SJ:
>But neither do I accept uncritically evolutionary "just-so" stories
>which assume evolution in order to prove evolution. If naturalistic
>evolution is simply assumed apriori to be a fact, then by definition
>the *only* theories that may be proposed to explain endosymbiosis
>*must* be naturalistic evolutionary ones. Therefore they will all,
>to a greater or lesser extent, "prove" naturalistic evolution.
TI:
>I'm more of a methodological naturalist than a philosophical one.
>Then again, I'm a bit set in my ways and would need a pretty good
>set of examples to drop naturalism as a working hypothesis of first
>choice.
JB:
>The interesting question for me is this: What sort of "examples" would a
>methodological naturalist accept? Or is the very foundation of his
>epistemology forever set against any such contraries?
Here is a relevant (though imperfect) historical analogy:
Just a few decades ago, "Big Bang" cosmology was a VERY large and bitter
pill for philosophical (and methodological) naturalists to swallow.
"Steady State" cosmology enjoyed much greater favor, for obvious
philosophical reasons. The evidence, however, proved overwhelming. Now,
all but a handful of cosmologists accept and embrace Big Bang cosmology.
Although the evidence has forced everyone to accepted an event which
simply (and monstrously :-) doesn't fit any known naturalistic processes,
very few philosophical naturalists became theists because of it. And
methodological naturalism keeps poking around the edges of it, to see what
more can be done.
If macroevolution and/or abiogenesis ever have an equally serious
confrontation with the evidence, I expect we can anticipate a similar
response.
(I should also add, some of that MN "poking around the edges" of the Big
Bang is scientifically valid, potentially fruitful, work.)
-------------------------------------------------
JB:
>I'm reading a wonderful book by a philosophy prof, Arlie Hoover (Pepperdine).
>He has a section in his book, Dear Agnos (letters to an agnostic) entitled
>"Naturalism, the Philosophical Smuggler." Some excerpts:
>
>****
>
>Naturalistic smuggling is evident, first of all, in the realm of epistemology,
>the study of knowledge. The naturalistic view of mind is so deficient that you
>wonder how a scholar in any field can keep on searching for truth with such a
>humble instrument as the human brain. The naturalist smuggles in a high regard
>for the operation of the mind, a regard that fits more comfortably with the
>synthetic-metaphysical approach of Plato and Augustine than with the
>analytical-empirical approach of Hume and Russell. A ntauralist starts out
>thining and then ends up by undermining all thought. He must use his mind to
>prove his philosophy, but then his philosophy affirms that all reasoning is
>mere cerebration by a physical brain. If reasoning is just an electro-chemical
>operation in the material brain, then why should a naturalist ask anyone to
>accept his thoughts as "true"?...
>
>The naturalist compounds the difficulty just discussed if he believes in
>determinism--and logically he should. If all things, including our thoughts,
>are mechanically determined, then objective science is impossible, for the
>scientist automatically selects the data he evaluates....No scientist should
>be congratulated for his brilliant thinking, for he just secreted what was
>inevitable--his work just oozed out of the brain, so to speak. For all we know
>these complex systems of thought may have been caused by something like red
>beans or ulcers of the duodenum....Freedom, objectivity, transcendence--none
>of these ingredients crucial to a viable epistemology is inherent in
>naturalism. Someone must have smuggled them in.
>
>Naturalistic smuggling is even more evident in axiology, the realm of values,
>not only in aesthetics, but especially in ethics....Naturalists claim they use
>only the scientific method; they exclude other kinds of truth. Yet when you
>come to ethics you can't establish OUGHT from IS.
Well put.
It sounds to me like --- to adopt a phrase from Phillip Johnson ---
Philosophical Naturalists are _accomodating_ themselves to Christian
theism. ;-)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I've wrestled with reality for 35 years, | Loren Haarsma
and I'm happy to say I finally won out." | lhaarsma@opal.tufts.edu
--Elwin P. Dowde (_Harvey_) |