Optimus reponds to Kantian Naturalist

Like kairosfocus, I thought this was an excellent defence of ID, and deserves a response from those of us who can no longer post at UD (a little additional formatting applied by me):

KN

It’s central to the ideological glue that holds together “the ID movement” that the following are all conflated:Darwin’s theories; neo-Darwinism; modern evolutionary theory; Epicurean materialistic metaphysics; Enlightenment-inspired secularism. (Maybe I’m missing one or two pieces of the puzzle.) In my judgment, a mind incapable of making the requisite distinctions hardly deserves to be taken seriously.

I think your analysis of the driving force behind ID is way off base. That’s not to say that persons who advocate ID (including myself) aren’t sometimes guilty of sloppy use of language, nor am I making the claim that the modern synthetic theory of evolution is synonymous with materialism or secularism. Having made that acknowledgement, though, it is demonstrably true that

(1) metaphysical presuppostions absolutely undergird much of the modern synthetic theory. This is especially true with regard to methodological naturalism (of course, MN is distinct from ontological naturalism, but if, as some claim, science describes the whole of reality, then reality becomes coextensive with that which is natural). Methodological naturalism is not the end product of some experiment or series of experiments. On the contrary it is a ground rule that excludes a priori any explanation that might be classed as “non-natural”. Some would argue that it is necessary for practical reasons, after all we don’t want people atributing seasonal thunderstorms to Thor, do we? However, science could get along just as well as at present (even better in my view) if the ground rule is simply that any proposed causal explanation must be rigorously defined and that it shall not be accepted except in light of compelling evidence. Problem solved! Though some fear “supernatural explanation” (which is highly definitional) overwhelming the sciences, such concerns are frequently oversold. Interestingly, the much maligned Michael Behe makes very much the same point in his 1996 Darwin’s Black Box:

If my graduate student came into my office and said that the angel of death killed her bacterial culture, I would be disinclined to believe her…. Science has learned over the past half millenium that the universe operates with great regularity the great majority of the time, and that simple laws and predictable behavior explain most physical phenomena.
Darwin’s Black Box pg. 241

If Behe’s expression is representative of the ID community (which I would venture it is), then why the death-grip on methodological naturalism? I suggest that its power lies in its exclusionary function. It rules out ID right from the start, before even any discussions about the emprical data are to be had. MN means that ID is persona non grata, thus some sort of evolutionary explanation must win by default.

(2) In Darwin’s own arguments in favor of his theory he rely heavily on metaphysical assumptions about what God would or wouldn’t do. Effectively he uses special creation by a deity as his null hypothesis, casting his theory as the explanatory alternative. Thus the adversarial relationship between Darwin (whose ideas are foundational to the MST) and theism is baked right into The Origin. To this very day, “bad design” arguments in favor of evolution still employ theological reasoning.

(3) The modern synthetic theory is often used in the public debate as a prop for materialism (which I believe you acknowledged in another comment). How many times have we heard the famed Richard Dawkins quote to the effect that ‘Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist’? Very frequently evolutionary theory is impressed into service to show the superfluousness of theism or to explain away religion as an erstwhile useful phenomenon produced by natural selection (or something to that effect). Hardly can it be ignored that the most enthusiastic boosters of evolutionary theory tend to fall on the atheist/materialist/reductionist side of the spectrum (e.g. Eugenie Scott, Michael Shermer, P.Z. Meyers, Jerry Coyne, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Peter Atkins, Daniel Dennett, Will Provine). My point simply stated is that it is not at all wrong-headed to draw a connection between the modern synthetic theory and the aforementioned class of metaphysical views. Can it be said that the modern synthetic theory (am I allowed just to write Neo-Darwinism for short?) doesn’t mandate nontheistic metaphysics? Sure. But it’s just as true that they often accompany each other.

