No, actually - making a rhetorical point is not demonstrating error. Leave it.
Good post, Jay, and some good points - I plead guilty to extending the MN of biblical studies to theology (but in mitigation suggest, as before, that the latter builds on the former: I don’t know much theology that finds it possible to bypass skeptcial conclusions made in biblkical studies and maintain respect in the academy).
At heart, the problems, as in science, are the fuzzy boundaries between methodology and metaphysics, and the fact that in not a few academic establishments, metaphysical naturalism, riding on the back of the methodology, appears to get a free pass in that community’s literature.
This should not happen, as Joshua has repeatedly said, but Keener, for example, wrote his 2-volume on miracles primarily to bring the discussion of miracle accounts as eye-witness statements (whether true or false) into the frame of historical evidence in his own New Testament field. In other words (presumably) there is a tendency in his field for conclusions to be argued on the tacit assumption of naturalism.
If, for example, as Keener says, gospels are dated on the basis that, because they contain miracle accounts, a couple of generations or more must have passed, it ought to be possible to objection that that is unwarranted, if the accounts are true, because the whole point is that Jesus was extraordinary. But on Keener’s account that will draw the response that history doesn’t deal with the extraordinary (if, indeed, the objection psssed peer review into print) either in miracles or personalities, requiring his laboured (ten year) project just to show that miracle accounts aren’t extraordinary, and allow them to creep into historical methodology as “quasi-natural”, ie common.
That, I suppose, is the purpose of this thread (if we can successfully bracket off the “social” sciences and apply the arguments to “natural” sciences alone). The common assumption that all hell will let loose if “supernatural” is allowed into even the social sciences hasn’t, as far as I can see, really been tested, let alone validated, because social sciences largely grew up under methodological naturalism of the 19th century model.
But before that, history was done, theology was done, and various other “sciences” analogous to the social sciences were done without such a formal boundary being drawn, as VJ has, I think shown. The attempt to suggest his 31 scientists were making some kind of conscious distinction between their science, in which they somehow instinctively stuck with MN, and their metaphysical, philosophical or theological work, in which they set it temprorarily aside, is unconvincing because anachronistic. It was all philosophy to them, and the “natural” philosophy was expected to flow freely into the rest.
“What is the alternative?” Currently nothing, obviously, because great minds have not seen fit to address the issue as Bacon did for his day. But I would suggest that the alternative must be something less clearly reliant on “the mechanical philosophy” which gave rise to what we agree is, at least, a local culture division of the world into “natural” and “supernatural.”
1 Like
I didn’t say it did. Please read what I wrote.
It can. No problem with that. Of course that’s not what this quote says. It doesn’t say ID is a scientific theory that says the same thing in scientific language that a revealed text says in theological language. It says the opposite; it says ID is theology, expressed in the language of information theory. That’s enormously revealing, and it’s what critics of ID have been saying for a long time; ID is theology dressed up in the language of science.
It doesn’t. Again you’re avoiding the issue which was raised, and switching to a different topic as if that was the issue raised.
That is precisely why it’s a weasel word. They’re saying “Oh we’re against anyone forcing ID to be taught in schools”, as if that was ever the issue. That wasn’t the issue. Look at what they don’t say. They don’t say “We don’t want ID taught in schools”. The reason why they don’t say that is that they do want ID taught in schools. That’s why they say things like this.
-
“Although Discovery Institute does not advocate requiring the teaching of intelligent design in public schools, it does believe there is nothing unconstitutional about discussing the scientific theory of design in the classroom”
-
“school boards have the authority to permit, and even encourage, teaching about design theory”
-
“Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools”
It is when you are not actually teaching genuine weaknesses in current evolutionary theory, you are in fact teaching ID claims about weaknesses in evolutionary theory. Especially when those claims are false.
From the IDers I know who still market him as an “agnostic scientist” who supports ID. That was my very first introduction to ID, by IDers who assured me Behe was an agnostic without any religious beliefs.
