Some people claim that it is inappropriate in some sense to bring God into science. Science must, they claim, operate as if naturalism where true. This is called methodological naturalism and it is supposed to be neutral concerning the claim that naturalism is true. There are a number of reasons for thinking this. Some claim that allowing God into science would provide too easy a way out of any scientific problem (“God did it”), or that it would lead to the end of science by being an end to explanation. Or perhaps it is because any claim about God is untestable. I do not wish to discuss any of these reasons here. Instead I wish to point out that methodological naturalism may not be in the truth-business, unless ontological naturalism is true.
If God exists then it is likely that there are natural events that are unexplainable except by referring to God. For example, the Bible claims that a certain quantity of water in first century Palestine became wine. This is an empirical claim, and if true, it has no natural explanation, so according to methodological naturalism that would mean it has no explanation, but this is false. If it happened, then it does have an explanation – God turned the water into wine.
One might object that there is a big IF here, but that is beside the point. Methodological naturalism is not supposed to take a position on such things, but if it cannot possibly accommodate this possibility then it is not concerned to always find the true explanation, but only purely natural ones. Maybe we simply do want to stipulate that that is what science is about, but then it is also to admit that science is not always interested in the truth.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Hi Kyle, good post.
No doubt science would incorporate the idea of changing water into wine if it had been observed (I mean this in a scientific sense). Unfortunately no miracles has ever been accurately observed and each time it has tried to be recreated it has failed.
I would suggest that the "if" is the whole point. What is the point in attempting to incorporate any random hypothesis?
It would be neither efficient nor useful and would have no practical application to the actual world.
How do you recreate a miracle? If you or I could recreate it, would it still be a miracle?
I think the question Kyle raises here is, "Does naturalism allow for the possibility of God intervening is any way shape or form?"
I would suggest that the "if" is the whole point. What is the point in attempting to incorporate any random hypothesis?I am not claiming that current science should be capable of incorporating any hypothesis.
However, the scientific method should not imply that some possible facts are false, unless of course the scientific method is not a method for finding the truth, but rather for finding things with practical applications, as you seem to suggest.
@ spherical
re miracles, you cant right?
So thats the point, how come we cant observe a single miracle?
I mean some sort of undeniable miracle that was recorded well across a few mediums.
Either way my point still stands. What is the point of naturalism incorporating devine intervention when there isnt any evidence of it?
If the point stands we may as well include unicorns in biology, and leprechauns in meteorology.
@Kyle
Good point, but I don't think science does. Can you give an example?
Spherical wrote I think the question Kyle raises here is, "Does naturalism allow for the possibility of God intervening is any way shape or form?It depends on the nature of the intervention.
Would he be able to violate natural law? No. But this wouldn't mean he'd be unable to interact with the natural world.
So the answer to your question, I think, is No.
Hello :)
I think that with scientific research, God does not NEED to be taken into consideration. I think that kind of conclusion should be a personal one. Science can say it doesn’t know why something happened; it is up to you if you want to decide that the answer is God. For science to say ‘it was God’ it is answering a question in a way that doesn’t really answer the question. It might make people consider the matter to be closed and for science that is not an option. If a scientist believes in God, then I think perhaps he isn’t trying to prove or disprove him, instead he is willing to believe that God could have done everything, but science can still answer questions in a scientific manner.
I personally do not believe in the God of Abraham, but I see no reason why science can not do what it does even if I am wrong. The problem between science and God is a book. If you believe that everything in the Bible has to be 100% accurate, then it poses a problem when put against science. If you believe that God can use any system he chooses to create the universe, then science has no problem going about trying to discover how these system works.
So I think that taking God into account is not the problem, it’s the Bible that can not be taken into account.
Well-said, Kerry
What is it with the Y... everyone wants to use the Y... I'm not a guy ya know ;) WEM you being funny? *hehehe*
I blame the senator and previous democratic contender for president from my state :)
Sorry Kerri
Post a Comment