In chalking up ID to a massive attack of confused cognition, you overlook the substantive reasons why many (including a number of PhD scientists) consider ID to be a cogent explanation of many features of our universe (especially the bioshpere):

  • Functionally-specified complex information present in cells in prodigdious quantities
  • Sophisticated mechanical systems at both the micro and macro level in organisms (many of which exhibit IC)
  • Fine-tuning of fundamental constants
  • Patterns of stasis followed by abrupt appearance (geologically speaking) in the fossil record

In my opinion the presence of FSCI/O and complex biological machinery are very powerful indicators of intelligent agency, judging from our uniform and repeated experience. Also note that none of the above reasons employ theological presuppositions. They flow naturally, inexorably from the data. And, yes, we are all familiar with the objection that organisms are distinct from artificial objects, the implication being that our knowledge from the domain of man-made objects doesn’t carry over to biology. I think this is fallacious. Everyone acknowledges that matter inhabiting this universe is made up of atoms, which in turn are composed of still other particles. This is true of all matter, not just “natural” things, not just “artificial” things – everything. If such is the case, then must not the same laws apply to all matter with equal force? From whence comes the false dichotomy that between “natural” and “artificial”? If design can be discerned in one case, why not in the other?
To this point we have not even addressed the shortcomings of the modern synthetic theory (excepting only its metaphysical moorings). They are manifold, however – evidential shortcomings (e.g. lack of empirical support), unjustified extrapolations, question-begging assumptions, ad hoc rationalizations, tolerance of “just so” stories, narratives imposed on data instead of gleaned from data, conflict with empirical data from generations of human experience with breeding, etc. If at the end of the day you truly believe that all ID has going for it is a culture war mentality, then may I politely suggest that you haven’t been paying attention.

128 thoughts on “Optimus reponds to Kantian Naturalist

  1. The potential for equivocation is high for that distinction. Since techniques based on methodological naturalism can measure artificial objects, I would argue that artificial is a subset of natural rather than a disjoint set.

  2. I wonder if they may also be thinking of logic and mathematics as “non-natural.”

    There can be objective agreement on logical syllogisms and mathematical proofs, but does that make it science?

    Some of the “arguments” over at UD suggest that ID/creationists might be including these as nonmaterial or non-natural things that have effects in the real world. If that is what they are implying, I don’t follow their reasoning.

    Logic and mathematics are about interrelationships among things; sometimes idealized things that are said not to exist in the real world. However they are distilled representations of examples from the natural world.

    The ability to recognize relationships and distill these down to idealizations would certainly be needed by an organism having to move around in the natural world. Having a “map” residing in the memory is useful for getting around; so I would think that a more refined ability to recognize interrelationships – like the ability to do mathematics – would fall into the same category of having “maps” in the memory.

    Plato’s ideals are not about things that exist in some supernatural or non-natural realm but rather they are about the distilled essences of relationships existing in the neurological systems of animals (I can’t speak for plants) about things that do exist in the real world.

  3. Well, I did suggest to Gregory that mathematics and logic might be other methods that could be subsumed under an extended domain of science.

  4. Mathematics (pure mathematics) is a bit like the cellular automata.

    Interesting non-repeating patterns derived from a few simple rules.

    I’m not sure what the implications are, but it is not research in the usual sense of the word.

    A problem I have with ID is their mistaking the map for the territory. Mathematics can provide some useful maps of territories, but not before they are explored empirically. ID wants to assign dragons to uncharted biological history, based on nothing but the perimeter of the region.

    It ignores the admittedly low resolution images we have from empirical science and wants to fill in from myths and legends.

  5. Gregory:
    “Do you have a suggestion for how one would investigate non-natural causation? Other than failing to find a natural cause?” – Lizzie

    Yes, offer a positive alternative concept/percept to ‘natural’ and give it a name. The only name I’ve seen offered here so far is ‘supernatural.’ Does anyone here have anything else to propose, i.e. something that is ‘non-natural’ but not ‘supernatural’?

    It should not be too difficult to see how MN = ‘science’ is a useful fiction for primitive philosophy of science and science studies once one faces the proposition that there are more living alternatives to ‘natural’ than just ‘supernatural.’

    It appears that you have a a whole bunch of ‘living alternatives’ to ‘natural’ in mind. Why don’t you just tell us what those are, so we can move on to discussing those? If you don’t, maybe you could explain what your point is? Maybe I am just stupid, but I sure am not getting your point at the moment…

  6. I agree that it’s time to end the game and make the argument.

    I have to suspect there is some reluctance to do so because there will be some language barrier.

