Welcome to Terrell Clemmons: Questions on Methodological Naturalism

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@T_aquaticus

Do you agree with Denton that abiogenesis is the origin of life, and that it occurred as naturally as salt crystal formation?

I already answered this question. I said that Denton’s view is possible, and also the view of direct divine creation is possible. I don’t have a firm view that one is right and the other wrong. What more would you like me to say? What am I not making clear? Or do you want me to pick one of the two, and insist on it, with a certainty I don’t feel?

@T_aquaticus

It could also work in the opposite direction.

Not in a science department in a secular university, it can’t. Maybe in a science department in a conservative theological institution, it can. I think there may be several cases of that. But I was talking about biologists – not necessarily even conventionally religious folks – who are trying for tenure in a secular biology department, and honestly believe that a good case can be made for intelligent design in nature. Those people have to shut up, or say good-bye to their careers, flushing 20 years of schooling down the toilet. That’s how open-minded some of your colleagues are to any idea that might even indirectly remind them of the G-word.

@T_aquaticus

Also, there aren’t any ID grants, so that isn’t a problem.

I’d put it another way. The fact that there’s no hope of there ever being any ID grants is in fact a problem – a problem regarding the university’s claim to be an intellectually open-minded place.

@T_aquaticus

Can you cite any example where Behe claims that naturally occurring and observed mutations are guided by a designer? I can’t.

No, of course he doesn’t. But if one of those “observed mutations” was the production of a flagellar motor from scratch, I think he would be more inclined to postulate guidance.

There is no need to postulate guidance if the phenomenon you are looking at is such that it can reasonably explained without it. (Ockham’s Razor) But if you have strong reason to believe that unguided mechanisms could not achieve something, or would achieve it only by the rarest of flukes, then guidance is not an unreasonable suggestion.

The difference between you and Behe is that you are convinced – even though you can’t provide anywhere near a complete series of hypothetical steps – that unguided changes can feel their way to organic structures of immense complexity, whereas Behe doubts this. He thinks that for the major innovations there would have to be something tilting the playing field. Whether that is supernatural guidance, or some kind of inbuilt design, it certainly isn’t what Darwin, Mayr, Dobzhansky, Gaylord Simpson, Gould, Dawkins, Kimura, etc. were thinking about when they thought about evolutionary mechanisms. There’s just a fundamental disagreement over what is plausible conceptually, and over what has been verified empirically. The disagreement isn’t going to go away soon.

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@Argon

It’s the case of whether, if mechanisms can found to account for the existence of humans, life and the world, whether that makes the case for God irrelevant. And it’s pretty clear that this is a indeed a worry for some within ID.

I agree that some defenders of ID worry about these things. ID as a theory of design detection, however, isn’t concerned with them.

And again, the point is not that mechanism as such counts against God. Newton provided mechanisms for the working of the solar system, and all or most ID proponents, and most religious people, see that sort of mechanism as evidence for God, not against him. It is only mechanisms which allegedly make not only miracles but any plan or design behind nature superfluous (or impossible) that religious people might find threatening. Note that Denton’s conception is in some ways as mechanical as Dawkins’s, but the people who are threatened by Dawkins aren’t threatened by Denton. It is not “mechanism” that is the bogeyman for religious people, but “chance.”

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@Ashwin_s

It’s a philosophical foundation derived from MN.

@Ashwin_s

I would think @swamidass provides you with the best combination of natural and divine.

Certainly full blown Creationism is too lopsided for the great majority.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@dga471

Right, but theologians are also not qualified to make judgments about science. I hope we agree on that one too.

One of the theologians here certainly doesn’t agree:

@Eddie

All three of them [Behe, Denton, and Shapiro] have read vastly more than Collins in both contemporary and historical evolutionary theory…He’s a great geneticist, but nowheresville as an evolutionary theorist.

I think we can agree that someone who claims to know whether someone knows more than someone else is making quite a judgment.

I’m surprised that Eddie didn’t vehemently disagree with you here. Maybe he just missed it.

Strangely enough, a 15-second search revealed this paper:
https://www.jci.org/articles/view/34772

I invite Eddie to elaborate on his judgments of the deficiencies of Collins’s understanding of evolutionary theory in the context of this paper. I’m sure he’d have no problem writing pages of critique on the evolutionary section of this review.

@dga471

Reading the writings of many theologians who try to separate “data” and “interpretation” only reveals their naivete about science as it is actually practiced and talked about by scientists in the scientific community.

I couldn’t agree more. It also applies when theologians try to separate “theory” from “technical” work. They don’t realize that particularly in biology, the same people do both.

