done in some circles.
Liam, I think you’re dead on. Hopefully this is helpful, as it is coming from the person critiquing a particular form of what may or may not be rightly claimed as methodological naturalism.
Only one clarification and confirmation I would give to your excellent description above… not only is science inappropirate to find supernatural explanations, it is downright incapable of finding supernatural explanations even if it wanted to. (As you mentioned saying it “can’t” detect such).
All we have access to is the physical world. Science is by definition empiric, observing those things that are able to be observed. There is no telescope big enough, no microscope fine enough, that it can see an angel, if they exist, they exist entirely apart from our reality. If they (or perhaps even God himself) do enter into our world, all we could detect are the physical phenomena that they were incorporating to interact with us.
Consider Jesus… what science experiment could ever have been done that would have determined him to have been more than a man? No blood test no test of blood pressure, neurological function, no biopsy, nothing could ever scientifically demonstrate he was anything but a man. He may have been a most extraordinary man. Somehow he was able to speak to forces of nature and they obeyed him. We Christians recognize that, and other of his actions, as adequate evidence of his deity, but as soon as we conclude that, we have taken a (eyes wide open) leap of faith. One entirely justified, I think. But a leap from empirical science into the realm of faith nonetheless.
Or considered the voice that was heard at Jesus baptism. Of course I believe that to have been the audible voice of God the father. However, I also believe that God is a spirit and does not have a voice. Whatever happened at that moment, God the father must have done something in order to create a physical manifestation in our universe/world that was in fact perceptible to our senses. Strictly and very precisely speaking, I would say That the crowd there heard something that God did, they did not in fact actually hear God. That would go forward any time someone heard gods voice. Yes, of course, in a very real sense they heard gods voice. But in a “scientific” sense, what they heard was the physical results caused by God in this world.
Imagine had you been there with a tape recorder. You could have examined the volume, the frequency, perhaps determined the direction, perhaps had some clue of what specific molecules were vibrating. Those sorts of things, even face to face with a miracle, could have been under the realm of something “empiric“.
But to conclude, Four instance, that those sounds came from the eternal God the father, and not from a clever alien or a first century prankster throwing his voice, that becomes a choice to believe by faith. Nothing empiric or scientific can allow us to conclude the supernatural.
(Now, to the point I was making on the other thread, if interesting… I suggest that anyone with functioning senses and a functioning brain would have been able to recognize those spoken (presumably Aramaic) words were in fact the result of some kind of intelligent agent. That, I would argue, is well within the realm of recognizable science or empiric conclusion. I maintain there is a difference between recognizing something as having an intelligent source on the one hand, and claiming that intelligent source to be supernatural on the other.)
Makes lots of sense. Now in these discussions, it seems that people have generally, carefully, restricted the limit of methodological naturalism to only excluding the strictly supernatural from science. Thus far, I would be in complete agreement.
My difficulty, then, is that I then rack my brain to try to understand why intelligent design theory is critiqued on the basis of it not abiding by the principles of methodological naturalism. It’s very basic core method is specifically to avoid any implication, suggestion, appeal, conclusion, inference, or anything whatsoever that brings anything supernatural into the discussion. Just as I mentioned about listening to the audible voice at Jesus baptism, One can certainly recognize intelligence agency through our empiric faculties, while withholding any judgment whatsoever about the specific nature, supernatural or otherwise, of the ultimate source there of. Logically and philosophically, I think intelligent design method (whether or not it Proves to be correct or not) is a completely legitimate scientific approach. As I have compared it to other clearly scientific endeavors, most for specifically, the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). There are clearly scientific and empiric methods by which And objective scientist can recognize intelligent design, while making no appeal or judgment whatsoever about the supernatural.
There certainly are those who carelessly use intelligent design arguments or observations, and conclude, “therefore, God!” I will be first in line to critique that method as faulty for the above reasons I’ve mentioned. However I still find it completely within every guideline of science to look at some phenomenon and conclude, “therefore, an intelligent agent!”
And one more observation, and I will stop talking… In today’s world of fancy computer games, and nonplayer characters (NPCs) There seems an almost perfect analogy to me. I love the fantasy, Tolkien-style medieval role playing games (Gothic 1&2 perhaps my favorite)., where I am walking around in a seemingly real, living, breathing, world, and each NPC is kind of living their own life, occasionally interacting with me based on the various scripts.
Now imagine if I had the genius, and the ridiculously powerful computer processor, to make a practically real virtual world inside my computer. Imagine every NPC’s character subroutine was so complex it was practically indistinguishable from a being that has free will. Not only that, their entire experience was based on perception through their (virtual) eyes and ears, all based on what they would be experiencing if they were in fact living in that artificial world.
