My thought was regarding the big debate now (particularly with regard to
Intelligent Design): the issue of whether or not there can be any kind of
demarcation between science and philosophy. The ID theorists seem to be
arguing "no", for the obvious reason that this allows an issue
traditionally assigned to philosophy (God, design, etc.) to be introduced
as science. (I'm not entirely sure why they bother, but perhaps they do
this based on assumptions similar to those of Kevin: i.e., the assumption
that philosophy is a lesser kind of inquiry than science.)
Anyhow, I was thinking that if ID theorists and their like can use
non-demarcation to bring traditionally philosophical ideas into science,
maybe the *naturalistic* crowd can now use that same lack of demarcation to
bring traditionally *scientific* ideas into *philosophy*. What I mean is,
science is typically a *methodological* naturalism, and making
pronouncements about metaphysical issues has therefore been ruled out (for
example, a scientist could not validly say "there is no scientific evidence
for God, therefore God is an unreasonable belief" -- that would seem to be
a category mistake). But if there suddenly is no line at all between
science and metaphysics, then what prevents scientists with a naturalistic
bent from turning their *methodological* naturalism into *metaphysical*
naturalism?
I'm not sure my point is at all clear here, so I'll restate it with an
example. In IRC as well as listserve debates, I often see
scientifically-oriented people saying things that amount to "science has no
place for a God, therefore there is no God". Although I myself don't
believe in God either, I see a flaw with that reasoning: it seems to me an
error to suppose that science does (or ought to) address metaphysical
questions, and therefore the lack of God in the practice of science is
irrelevant to God's actual existence. But if suddenly there is no
demarcation between science and metaphysics, I can no longer differentiate
the two this way -- they would no longer refer to different kinds of
inquiry. So, the "there is no God in science, therefore there is no God"
suddenly is left without an apt response.
Of course, the most apt response to my entire line of reasoning would be
"the whole point of taking away any demarcation is that suddenly God *does*
have a place in science". But this seems to me to miss the point. If
theistic scientists can use the lack of demarcation to move their
philosophical/theological ideas into science, then why can't naturalistic
scientists use this same lack to move their scientific ideas into
philosophy/theology? This strikes me as a potential problem, at least for
those who find the lack of theism in scientific circles disturbing. Maybe
the "no-demarcation" theory many theists want will have, at least in some
cases, precisely the opposite effect of introducing God to science: it
could have the effect of eliminating God, not only from science, but
altogether.
Just a few thoughts jotted down at 9am (and before my first cup of
coffee)... so don't expect too much... :) But I'd be interested to hear
what anyone thinks.
Regards,
Mike Hardie
<hardie@globalserve.net>
http://www.globalserve.net/~hardie/dv/