You’re not wrong. And there’s no one policing them either, as there are allegedly policing biologists in Eddie’s fantasy.
Unlike most explanatory analogies used in biology, I suspect that it never does.
1 Like
I’m not sure what the problem is, but I found this easily enough. It doesn’t seem entirely pseudonymous: Edward Robinson | The Hump of the Camel
In what way does it not “seem entirely pseudonymous,” Dale?
That the other authors at that site don’t disown him? I presume they are aware of some credentials.
He’s pseudonymous. This isn’t about who might or might not be aware of credentials.
Well, they nailed this:
It’s about your taking offense and demanding credentials to legitimize what he said. That might be a logical fallicy expressible in Latin. 
1 Like
I’ll leave aside the discussion of systematic theology, which I think proceeds differently, and stick with the subject of textual exegesis.
Are you saying that textual interpreters use “neutral” tools which do not presuppose divine revelation? For example, the scholarly tools related to ancient near Eastern history, Semitic languages, Hebrew grammar, narratological theory, comparative mythology? Is your suggestion that this set of tools is trans-confessional, i.e., that Christians of all denominations, Jews, and purely secular scholars have a broad agreement on their validity and application, and so one can talk about what a given Biblical passage means without deciding whether Lutheranism is more true than Calvinism, or Catholicism more true than Judaism?
This was certainly the aspiration of “Biblical science” – to treat the Bible simply as a book, not particularly a Catholic book, Protestant book, Jewish book, etc., and to master the contents of that book, without taking sides in particular confessional matters. I’m not certain how close the aspiration has come to reality. For example, you won’t find many Jewish scholars who think that the historical arguments for the Resurrection are as strong as N. T. Wright thinks they are, and certainly Jewish scholars have mastered the historical and linguistic tools as well as N. T. Wright has. Nor has the adoption of “scientific” Biblical philology brought the Jews and Christian closer on the interpretation of the Suffering Servant. If the methodological tools were truly neutral, as those of natural science pretend to be, then one would expect that on the whole, Jews and Christians would agree much more often than they do, regarding both exegetical and historical conclusions. One would also expect Catholic and Protestant scholars to agree more often than they do, and Orthodox and Protestant scholars to agree more often than they do.
It would appear that Biblical studies, despite heroic efforts to obtain “objectivity,” has not been able to get away from the fact that the motives of the vast majority of people willing to spend their lives studying the Bible are theological and confessional (or, if the Bible scholars in question are atheists, etc., anti-theological and anti-confessional), and that those motives play at least as large a role in the formation of conclusions as any “objective” set of scholarly methods.
In contrast, I would think that electromagnetic theory is done in exactly the same way whether the scientist is a secular humanist, Jew, Catholic, Baptist, Hindu, etc.
I would say, then, that an approach to nature characterized by ideological or religious neutrality has been achieved to a large extent in the natural sciences, at least in what might be called operational or laboratory sciences. I would not say that Biblical studies, or more generally, theology or any of the humanities, have succeeded in generating such a wide consensus regarding the appropriateness and neutrality of certain tools and methods.
I’ve so far spoken about the achievement of religious and theological neutrality via the application of allegedly neutral methods, and haven’t directly brought in the term “methodological naturalism,” so I’ve not directly addressed your suggestion. Still, perhaps what I have said has some bearing on what you say about exegetical work in Biblical studies and theology.
If you want to restate your suggestion, in light of what I have said, maybe I will understand you better on the second pass.
2 Likes
Not that they agree as to the perfect mix of neutrality, but I imagine that all of them agree that your “scholarly tools” are important to “understanding” the text. And when they debate the question of appropriate understanding of the text, different “weights” will be given to various “neutral” considerations. At some point, the theologians simply part ways, returning to their Lutheran, Calvin, Catholic enclaves lamenting about the craziness of the other enclaves.
I imagine that this behavior is not much different in the sciences. What is the going understanding of speciation in the biological sciences? There are numerous hypotheses that different biologists argue and fight about and then return to their labs and lament about the craziness of person x or y and his/her view. Or, how to understand how general relativity can be reconciled with quantum mechanics, many hypotheses, fighting, then lamentation about the “opposition”. Yet, they agree as to the general “scholarly tools” needed to solve the problem even in their disagreements.
What is so different about the way theologians “do” their work than that of a scientists? The reading and interpreting of texts seems to be a rather “scientific” enterprise with a wide range of voices contending for truth offering evidence and reasons for their beliefs. For instance, Lutherans tend to take Luke 22:19 rather literally:
This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.
