Comment on Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith by Sean Pitman.
I would not argue with any of these as evidences and would happily use them but I do not think they have the gravitas of a scientific explanation and are not part of science nor are they core to Christian faith.
They are empirically-based evidences that are testable and potentially falsifiable. That, for many people, is a scientific-type argument. Otherwise, such arguments would not be used by scientists such as Francis Collins and John Polkinghorne as part of a rational basis for faith. Without such evidences, religion, as you yourself explain, would not be “logical”. It is for this reason that the Bible, specifically Paul, argues that the empirical evidence the Resurrection is in fact “core” to the Christian faith – without which such faith would be “in vain”, no better than wishful thinking and just-so story telling. (1 Corinthians 15:14)
(1) The deep and wonderful order of the world suggestive of a divine Mind.
This is purely subjective and far from compelling. It was not compelling to Nietsche or Russell. They provide support for a decision already made that as I have articulated already represents embracing meaning beauty and order over nhilism. I have made that leap of faith and action and can see the value of the argument.
This is not a subjective argument once you recognize the clear limits of mindless naturalistic mechanisms to explain higher levels of functional interactive complexity – in both living things and in the non-living features of our world and of our universe that are required to support complex life.
(2) The anthropogenic fine-tuning of the universe suggesting divine Purpose in cosmic history.
Again this is not compelling or scientific and largely negated by the M-hypothesis.
It is compelling for many people, most physicists in fact, and it certainly seems scientific for me – just as scientific as concluding that a highly symmetrical polished granite cube is a true artefact of intelligent design.
As far as being “negated by the M-hpothesis”, how is that? M-theory has no predictive power since it is currently untestable and beyond the realm of “science”. The same is true of the oft-cited multiverse (or multiple universes) theory. These “theories” are not just unscientific, they are anti-science. As with all other God of the Gaps arguments, these “theories” can be used to explain anything and everything – no matter how improbable.
For example, let’s say that Arnold Schwarzenegger happened to win the California Lottery 10 times in a row. Most rational people would accuse him of deliberately cheating. Yet, according to the multiverse theory, it is possible that he just happened to be in the right universe.
It’s a nonsensical anti-scientific counter argument. In fact, it is so brain dead that it amazes me that so many otherwise intelligent people try to use such arguments.
(3) The existence of value, both moral and aesthetic, as human participation in the Creator’s joy in creation.
This is logical and utilitarian but others have simply seen this as the way the individual and collective mind of highly complex humans works. It can be completely derivative of a humanitarian framework. It is not at all a scientific basis for belief in the Divine.
Universal moral value, or a common sense of right and wrong, is not very consistent with the naturalistic perspective. Belief in universal moral ethics, a basic standard of right and wrong, only makes sense given the existence of a God who make us all this way.
This may be his natural theology but as you of course will be aware he has a very conventional view of origins of man so I am not sure where you would go with that. He certainly has zero support for literal creationism/ID
That’s true. I never said that I agree with everything Polkinghorne or Collins believe. What I said is that they were not as fideistic in their beliefs as you seem to be. They at least try to make their positions appear logical, rational, and empirically based to some degree.
I maintain that all these are post hoc evidences that assume value after you have committed; they play little role in the decision to commit. I am not sure of your Christian experience but I would predict that your Adventist heritage leads you to your arguments not that the arguments lead you to your literalist religious position.
While it is indeed helpful to be born into a religious background, it is certainly not true that this is necessary before one can recognize the evidence of the Divine hand in nature or in various features of the Bible. Many with no prior religious background have been convinced, some “against their will” and with significant effort to resist, to recognize the Divine Signature in various features of the universe and of living things.
The ressurection is even less compelling. It is a position we Christian accept by faith. There is no extra-biblical record of such an event. The only record is the Christian tradition. You at best can as Strobel and others do argue from logic based on the structure and practice of the Roman legion and say the absence of contrary information means we accept that it occured. Really? The absence of contrary information from secular sources is the evidence. A negative proof where the absence of evidence is the proof.
