Welcome to Terrell Clemmons: Questions on Methodological Naturalism

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@DaleCutler

It seems to me that you are feigning omniscience.

No more than you are, Dale.

[DaleCutler]

I am attributing omniscience to an infallible Testifier, not myself. Be clear on that.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Eddie

For example, most of them would say that the argument that the flagellum must have been designed is not valid, because various structures less complex than the entire flagellum could have existed earlier and been “co-opted.” This, they would say, can be explained in Darwinian terms without reference to design.

That’s a pretty spectacular misrepresentation, “Eddie.”

Only your IDCreationist side is about what people say. The hypothesis that the type 1 bacterial flagellum (one of at least 3 in biology, all with radically different “designs,” which by itself makes the Design Inference look silly) shares common ancestry with other extant structures is supported by a lot of evidence that you’re predictably eliding.

But when all you’ve got is handwaving, I can understand why you might feel the need to aggressively misrepresent the scientific side as mere handwaving and ignore all that pesky evidence.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@DaleCutler

I am attributing omniscience to an infallible Testifier, not myself. Be clear on that.

And in doing so, you are claiming to know the intent of the Infallible Testifier, which basically requires omniscience of yourself.

[DaleCutler]

Hardly. He tells us of his intent himself.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@terrellclemmons

TE/EC leaders usually loudly protest that they don’t subscribe to NOMA, but when I read what they actually write about the separation of science and faith questions, I usually can’t see even a hairsbreadth of difference between their position and NOMA

I have sensed this as well. I’m glad you pointed it out.

To be clear @terrellclemmons, I’m pretty sure @eddie agrees this doesn’t apply to me.

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@swamidass

To be clear @terrellclemmons, I’m pretty sure @eddie agrees this doesn’t apply to me.

Joshua’s position is sui generis – he doesn’t fit into the typical categories, so when I criticize BioLogos or TE/EC proponents in a general way, I don’t necessarily include Joshua, even though he was once associated with BioLogos and many would call him a TE/EC.

[Jordan (Jordan Mantha)]

@terrellclemmons

TE/EC leaders usually loudly protest that they don’t subscribe to NOMA, but when I read what they actually write about the separation of science and faith questions, I usually can’t see even a hairsbreadth of difference between their position and NOMA

I have sensed this as well. I’m glad you pointed it out.

It always seemed like Gould’s point with NOMA was to allow for the possibility of theists while making sure they were properly walled off from affecting the purity of science. While EC/TE leaders do seem to have a strong aversion to concordism and also seem to take a stronger stand on methodological naturalism than YEC/OEC/ID typically do, I do think they are often more open to God’s working in the world than NOMA usually would allow.

What I see as missing in EC/TE is a robust theology of creation and divine action. They typically will say “God-guided evolution” or “God created through evolution” but it’s not very clear what those mean most of the time or how they interact with other aspects of theology. I think this may be because EC/TE are often scientists with little or no formal theological training. I often hear sort of back-of-the-envelope, amateur, theological responses when they are asked about the hermeneutical and theological ramifications of their view. I don’t often get a sense that they are trying to become deists or philosophical naturalists or rule out divine intervention.

There’s also a fair amount of diversity, it seems to me. I’ve been to talks by Ken Miller and Kathryn Applegate and they seemed fairly different in this area (demarcation and influence of science and theology, divine action, etc.).

[Argon]

@DaleCutler

I’m sorry, I still have not been articulate enough. I mean theistic design vs. philosophical naturalism.

Ah. OK. The thing is, with theistic design, a particular grain of sand, the moon & its orbit, parts of the galaxy we’ll never see because they’re beyond our light sphere and the exact combination of individual gas molecules in each breath we take are there by intent and purpose.