Yet, we will argue with the Catholics, Reformed, Baptists, Methodists, etc… over how to properly interpret that passage in relation to communion. Our debate, however, never appeals to anything that goes beyond “the senses” (the methodological natural) – proof texts and the associated exegitical/hermeneutical remarks, theological books/sermons, etc. We treat our argumentative data set as relatively neutral, formulating arguments and presenting evidence in a fashion not requiring anything more than something like MN. What is methodologically different from a debate over how to understand Luke 22:19 and the biological problem of speciation?
Totally agree, but I think the same is in the sciences. In fact, if we were to query the department colleagues of @swamidass, I imagine that their beliefs about specifics of evolutionary biology (e.g., speciation) would be significantly diverse. More likely, they would report to you the various hypotheses out there and then give a few reasons for what they take to be the more correct. Doesn’t seen much different from when I defend real presence when asked about it.
Quick Note – I’m doing the philosophical intuition thing with NO empirical data to back up my hunches. However, I’m intuiting into a sea of scientifically literate and trained people (secular and non-secular). If I’m way off in this intuition about divergent views in biology, please correct!
Not so sure. Again the “voices” in any given science are legion. MN may even increase diversity within any given theory as the metaphysical/social/subjective elements are supposed to be controlled for in experimentation. I seem to recall that one of the major critiques of the Catholic church against Luther’s “methodologically natural” reading of the Bible was that the Church would fracture. The Catholic church was right in this fear. Giving the Bible a more “natural” reading caused an increase in ecclesial diversity therewith unseen.
Except that we do see this. There are certain “common pictures” of Christianity and religion that exist. The theory that Jesus died and rose from the dead has unified Christianity in such way. Most people at a certain level of education understand that if they meet a Christian, that person believes in a person named Jesus and that he rose from the dead. Your comparison is slightly off, because the nature of electromagnetism was debated and, I imagine, is still debated much like Lutherans and Catholics debate over the real presence. Electromagnetism has a common picture that is taught in textbooks, but the specifics are still argued over by scientists much like the common picture of Christianity is taught in textbooks but still argued among practitioners.
I’m not sure the “tools and methods” in the sciences are as widely agreed to as you seem to be suggesting. Scientists break the rules, appropriately and inappropriately, all the time to generate results. Moreover, what is the general gist of a “methods” course in a theological program then? Why do many graduate theological programs have “methods” courses if some sort of agreement as to proper method (that I imagine is supposedly neutral) has not been reached?
2 Likes
Hi, Daniel. Thanks for these clarifying remarks. The detail gives me a better sense of what you meant in your first post.
(A) Regarding electromagnetic theory, sure, there will probably be disagreement at the frontiers, but not over long-established basics (otherwise we’d have no radio, TV, microwave ovens, hydroelectric plants, etc.), and in any case, I was thinking not so much about the conclusions but the methods. For example, I would guess that all physicists etc. working on electromagnetism would say that mathematics, controlled lab experiments, etc., are the way that knowledge of electromagnetism is to be gained, not consulting oracles or interpreting Biblical texts. And I would guess that Hindus, Muslims, Jews etc. in electromagnetic theory keep their religious traditions out of their conference papers, articles, books, etc. on electromagnetism. That is, one would not be able to tell from any published paper on electromagnetism that the author was a Jew or a Seventh-Day Adventist or a Zoroastrian.
This would not be the case in Biblical studies. You can often make a pretty good guess where someone’s religious loyalties lie, from his conclusions, sources, and methods. For example, on BioLogos for a couple of years, there was a guy who kept arguing ferociously that Jesus never exorcised any demons, and further, that the Gospel passages which speak of such things never meant to teach the existence of demons. He trotted out all kinds of scholarly-sounding stuff that showed he paid attention to the latest historical “methods” (e.g., he kept referring to the mental background of Second Temple Judaism), but when it came to the actual Gospel narratives, his textual arguments were abysmally bad, so the question is, why was he making them? Well, he was a Christadelphian, and the CAs don’t believe in demons. His strained exegesis followed directly from his sectarian motivation.