I’m shocked that Eddie hasn’t responded to that!

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Eddie

ID as a theory of design detection, however, isn’t concerned with them.

There is no theory. There isn’t even a hypothesis.

[Argon]

@Eddie

It’s the case of whether, if mechanisms can found to account for the existence of humans, life and the world, whether that makes the case for God irrelevant. And it’s pretty clear that this is a indeed a worry for some within ID.

I agree that some defenders of ID worry about these things. ID as a theory of design detection, however, isn’t concerned with them.

Different subject, Eddie. You are putting the best face on what you think should be of ID as a whole and discounting that there are many within the tent of ID that differ from the ‘ideal’. I agree that such an idealized notion of ID is not controversial. But again, let’s take care with our generalizations lest we risk coming off as unduly partisan. I don’t know how many people operate exclusively under the idealized ID notion. I’m sure some do. But in contrast to the original claim, I can find a number of prominent ID leaders who’ve worried what’s left for God to do if active or proximally enacted design (as opposed to law-like physics) was not necessary in the evolution of humans or any number of biological changes. For a number of ID leaders and followers, the notion of ID has become entangled with personal theological opinion leading to the unfortunate belief that if ID doesn’t work out, it puts belief in God at risk. That’s a psychological/ sociological phenomena.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Eddie

Probably because the Fathers, the formulators of the three Creeds, the great Scholastics, the Reformers, etc. all thought it was more complex than that.

None of them are Jesus, who taught that it was pretty simple.

@Eddie

You describe Christian ethics (and only part of even that), but leave out the overarching Christian world view, including the doctrines of sin and redemption, prophecy and fulfillment, eschatology, Trinity, providence, sovereignty, etc.

Unfortunately, that “Christian world view” is far too often emphasized over the teachings of Jesus Christ. From my perspective, many use doctrines as tribal shibboleths in contradiction of Jesus’s crystal-clear teaching that all of humanity is our tribe.

That appears to be the way in which you and Terrell are using doctrines.

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@Mercer

Unfortunately, that “Christian world view” is far too often emphasized over the teachings of Jesus Christ. From my perspective, many use doctrines as tribal shibboleths in contradiction of Jesus’s crystal-clear teaching that all of humanity is our tribe.

That appears to be the way in which you and Terrell are using doctrines.

Your attempt to pit “the teachings of Jesus” against “the teachings about Jesus” (an attempt I’ve seen you make elsewhere) may strike you as brilliant or profound, but in fact it’s a very old false dichotomy. The fact is that the Christian Church itself, from the earliest days we know of, presented its faith as requiring both. So your suggestion that I and Terrell are doing something unusual and illegitimate in speaking of both is historically completely unfounded. But it’s not at all uncommon in these origins discussions for people to make claims about Christianity that are historically completely unfounded. Many people seem determined to pick and choose the kind of Christianity that suits their overall modern world view, rather than put their modern world view into question by adhering to traditional Christianity in its fullness.emphasized text

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@Argon

Different subject, Eddie. You are putting the best face on what you think should be of ID as a whole and discounting that there are many within the tent of ID that differ from the ‘ideal’. I agree that such an idealized notion of ID is not controversial. But again, let’s take care with our generalizations lest we risk coming off as unduly partisan. I don’t know how many people operate exclusively under the idealized ID notion.

On this subject I would refer you back to Joshua’s distinction between ID theory and the ID movement. As a social movement, with links and connections to various forms of creationism, with Christian apologetics, etc. ID of course exhibits the behavior you describe. Its proponents display a range of concerns beyond the simple idea of design detection. So I’m trying to grant your point. But it doesn’t negate my point.

And I would add that even if we take into account the Christian motivations of most ID people, the flaw you are complaining about isn’t inherent in their position. If Christian ID proponents are thinking straight, they must realize that the worst that could happen, if ID arguments utterly fail, is that Christian apologetics would lose a scientific support for belief in God. But Christianity has never insisted on the need for such scientific support. Christians believe that even without science, we could know of God through revelation. They would believe that God designed the world even if no cosmic fine-tuning arguments were available, because revelation teaches that.

If you check out the biographies of most of the leading ID proponents, you won’t find very many of them that started believing in God because of design arguments. You will find that most of them believed in God before ID even existed, and were regularly going to churches. They don’t need ID to shore up their own personal belief in God. They might use its results in apologetic contexts, as a handy tool for speaking with secular people who think “science has disproved God,” but their Christian faith was never dependent on scientific design arguments being valid.