  7. Just curious, but do dualists traditionally consider the mind to be “non-natural”? I know that the mind and body are considered separate objects and concepts to dualists, but is the mind considered something other than a natural object and could that be part of what Gregory is getting at? I certainly heard some dualists claim that the mind is non-material, so I’m just wondering if there’s a parallel. I certainly don’t subscribe to such a notion, but it would explain some of Gregory’ thinking.

  8. Robin:
    Just curious, but do dualists traditionally consider the mind to be “non-natural”? I know that the mind and body are considered separate objects and concepts to dualists, but is the mind considered something other than a natural object and could that be part of what Gregory is getting at? I certainly heard some dualists claim that the mind is non-material, so I’m just wondering if there’s a parallel.I certainly don’t subscribe to such a notion, but it would explain some of Gregory’ thinking.

    Why the blue blazes can’t Gregory explain his own thinking?

  9. damitall2,

    Lizzie wouldn’t like the answer I would ordinarily give to that question.

    A just-the-facts answer to “why the blue blazes can’t Gregory explain his own thinking?” is because he’s flounced off back to the shelter of UD.

    Why? Who knows?

    Likely to moan there about how stupid and mean we were to him. But I’m not going to spy on him over there, so I don’t really know what he’s moaning about (or not as the case might be).

  10. I look occasionally at the list of recent posters at UD and haven’t seen him.

  11. petrushka,

    Oh, Gregory did not flounce off back to UD? Well, my apologies for assuming he’s at home at UD. But he did flounce off nonetheless; announced it upthread.

    Sounded frustrated that he couldn’t get an answer to his insistent incoherent question about what’s “natural” and what’s not. Or didn’t like the answers he got, anyways.

    So who knows where. Or why, really, he flounced. But I confidently predict that we’re not going to get answers to our question about why Gregory cannot – or will not – simply get to the point and explain his own thinking.

    Thanks for the info, petrushka.

  12. Suspense? Foreshadowing? Paranoia? No clue.

    Me, I’m just conjecturing with my fingers.

  13. Robin:
    Just curious, but do dualists traditionally consider the mind to be “non-natural”? I know that the mind and body are considered separate objects and concepts to dualists, but is the mind considered something other than a natural object and could that be part of what Gregory is getting at? I certainly heard some dualists claim that the mind is non-material, so I’m just wondering if there’s a parallel.I certainly don’t subscribe to such a notion, but it would explain some of Gregory’ thinking.

    I sort of used to. I used to think there was, to use Dennett’s term, a Central Meaner. Which would be non-natural by my definition of natural (detectable by predictive hypothesis testing).

  14. Ahh! Ok. That’s what I was wondering. It’s an odd way of thinking of “natural” to me, but I can certainly understand the perspective. Thanks!

  15. The main question is whether or not I have time to explain to naturalists why naturalism is not as exhaustive as they seem to believe (i.e. put their faith in).

    Lizzie defined ‘science’ as equivalent with ‘methodological naturalism.’ I rejected this simplistic approach as one that is entirely unaware of contemporary views in the fields of Science (and Technology) Studies and Philosophy of Science.

    Lizzie confirmed she has not read Lakatos or Feyerabend, but continues to push her ideology of a single ‘THE method of science,’ so there is not much more that can be done. If she or if you others don’t wish to read and learn the contemporary perspectives, nothing can be done by an e-voice to convince you out of your MNism. It is not my responsibility to force her to actually read the most relevant thinkers on the topic she expresses with her words here, when I can just point the way.

    As to what is ‘non-natural,’ the purpose of asking the question is to see how naturalistic you are. Some people here equate ‘natural’ with ‘real.’ That is a hardcore position, not what most people believe.

    I’ve asked you to come up with positive examples of ‘non-natural’ that are not ‘supernatural’ and there have been few examples. I could come up with dozens in the next 90 seconds in my head, which scholars, not just laymen and women, hold in professional circles. We will not be bowed or dictated to by ideological naturalism, as is demonstrated by Lizzie’s futile definition of ‘science’ as ‘methodological naturalism.’ She has not repented or shown recognition of the problem. So what more can be done here?

