From: Steve Petermann (steve@spetermann.org)
Date: Sun Sep 14 2003 - 08:42:32 EDT
Don wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
Actually, science cannot justifiably assert that the cosmos is mechanistic.
The success of the scientific method only shows that the behavior of the
cosmos is sufficiently consistent with natural law so that scientists can do
repeatable experiments. Real experiments exhibit various degrees of
non-repeatability. If results are too many standard deviations from the
mean, they're often simply rejected ipso facto as bad data. It's possible
that some "bad data" represent instances when the world was not behaving
according to natural law. Although unlikely, they could in fact represent
miracles. Science does not--and cannot--rule out miracles.
What we can correctly deduce about the nature of the cosmos from science is
that _on average_, and _most of the time_, the cosmos obeys natural laws.
No one can show that the world always obeys our natural laws.
<<<<<<<<<<<
You are right, of course, which is why I said suggested that "This
requirement *points* to a view of the cosmos". I was really and poorly
trying to present the position of the maximal naturalist. However, your
point is an important one especially for the naturalistic theists. As you
say, science itself does not entail either rejection of miracles, per se, or
naturalistic divine action. This is also what the ID movement and divine
action proponents are saying.
What is interesting is that, in my experience, atheists when it comes to the
topic of personal agency, they do not accept that the cosmos is mechanistic
either.
Seems to me the issue of supernatural miracles also comes down to both an
inference and a theological question. Does the idea of miracles "seem" to
fit with scientific observation. Have they been seen in science? Are they
at such a small level that they cannot be captured by empirical methods?
Then theologically, are they necessary for us believe in a God and a
teleology? Most ancient scriptures have miraculous events in them. Are
those real or just the result of a different world view? These are the
questions that I see a lot people asking these days. The worldview of today
is different from the past. Many people are having a harder and harder time
saying the creeds and questioning supernaturalism.
Steve Petermann
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Winterstein" <dfwinterstein@msn.com>
To: "asa" <asa@lists.calvin.edu>; "Steve Petermann" <steve@spetermann.org>
Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2003 1:04 AM
Subject: Re: Strange Bedfellows, Atheism and Naturaistic Theism
Steve Petermann wrote in part:
"...This requirement also points to a view that the cosmos is
mechanistic, controlled by the natural law. If the cosmos wasn't
mechanistic science would not be able to make sense of what is sees. No
repeatability, no science."
Actually, science cannot justifiably assert that the cosmos is mechanistic.
The success of the scientific method only shows that the behavior of the
cosmos is sufficiently consistent with natural law so that scientists can do
repeatable experiments. Real experiments exhibit various degrees of
non-repeatability. If results are too many standard deviations from the
mean, they're often simply rejected ipso facto as bad data. It's possible
that some "bad data" represent instances when the world was not behaving
according to natural law. Although unlikely, they could in fact represent
miracles. Science does not--and cannot--rule out miracles.
What we can correctly deduce about the nature of the cosmos from science is
that _on average_, and _most of the time_, the cosmos obeys natural laws.
No one can show that the world always obeys our natural laws.
Don
----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Petermann
To: ASA
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 6:56 AM
Subject: Strange Bedfellows, Atheism and Naturaistic Theism
The scientific method is a remarkable tool. It has enabled humans to
understand the workings of the cosmos to a great degree. Among the
bedrock
requirements of the scientific method are repeatability and
predictability.
If it cannot be shown that a theory repeatedly predicts outcomes, it will
not make it into the cannon of scientific knowledge.
However, this requirement also points to a view that the cosmos is
mechanistic, controlled by the natural law. If the cosmos wasn't
mechanistic science would not be able to make sense of what is sees. No
repeatability, no science. But this also says that the cosmos has no
freedom. It does what it does and cannot do otherwise. Even if one
considers the indeterminism at the quantum level those events are
supposedly
random, not affording any freedom either.
All well and good so far for science. However, what happens when the
spotlight of the scientific method shines its light on humans. Then it
becomes a different story. That unfreeness of the cosmos that science
relies on suddenly dissolves when the human mind is under the scrutiny of
the method. It is an anathema to humans that *they* are unfree and
mechanistic.
Humans need a sense of meaning. Where do that get it? In large part from
the idea of agency. Personal agency based on human freedom creates a
sense
of personal meaning. Divine agency based on divine action creates a sense
of ultimate meaning.
Enter the strange partnership of atheism and naturalistic theism.
In my experience with atheists(many of whom are my friends) they base, to
a
large extent, their sense of meaning on the idea of human agency(human
freedom). So do the theists and non-theists I know. Many of those
theists
also look to divine agency as a ground for ultimate meaning. But all the
naturalists in this group(atheistic and theistic) have a problem with this
mechanistic view of the cosmos. It doesn't seem to offer any real sense
of
freedom either personal or divine.
For them there are only two strategies to overcome this problem, redefine
the term freedom or look to the indeterminism of the quantum world. Turns
out they may use both.
As an example of the first strategy, it seems to me that Daniel Dennett in
his recent book _Freedom Evolves_ opts for the first strategy by pushing a
definition of freedom that doesn't, in my opinion, fit our common sense of
the term. This might be considered a slight of hand move that seems to
offer an answer to the anathema but it really doesn't.
The other strategy is where atheists and naturalistic theists have formed
an
unconscious partnership. Both want quantum indeterminacies to be the
source
of freedom. Classic physics doesn't offer any hope, but perhaps this
strange world of the quanta can save the day. But if atheists look to the
openness of the cosmos as this source of personal agency why is it such a
failing for religious folk to do the same? Interestingly enough research
in
this area may offer a reasonableness to both positions. Then in the final
analysis it will all come down to a personal intuition about the cosmos
followed by actions based on faith.
Regards,
Steve Petermann
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Sep 14 2003 - 08:46:57 EDT