Re: [asa] Can Science Test Supernatural Worldviews? by Yonatan I.Fishman

The interchange between our Lord and Pilate is a little more complicated.
Christ used a phrase that occurs only three times in the New Testament,
the other two being in I John. "Out of [ek] the truth" is a difficult
phrase at best. I don't wonder that Pilate did not understand. His
question may be interpreted as "What are you talking about?"

I note also that /aletheia/ has a broader application than "truth". The
latter may be viewed as a reification of a relationship between a
description and reality, but it has been used in other ways by
philosophers. However, what is said truly is not a person. The witness
who swears to tell the truth is not promising to speak God.
Dave (ASA)

On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 14:57:06 +1200 "Dr. Philip Pattemore M.D."
<philip.pattemore@otago.ac.nz> writes:
>
>
> I have read Fishman and I think he sees everything clearly except
> perhaps his own assumptions about the nature of God, the nature of
>
> science, and the nature of truth.
>
> My conception of truth is not that there is an abstract entity
> called
> "Truth" floating somewhere in the multiverse (Platonism), or a real
>
> world which we are trying to model more and more closely with our
> perceived world (objectivism), nor that truth is simply a point of
>
> view (relativism), nor yet that truth is only relevant to the
> particular instance (minimalism). Although each of these makes a
> reasonable point they don't describe the whole.
>
> In Scriptural terms, Truth is a Person. God is Truth, and Jesus
> stated that he was the Truth before Pilate, upon which Pilate,
> irrelevantly, asked for a description of the Platonic entity of
> Truth.
>
> If ultimately Truth is a Person, and we know that Person through the
>
> created order, through his nature and word revealed through Abraham
>
> and his descendants, and through knowledge of his Son both
> historically and through the Spirit, this I think puts a different
>
> perspective on how we come to believe or not believe in God, and
> whether examination of the created order alone (the scientific
> enterprise), is sufficient to decide if God exists or not and how
> this
> fits in with our other assessments of truth.
>
> Not that God's existence has no physical effect on us or the world,
>
> but rather that everything about us and the universe/multiverse/all-
>
> there-is is an effect of God's existence. That makes it difficult
> for
> us to isolate specific effects as evidence for or against and
> separate
> them from the whole, much as the epidemiology linking exposure to
> effect is difficult if the exposure is universal. (If everyone
> smoked
> it would have been near-impossible to prove the link between smoking
>
> and lung cancer).
>
> I go back to C.S.Lewis's analogy of a story and and an author. It
>
> would be entirely possible for a character in a novel to declare, on
>
> the basis of their investigations, and their assessments of prior
> and
> posterior probabilities, that the author did not exist, with no
> awareness that they and the world around them, including their
> investigations and thought processes, owed their existence to the
> author, and flowed from the author's pen. (This is in the sense of
>
> dependence, not determinism).
>
>
> Philip Pattemore
>
>
>
>
> Philip Pattemore MD FRACP
> Associate Professor in Paediatrics
> Christchurch School of Medicine
> PO Box 4345
> Chistchurch Mail Centre
> Christchurch 8140
> New Zealand
> Phone +64-3-3640734
> Fax: +64-3-3640747
> email: <philip.pattemore@otago.ac.nz>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 22/04/2009, at 1:25 PM, wjp wrote:
>
> > Moorad:
> >
> > What you say can be treated as a reply to the empirical
> hypothesis:
> > Prayers to a good, all-powerful god for the healing of sickness
> > will increase the likelihood of healing.
> >
> > You suggest that this would not be an empirical law, and you
> provide
> > some reasons why not.
> >
> > The question is whether you can think of any empirical laws that
> might
> > apply to God. I take it that you do not think there would be such
>
> > laws.
> > I suppose Fishman would ask, "why not?"
> > Or he would say, in true positivist fashion, "Since you can
> provide no
> > evidence for the existence of God, I conclude that scientifically
> (at
> > least), He does not exist."
> >
> > Essentially, Fishman's argument might be that of Antony Flew's
> Parable
> > of the Invisible Gardner, evidence for which is the same as had
> there
> > been no gardener whatsoever.
> >
> > I think speaking from the perspective of an empirical science one
>
> > would
> > be hard put to dispute this logic. If in science, we can provide
> no
> > evidence whatsoever for the existence of an entity, we would
> conclude
> > that it does not exist. It wouldn't help if we were to argue that
> the
> > nature of this entity is such that it cannot be detected. For
> then we
> > would be free to posit anything whatsoever.
> >
> > Consider quarks. I hope George will chime in here for I know next
> to
> > nothing of them. I don't think we knew anything of them when I
> was in
> > graduate school and even if we did it would probably be not
> studied in
> > general graduate level classes. Anyway, as I understand it quarks
> may
> > be undetectable in principle, yet many people believe they exist.
