correct. But more specifically, the scientific discovery (failure of Bell’s inequality in quantum physics) was that there are events which have no cause within the accepted premises of the scientific worldview (such as local causality). This discovery brought an end to determinism within those premises.
David Bohm tried to keep physical determinism alive by imagining an extension of the physical beyond them (i.e. without local causality). The scientific community could not take such an idea very seriously, for it makes little sense in science to discard some findings of science in order to avoid accepting other findings of science.
Of course this finding was not a problem either for those believing in a reality outside the scientific worldview, or for those willing to let go of determinism. And personally I don’t see much reason to cling to either of these – no reason to limit reality to the scientific worldview and no reason to believe in determinism either. I can believe in non-physical causes (from outside the scientific worldview) for events, AND also believe that some events have no cause beyond the probabilistic constraints of natural law. I see freedom in this for both the involvement of God in events and for (incompatibilist) free will.
Yet in this worldview, these uncaused events are not thought capable of affecting our world every now and then, like being able to explain documented reports of medical miracles.
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
123
It’s as Stalin said, quantity is quality. The subjective is objective. I.e. phenomenologically objectifiable. And social injustice is easily measured.
I think sometimes it’s easier to identify what leaves the realm of good science and becomes pseudoscience. And I would say making up explanations to fit observed outcomes is veering into pseudoscience territory. Science makes testable predictions. Even in fields where “falsifiability” as you describe it is difficult, there is scientific modeling. Models either work well or they don’t, and when they work well, they fit with observed reality at different points in time and they predict outcomes at future points in time correctly. I don’t think you can put God in a scientific model or test God as a variable, so yeah, methodological naturalism is part of the accepted methodology for making observations and reporting what you find.
Even if our morals are a product of evolution, they still exist. We can still choose to follow our own subjective sense of morality no matter its origin. No theory in science can tell us whether we should follow our own inner moral sense.
Morality wouldn’t be debunked if morality is subjective. In fact, subjective morality is much better than objective morality because a subjective morality would be based on our own human wants and needs, in the human experience. In an objective morality something could be moral even if every human thought it was immoral. In reality, morality makes no sense outside of what we humans subjectively want and need.
And I don’t see why an objective morality would need to be supernatural to begin with, or even why a morality supplied by a supernatural deity would be objective. A deity could give us a set of subjective morals.
I don’t see why morals would be false if they evolved. I also don’t see why subjective morality would be false.
I don’t know of anyone who can justify the existence of an objective morality, no matter the method they use.
For the theistic evolutionist expressing their ideas to interested parties in the theistic camp, it would preclude some unnecessary misunderstanding. As it isn’t naturalism which is being assumed, but scientific objectivity.
Whether or not we can arrive at a genuinely unexplainable phenomenon, is as they say, yet to be determined
What’s the difference between objectivity and naturalism as they are used in science? From what I can see, nature in science is defined as the stuff that can be objectively measured. If God or the divine could be objectively measured then they would be considered part of nature. If God or the divine can not be objectively measured, then they are not included within science.
In my discussion with theistic evolutionists and evolutionary creationists, they don’t believe that God’s interactions with nature can be objectively measured. They don’t think theistic evolution is scientific.
Proclaiming something to be morally wrong does not make it objective. Swinging this back to the topic, if I proclaim that the moon is made of green cheese this does not qualify as an objective measurement or scientific fact just by proclaiming it.
If you don’t see a difference, then for charity’s sake, it would go a long way to help the discussion for our weaker brothers and sisters in the faith. And it would make us better stewards of our time, as we would not to have to explain for the umpteenth time why methodological naturalism doesn’t mean one is an ontological naturalist.
Exactly. There are lots of areas of human experience which are not about the empirical. But for making sense of the physical world it is tough to beat science.
Totally agree with this. There is what reason or science can and cannot determine to be true, and there is the testimony of the Spirit which can be highly subjective, but not wishy washy, and this work will bear fruit.
“The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children. Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.”
The error I see many making (not saying you are doing this) is trying to claim their subjective morality is somehow superior or binding when its lack of epistemic or ontological basis makes it arbitrary. This is the main bone I have to pick with secular humanists.
The issue isn’t with the content of subjective morality but with its justification to others. To claim people “ought” to do something is a special type of claim, so someone who believes morality is subjective yet uses these claims must admit they are trying to manipulate the behavior or beliefs of others without any foundation in reality.
The simple fact is I experience my own pleasure and pain different from how I experience the pleasure and pain of others. This already forms a serious challenge to any idea of “equality” under a subjective system of morals. Someone can (subjectively) agree they ought to keep slaves or be indifferent to the suffering of others, and there’s no rational way we can convince them they are “wrong” because there is no “right.”
Notice how secular humanists smuggle in a teleological aspect to their system of morality (people “ought” to treat others with respect, equality, etc) while denying any basis with which they can justify these premises. They thus can’t give anyone a reason to follow this system because they themselves didn’t reason their way to their moral conclusions. Under naturalistic explanations, they arbitrarily accepted it for living in a westernized, Christian influenced country.
If we do not believe we can reasonably define an “ought” or provide a reason for following “ought”-based obligations (which would probably have to be supernatural in origin because it doesn’t seem we can derive such prescriptive claims naturally), naturalistic “morality” will need to free itself from trying to change human nature/behavior.
If morality really is subjective, people have no reason for choosing one moral system over another. Societies can’t have moral “progress” (like abolishing slavery) because the culture and moral system of a slaveholding society is subjectively/relatively true to the citizens of that society and is different than the system we have today.