@vjtorley
Thanks for your considerate response.
Well, deity is not a name, nor is it a proper noun. By the rules of English grammar, it should not be capitalized unless used as a substitute for a name. Capitalizing it for reasons of piety indicates that you are using it as a substitute for God, sending the unspoken clue to the faithful that this unknown designer is really the God of the Bible. More on this later.
Yes, they viewed themselves as philosophers, so why do you refer to them as scientists? Isn’t that a massive anachronism? By my count, your first 17 examples are pre-1830. Should you change the title to “14 Great Scientists…”? Or, better yet, take those 17 natural philosophers at the start of your list and make a list of the greatest philosophers in history who also were Christians. It would be a much longer and more impressive list.
I’m sorry to disagree, but you’ve missed the mark. The Design Argument is a logical argument from the premises to a conclusion. This is a philosophical argument, by definition. The entire procedure is a philosophical procedure, not a scientific one. Just because a scientist uses data derived from science to reach his/her metaphysical conclusion does not transform it – Voila! – into a scientific argument.
Aquinas’ argument for a first cause, for instance, draws for its force upon the “scientific” observation that everything in nature has a prior cause. Aquinas based his argument on premises that are intrinsic (as opposed to extrinsic) to science, but no one today would claim that his argument is a scientific argument for God (unless, for religious reasons, they wanted to re-classify it as science so that it could introduced in public school classrooms).
“Methodological Naturalism,” as its name makes clear, applies to the currently accepted method of scientific investigations. For the life of me, I cannot understand why Christians think MN is the fountain and source of all unbelief, and that overturning it will somehow inoculate our children from atheism. If Christians want to legislate something into the curriculum that is truly worth teaching our children, as well as something that is factually accurate and religiously neutral, we should simply teach both the strengths and the weaknesses of MN.
The strengths of MN are already being taught in elementary school, when students begin to learn about the scientific method. The weakness of MN is, as everyone here already agrees, that it restricts itself from even asking certain questions. What science does not say is just as important, if not more so, than what it says. If we clearly understood this, and made our children clearly understand this, there would not be nearly so much hand-wringing in the church.
Well, it is pertinent if ID is understood to be an argument proving the existence of a supreme intelligence because of all that we observe in nature that appears to require a designer. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought that’s what ID is all about.
I’ll give you a down-and-dirty exegesis of Romans 1, via Pascal. He argued that God tempers our knowledge of him so that there is enough light for those who desire to see, and enough darkness for those of an opposite disposition. “There is sufficient clearness to enlighten the elect, and sufficient obscurity to humble them. There is sufficient obscurity to blind the reprobate, and sufficient clearness to condemn them and make them inexcusable. Saint Augustine” Romans 1 says the same, that God has granted men sufficient clues in nature to render them without excuse for not having sought him. Instead, they fashioned lesser gods for themselves …
Strictly speaking, Ps. 19 does not try to prove that God exists. As in the rest of the Scripture, God is assumed to exist in the first line, just like Gen. 1:1. “In the beginning, God …” The heavens declare God’s glory, but it is God’s speech, his decrees, that provide firm footing.
Actually, I’m trying to be intellectually fair. I freely admit that the argument from design has some persuasive power. I personally agree with its conclusion. But, just as with MN, we should take note of the limitations of ID, as well. In particular, those who argue from design frequently find their examples confounded by advances in science, but they rarely will adjust their positions when confronted with contrary facts. I also find it unfortunate that the defenders of ID place far too much confidence in it. This is just the general impression of a non-specialist, so take it for what it’s worth. Still …
I have to note that you’re making the same points as Pascal. Like I mentioned to Swamidass a long ways back, the proofs of God from nature that Pascal disliked were exactly the 17th-century equivalent of argument(s) from design, and none of those 17th-century arguments tried to prove the existence of the Christian God, either. They simply sought to prove the existence of a designer. Pascal’s critique of them ended by noting that even if such arguments were successful, they would not advance a person one inch toward salvation. (Case in point: Antony Flew.)
