I think you're misconstruing what Burgy is getting at, looking at him
through too much of a Johnsonian lens, on the assumption that you're
accurately representing Johnson, which I don't think is easy since I think
he's a lot more persuasive than clear. (His training is in law, which pace
his comments about logic and rigor is in fact primarily training to win
arguments. I don't mean to dismiss him thereby -- he's a very smart guy
with some smart things to say -- but I do mean to make clear that his claim
to authority based on his exceptional legal training and ability is dubious.
Lawyers are trained NOT to get to the truth EXCEPT insofar as that helps
them win arguments. The lawyer's job is to WIN; TRUTH is the legal system's
problem, at least in America. And I think some of this attitude and
rhetoric shows in Johnson's writings.)
>First, the claim that MN is true because it "works" is really pragmatism.
>But pragmatism makes no claims to be truth. Truth *is* what works in
>pragmatism..
(a) One doesn't need to be a philosophical pragmatist or accept a pragmatic
theory of truth in order to note that science is a highly pragmatic
discipline. This is one of the important differences between science and
classical (correspondence-truth-oriented) philosophy. I agree that this
implies a potential (and obviously historically actual in numerous big
cases)serious difference between science and truth, especially when it comes
to foundations, but is that big news?
>Second, this is too grandiose a claim. MN works well in the ongoing
>operations of the universe, but only because of TR, ie. because there is a
>God ruling the universe by natural laws, MN has no explanation *why* MN
>works. TR has an explanation why MN works (in some spheres and not in
>others).
(b) Several replies: (1) Your TR claim is merely an assertion, especially
if "TR" is meant to be incompatible with theistic evolution or other
non-Johnsonian Christian scientific outlooks. But it doesn't seem that
you're here using it the way Johnson does, since your explication of TR
("ie. because there is a God ruling the universe by natural laws") is
completely compatible with theistic evolution and a thorough-going MN. So
if you mean it in Johnson's sense, it's mere assertion; if not, then it
doesn't count against MN. Which is it?
(2) MN doesn't claim to explain itself, so how is the fact that
it -doesn't- do what it -doesn't claim- to do a criticism of it? Do you
(apparently) think this is an argument against MN? If so, how, exactly??
(3) There are any number of philosophical theories that could explain why
MN would work in some cases and not work in others (on the assumption that I
share that it doesn't work in describing all of reality, and possibly not
even all of reality that's covered by science [I say possibly here, you say
definitely, I take it, though that too seems like just an assertion]), not
just Johnson's TR. Also, there's no proof yet, and the evidence is still
suggestive (e.g., Behe) but tentative and not yet compelling, that MN breaks
down in origin of life/design science. (REMEMBER: not having an answer yet
isn't the same as a breakdown. I agree on consciousness, but no non-MN
alternative currently shows more scientific/empirical promise -- see (a)
above.)
>Third, MN fails dismally in the area of *origins*. MN cannot explain the
>origin of the universe, the origin of life, the origin of life's designs,
>the origin of human consciousness..
(c) This is, of course, the big issue. Let's break it into two questions
(and leave out the origin of the universe, which most though clearly not all
will agree is beyond science): (1) Are current MN answers to the origin of
life and life's designs compelling, or compelling to those who are not
metaphysical naturalists? The consensus here would be no, I'd wager. But
this is no significant evidence -yet- for what many Johnsonians seem to
suggest, which is a positive answer to (2) Are there any
scientifically/empirically superior NON-MN approaches to these issues? The
consensus here, even generally amongst scientists who are serious
Christians, is "no" as well.
(d) Because of the negative answer to (c2), and the time tested reality of
the pragmatic aspect of science (a), ID folks and Johnsonians will only get
serious respect in the scientific community by making the answer to (2) YES!
I emphasize: -this is not a matter of philosophical argument nearly so much
as it is one of scientific results-, of which ID theory currently has about
none.
If ID theory starts showing results, then it may be able successfully to
argue against MN on pragmatic grounds -- it's success there will be
proportional to its empirical success. Until then, because science seeks
truth via theories that show the best available empirical results, ID theory
will be more a philosophical research program than a scientific one. (Still
perhaps very worthwhile, but not science per se.)
>JWB>And I have seen no indication the Johnson's TR (Theological
> >Realism) works, at least not in a scientific sense..
>
>See above. You can't even get the name right - it is *Theistic* Realism!
>That does not inspire confidence in your understanding of TR..
(e) Is this serious? Is it meant to be?
>Also, if you claim to be a theist who believes that God exists, you have a
>basic problem of explaining why assuming there is no God is the key to
>understanding reality:
(f) You seem to be adopting a Johnsonian variant of Scientism here
(Scientism combined with Johnsonian science), confusing science with reason
generally, and hence confusing scientific MN with philosophical MN. The
latter would be terrible, but no Christian here is promoting that. (Maybe
Johnson makes this confusion too -- it sure sounds like it -sometimes-
anyway. But again, he's not always very precise, it seems to me, even when
he's brilliantly eloquent.)
(g) (1) If one sees science simply as studying the natural world, if one
agrees that God can't be scientifically/mathematically modeled (unlike
nature), and if one recognizes the strong pragmatic/results-oriented
element in science and sees MN's astonishing successes historically, then
one will appreciate MN.
