Re: Signs of Scientism

Thank you very much Keith.

On 1/18/06, Keith Miller <kbmill@ksu.edu> wrote:
>
> David Opderbeck wrote:
>
> > I'd still very much like the perspectives of Keith and other ASA
> > members on hy the ability to observe and reasonably believe in a
> > "supernatural" event such as the resurrection differs from the ability
> > to observe and reasonably believe in "supernatural" creative events in
> > natural history. As I've understood thediscussion so far, it's not
> > only that there's no evidence for such "supernatural" creative events,
> > its that such events are in principle not detectable. I'm trying to
> > understand the "in principle not detectable" part. Thanks.
>
> This will have to be my final post on this thread. Other
> responsibilities are catching up to me.
>
> This is a very multi-faceted question. First we need definitions. As
> I have indicated previously, my view is that all reality has a
> "supernatural" aspect in that it is continuously upheld by God's being
> and action. However, from your previous comments, I think that you are
> referring to "miracle." But this word also need definition. My
> understanding (the theologians amount us are free to correct me) is
> that miracle in the Biblical sense is a "sign" that draws attention to
> or confirms some aspect of God's revelation of his character or will.
> These signs were given at a particular time and place in a particular
> historical context in God's interaction with his people. A miracle in
> this sense does not require that the "sign" break natural "law" or
> interrupt chains of cause-and-effect. An example that I like to use in
> making this point, is Jesus' calming of the sea. What makes this a
> sign is that the event occurred in response to Jesus' spoken word.
> There are other events in scripture that do seem to "break natural
> law," but these are actually surprisingly few.
>
> So, are such "signs" in human history subject to scientific test and
> substantiation? Well, yes and no. Firstly, science as a discipline to
> understand the natural world did not exist until modern history (I'll
> let the historians say when modern science was born). Our scientific
> way of thinking and explaining the natural world did not exist in
> ancient times. The miraculous signs were received and understood by
> those to whom they were given, but there was no scientific process in
> existence to be applied. What about claims of the miracles (of the
> "law breaking" sort) in modern times? While it might in principle be
> possible to devise a scientific test, the events in question cannot be
> anticipated or predicted. God is free and not subject to any rules.
> (This free action is one of the reasons that studies on the
> effectiveness of prayer are flawed. God ends up being treated in an
> experimental study as operationally equivalent to a drug. But God
> doesn't give us what we ask just because we pray.) In any scientific
> investigation God ends up being reduced to a natural cause. On the
> other hand, science can be used to debunk false supernatural claims
> (again of the "law breaking" sort ) by showing how the event or
> phenomena in question can be attributed to known natural processes, or
> to be the result of human deception. So, if science fails to debunk a
> particular claim, then "law-breaking" miraculous action cannot be ruled
> out. However, neither can it be positively demonstrated. It will
> simply be a mystery, and that mystery may eventually yield to a
> "natural" cause-and-effect explanation.
>
> OK, so what about miraculous ("law-breaking") events in creative
> history? There are two parts to my response. Firstly, my
> understanding is that such events must be "signs" in the Biblical
> sense. But these events would have occurred without observers.
> Furthermore they could not have been signs to the people to whom the
> scriptures were originally written. Thus their theological
> significance is seriously brought into question. Now, the natural
> world is certainly pointed to by scripture as a sign of God's existence
> and power. But, as George has repeatedly argued on this list, that
> "natural revelation" has not resulted in knowledge of God or in
> repentance. Furthermore, that revelation is not rooted in some modern
> scientific discovery, but in our everyday experience of the created
> world (as valid to the ancients as to us). The second part of my
> response is that scientific study of the natural world cannot confirm
> the existence or action of God. If a series of natural
> cause-and-effect processes/events can be shown to plausibly account for
> our observations of the natural world, that says nothing about God's
> action in an through those processes. If no such plausible series of
> natural events are currently known, then that is all that science as a
> limited way of knowing can say. It cannot conclude that a particular
> event in the history of life, or a particular feature of the natural
> world, must be the consequence of a supernatural agent. However, we
> are free to make those claims from a theological perspective. But
> those claims must be evaluated on their theological merits, and I
> believe that tying our arguments for the creative action of God to
> failures in scientific description are theologically problematic.
> Below is a short passage from a recently-published article of mine that
> addresses this issue.
>
> In conclusion, I am not saying that God cannot or does not act outside
> the regularities of the natural world. I am saying that science has
> little or nothing to say about it.
>
> ______________________________________
>
> Many Intelligent Design (ID) advocates argue that MN arbitrarily and
> unjustifiably excludes supernatural agency from scientific explanation.
> They believe that this exclusion of God from scientific description
> unnecessarily restricts the search for truth. Phillip Johnson has made
> this a prominent focus of his arguments.
> "We [members of the intelligent design movement] are opposed by persons
> who endorse methodological naturalism, a doctrine that insists that
> science must explain biological creation only by natural processes,
> meaning unintelligent processes. Reference to a creator or designer is
> relegated to the realm of religion, and ruled out of bounds in science
> regardless of the evidence."
> Note that MN is treated as a doctrine, a philosophical assumption,
> rather than a methodological limitation of scientific inquiry. In much
> of the ID and traditional creationist literature, MN is falsely
> presented as equivalent to philosophical naturalism or materialism.
> That is, the practice of science is seen as based on a philosophy that
> claims that the material universe is all that there is.
>
> ID advocates believe that the exclusion of God from scientific
> description unnecessarily restricts the search for truth. It does
> nothing of the sort. If God acted in creation to bring about a
> particular structure in a way that broke causal chains, then science
> would simply conclude that: "There is presently no known series of
> cause-and-effect processes that can adequately account for this
> structure, and research will continue to search for such processes."
> Any statement beyond that requires the application of a particular
> religious worldview. Science cannot conclude "God did it." However,
> if God acted through a seamless series of cause-and-effect processes to
> bring about that structure, then the continuing search for such
> processes stimulated by the tentativeness and methodological naturalism
> of science may uncover those processes. Using an ID approach, the
> inference to "intelligent design" would be made, and any motivation for
> further research would end. Thus, ID runs the risk of making false
> conclusions, and prematurely terminating the search for
> cause-and-effect descriptions when one wasn't already at hand.
> Furthermore, how would a gap in our knowledge be filled unless there
> was a continued effort to search for possible "natural" causes? Thus
> even the verification of gaps requires research conducted using MN
> assumptions.
>
> (Taken from Miller, K.B., 2005, Countering public misconceptions about
> the nature of evolutionary science, Southeastern Biology, v.52,
> p.415-427. Simultaneously published in: Georgia Journal of Science,
> v.63, p.175-189.)
>
> _________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
> Keith
>
>
> Keith B. Miller
> Research Assistant Professor
> Dept of Geology, Kansas State University
> Manhattan, KS 66506-3201
> 785-532-2250
> http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~kbmill/
>
Received on Wed Jan 18 22:23:09 2006