The absence of counter evidence is very important in science – as in the “null hypothesis”. This is especially true given the strong persecution of the early Christian Church, which is recorded extra-Biblical historical documents. Yet, not once do the enemies of the early church cite the body of Jesus still in the tomb as evidence that the story the Christians are spreading is obvious nonsense. Producing the actual body of Jesus would have been a very strong clenching argument that would have dealt a death blow to the Christians. If the Jews and Romans really wanted to stop a movement that they really really hated all they had to do was produce the body of Jesus. That’s it. How easy this would have been if they actually had the body.
It is very very clear, therefore, by strong historical evidence, that the body of Jesus simply wasn’t there…
Is this absolute “proof”, as you often seem to require? No. It isn’t. However, not even science is based on absolute demonstration or “proof”. Science, and rational thought in general, is based on the weight of evidence that is currently in hand…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman Also Commented
Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
Again, even using concepts common to methodological naturalism alone, one cannot but help to discover “blindingly obvious” artefacts of intelligent design within various features of the natural world. Using the very same MN arguments SETI uses to search for artificial radio signals or anthropologists use to discover true artefacts within fragments of stone, one can discover clear artefacts of deliberate design within living things.
Therefore, it isn’t methodological naturalism that causes you to fail to recognize these artefacts for what they really are. It is the secular philosophy held by most scientists that prevents you from these discoveries – for fear that any admission of intelligent design or creative intelligence at all, even on a natural level, will lead some to suggest that God might be responsible for even low-level artefacts of design. It is also your own inability to move beyond the status quo and take on your own ideas regardless of what may or may not be popular among most scientists that limits your ability to recognize the signature of God, or even some form of “natural intelligence,” in nature. You refuse to even consider the idea that God is perfectly capable of creating artefacts that we humans could also create, thereby making them detectable as true artefacts of creative intelligence via the use of even methodological naturalism.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
I certainly agree. The notion that liquid water alone is all that it takes for life to simply self-assemble is nonsense and is certainly not backed up by the scientific evidence that we currently have in hand.
Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
You must be feeling quite fatigued indeed 😉
Since when is the evolution of anything beyond very low levels of functional complexity or a Noachian style Flood or the formation of the fossil record “everyday events”? And, how is your own appeal to discoveries at some unknown time in the future to explain complex biomachines, by some as yet unknown mindless mechanism, somehow rational or “scientific” by any definition of the term? You place a lot of emphasis on the ability of living things to reproduce, but fail to explain how natural selection can actually act as a creative force beyond very low levels of functional complexity – but you’re sure that it, or some other miraculous “emergent” mindless mechanism, is still responsible for all that we see in living things?
Of course the claims of the Bible go beyond what can be supported by a study of nature alone. That much should be “blindingly obvious.” However, the claims of the Bible are not inconsistent with the evidence coming from the empirical world. True science and Scripture are complementary, not contradictory. They walk hand-in-hand, shedding light upon each other as both are studied – since they both have the same primary Author. If all the details described in the Bible could be determined through a study of nature alone, the Bible wouldn’t be needed as an additional revelation of historical events, the natural world, or God’s character and how he deals with mankind. However, the discovery that the weight of empirical evidence is consistent with the claims of the Bible adds credibility to the Bible and makes it rationally believable with regard to those elements or details that cannot be directly tested and verified. After all, why else would you give the Bible more credibility than the Book of Mormon or the Qur’an? – or any other such religious text claiming to have a Divine origin?
This seems to me to be the difference between your fideistic faith, which you claim cannot be affected by the weight of empirical evidence, vs. the faith of the writers of the Bible itself who claimed that their faith stood upon the solid weight of empirical evidence.