(2) On the other hand, if one sees science scientistically (as
philosophy, covering all of reality and not just nature), if one thinks God
can be incorporated into mathematical/scientific models, and/or if one
thinks science is not pragmatic (who cares about results -- we just want the
philosophical truth!) and isn't impressed by the results of science so far,
then MN will not appeal. But each of these three (maybe four :^> ) theses
is -seriously- in error.
(h) The only bridge between (1) and (2) is a positive answer to (c2) above.
Until ID folks can do that, they'll -scientifically- flounder, even if
(if...) they'll have very worthwhile philosophical success.
To summarize, re-read (c) and (d). :^>
Stephen, I have no idea how you'll react to this stuff. I meant none of it
as a personal attack, but I fear my attempts as precision will be lost in
the ensuing debate. If I could make one serious request: to try to bring
more precision into this debate, if you respond, could you respond to my
points precisely and by specific reference to what I'm saying? Ideally,
there'd be few quotes from books and such -- they often don't respond
directly or precisely to what is being discussed.
--John
-----Original Message-----
From: evolution-owner@udomo2.calvin.edu
[mailto:evolution-owner@udomo2.calvin.edu]On Behalf Of Stephen Jones
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 1998 5:45 PM
To: EVOLUTION@calvin.edu; John W. Burgeson
Subject: Re: methodological naturalism (hereafter MN) (was Read what I
said again (was "Stephen:...))
Burgy
On Tue, 2 Jun 1998 13:05:13 -0600, John W. Burgeson wrote:
>SJ>"Read what I said again! ;-) My definition was of *Metaphysical*
>Naturalism. Metaphysical naturalists don't say "even if there is a God".
They
>deny outright that there is a God..
>
>You are getting mixed up with Metaphysical Naturalism and Methodological
>Naturalism."
JWB>Sorry -- you are right. I understand the difference quite clearly; I did
>not read your post clearly and I apologize..
Thanks, but there is no need to apologise..
JWB>You went on to cite two authors:
SJ>"Why do the leading voices of official science teach that science and
>naturalism are inseparable? The reason is that they assume that the
>scientific method is inherently characterized by a thoroughgoing
methodological
>naturalism (hereafter MN)..." (Johnson P.E., "Reason in the Balance",
>1995, pp207-208)."
JWB>and
SJ>"Interestingly, a significant number of Christian scholars have made
>similar claims. For example, philosopher Paul de Vries and scientist Howard
J..
>Van Till have argued that natural science, by its very nature, presupposes
>and is constituted by methodological naturalism (hereafter MN)..."
(Moreland
>J.P., "The Creation Hypothesis," 1994, p42)"
JWB>I find myself in complete agreement with de Vries & Van Till on this
>issue. The answer I give to Johnson's "Why... ?" is that the principle
>WORKS..
First, the claiim that MN is true because it "works" is really pragmatism.
But
pragmatism makes no claims to be truth. Truth *is* what works in
pragmatism..
Second, this is too grandiose a claim. MN works well in the ongoing
operations
of the universe, but only because of TR, ie. because there is a God ruling
the
universe by natural laws, MN has no explanation *why* MN works. TR has
an explanation why MN works (in some spheres and not in others).
Third, MN fails dismally in the area of *origins*. MN cannot explain the
origin of the universe, the origin of life, the origin of life's designs,
the
origin of human consciousness..
For the above reasons, MN is just a subset of the more inclusive
theory/model
TR..
JWB>And I have seen no indication the Johnson's TR (Theological
>Realism) works, at least not in a scientific sense..
See above. You can't even get the name right - it is *Theistic* Realism!
That
does not inspire confidence in your understanding of TR..
Also, if you claim to be a theist who believes that God exists, you have a
basic problem of explaining why assuming there is no God is the key to
understanding reality:
"The problem, very briefly stated, is this: if employing MN is the
only way to reach true conclusions about the history of the universe,
and if the attempt to provide a naturalistic history of the universe
has continually gone from success to success, and if even theists
concede that trying to do science on theistic premises always leads
nowhere or into error (the embarrassing "God of the gaps"), then the
likely explanation for this state of affairs is that naturalism is
true and theism is false." (Johnson P.E., "Reason in the Balance,"
1995, p211)
JWB>The oldest definition of science" I've been able to find is attributed
to
>Aristotle -- "science is the description of causes." (sorry -- no source
>here but my elderly memory). Along with this was the admonition to
>"attribute nothing to the gods." This is MN, Methodological Naturalism..
>Yes, I've seen people use the term "Metaphysical Naturalism == MN" but it
>seems to me that using "Philosophical Naturalism == PN" is a better
>choice; at least PN and MN are not going to get mixed up!
Well TR would agree that we should "attribute nothing to the gods", ie.
Aristotle's
capricious, immoral Greek gods..
Surely you are not equating Aristotle's "gods" with the real, Christian God?
But
if not, then what is your point? You surely do not *really* mean "attribute
nothing
to" the Christian God?
Steve
"Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented."
--- Dr. William Provine, Professor of History and Biology, Cornell
University..
http://fp.bio.utk.edu/darwin/1998/slides_view/Slide_7.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------