>
> > Why?
> > I'm not certain, but I suppose because of their theoretical
> > explanatory
> > power. Perhaps other can explain it. It would be interesting to
>
> > compare
> > quarks to God.
> >
> > I frankly think that there is evidential support for the existence
>
> > of God.
> > Moreover, it provides significant explanatory power and
> coherence.
> > That doesn't mean, however, that I believe such evidence is
> sufficient
> > for faith. Indeed, I think it sorely lacking with regard to faith
>
> > since
> > they are different categories.
> >
> > Briefly, I still don't think Fishman is doing anything
> illegitimate.
> > Were one to engage Fishman on the subject I think one might bring
> up a
> > whole host of evidences that he conveniently never mentions,
> including
> > the existence of a universe, the existence of minds, the existence
>
> > of life,
> > the existence of "free will."
> >
> > But you see what happens when I do this: it is starting to sound
>
> > like ID.
> > Perhaps it doesn't have to if one is willing to concede that what
>
> > you are
> > doing is not something so "high" as science. Saying this,
> however,
> > probably
> > entails a certain view of the situation and the nature of God, and
>
> > perhaps of
> > man. It means that what is being done is not saying that
> alternative
> > views and characterizations aren't possible, rather there is good
>
> > empirical
> > support for the existence of our God, and even in Christ. It is
> the
> > kind
> > of evidence which doesn't so much persuade the atheist, but to
> > provide support
> > for the believer, and that can't be all bad.
> >
> > To take one example, consider evolution. Plantinga offers a well-
>
> > known argument
> > against evolution (at least unguided evolution) and the existence
> of
> > minds that
> > can obtain knowledge (I think he says know truth, but I think we
> can
> > speak more
> > broadly). The argument is just like Fishman's, guided by a
> Bayesian
> > analysis.
> > The problem is, according to this argument, if evolution is true
> and
> > we are beliefs
> > are not trustworthy, then neither is our belief in evolution.
> >
> > Will this argument persuade a believer in random, unguided
> > evolution? I don't think
> > so. There will always be enough room for anyone to wiggle out of
>
> > the argument,
> > perhaps by a reassessment of the probabilities (a la the Drake
> > equation).
> > So what is the point? It points to problems with the theory (I
> > don't think
> > this is the only one). But all theories have anomalies. With a
>
> > theory like
> > evolution which is committed to so little there will always be
> > plenty of leg
> > room. What kills a theory is not, in my view, anomalies. It's
> > alternative
> > theories. I doubt whether there is any other possible scientific
>
> > theory for the
> > origin of life than some form of evolution.
> >
> > The real question is how we come to settle on any theory. Is it
>
> > because we
> > simply run out of new empirical data? Or new paradigmatic
> > unambiguous experiments?
> >
> > Well, I'm rambling. So many questions and so few answers.
> >
> > bill
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 18:50:23 -0400, "Alexanian, Moorad"
> <alexanian@uncw.edu
> > > wrote:
> >> Bill,
> >>
> >> Experimental science is quite successful in the hard sciences. I
> am
> >> not
> >> sure if you can reduce answer to prayers to be an experimental
> >> science. If
> >> am not sure that prayers addressed to God can be so systematized.
> I
> >> do not
> >> think fancy Bayesian analysis would be useless here. Note that
> here
> >> we are
> >> dealing with free will on the part of all concerned and so the
> >> system is
> >> not that simple.
> >>
> >> Moorad
> >> ________________________________________
> >> From: Bill Powers [wjp@swcp.com]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 5:41 PM
> >> To: Alexanian, Moorad
> >> Cc: Bill Cobern; asa@calvin.edu
> >> Subject: RE: [asa] Can Science Test Supernatural Worldviews? by
>
> >> Yonatan I.
> >> Fishman
> >>
> >> Moorad:
> >>
> >> Fishman makes no reference to miracles per se. He is only
> >> interested in
> >> verifiable evidence. So for example he cites work on
> "intercessory
> >> prayer." I've heard results on both sides of this aisle, but he
>
> >> cites
> >> only a study which concluded that the there was no evidence of a
> >> verifiable effect.
> >>
> >> His approach is simple and should be familiar to us. You make
> an
> >> hypothesis and then determine whether the "evidence" supports
> the
> >> hypothesis or not. The example I gave in a previous post could
> be
> >> viewed as the confirmation or disconfirmation of a law-like
> covering
> >> law.
> >>
> >> bill
> >>
> >> On Tue, 21 Apr 2009, Alexanian, Moorad wrote:
> >>
> >>> I do not know how one can answer the question, Can Science Test
> >> Supernatural Worldviews? if we do not first define what science
> is.