So I would suggest that some ID people, when they express themselves in the way you note, are not thinking straight about Christian faith.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Eddie

Your attempt to pit “the teachings of Jesus” against “the teachings about Jesus”

Straw man.

I’m not pitting anything against anything. I’m emphasizing the teachings of Jesus Christ over the teachings of the church. Do you really think that one’s emphasis should be the converse of mine?

@Eddie

So your suggestion that I and Terrell are doing something unusual and illegitimate in speaking of both is historically completely unfounded.

Another straw man!

Terrell didn’t mention both. Terrell only cited the “about” part, ignoring the teachings of Jesus. Also, I would never claim that ignoring the teachings of Jesus is unusual! It’s very common.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Eddie

If Christian ID proponents are thinking straight,

As a Christian ID proponent, have you ever considered the possibility that YOU are the one not thinking straight?

As in your unsupported claim that Behe has read more about evolutionary theory than Collins?

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@Mercer

I’m not pitting anything against anything. I’m emphasizing the teachings of Jesus Christ over the teachings of the church.

But the word “over” implies that there is a conflict of some kind, and that in that conflict, the teaching of Jesus “trump” the teachings of the Church. The implication of this phrasing, and of the rest that you wrote, is that the Fathers and Councils and Creeds added stuff to Christianity that is at best superfluous, and probably in some cases actually against what Jesus taught.

So which doctrines of the Church do you think Christianity should dump, or modify? Trinity? Fall? Atonement? Last Days? Which of those doctrines are illegitimate or at least highly suspect additions to the “simple” teaching of Jesus that you admire?

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Eddie

But the word “over” implies that there is a conflict of some kind

No. You employed a straw-man fallacy. Period. My position is that defining Christianity by the teachings of the church, while not even mentioning the teachings of Jesus Christ, is simply wrong.

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@Mercer

My position is that defining Christianity by the teachings of the church, while not even mentioning the teachings of Jesus Christ, is simply wrong.

I would assume that when Terrell speaks of the teachings of the Church, she also includes the teaching that the Gospels are the revealed word of God and that what Jesus teaches in the Gospels is binding upon Christians. You write about the teaching of the Church as if it is something to be contrasted with the teaching of Jesus, when in fact the teaching of the Church includes the teaching of Jesus.

The motivation behind your contrast is far from clear, but it certainly looks as if you are trying to drive a wedge between the teaching of Jesus and the teaching of the Church.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Eddie

I would assume that when Terrell speaks of the teachings of the Church, she also includes the teaching that the Gospels are the revealed word of God and that what Jesus teaches in the Gospels is binding upon Christians.

One would hope so, but given her rhetoric, I don’t think that assumption is warranted.

@Eddie

The motivation behind your contrast is far from clear, but it certainly looks as if you are trying to drive a wedge between the teaching of Jesus and the teaching of the Church.

I’m pointing out the wedge that has already been driven by you and Terrell.

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@Mercer

I’m pointing out the wedge that has already been driven by you and Terrell.

No, neither of us did that. You are the only one here so far who has made a potentially invidious distinction between the teaching of Jesus and the teachings of the Church. And in my experience of 50+ years of reading theology and participating in Church life, when people make that distinction, it is 99% of the time because there are some particular Church teachings they don’t like and want to undermine, and they see Jesus as the weapon they can use to do this.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Eddie

No, neither of us did that.

Let’s see: she defined an “orthodox Christian” on the basis of church teachings, not Jesus’s teachings. I pointed out that I place Jesus’s teachings far above any church teachings, so I find that to be a striking omission.

Your response has been to relentlessly misrepresent my position.

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@Mercer

she defined an “orthodox Christian” on the basis of church teachings,

Quite appropriately, since the term “orthodox” originated in the context of the Church. An “orthodox” Christian will interpret Jesus in accord with the teachings of the Church.

If you want to do your own private, free-wheeling “I don’t care what the Church says; this is what Jesus means to me” thing, you are welcome to do so, but you can’t claim your conclusions are “orthodox” if they aren’t in line with Church teaching.

[DaleCutler]

We could easily enough point out some teachings of Jesus that would be unpalatable to him, I suspect.

[DaleCutler]

I wonder if they**, if atheist or antitheist, trust in their self-indoctrination into all things a- and anti-theist adequately that they would brave reading one or more of the following, or if agnostic, open-minded enough:

Cold-Case Christianity
Evidence That Demands A Verdict
Mere Christianity

**@Mercer, @Argon, @T_aquaticus, @Timothy_Horton, @nwrickert, @Patrick, @Krauze