Awww. You should take a second (or maybe first?) look at Pascal. You would find much to warm your heart. He’s too Catholic for many Protestants, but too Protestant for most Catholics. Most of his literary reputation was made through a series of anonymous letters that he wrote defending a Catholic sect, the Jansenists, who took such a strong Augustinian stance on original sin and the sufficiency of God’s grace in saving sinners that they were almost Calvinists. Pascal poked incessant fun at the Jesuits, especially the (then) controversial idea of papal infallibility. But, regarding his Christian credentials, all that you really have to know about him was discovered sewn into his clothing after his death, so that he might always carry it next to his heart:
"The year of grace 1654
Monday, 23 November, feast of Saint Clement…
From about half past ten in the evening until half past midnight.
Fire
‘God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob,’ not of philosophers and scholars.
Certainty, certainty, heartfelt, joy, peace.
God of Jesus Christ.
God of Jesus Christ.
My God and your God.
‘Thy God shall be my God.’
The world forgotten, and everything except God.
He can only be found by the ways taught in the Gospels.
Greatness of the human soul.
‘O righteous Father, the world had not known thee, but I have known thee.’
Joy, joy, joy, tears of joy.
I have cut myself off from him.
They have forsaken me, the fountain of living waters.
‘My God wilt thou forsake me?’
Let me not be cut off from him for ever!
And this is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.’
Jesus Christ.
Jesus Christ.
I have cut myself off from him, shunned him, denied him, crucified him.
Let me never be cut off from him!
He can only be kept by the ways taught in the Gospel.
Sweet and total renunciation.
Total submission to Jesus Christ and my director.
Everlasting joy in return for one day’s effort on earth.
I will not forget thy word. Amen."
I’ll end as Psalm 19 ends:
May these words of my mouth and this meditation of my heart
be pleasing in your sight,
Lord, my Rock and my Redeemer.
1 Like
Quoting myself. Is that bad form? Haha
I forgot to mention that the frequency with which ID proponents find themselves confounded by new discoveries speaks to the overall weakness of the approach. (Again, this is the general impression of a non-specialist.) From my perspective, when ID evidences keep turning out to be non-evidences, it leaves the non-specialist audience with the impression that if this is the best argument Christianity can muster, its “proofs” must be weak indeed.
Sorry for the lengthy post. God bless
I chose to avoid engaging in the rehashing of technical details of why ID doesn’t qualify as “science” (we’ve been there before and minds are unlikely to change on this) but I do draw the line at this “teach the confusion” type of argument:
I firmly believe that no topic that is rejected by >95% of the professionals in a field should ever be a part of either high school or even undergraduate curricula; the same applies to education of teachers. I challenge you to find just one example where a topic is currently included in a nationwide high school curriculum where >95% of the professionals in that field reject it as false.
And since you won’t find such an example, what does that say about your and DI’s insistence that “our own theory is different”?
1 Like
Regarding an official inclusion of this in the curriculum … you may be right. I don’t have much of a dog in that fight, though Eddie might and I don’t speak for him. But that isn’t what I heard Eddie speaking of in his post above. I hear him speaking of a teacher’s fear of even “going there” at all should a student inquire, and I agree with Eddie that such fear is real.
If you are thinking (Nuno or JBurke) that such things should not be permitted any time in a class room at all (much less officially putting them in the curriculum), then I think it is Eddie who is on solid ground here. I do realize that your reaction to him doesn’t claim that … I’m just following on what Eddie spoke of (in his most recent posts above … at least) and pointing out that you then react to a different goal post: that of insisting it be a forced part of the curriculum. To say that a teacher must deflect student curiosity should it “stray” into these matters (again …what I heard Eddie saying --not you), would be akin to a football coach never mentioning the out-of-bounds lines to the players because “no part of this game happens on the other side of that line --so don’t even bring it up please! --just don’t cross it; that’s all you need to know.”