> >>> In my view, the answer is defiantly no. Science deals with the
>
> >>> physical
> >> and physical devices can detect neither the nonphysical nor the
> >> supernatural. Physical devices can at most detect the physical
> >> aspect,
> >> say, of a miracle. The most one can have, therefore, as objective
>
> >> evidence
> >> of a supernatural event is to actually film it, provided that it
>
> >> activates
> >> the chemistry of the film, and use that as evidence. Of course,
>
> >> this may
> >> not even be sufficient, witness magicians.
> >>>
> >>> Moorad
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-
> >>> owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> >> Behalf Of Bill Powers
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 11:41 AM
> >>> To: Bill Cobern
> >>> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> >>> Subject: Re: [asa] Can Science Test Supernatural Worldviews? by
>
> >>> Yonatan
> >> I. Fishman
> >>>
> >>> Thanks to Bill Cobern I have had an opportunity to review this
>
> >>> paper on
> >>> the testing of supernatural claims.
> >>>
> >>> First, it seems to me that his general approach is acceptable,
>
> >>> indeed,
> >> one
> >>> we all employ daily. This commonsense approach to how we deal
> with
> >>> various claims and evaluate them has been formalized in the
> Bayesian
> >>> approach to not only science, but to the evaluation of all sorts
> of
> >>> claims.
> >>>
> >>> Second, very little, if anything, is gained by adding the word
>
> >>> "science"
> >>> to this paper. The empirical difficulties that he mentions have
>
> >>> been
> >> with
> >>> us since time immemorial and are omnipresent inside and outside
> the
> >>> literature. Indeed, they probably reside in every believer.
> >>>
> >>> Third, he only considers probabalistic evidence which concludes
>
> >>> the God
> >>> does not exist. There are many examples using the very same
> methods
> >> that
> >>> come to the opposite conclusion, e.g., the Resurrection.
> >>>
> >>> Fourth, he considers a number of reasons to doubt, including
> the
> >> existence
> >>> of evil, the apparent indiscriminate distribution of evil, and
> >> increasing
> >>> "natural" explanations of phenomena.
> >>>
> >>> He assumes that if there was a perfectly good and all powerful
>
> >>> god, the
> >>> evil would be distributed more amongst the "evil" or
> >>> "nonbelievers" than
> >>> amongst the "good" and "believers." This is what is known as a
>
> >>> theory,
> >> and it
> >>> is a testable theory. He concludes that there is greater
> likelihood
> >> that
> >>> the theory is false than that it is true. Indeed, given some
> >>> secular
> >>> notion of good and evil, I suspect we would all agree with his
> >>> conclusions. We didn't need science or even Reverend Bayes to
>
> >>> draw this
> >>> conclusion, but it sounds so much more "scientific" to say so.
> >>>
> >>> I am pretty much convinced that Bayes theorem can be roughly
> >>> applied to
> >>> lots of our rational thinking, including that of science.
> However,
> >> anyone
> >>> who has ever tried to plug in numbers to make this quantitative
>
> >>> (as ID
> >>> attempts to do sometimes at least) will be sorely disappointed.
>
> >>> Indeed,
> >>> Fishman never makes this attempt. He simply refers to his
> favorite
> >>> atheists for confirmation.
> >>>
> >>> Does the argument provided above for the existence of God prove
>
> >>> that God
> >>> does not exist? Of course, not. Fishman wants to argue that
> the
> >> failures
> >>> of such empirical tests provide support for His nonexistence. I
>
> >>> think
> >> he
> >>> is correct. We, however, would suggest that he has suggested a
> bad
> >> theory
> >>> and we can good reasons to suggest that it is bad theory (e.g.,
> the
> >>> crucifixion). Does not, I think, entail that the discussion
> might
> >>> not
> >> be
> >>> engaged, perhaps not with him or any of his like minded friends.
>
> >>> As we
> >>> all probably know such conversations would likely be a waste of
>
> >>> time.
> >> But
> >>> even this provides evidence for the inadequacy of the method.
> >>>
> >>> I don't care what Fishman says, evidence is not
> self-interpreting,
> >>> and
> >>> certainly what we judge to be the important evidence and what
> not is
> >>> likewise not unbiased. To mention but one example, I've seen
> papers
> >>> attempting to use a Bayesian analysis of the order and
> rationality
> >>> of
> >> the
> >>> world in which they conclude (it might have been Plantinga) it
> is
> >>> more
> >>> likely that there is a rational all-powerful creator. But
> Fishman
> >> doesn't
> >>> examine this argument. Of course, this argument is also open to
>
> >>> doubt.
> >>>
> >>> I need to go, but let me conclude by saying that Fishman can
> >> legitimately
> >>> apply such lines of thinking to the question of the existence of
> a
> >>> proposed being with certain properties. Science does this all
> the
> >>> time.