(B) On another of your points, the “methods” course I took as a Religious Studies student was not a list of approved methods that all Religious Studies students should use, but rather a discussion seminar to become acquainted with various methods that were used, on the understanding that all the methods were debatable (e.g., Freud’s, Durkheim’s, Otto’s, Weber’s); in other words, the “methods” course denied that there was any one method binding on religion scholars. The methods were paraded before you like dresses at a fashion show; you looked at them and decided which ones you liked and which ones you hated. There was nothing comparable to the “gather data-form hypothesis-devise experiment to test hypothesis-perform experiment” model that is touted as “the scientific method”. “Method” in Religious Studies was just as much up in the air as particular theories or conclusions.
© To narrow the focus to just Biblical studies, there was a method (historical-critical) that dominated up to about 30 years ago, and there was a sense in which it was “naturalistic,” i.e., it insisted on treating the Bible as just another ancient book, subject to the same methods of interpretation as any other ancient book, and that would justify your analogy to some extent; but times have changed, and there is now a confusing plurality of methods (and anti-methods, such as deconstructionism) for reading the Bible, all with their own scholarly defenders and their publication factories.
“Methodological anarchy” rather than “methodological naturalism” would probably best characterize Biblical studies, and most religion scholarship, today.
I agree with you when you say that the natural sciences are not so unified as many people suppose, regarding methods. But each individual natural science has more internal coherence in its methods than most Religion, Theology, or Humanities departments. There is still some sense in the natural sciences that empirical evidence matters, that mathematical rigor matters, etc., whereas in those other subjects, increasingly, academic claims are the expression of naked personal bias and social or political agendas, albeit covered in a veneer of methodological jargon devised to make prejudice and demagoguery look like the results of objective research.
I should say, in closing, that my training was in universities and their secular Religion departments, not seminaries or denominational colleges, and my descriptions reflect that. I have taught in a Protestant seminary, however, and have some idea of what goes on, at least in the mainstream seminaries; I’m not as cognizant of the situation in ultra-Biblicist seminaries, and I’m not up on Lutheran seminaries, either, so my picture will be defective in some areas.
Where, exactly, did I demand any credentials?
Wasn’t it implicit in your complaint?
No, my complaint was about hypocrisy. Why did you infer that?
Well, thank you. I appreciate it. If there’s anything you want to ask, fire away. You may have gathered that I’m not a fan of TE/EC, and I haven’t heard anything in this discussion yet to demonstrate why I should take a different position toward it. You may have also gathered that I believe ID theory has something to offer. I think that means I bring something different to the PS table than most of your regulars, which would explain the spirited nature and length of the dialogue. Whether or not PS regulars want to engage with what I bring, I suppose, varies from person to person. I’ve spent a fair amount of time on this this week, and that’s because I believe the subject is important and I think a love of truth entails engaging with opposing viewpoints. At this point, I think this discussion has just about run its course.
@dga471 linked to a list of articles I’ve written in the OP. Some are on science (and sorry, some are behind a paywall - I don’t make those decisions). If you want to post any here and invite discussion on them, tag me and I’ll follow it and respond to questions assuming they’re posed in good faith and relevant to the topic. To borrow from John Stuart Mill: I believe truth always profits from its collision with falsehood.
1 Like
Yes. Thank you for adding that. And the question I raised in the OP asked why orthodox Christianity would want to wed itself to this. No one has answered that question except to suggest that Christians might come to distrust science if the MN constraint placed on TE/EC is questioned. I don’t find that to be a good reason to stop raising the question.
1 Like
There is a difference between events that leave no evidence and events that do leave evidence. Evolution left tons of evidence, but the Resurrection did not. That’s the difference.
As to the origin of life, I think Dennis Venema has some solid reasoning on that front:
They think it is a bad idea to pin your beliefs on the hopes that science will not discover something.
2 Likes
What’s wrong with that? Aren’t you and others in the ID community trying to draw those same lines?
I think it would be more helpful to discuss the disagreements rather than complain about someone disagreeing with you.
1 Like
Is it true?
Orthodox Christianity is fine with this. I find your attempts to misrepresent your minority interpretation of Scripture as orthodoxy to be amusing.
You haven’t shown that there is any constraint. The real constraint here is the one that evolution denialists place on themselves, by stopping at inference and falsely claiming that science consists of debating inferences instead of testing hypotheses.
Since you know the latter is the case, why do you promote the misrepresentation of science?
The question you should be raising is, “Why aren’t the evolution denialists testing hypotheses?”
Or more pointedly, “Why do they obviously lack the faith to test their hypotheses?”
1 Like
Are you upset, John?
2 Likes
No. Are you?