Recent Comments by Sean Pitman
Science and Methodological Naturalism
Very interesting passage. After all, if scientists are honest with themselves, scientific methodologies are well-able to detect the existence of intelligent design behind various artifacts found in nature. It’s just the personal philosophy of scientists that makes them put living things and the origin of the fine-tuned universe “out of bounds” when it comes to the detection of intelligent design. This conclusion simply isn’t dictated by science itself, but by a philosophical position, a type of religion actually, that strives to block the Divine Foot from getting into the door…
Revisiting God, Sky & Land by Fritz Guy and Brian Bull
@Ron:
Why is it that creationists are afraid to acknowledge the validity of Darwinism in these settings? I don’t see that these threaten a belief in God in any way whatsoever.
The threat is when you see no limitations to natural mindless mechanisms – where you attribute everything to the creative power of nature instead of to the God of nature.
God has created natural laws that can do some pretty amazing things. However, these natural laws are not infinite in creative potential. Their abilities are finite while only God is truly infinite.
The detection of these limitations allows us to recognize the need for the input of higher-level intelligence and creative power that goes well beyond what nature alone can achieve. It is here that the Signature of God is detectable.
For those who only hold a naturalistic view of the universe, everything is attributed to the mindless laws of nature… so that the Signature of God is obscured. Nothing is left that tells them, “Only God or some God-like intelligent mind could have done this.”
That’s the problem when you do not recognize any specific limitations to the tools that God has created – when you do not recognize the limits of nature and what natural laws can achieve all by themselves.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Revisiting God, Sky & Land by Fritz Guy and Brian Bull
@Bill Sorensen:
Since the fall of Adam, Sean, all babies are born in sin and they are sinners. God created them. Even if it was by way of cooperation of natural law as human beings also participated in the creation process.
God did not create the broken condition of any human baby – neither the physical or moral brokenness of any human being. God is responsible for every good thing, to include the spark or breath of life within each one of us. However, He did not and does not create those things within us that are broken or bad.
“The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’ ‘An enemy did this,’ he replied. “The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?'” Matthew 13:27-28
Of course, all humans are indeed born broken and are in a natural state of rebellion against God. However, God is not the one who created this condition nor is God responsible for any baby being born with any kind of defect in character, personality, moral tendency, or physical or genetic abnormality. God did not create anyone with such brokenness. Such were the natural result of rebellion against God and heading the temptations of the “enemy”… the natural result of a separation from God with the inevitable decay in physical, mental, and moral strength.
Of course, the ones who are born broken are not responsible for their broken condition either. However, all of us are morally responsible for choosing to reject the gift of Divine Grace once it is appreciated… and for choosing to go against what we all have been given to know, internally, of moral truth. In other words, we are responsible for rebelling against the Royal Law written on the hearts of all mankind.
This is because God has maintained in us the power to be truly free moral agents in that we maintain the Power to choose, as a gift of God (Genesis 3:15). We can choose to accept or reject the call of the Royal Law, as the Holy Spirit speaks to all of our hearts…
Remember the statement by Mrs. White that God is in no wise responsible for sin in anyone at any time. God is working to fix our broken condition. He did not and does not create our broken condition. Just as He does not cause Babies to be born with painful and lethal genetic defects, such as those that result in childhood leukemia, He does not cause Babies to be born with defects of moral character either. God is only directly responsible for the good, never the evil, of this life.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Revisiting God, Sky & Land by Fritz Guy and Brian Bull
@Ron:
Again, your all-or-nothing approach to the claims of scientists isn’t very scientific. Even the best and most famous of scientists has had numerous hair-brained ideas that were completely off base. This fact does not undermine the good discoveries and inventions that were produced.
Scientific credibility isn’t based on the person making the argument, but upon the merits of the argument itself – the ability of the hypothesis to gain predictive value when tested. That’s it.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
Don’t be so obtuse here. We’re not talking about publishing just anything in mainstream journals. I’ve published several articles myself. We’re talking about publishing the conclusion that intelligent design was clearly involved with the origin of various artifactual features of living things on this planet. Try getting a paper that mentions such a conclusion published…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