> >>> Electrons were originally thought to be waves, later as
> particles,
> >>> and
> >> now
> >>> as quantum particles. The same can be attempted for God. Just
> as
> >>> for
> >>> electrons, any natural theology will change in response to new
> or
> >>> more
> >>> thoroughly considered evidence. Many have concluded there is no
> god
> >> based
> >>> upon the evidence, and upon an analysis similar to Fishman's.
> It is
> >>> likely that not all of them were faulty in their thinking.
> Their
> >> problem
> >>> was that they tested the wrong god. Their god does not exist.
> >> Fishman's
> >>> god likely doesn't exist either, just as phlogistin we now think
>
> >>> doesn't
> >>> exist.
> >>>
> >>> The issue of evidence for or against Christianity is a delicate
>
> >>> one. On
> >>> the one hand, because God is actively involved with His
> Creation, He
> >> must
> >>> leave evidence. On the other hand, no amount of evidence will
>
> >>> persuade
> >>> you. Evidence can support, but not prove, or something less
> strong.
> >>> Science relies on just such kinds of support. Nothing is
> proved.
> >> Nothing
> >>> is certain. We rely I think upon the relative probabiliy of
> >>> alternative
> >>> hypotheses and internal coherence.
> >>>
> >>> that's it for now.
> >>>
> >>> bill
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, 20 Apr 2009, Bill Cobern wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I would be interested to know if anyone on the list has read
> the
> >> following
> >>>> article which is available as a pre-print at the
> www.springerlink.com
> >>>> webpage. The article will appear sometime this year in the
> journal
> >> Science &
> >>>> Education. I have a pdf copy if anyone would like to see the
> >>>> article
> >> but does
> >>>> not have access to SpringerLink. As I say, I'm curious as to
> how
> >>>> people
> >> on
> >>>> the list might respond to Fishman's arguments, especially those
>
> >>>> more
> >>>> philosophically trained than I am!
> >>>> grace & peace
> >>>> bill
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Can Science Test Supernatural Worldviews?
> >>>> Yonatan I. Fishman
> >>>> Abstract Several prominent scientists, philosophers, and
> scientific
> >>>> institutions have
> >>>> argued that science cannot test supernatural worldviews on the
>
> >>>> grounds
> >> that
> >>>> (1) science
> >>>> presupposes a naturalistic worldview (Naturalism) or that (2)
>
> >>>> claims
> >>>> involving supernatural
> >>>> phenomena are inherently beyond the scope of scientific
> >>>> investigation.
> >> The
> >>>> present paper
> >>>> argues that these assumptions are questionable and that indeed
>
> >>>> science
> >> can
> >>>> test supernatural
> >>>> claims. While scientific evidence may ultimately support a
> >>>> naturalistic
> >>>> worldview,
> >>>> science does not presuppose Naturalism as an a priori
> commitment,
> >>>> and
> >>>> supernatural
> >>>> claims are amenable to scientific evaluation. This conclusion
> >> challenges the
> >>>> rationale
> >>>> behind a recent judicial ruling in the United States concerning
> the
> >> teaching
> >>>> of ''Intelligent
> >>>> Design'' in public schools as an alternative to evolution and
> the
> >> official
> >>>> statements of two
> >>>> major scientific institutions that exert a substantial
> influence on
> >> science
> >>>> educational policies
> >>>> in the United States. Given that science does have
> implications
> >> concerning
> >>>> the
> >>>> probable truth of supernatural worldviews, claims should not
> be
> >> excluded a
> >>>> priori from
> >>>> science education simply because they might be characterized
> as
> >> supernatural,
> >>>> paranormal,
> >>>> or religious. Rather, claims should be excluded from science
> >>>> education
> >> when
> >>>> the evidence
> >>>> does not support them, regardless of whether they are
> designated as
> >> 'natural'
> >>>> or
> >>>> 'supernatural'.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Dr. Bill Cobern, Director
> >>>> <http://www.wmich.edu/science/>The George G. Mallinson
> Institute
> >>>> for
> >> Science
> >>>> Education
> >>>> University Distinguished Professor of Biological Sciences and
>
> >>>> Science
> >>>> Education
> >>>> College of Arts & Sciences
> >>>> Western Michigan University
> >>>> 3225 Wood Hall
> >>>> Kalamazoo, MI 49008-5444
> >>>> Voice: +269.387.5407 FAX: +269.387.4998
> >>>> http://homepages.wmich.edu/~cobern/
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, there really is a
> >>>> <http://www.kalamazoocity.org/portal/kzoolife.php>Kalamazoo!
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> >>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> >> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
____________________________________________________________
Click here for free information on earning a criminal justice degree today.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTKKZtgx1ZYGYQ6y4GceMOZhmmcRYP5xPst7M1FxK3opyB2mi2Jpc8/

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Apr 22 17:03:06 2009