    “within the scientific method, artifacts are a subset of the natural world.” // “artificial is a subset of natural”

    Yeah, right!? And technology is an organism, right? Speaking of ‘THE (single) Scientific Method’ reveals the level of petrushka’s knowledge of Philosophy of Science. Hint: quite low. There is no single monolithic ‘scientific method.’ It might take decades and tragedy for some people to finally realise this and to feel it in their personal outlook.

    The worldview that ‘everything is a subset of the natural world’ is ideological naturalism, a view that most people around the world do not hold and actively reject.

    Robin: ‘hypothetical’ is not a primary term in this conversation; it is secondary. But your theoretical distinction is valid from empirical or practical sciences. You fail on the ‘imaginary’ vs. ‘natural’ distinction, but that’s not so important.

    “It should not be too difficult to see how MN = ‘science’ is a useful fiction for primitive philosophy of science and science studies once one faces the proposition that there are more living alternatives to ‘natural’ than just ‘supernatural’.” – Gregory

    There are! Sticking one’s head in the sand doesn’t negate this.

    Lizzie asks: “I wasn’t distinguishing the two concepts (natural and supernatural) – are you?”

    Yes, I do distinguish natural from supernatural. Doesn’t almost everyone?!

    What I distinguish, quite carefully and with long study of this very question, is that ‘natural’ does not have only one opposite, i.e. ‘supernatural.’ There are many alternatives to ‘natural’ and to ‘natural science.’ Iow, in the context of this thread, there are many ‘sciences’ of the ‘non-natural.’ But ‘naturalists’ simply *cannot* allow themselves to recognise, discover, acknowledge or personally feel and accept this. And it is not my job here to preach why this is so or how naturalists’ thinking about this could potentially be changed. My time is limited for skeptics who can always be skeptical and never embrace anything.

    “tell me what alternatives to “Natural” there are, other than “super” or “non” natural. I’m lost.”- Elizabeth

    Yes, Elizabeth, you are for the time being lost.

    Start: Do you equate ‘artificial’ and ‘natural’? Is ‘technology’ an ‘organism’? Cite some non-lay thinkers here please, if you know them, as you’ve already refused to read Lakatos and Feyerabend to elevate your thoughts on this topic. I read these themes for a living, but you obviously aren’t yet familiar with the ‘revolution’ that has already happened in Science [and Technology] Studies and Philosophy Science in recent years. If you were, you’d likely find yourself on the opposite side of the MN debate than you currently do, yet at the same time seeing that cognitive studies and neurology are well-respected for their potentiality across several ‘social scientific’ disciplines, even as both pro-theist and atheist scholars vie for position in the discourse.

    Of course, Lizzie, I am promoting the pro-theist position, not the atheist or skeptical one. Surely you allow for this at TSZ…?

  16. Several of us have expressed the opinion that artificial is a subset of natural. Now surely you can spare the 90 seconds and list some examples.

  17. Gregory:
    The main question is whether or not I have time to explain to naturalists why naturalism is not as exhaustive as they seem to believe (i.e. put their faith in).

    Lizzie defined ‘science’ as equivalent with ‘methodological naturalism.’ I rejected this simplistic approach as one that is entirely unaware of contemporary views in the fields of Science (and Technology) Studies and Philosophy of Science.

    Lizzie confirmed she has not read Lakatos or Feyerabend, but continues to push her ideology of a single ‘THE method of science,’ so there is not much more that can be done. If she or if you others don’t wish to read and learn the contemporary perspectives, nothing can be done by an e-voice to convince you out of your MNism. It is not my responsibility to force her to actually read the most relevant thinkers on the topic she expresses with her words here, when I can just point the way.

    Gregory, this is getting a little frustrating. Have you actually read any of my responses to you? How have you missed the number of times I have said that I am happy to define science to include other methodologies, as long as it is clear what we are including? And that you can read my prior references to “science” as standing for “the use of methodological naturalism” in order to make sense of them?

    As to what is ‘non-natural,’ the purpose of asking the question is to see how naturalistic you are. Some people here equate ‘natural’ with ‘real.’ That is a hardcore position, not what most people believe.

    And not my position, as I have said, frequently.

    I’ve asked you to come up with positive examples of ‘non-natural’ that are not ‘supernatural’ and there have been few examples. I could come up with dozens in the next 90 seconds in my head, which scholars, not just laymen and women, hold in professional circles.