Humans and a number of animals can deduce intent – at least those that can generate a model of minds. Sometimes specific deductions are correct, sometimes false positives, sometimes true negatives and sometimes they are false negatives. There are a number of ways we can evaluate these possibilities. And there is a very long history of philosophical & scientific discussion on just those sorts of problems. With regard to the Earth’s moon, on the proposal of its being there right now for the purpose of enabling or stimulating astronomical investigation, I’d say the case is hard to determine that it’s not a false positive. Sure, some of our observations have been made easier by the arrangement, but I think if we had originated on Mars, we’d have found Deimos and Phobos would’ve stimulated & assisted astronomical investigation there as well.

But aren’t the number of parameters for the Earth, Moon & Sun orbits at just this time so improbable as to scream out “intent” and “purpose”? Perhaps, but perhaps no greater than the improbability of a particular grain of sand lying on a particular beach, ground up by tides and left on the shore right now, so that a small kid with a magnifying glass happens to pick it out and marvel at the grain’s structure. I’d say there is a difference between assuming that all things serve a purpose and are there by intent versus knowing or deducing the specific intent behind them.

[Argon]

@Jordan

What I see as missing in EC/TE is a robust theology of creation and divine action. They typically will say “God-guided evolution” or “God created through evolution” but it’s not very clear what those mean most of the time or how they interact with other aspects of theology.

Hmm… I would’ve assumed the Roman Catholic Church, with its long history of theological investigation, its ability to muster significant brain power and its apparent acceptance of most scientific understanding, would have one of those “robust theologies”. What’s their solution?

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@Argon

Hmm… I would’ve assumed the Roman Catholic Church, with its long history of theological investigation, its ability to muster significant brain power and its apparent acceptance of most scientific understanding, would have one of those “robust theologies”. What’s their solution?

Of course, Jordan can answer in his own way. I will merely throw in a reference here. If you are interested in the history of the Catholic Church’s response to evolution in particular, a thorough discussion is found in Michael Chaberek’s Catholicism and Evolution: A History from Darwin to Pope Francis (available from Amazon and other places).

Of course, a “robust theology of creation and divine action” will talk about more than just evolution, but it will definitely talk about evolution, so that book may be helpful in answering part of your question.

[terrellclemmons]

@swamidass

To be clear @terrellclemmons, I’m pretty sure @eddie agrees this doesn’t apply to me.

How would you describe your position? Just in 2-3 sentences; I don’t need a detailed treatise.

[terrellclemmons]

@Jordan

It always seemed like Gould’s point with NOMA was to allow for the possibility of theists while making sure they were properly walled off from affecting the purity of science.

It does seem to serve this purpose, doesn’t it? In the article that launched this whole discussion, I quoted Richard Dawkins saying as much: “There’s a kind of … evolution defense lobby. They are mostly atheists, but they are desperately wanting to be friendly to mainstream, sensible, religious people. The way you do that is to tell them that there’s no incompatibility between science and religion.”

Now, I’m not saying I think there’s inherent incompatibility between science and religion because that depends on what is meant by “science” and “religion.” But it does seem that to the extent professing Christians adhere to NOMA, they serve the interests of Dawkins and atheism quite nicely.

[T_aquaticus]

@DaleCutler

I can’t tell if that is supposed to be in support of Horton’s claim or not. If it is, it suffers from the same fallacious presumption of knowing all design parameters and rationales, the totality of which we do not have access to.

Then it seems you will think anything is designed no matter what it looks like or how it behaves.

@DaleCutler

Not being an astronomer or astrophysicist, it certainly seems within the realm of possibility that things are learned during annular eclipses as well, potentially things that could not be learned during total eclipses, or at least studied as much.

A lot is learned with no Moon in the way.

[T_aquaticus]

@terrellclemmons

Now, I’m not saying I think there’s inherent incompatibility between science and religion because that depends on what is meant by “science” and “religion.” But it does seem that to the extent professing Christians adhere to NOMA, they serve the interests of Dawkins and atheism quite nicely.

What do you think the interests of atheism are?

It would seem to me that atheists and theists share a lot of interests, such as the advancement of science and science education. All of the atheists I know fully support religious freedoms and the rights of people to live their lives in accordance with those beliefs.