And now, just like in any other fancy role playing game, I take my mouse and keyboard and started walking around the world and interacting with these NPC‘s. How would they experience me? How would they perceive me? They would perceive me to be in every possible conceivable way just another in NPC like them, no? They would perceive me as being essentially the same as any other NPC that they met. And what if I told them, no, actually I am the creator and designer of your entire world, I live in an entirely different reality that does not even follow the same rules of space and times as yours… I cam be at any time(stamp) I choose whenever I so choose… and the being you are interacting with, while very real to you, and appearing just like any other NPC, is simultaneously your designer who exists entirely apart fo m your conceivable reality.
I think This is at least some analogy to the incarnation. More significantly to this discussion, however, how in the world would these creatures empirically determine, given any conceivable tool that is available to them inside their computer world, that my claim was true? Imagine I could program absolutely anything into their universe, that they could use to try to determine if my character really was simultaneously the programmer. Any tool whatsoever at their disposal could only explore other things that were written inside that ridiculously sophisticated program. If their entire world, their entire universe, their entire reality, existed on that hard drive, then they could use any conceivable tool and explore any bit or byte across that entire hard drive. But they could never have any conceivable tool that would allow them to actually see me. Even if I sent them a JPEG of me, they would only be seeing it in their computer code reality.
If this is remotely analogous to how God created us, I think it makes sense of why methodological naturalism, (properly understood), is not simply essential but inescapable. Any miracle that God could conceivably do is still, at the end of the day, something that we must experience through our senses, and our senses can only experience and detect and perceive things that are within our universe, our reality.
CS Lewis one time made a similar observation (similar conceptually at least), he compared us to beings that live on a two dimensional plane. That was our entire existence, our entire perception, we could only move and live and have our being and perceive things along that two dimensional plan. And if we imagine the son of God as a sphere, that was above the plane, we could never use any scientific or empiric tools at our disposal to see it. But then, imagine if that sphere came down and intersected with our plan. At that point, we could interact with him, perceive him, but as two dimensional beings would, they would see nothing more than a circle. He oils that cease to be a sphere, it all we’d ever see is a circle. Believing him to be a sphere would by definition have to be by faith, not by any empiric tools available to 2 dimensional creatures.
Maybe I just played too many computer games, but there are certainly enough analogous factors that this helps me to conceive of the gap between our reality and anything we call supernatural, and why I so strongly affirm that science, as science, simply could never in any remote way prove or conclude supernatural agency.
Now I’ll stop blathering. If any of that was remotely helpful let me know and I can discuss further if you so desire.
I wonder what exactly Intelligent design method amounts to. How is it different than regular science? If it is other than the scientific method then it may (doubtfully) be superior to scientific method but it probably isn’t science as we know it any longer.
Given the amount of confusion that the subject raises (as demonstrated here), I suspect that it’s best to skip shorthand in this case and state your position explicitly.
Thanks for the detailed reply(ies) @Daniel_Fisher. Admittedly, I don’t really know much about ID so it has been learning experience reading your responses above. Also, I’m only just getting my head around MN as a concept to. However, I’ll attempt to rush in where angels fear to tread and offer a couple of first impressions.
Number 1, I have no problem with an intelligent designer. I might hold to evolution but I believe that God was intimately involved by his providence at every stage of the evolutionary process. Saying that God works through natural means doesn’t seem to preclude that he is also an intelligent designer. Why does it have to be either/or?
Number 2, I probably wouldn’t put the above comments in a science text book unless it were aimed at a Christian market. I’d want my science textbook to focus on the processes not the designer of the processes. For the later I would turn to theology of answers.
Number 3, I wonder if ID shares a similar weakness to philosophical arguments for the existence of God. Namely, that it is one thing to argue that since the universe had a beginning it requires a first cause (Cosmological Argument) or that ethics only makes sense if there is a divine lawgiver (moral argument). But it is another thing entirely to go from the Cosmological argument for the existence of a god, to then say that this god is in fact the God of the Bible incarnated in the historical person of Jesus. When that happens a person has left philosophy and entered theology proper. Do you follow?
In a similar way, I guess there is no problem using science to argue for an intelligent designer of some kind. But again, It is another thing to then suggest that this design is in fact a supernatural being like the God of Christianity. When the conversation goes there science is left behind as theology steps in. Again, I have no problem with that per se so long as everyone is clear that as soon as we say the intelligent designer is God that we are no longer doing science.
