----- Original Message -----
From: "Allen Roy" <allenroy@peoplepc.com>
> I don't think that Johnson needs for "naturalism" to explicity deny God in
> order to be an established religion. ...there are well
> established religions which do not have a supernatural God or gods, i.e.
> Buddhism and Shintoism. Thus an established religion does not need to
have
> a supernatural God to be considered a religion. Naturalism or even
> Methodological Naturalism can be considered religions in the general sense
> so long as their adherants persue and believe the principles with zeal or
> conscientious devotion. Both Naturalism and Methodological Naturalism,
> within which the scientific method is usually conducted, are philosophical
> assumptions that must be accepted as valid by faith. While we can show
that
> certain assumptions are true over and over again, the logical extention of
> those assumptions into the past is based on the assumption that the past
was
> the same as the period of time over which experiments have been conducted.
> That is something that cannot be known for certain, unless we have other
> evidence to confirm or deny it was so, specifically, witness evidence.
>
>
I suppose that there are many things that people may "pursue and believe the
principles of with zeal or conscientious devotion," and if they want to call
such things "religions" who can stop them? I also recognize that there are
many, especially in the scientific community, for whom naturalism
constitutes a belief system that rivals a religion. I do not hear
naturalists chanting prayers or burning incense (as do Buddhists), however,
or doing the kind of things one associates with a religion. Political
parties congregate at regular seasons for their own rituals, and their
adherents usually "pursue and believe their principles with zeal and
devotion," but are they religions? If they are, then the term "religion"
has been emptied of meaning; or, the figurative extensions of it have
trumped its more literal understanding.
Let's also avoid mixing up the terms "religion" and "philosophy." If
methodological naturalism is a philosophical assumption, then let's not call
it a "religion." If it is "established," it is because scientific work done
within its framework has been incredibly fruitful. Its *utility* is
established, and that is why scientists are loath to abandon it, just as
they are loath to abandon the notion that "the assumption that the past was
the same as the period of time over which experiments have been conducted."
I'm not certain what Allen means by "witness evidence." Hopefully, not
"eyewitness evidence." If rocks and fossils and other evidence from the
past counts as witnesses, then I think scientists have good reason to
continue to pursue research using the methodologies well established.
Perhaps we could take a poll of ASAers who are or have been practicing
scientists and ask them if they think methodological naturalism (I prefer
not to capitalize it--capital letters have a way of serving ideological
agendas) is a religion.
Finally, has Johnson gone beyond his attack on methodological naturalism
to make a case that "theistic science" is not a religion, or that it
conflates science and religion? Has anyone in the ID group provided
positive scientific research within the assumptions of theistic science to
confirm or falsify Behe's "irreducible complexity" hypothesis? I assume
they would not provide such research within the assumptions of
methodological naturalism to confirm it, since they don't believe in the
latter. It seems to me that the ID group will get nowhere until they move
away from the negative (i.e., anti-evolutionist, anti-naturalist) elements
of their program, and do the science they claim they can do. Clearly, they
have to establish that their theistic science as a method is superior to
naturalism as a method. Then, they have to establish that they are able to
demonstrate through positive scientific research using this method that
Behe's hypothesis is worthy of the name "theory," and that it will advance
our understanding of nature, having revolutionized our understanding; or
they need to come up with some other model which would be superior to
Behe's. So far, they seem to be expending their capital in the negative
phase and using primarily political methods to advance their claims (e.g.,
Senator Santorum, the Ohio State School Board). When they are able to
provide the science, as Kepler and Galileo did for Copernicus, then I'll
begin to take their scientific claims seriously.
Bob Schneider
rjschn39@bellsouth.net
.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 29 2002 - 10:13:15 EST