I would also encourage you to read Gould’s essay on what NOMA is (link in quote below). Gould is not proscribing that NOMA be followed. Rather, Gould was merely describing what he saw, what already exists in society.

The lack of conflict between science and religion arises from a lack of overlap between their respective domains of professional expertise—science in the empirical constitution of the universe, and religion in the search for proper ethical values and the spiritual meaning of our lives. The attainment of wisdom in a full life requires extensive attention to both domains—for a great book tells us that the truth can make us free and that we will live in optimal harmony with our fellows when we learn to do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly.
–Stephen Jay Gould, “Nonoverlapping Magisteria”

Gould even talks about people like Dawkins:

Just as religion must bear the cross of its hard-liners. I have some scientific colleagues, including a few prominent enough to wield influence by their writings, who view this rapprochement of the separate magisteria with dismay. To colleagues like me—agnostic scientists who welcome and celebrate thc rapprochement, especially the pope’s latest statement—they say: “C’mon, be honest; you know that religion is addle-pated, superstitious, old-fashioned b.s.; you’re only making those welcoming noises because religion is so powerful, and we need to be diplomatic in order to assure public support and funding for science.” I do not think that this attitude is common among scientists, but such a position fills me with dismay—and I therefore end this essay with a personal statement about religion, as a testimony to what I regard as a virtual consensus among thoughtful scientists (who support the NOMA principle as firmly as the pope does).

I am not, personally, a believer or a religious man in any sense of institutional commitment or practice. But I have enormous respect for religion, and the subject has always fascinated me, beyond almost all others (with a few exceptions, like evolution, paleontology, and baseball).
[ibid]

I suspect that you would agree with a lot of what Gould believed, even if you don’t share a belief in God.

[DaleCutler]

@Argon

The thing is, with theistic design, a particular grain of sand, the moon & its orbit, parts of the galaxy we’ll never see because they’re beyond our light sphere and the exact combination of individual gas molecules in each breath we take are there by intent and purpose.

I don’t see any particular point that you are making. Some things are trivial and incidental in any intentional endeavor, including the universe.

Regarding Deimos and Phobo, how do their diameters and distances compare? The point is not about stimulating and merely assisting, it is about the very possibility or impossibility of discovering certain things.

I think you are overlooking that we are talking not about individual improbable events, but meaningful groups and meaningful series of improbable events, and this as well:

@terrellclemmons

There is a difference between a set of circumstances that is improbable, and a set of circumstances that is improbable and also performs a function.

And Christians have reasons for knowing there are reasons.

[terrellclemmons]

@T_aquaticus

It would seem to me that atheists and theists share a lot of interests, such as the advancement of science and science education.

I agree with you that atheists and theists share a lot of interests. And I’m all for the advancement of science and science education. What I would take issue with is the advancement of philosophical materialism in the name of science.

I may well agree with a lot of what Gould believed, so thanks for the link and excerpt. Would I be right to conclude that you do adhere to NOMA?

[T_aquaticus]

@terrellclemmons

What I would take issue with is the advancement of philosophical materialism in the name of science.

As do I. That is another thing many atheists and theists can agree on.

@terrellclemmons

I may well agree with a lot of what Gould believed, so thanks for the link and excerpt. Would I be right to conclude that do adhere to NOMA?

NOMA isn’t something that people adhere to. NOMA is simply a description of how things work in our culture. I do agree that NOMA is a good description of how science and religion interact.

[DaleCutler]

My reply to @Argon is relvant to your remarks as well:

Welcome to Terrell Clemmons: Questions on Methodological Naturalism

[terrellclemmons]

@T_aquaticus

NOMA isn’t something that people adhere to. NOMA is simply a description of how things work in our culture. I do agree that NOMA is a good description of how science and religion interact.

Since you identify as an atheist, would I be right to conclude that for you personally, religion plays no part in the formation of your own worldview?