So based on my limited understanding of both MN and ID. That would be my initial first impression. What are your thoughts?
Thanks, and very good thoughts… I can offer you my $0.02 if at all helpful…
Most certainly need not an either or. For what it’s worth, I lean toward intelligent design primarily due to scientific considerations, not theological ones. I completely acknowledge, and probably myself could argue and articulate pretty well if I chose, the basic idea that God could have very gently and imperceptibly guided natural processes in such a way that the outcome was exactly what he wanted, his hand was untraceable. Very thing about aspects after home. Is being sold for 30 pieces so over, serious things seems to specific plan, these things or noticeable or supernatural intervention you God.
So in principle, I have no issue with the idea that God could have been been working subtly through strictly natural and “unguided/undirected/natural means to accomplish such feats. However, once I look at the exquisite engineering at the final step, There comes a point that an intelligent hand is very obvious.
For me, it is at least loosely analogous to watching a master magician or card mechanic at work… Richard Turner, for instance…
Richard is able to “coax” the cards and tweak them and in such a way that, to all appearances, the cards are being moved around according to the basic “rules” of probability. But once you see the final result, it is pretty obvious re was some mind of intelligent purposeful agency at work the whole time.
To simplify, there seem to me to be three different “models” for how biological complexities arose, assuming It was by God’s purpose.
A) instantaneous, immediate special creation of the entire creature de novo
B) Evolutionary/common descent, but with God’s direct (and detectable) intervention at numerous points to infuse major new leaps of complexity to overcome certain limitations that natural processes alone simply could not accomplish.
C) evolutionary process wherein all of the accomplishments were God working through “natural” processes, I.e., in ways where they were indistinguishable from the normal way we would expect “unguided” nature to unfold.
I don’t rule out “C” inherently, (though I do take scientific issue with it.) But even if “C” were the case, my issue is this… even if God worked in such way that his coaxing and subtle guidance of the process was undetectable at any one point, there comes a point where, when looking at the final product, one ought to be able to recognize - empirically - that intelligent agency had been at work. See the “Scrabble” illustration I came up with on the other thread for mor of my thoughts on that. I still don’t accept the idea that, even in approach “C” above, that intelligent agency would be either inappropriate, or impossible, to see or conclude.
I do follow, and if I may be so bold, I must humbly point out you have made a very critical and important category mistake from which I think much confusion on this topic comes from… but a very good mistake to make to allow clarification…
IF ID were an argument for God, then yes, it would suffer the same weakness as those other philosophical arguments. But _ID Is not, cannot be, and ought not be, _ an argument for God. As a scientific theory, it strictly limits to the question of whether biological life was intelligently designed.
The theory would be consistent with belief in God, and with arguments for God, and could certainly be appropriated and used for such. It the method itself is simply answering a scientific question… is biological life strictly result of blind/unintelligent natural processes, or does it bear marks of intelligent, design.
I would compare it to hubble’s Big Bang theory, in fact… before that, if I understand correctly, many scientists believed that matter, and the universe, was eternal. If that was the case, then of course, that would have undermined Plato’s “unmoved mover” or the “first cause” argument for God.
Now, the Big Bang theory happens to be consistent with the Christian doctrine of “in the beginning, God created…” and I have occasionally used that observation in my apologetics, where I thought it relevant. But the Big Bang theory was not developed to in any way support Christian theology. It happens to be consistent with it, and as such, may well prove useful in a Christian apologetics. But Hubble supported the belief because he thought it was scientifically demonstrable.
ID should be understood in that category. If we are speaking of it as a scientific approach or method or hypothesis, then it is simply seeking what is empirically demonstrable within the limits of science: was phenomenon “A” intelligently and purposefully dedigned, or is it “natural,” a product strictly of blind, unintelligent forces of nature? Whatever theological implications there may be from the answer to that question are for philosophers and theologians… I think it inappropriate for science to touch the “who” question about design, but I think the “whether” question she’ll within the bounds of science.
I think there probably is all sorts of confusion because some ID proponents carelessly jump right from the science into God discussions, and certainly the “argument from design” for God’s existence far predates modern ID movement (think of Paley back in 1802).
But in the context, when we are speaking of “Intelligent Design” as a scientific theory, we are limiting it to only what science can tell us.
Looks like a great discussion going on already, but I wrote a paper on this a few years ago that I’ve been told is readable
MN is in my mind the biggest area of disagreement between EC and ID folks. Our expectations of the kind of explanations science can deliver are pretty different. But we have a lot in common otherwise!