    And as I do not yet understand how you are defining “non-natural” as opposed to “supernatural”, clearly I can’t. Perhaps if you could give some of those dozen examples, your meaning would become clearer to me.

    We will not be bowed or dictated to by ideological naturalism, as is demonstrated by Lizzie’s futile definition of ‘science’ as ‘methodological naturalism.

    Please cite where I have done so. Please also cite where I have made it clear that I am happy to use an alternative definition, if you prefer. This post, for instance. Then please explain in what sense I am “dictating” anything.

    ’She has not repented or shown recognition of the problem.

    What??????? geez louise.

    Lizzie asks: “I wasn’t distinguishing the two concepts (natural and supernatural) – are you?”

    Yes, I do distinguish natural from supernatural. Doesn’t almost everyone?!

    Yes, apologies. I mean’t non-natural and supernatural. I am not at all understanding how you are distinguishing the two. Perhaps my typo is where the confusion has arisen. Aging has its downside.

    What I distinguish, quite carefully and with long study of this very question, is that ‘natural’ does not have only one opposite, i.e. ‘supernatural.’ There are many alternatives to ‘natural’ and to ‘natural science.’ Iow, in the context of this thread, there are many ‘sciences’ of the ‘non-natural.’ But ‘naturalists’ simply *cannot* allow themselves to recognise, discover, acknowledge or personally feel and accept this. And it is not my job here to preach why this is so or how naturalists’ thinking about this could potentially be changed. My time is limited for skeptics who can always be skeptical and never embrace anything.

    You are certainly not obliged to preach anything. But if you want to be persuasive, please explain the difference between non-natural and supernatural. Also what branches of science (using your own definition of science) can detect either or both, and how.

    Yes, Elizabeth, you are for the time being lost.

    Start: Do you equate ‘artificial’ and ‘natural’?

    Depends on the level of analysis. Normally, yes – I would refer to something as “artificial” if is made by people. literally, from the Latin for “skill” and “make”, whereas natural is something not made by people. However, as I also think that people are natural (not made by people!) then in a sense, their “artefacts” are also “natural”, rather as a bird’s nest both an “artefact” (made by the skill of a bird) and natural (a bird is not made by anyone/thing’s skill). So, as I say, depends on context. No, I do not equate the two, that is, I do not regard the words as interchangeable.

    Is ‘technology’ an ‘organism’? Cite some non-lay thinkers here please, if you know them, as you’ve already refused to read Lakatos and Feyerabend to elevate your thoughts on this topic.

    I’d say that “technology” is a domain of knowledge, so it can’t be a concrete thing, such as an organism. So, no. Nor would I call a technical artefact an organism, unless it had some important defining features of an organism. The day may come when technical artefacts and organisms become similar, or organisms are sufficiently technically modifed that they become technical artefacts. In a sense, a culture of HeLa cells is a technical artefact.

    And I have not “refused” to read Lakatos and Feyerabend. You’ve made the suggestion and I may well take it up. Please do not misrepresent what I have said.

    I read these themes for a living, but you obviously aren’t yet familiar with the ‘revolution’ that has already happened in Science [and Technology] Studies and Philosophy Science in recent years.

    No, indeed. And I do something else for a living, so I am unlikely to have time to become anything like as familiar as you are. So I am happy, pro tem, to accept what you say, that there has been a revolution in philosophy of science et al in recent years. As I’ve said (repeatedly) I hold no strong brief for restricting the word “science” to the use of methodological naturalism. My point is simply that using methodological naturalism we cannot detect the non-natural. By definition. I’m happy to be enlightened as to your ideas on other methods. Mathematics and logic spring to mind.

    If you were, you’d likely find yourself on the opposite side of the MN debate, than you currently do,

    I’m not sure what side of what debate you think I’m on. It’s possible that you have mistaken me for someone else. You are certainly attacking a straw woman.

    yet at the same time seeing that cognitive studies and neurology are well-respected for their potentiality across several ‘social scientific’ disciplines,

    Of course I do. I’m a cognitive neuroscientist working in mental health research, and I share an institute with people from a whole range of disciplines, including sociology. In fact the head of the institute I work in is a sociologist.

    even as both pro-theist and atheist scholars vie for position in the discourse.

