No, I’m fine. A forum like this is not the best for communication, but I sense a strident tone in your communication style. I could be mistaken, but it sounds maybe angry or upset in some other way. I just thought I’d ask. I’ll remove the question if you want me to.
4 Likes
It’s pretty different, because if people argue about hypotheses, they almost always agree on the experiments/observations that will resolve the disagreement. That’s what both of the arguers tend to do when they return to their labs. Then the data generated by those experiments/observations resolve the conflict.
A recent example from biomedical research is the disagreement between those who hypothesized that Abeta is the primary protein underlying Alzheimer disease and those who hypothesized that tau was the key. It was so prolonged–a few years, because the problem is so difficult–that a bad theological analogy became popular. Here’s a sample:
“We thus address two major hypotheses in the pathophysiology of AD, namely the β-amyloid cascade (the “βaptists”) and the hyperphosphorylation of TAU (the “Tauists”).”
Dement Neuropsychol. 2009 Jul-Sep; 3(3): 188–194.
Hypotheses are like cheap tools that last for months, years at best. Our job as scientists is to discard them when they break.
You’re dead on there.
There’s a lot more data to gather in biology, so we aren’t as wedded to our hypotheses. Unlike theologians, we move far more quickly to new disagreements and don’t bother with any formal debating, despite Eddie’s framing. The frontier moves much more perceptibly, and that reinforces our reluctance to cling to hypotheses.
I would propose that addressing my questions would represent a better attempt at communication than tone policing.
Why are you portraying the tractionlessness of ID as a constraint placed on it by what others will allow, when it is so obviously a refusal of ID proponents to engage in the scientific method?
Why are there no ID pharma companies?
Why are there no oil exploration companies testing young-earth geological inferences??
My inference is a lack of faith. What’s your inference?
I agree that good faith Q&A is most conducive to communication.
Maybe it wasn’t a good idea for me to ask a second time if you’re upset, though to be clear, I didn’t censor or police anything. I just noted an observation.
I disengaged from you above because I find your questions to be overly loaded with presuppositions that I don’t concede to, and to be honest, I don’t sense a good faith willingness to engage with alternative viewpoints. I could be wrong, but that is the sense I get. Interpret that however you choose.
At this point, I’ll disengage again, and you may interpret that however you choose as well. If you tag me or quote me again I’ll click “Like” to respectfully acknowledge that I saw it and then I’ll probably leave it at that.
I’m content to peaceably coexist with people who come at things from different perspectives from mine, and it seems like anyone who’s a regular on a forum called “Peaceful Science” would be willing to as well.
Peace,
Terrell
6 Likes
It was a good idea from my perspective in that it implicitly conceded my point.
Maybe it would be productive if you stated some or all of these alleged presuppositions.
I think that accusing me of bad faith is more than a little ironic, particularly when you’re the one not engaging.
I am. I’m asking about your perspective and trying to understand the blatant contradiction I see in it.
I think that T_aq’s excellent advice applies to both you and Eddie.
1 Like
Can you elaborate on why you think “orthodox” Christianity is fine with Explaining nature without referring or “seeing” Gods role in it?
Any Christian understanding defines nature in terms of its relationship with God.
2 Likes
Orthodox Christianity (the majority of Christians) is fine with evolutionary biology. That doesn’t exclude seeing God’s role. You and Terrell are trying to claim that the former necessarily results in the latter. You’re just making empty assertions.
Why did you switch from explaining to defining? That doesn’t make much sense.
No, I was referring to specific cases where MN is used beyond science to support atheism.
You can go up and read again.
You basically misunderstood and made a ridiculous assertion along with an accusation.
You did, but you also made a far more general (and consequentialist) claim:
I’m pointing out that your generalization is false.
You misunderstood. There was no generalisation.
Pls avoid unnecessary assumptions.
Why did you edit what I wrote, Ashwin? Are you unwilling to discuss your engagement in consequentialism?
