tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post8092505146854569182..comments2023-09-25T04:26:51.568-06:00Comments on The Barefoot Bum: Scientific naturalismLarry Hamelinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-52705612968263402422010-07-29T03:11:42.201-06:002010-07-29T03:11:42.201-06:00It's not my practice to conduct debates in com...It's not my practice to conduct debates in comments. I will merely note that it is uncontroversial that scientific naturalism requires some metaphysical structure; you do not, however, correctly identify those propositions of naturalism that are actually metaphysical. The argument that causation and induction are not themselves metaphysical statements required by science is a different argument than that science requires some metaphysical structure.<br /><br />Also note that atheism per se entails only that regardless of the methodology we use to arrive at the conclusion, we have concluded that the particular ontological story of a "man behind the curtain", with properties and characteristics in some way resembling human intelligence, must be decisively rejected as at least unsupported.<br /><br />In general, I would recommend for maximum clarity that you clearly distinguish when you are talking about the ideas of atheism and naturalism (of at least the methodological variety).<br /><br />And, of course, your allusion to evolution as being somehow unjustified by scientific naturalism is simply a non-starter. The underlying science is so rock-solid that I do not believe you or anyone else can make that case without substantially misrepresenting the scientific naturalism or the actual science underlying evolution.<br /><br />As I said, I am categorically not interested in conducting debates through comments. If you would like me to read any response you might make on your own blog, I would be more than happy (barring the unforeseen) to publish a comment here containing a link to and summary of your post.<br /><br />Keep in mind that it's one thing to stake out a position, a task you have completed. To go further, you must actually <i>argue</i> your position. If you wish to criticize metaphysical naturalism or atheism, take care to either cite and criticize a specific description or make a positive case that metaphysical naturalism <i>necessarily</i> entails something objectionable. I will probably publish a link, but I will not bother to respond to a straw man or other obvious fallacy, nor will I respond to negligent or malicious factual falsity.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-24953839002402643162010-07-28T22:12:47.792-06:002010-07-28T22:12:47.792-06:00Larry,
Yours is a lengthy reply, but very little...Larry, <br /><br />Yours is a lengthy reply, but very little of it is actually responsive to the issue. And the part that is responsive is largely devoted to tearing down a straw man. Neither religion nor any other form of transcendental epistemological system is the enemy of science. Yet, you suggest that science and religion are pitted against one another, and that religionists are engaged in a sort of mortal battle against the scientific method for supremacy over which can supply better explanations for phenomena in the world. This is a mischaracterization. Science depends upon metaphysics for epistemological legitimacy. As I explained <a href="http://notesfrombabel.wordpress.com/2010/01/09/a-bully-is-a-bully-even-if-hes-wearing-a-labcoat/" rel="nofollow">here</a>: <br /><br />Does this mean that science itself is a religion? No. Not anymore than language is a religion. But like language, science requires its practitioners to bring a metaphysics to the table. That is because science does not provide its own justification for concepts necessary to make it work, like induction, causation, and order. To even the religious among us these days, science is the gold standard of truth. Labcoats are preferred to armchairs. No one wants to hear about metaphysics—the physics part sounds good, but this “meta” must mean less good, no?—like “semi” or “pseudo”?<br /><br />To the contrary, the prefix means “more comprehensive; transcending,” as in, physics presupposes metaphysics. Without metaphysics, there can be no physics. Metaphysics gives us the tools we need to do science. Scientific method? Metaphysics. Induction? Metaphysics. Causation? Metaphysics. Unified theory of everything? You get the idea. Strictly speaking, natural selection is not a scientific theory. It is a metaphysical theory presupposed by scientists in order to do evolutionary biology. Evolutionary biology is great. We have profited tremendously from it. But we cannot fail to recognize the boundaries this brand of science, or try to re-label its metaphysical origin as science simply because we have grown so fond of it. <br /><br /><br />Thus, science requires its practitioners to bring some brand of transcendental presuppositions about the world before they can even make use of science. This is because, as David Hume first recognized, the empirical world does not provide any justification for causation or induction, which are in turn necessary to do science. We have to first assume, or presuppose, these truths. Many religions provide a model where these can be asserted in a fairly cogent way. (Adherents to these models can argue which do so in the most cogent way, with the fewest unnecessary premises, etc.) Atheism’s problem is that it discards the possibility of transcendental truth. In doing so, it also discards the ability to make use of science. In this way, religionists actually have a stronger claim to the truths yielded through science than atheists.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com