I’m very glad that I teach in a private Christian school where I have the freedom to go wherever I deem it appropriate or important in science discussion with students who already have enough different fears trained into them against various verboten territories. My public school colleagues have to awkwardly dance around or away from these things, and (here the irony really shows), this fear comes back to roost against those very rabid anti-IDists that run screaming from the room at the mention of I.D. --it comes back around in this way: so many public school biology texts who want to market to the widest possible audiences are now (I have heard here I think) giving more and more watered down presentations of evolution, in an effort not to offend that huge constituency of anti-evolutionists. Maybe pretty soon the only place one will receive any robust teaching about evolution will only be in the Christian schools (especially the Catholic ones). I know --that is hyperbole, but still; the effect is apparently real.
So I tend to lump all the anti-IDists, anti-creationists, and anti-evolutionists all into the same fear-mongering camp. They are all close intellectual cousins of each other whether they are willing to admit it or not. Give me the classroom where we can “waste” at least some time discussing in a safe (and hopefully informed) environment the current relevant science topics (or even just science-related at least) as curiosity may lead.
All that --and now with the final reminder that I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you, Nuno, about the “official inclusion in the curriculum part” --though I’m not necessarily agreeing either here or now. I’m just with Eddie, I think, in balking when judges or any officials try to intrude into classrooms to erect intellectual fences complete with “no trespassing” signs.
2 Likes
And my above post was written and posted before Eddy’s latest reply which he must have been typing at the same time. So maybe we just covered the same territory … I’ll find out now…
I was intentional in phrasing the question as i) inclusion in the curriculum in ii) the specific field of study where 95% of professionals disagree with the validity of the topic. When @Eddie phrases the contrast as
then the natural interpretation is that the former is considered acceptable while the latter is not. Any sort of “teaching” will require training the teachers on the subject so it all comes down to the same conversation anyway. If we agree that the topic should not be included in the curriculum, then just trying to distinguish between “bringing it up” and “being ready to respond” is really a distinction without a difference - I still see no other example of where you would recommend educating high school teachers to “be ready to respond” to questions about minority views rejected by 95% of professionals in the same field.
That said, we can probably find room for agreement when it comes to bringing up ID as a case study in class on philosophy or history of science. What is important here is that the students understand that the field of knowledge being discussed is history or philosophy, not biology or science. As such, if ID is brought up in a science class I would argue that the proper answer would be to respond that “To the best of our knowledge there is no scientific evidence to support those views but that would be a good question to bring up in your class on philosophy of science.”
My main concern here is with being serious about teaching the consensus in a field of knowledge until students reach a level of understanding advanced enough to begin addressing the limitations in the field. Otherwise we’re just teaching confusion and doing everyone a serious disservice. That said, the fact that this conversation about ID is a religious argument is demonstrated by your own lack of examples where you would support the same inclusion of (very small) minority views in other subjects - religion is indeed the only reason why there is even conversation about ID being mentioned in high schools. As such, I can see why it is considered unconstitutional to bring it up in state or federal institutions if it is to be discussed as a valid scientific theory.
1 Like
I misled you a bit with my phrasing. Pascal wasn’t explicitly referring to Rom. 1, so I was using the spirit of his words as commentary on Rom. 1. In any case, my thought (and Pascal’s) align with the major commentators’ interpretation of those verses. In vs. 18-19, what is known about God is plain to all people. It is therefore not the product of a chain of reasoning. It is not something possessed only by the smart guys. Paul is referring to the instinctual recognition of God (that sense of awe?), that all people feel when confronted by the vastness and intricacy of nature, and which renders all without excuse for seeking him.
I agree that many people are hostile to aspects of the ID movement. I don’t agree that it is because they are hostile to natural theology, per se. If, for example, they would drop the charade of calling it science, which is a semantic tactic adopted for political reasons, and start calling it natural theology, as you do here, the hostility would go away tomorrow. What I find offensive is arguing for the truth of God using disingenuous language and selective evidence. “God’s name is blasphemed among the Gentiles” because of such tactics.