There is no generalisation… see the word many there? It doesn’t mean all…
And read the next scentence- it refers to the use of Science to back claims of atheism.
The comment is about a specific subset of athiests.
I am assuming you dont believe “orthodox Christianity” regularly uses Science to back up claims of athiesm… hence my conclusion that you misunderstood.
You saw a generalisation where there was none.
I didn’t edit anything you wrote… did you add the reference to consequentialism later?
I have no problem discussing anything as long as you don’t out words in my mouth.
Why don’t you explain what you saw as a problem, and we can go on from there.
The doctrine of providence is pretty strongly established without requiring objective evidence of Gods role. Many (most?) theologians argue that it is a distortion of the doctrine to think it implies we should be able to objectively demonstrate Gods involvement. To insist otherwise may be a departure from this doctrine.
This is not to preclude the possibility of objective demonstrations at times, but to reject that this the normal or expected way in which God’s providence is manifest.
2 Likes
But it’s not a self-imposed blindness. You’re seeming to confuse methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism. MN is just the “rules of the game” for doing science. It’s only blindness if you assume that science is the only way to know things, which would seem like a crazy thing for a Christian to say.
Christianity has nothing to do with methodological naturalism. Science doesn’t care whether you’re an atheist, a Buddhist, a Muslim, a Christian, or a vegan. MN is not a metaphysical statement or belief.
4 Likes
It is if you’re a Culture Warrior.
I don’t think I’m confusing MN and PN, and I’m pretty sure between the OP and comments earlier in the thread I’ve demonstrated that and been clear about the questions I am raising. I don’t blame you if you don’t want to read through everything that preceded this, and I hope you likewise won’t blame me if I don’t want explain myself again.
I agree with you that it would be dumb for a Christian to espouse scientism. I wrote a whole article recently on the subject which just went online and, incidentally, actually does pertain to some of the discussion going on here that I’m staying out of. http://www.salvomag.com/article/salvo48/peripheral-visions
2 Likes
I agree with you here. It would be crazy for a Christian to say that Science would be the only way to know things.
However, this is precisely the kind of conviction that many scientists (non Christian) seem to have. And they have taken this conviction to the general public and campaigned for it. There seems to be little difference between MN and and philosophical naturalism in the viewpoint of atleast some (very popular) scientists. And there has been very little backlash from the scientific community for consistently misusing science to back religious views like atheism.
In practise, I don’t think there is as strong a line drawn between MN and PN among scientists. For example, most of the athiest Scientists we have here hold to PN, and they don’t seem to have any of the qualms you do about mixing the two.
I agree here also.
I am not so sure of this. How do you do OOL research unless you are convinced that natural explanations exist. There is a strong faith based part to MN.
And it has clear metaphysical/theological implications.
1 Like
I agree with points made by both Jordan and Ashwin.
I think that in principle, MN is distinguishable from PN. However, it would seem that in some cases, MN tends to slide toward PN, and I think that is what Ashwin is worried about, and possibly what Terrell is worried about.
Here is an example that might help:
Suppose someone suggests that life might have originated wholly by natural causes. An MN approach would be to say, “Well, if life originated by wholly natural causes, it might have been in such-and-such a way; let’s see if we can devise means to test such a hypothesis.” Note that the speaker here has not decided that life originated naturally; he is only considering that as a provisional hypothesis. Investigation of origins done under this provisional understanding is not committed to PN as a metaphysical position.
But now, suppose someone says: “Science hasn’t yet determined how life originated.” Notice that it’s tacitly assumed (in the “yet”) that science will one day determine this. Science is assumed to be capable of determining the origin of life. But since science can’t deal with non-natural causes, then it follows that the speaker believes that life originated by natural causes alone. So the statement has gone beyond MN and into PN; the speaker (perhaps unconsciously) has indirectly ruled out the possibility of non-natural causes in the origin of life.
With caution in the expression of claims, it is possible to prevent MN from sliding into PN, but that caution is not always evident in debates over origins.
3 Likes