I have a very big problem with the definition of Natural.
We in our minuscule knowledge of Nature have only the sketchiest idea of the full extent of what we call Nature on this world let alone anywhere else in the universe
Join the crowd! As others here have noted also, a whole lot of assumptions get loaded into, and hidden behind that term; and I’m in agreement that this is a problem. I don’t think it’s even much of a meaningful or useful word at this level of philosophy.
I might use other words instead like “physically measurable” or “empirical”, but even those words - while slightly more specific in some ways, just shuffle the philosophical problem off to another term without really addressing anything about the alleged natural / supernatural divide.
Thanks for chipping in and for sharing a link to your article. I’ve read the first page and a half so far. First impression: very readable. The abstract is attention-grabbing. I resonated with your concern about science as functional atheism, I can see how Christian’s could have that concern. I also appreciated the Augustine quote about truth and common grace (and the sneaky Calvin quote in the endnote), I’ll be shamelessly storing them away for a future sermon!
Looking forward to reading the rest of the article.
I do sympathise with what you are saying and it does make sense. Please don’t take this personally, but how can one know whether or not ID is predicated on confirmation bias? We should expect to see evidence of design, we look for evidence of design, we then find evidence that fits our expectations. I guess my question is, how does one scientific test for evidence of design? I believe God providentially guided and sustains evolution in a similar way that I believe he providentially up sustains relativity or the boiling point of water. But I can’t scientifically prove it. How does one scientifically prove intelligent design? Does that make sense?
Yup, that makes a lot of sense and the little experience I have with ID has been that. Moving from one ‘area’ of an argument to another without an appropriate bridge is what my wife and I joking call the ‘Logic Leap fallacy’ because to get to the next phase of the argument one has to leap across a logical divide. This is akin to what we call the ‘Jesus Jump Fallacy’ where, a preacher/evangelist, jumps from (usually) an Old Testament text directly to Jesus without helping the listener understand the steps in between. Again a ‘jump’ is needed to get to from one part of the sermon to the next. It seems like you are saying that when apologists make ‘logic leaps’ from “Hey, look, scientific evidence that may point to a deisgn” to “and that designer is the God of the bible’ is an inappropriate use of ID.” Is that correct?
Liam, excellent thoughts. I concur that confirmation bias is always dangerous, hence we should always be checking and seeking counter evidence to our own beliefs and inclinations, to always sharpen ourselves.
I would observe however, that confirmation bias is a danger regardless of which side a person takes on this subject. If one approaches the data expecting that natural processes and phenomena are adequate explanations to biological complexity, And they seek evidence of such natural causation, they also may well find evidence that fits their expectation.
Or, put another way, if someone approaches the data expecting that they will not (or can not, or ought not?) find evidence of design, and they examine the evidence, they also may find evidence that fits their expectations. This is exactly my concern with methodological naturalism broadly understood, as it may rule out certain options from being even allowed for consideration… and as such may lead to the very confirmation bias you mentioned.
It does make sense. Stephen Meyer addresses this very question in detail in “signature in the cell”, I don’t remember the specifics, But at least in part, I recall his approach being one of reasoning to the best explanation. Part of it would be reasoning by exclusion, and if no naturalistic cause is shown sufficient, then a design hypothesis should be at least considered, even if as a tentative or working hypothesis. Then one tests against that hypothesis to try to either confirm or counter it, just like any scientific hypothesis or theory.
Precisely. I recall that in high school of being introduced to Plato’s “unmoved mover” Observation. Even at the time I recall that that observation, even if true, could only confirm that there must have been some “first cause.” And that argument itself did nothing to identify that first cause in any way with the God of the Bible. That would be such a logical Leap.
As mentioned, I think it would be the same kind of leap as if someone used the observations about the expanding universe, and the universe having a beginning, To prove the God of the Bible. At best, one can say that the big bang and expanding universe is in fact consistent with the biblical teaching and doctrine about God having created the universe, and the universe itself not being eternal. But there are many, many more steps between this two.
My observation here is that, simply because some Christians may well use Big Bang cosmology as a plank in their larger apologetic argument, this does not move Hubbles observation and theory from the realm of “science“ to the realm of “theology“. He proposed his theory based on the evidence in front of him, not to prove or support any particular religious belief.
Similarly, Francis Crick proposed his intelligent design hypothesis not to support any religious belief, but because that hypothesis seemed to him to be consistent with the evidence as he examined it. The fact that others may recognize and use that scientific observation as part of their larger apologetic argument similarly does not move Crick’s hypothesis from “science” To ”theology,” I would argue.