There was a time in my life when natural theology and proofs of God’s existence were important to me. So, I do not deny that they may serve a purpose, especially in young believers. This secondary apologetic pales in comparison to the apologetic used by the Lord’s apostles. God was pleased by the foolishness of the message that they preached to save those who believed. The primary apologetic of the NT is the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus in fulfillment of Scripture. There is very, very strong biblical evidence that this was the primary apologetic used by the evangelists and the apostles. Natural theology is not disapproved of in Scripture. It just isn’t used. We may employ it in any variety of ways, provided we recognize its limitations and proper use.
1 Like
Jay313:
Thank you for your response. I’d like to address a few remarks you made to me and Eddie.
Yes, they [the 31 scientists on my list - VJT] viewed themselves as philosophers, so why do you refer to them as scientists? Isn’t that a massive anachronism?
Wait a minute. Isaac Newton died in 1727 - over 100 years before the term “scientist” was coined. You don’t think think Newton should be called a scientist? I’m gob-smacked.
The Design Argument is a logical argument from the premises to a conclusion. This is a philosophical argument, by definition. The entire procedure is a philosophical procedure, not a scientific one. Just because a scientist uses data derived from science to reach his/her metaphysical conclusion does not transform it – Voila! – into a scientific argument.
Hang on. You’re seriously telling me that a conclusion derived entirely from scientific premises isn’t scientific? Pull the other one.
As for Aquinas’ First Cause argument, the problem with it is that without the importation of additional premises which are not scientific (e.g. every contingent being is a composite of essence and existence, and therefore requires a cause), we are left knowing nothing about the nature of the First Cause.
I’ll give you a down-and-dirty exegesis of Romans 1, via Pascal. He argued that God tempers our knowledge of him so that there is enough light for those who desire to see, and enough darkness for those of an opposite disposition.
Sorry, but I don’t buy that. Were that the case, then Scripture would characterize those who disbelieve in God as merely willful. Instead, it calls them fools: The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” (Psalm 14.) St Paul writes of unbelievers and idolaters: “For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools.” (Romans 1:21-22.)
In any case, my thought (and Pascal’s) align with the major commentators’ interpretation of those verses. In vs. 18-19, what is known about God is plain to all people. It is therefore not the product of a chain of reasoning. It is not something possessed only by the smart guys. Paul is referring to the instinctual recognition of God (that sense of awe?), that all people feel when confronted by the vastness and intricacy of nature, and which renders all without excuse for seeking him.
In that case, you need to read Dr. Douglas Axe’s latest Book, “Undeniable.” It really supersedes all other books on Intelligent Design (I’ve just received my copy), and I don’t think anyone will write a better book on the subject, in my lifetime. What Dr. Axe does is to show that the case for Intelligent Design actually rests on a very powerful intuition shared by virtually all people, which he calls the Universal Design Intuition. This intuition is enough to tell us that living things were designed. You don’t need to be a Ph.D. to have a justified reason for believing that. Intelligent Design arguments are just a way of formalizing this argument, mathematically. I really suggest you read this book. Compared with it, anything I’ve written on the subject of Intelligent Design is so much straw (to cite a metaphor used by Aquinas).
@Eddie, you really are making the point for me here - I hope it is clear to everyone that the last thing the teacher should do is engage with the student as if astrology is a “minority scientific view” that should be discussed on equal footing with astronomy. It should also be clear to everyone that it would be ridiculous to require that physics/astronomy teachers be educated in astrology just to be able to answer this question in case someone asks about it. The proper answer to this question would still be the same as I mentioned before.
Which is exactly why I offer this as a point where I think we could all agree on - it would be much better to invest lobbying resources into adding a course on philosophy of science than on trying to find ways to “sneak” ID into biology or science classes.
1 Like
Now this is a very interesting claim that I would be interested in double-checking - can you please provide even just one reference for a formal mathematical model of ID that has withstood scientific scrutiny through publication in a mainstream journal?
2 Likes