    I’m not sure what you are referring to. I am both pro-theist and atheist, in that I do not, any longer, believe in a creator or animating god, but I find much of value in a god model, and see no reason why theism should be incompatible with traditional science. For reasons you yourself give.

    Of course, Lizzie, I am promoting the pro-theist position, not the atheist or skeptical one. Surely you allow for this at TSZ…?

    Of course, Gregory. You are not the only theist here, and it is only relatively recently that I have begun describing myself as an atheist. A few years ago I held exactly the same views on methodological naturalism as I do now (that it is not capable of detecting non-natural causality) and yet was a devout theist. And what changed my mind was not a finding from methological naturalism (I didn’t think – yikes, Darwin! God must not exist!), but an argument from philosophy.

    So if you want to preach to me, you are preaching to the choir. Oddly you don’t seem to hear me sing.

  18. “I mean’t non-natural and supernatural.”

    That’s not very clear and contradicts what I and others in Science Studies and Philosophy of Science have been saying.

    “if you want to be persuasive, please explain the difference between non-natural and supernatural.”

    The prefix super- is additive to ‘natural.’ The prefix ‘non-‘ distinguishes as ‘other’ than ‘natural.’ Unfortunately, ‘naturalists’ don’t seem to cognitively accept this.

    O.k. then, let’s put this to the test. Who here at TSZ is *not* a naturalist?

    I’ll pause as I await an answer (that likely won’t come…out of fear?).

    “natural is something not made by people.” – Lizzie

    O.k. so ‘technology’ is not ‘natural,’ do we agree?

    “I do not regard the words as interchangeable.”

    But you appear to be wanting to have your cake and eat it too.

    “I may well take it up.”

    I hope you do. It will ultimately serve to disabuse you of your ‘THE scientific method’ myth (which sadly you still seem to maintain, not having spoken against it) and possibly allow you to embrace the view that ‘methodological naturalism’ is an insufficient view of ‘science’ and that ‘science’ can also study ‘non-natural’ (better with a positive name) things.

    “I hold no strong brief for restricting the word “science” to the use of methodological naturalism.”

    Good, let’s move forward then.

    “My point is simply that using methodological naturalism we cannot detect the non-natural. By definition.”

    That’s not an important point. It is obvious. That’s like saying apples are not oranges. So what? Natural scientism is sitting on your doorstep and you haven’t (and seeming *will* not) publically rejected it, seemingly on the basis of your embrace of methodological naturalism = science fantasy.

    So, where do we go from here?

    “I am both pro-theist and atheist” – Elizabeth

    Good for you, schizophrenic!

    “see no reason why theism should be incompatible with traditional science. For reasons you yourself give.”

    Yes, welcome back to non-schizophrenia.

    “what changed my mind was not a finding from methological naturalism (I didn’t think – yikes, Darwin! God must not exist!), but an argument from philosophy.”

    Which ‘argument from philosophy’ would that be? I’m educated in philosophy, even if not an expert. Surely I’d consult my expert philosophical colleagues to discuss the ‘argument from philosophy’ that ‘changed your mind’ about theism and turned you into whatever you are now. Are you actually willing to face philosophy or more likely to denigrate and dismiss it as some people here do?

    Be not dissuaded, I ‘hear’ you sing, Lizzie. But I’m not sure you believe in what you sing, even if you say it. The atheist-skeptics choir is mostly not worth listening to. But if that’s the company you wish to keep, I’m not one to stop you.

  19. petrushka,

    If you can’t come up with anything so far, what would make anyone believe you would take their word for it once you were presented with actual alternatives?

    You have at least a high school education, I imagine. What would make you believe experts, umpteen times more professional and educated than you, when you could simply and safely go into your own shell of elevating naturalism as your personal worldview?

    Why would you ever accept anything ‘non-natural’ that is not ‘supernatural’? Can you express any reason for this?

    Nothing is worth saying to a universal naturalist who *will* not allow anything ‘non-natural’ to possibly exist.

  20. O.k. then, let’s put this to the test. Who here at TSZ is *not* a naturalist?

    I am not a naturalist.

    I’ll pause as I await an answer (that likely won’t come…out of fear?).

    Fear of what?

    O.k. so ‘technology’ is not ‘natural,’ do we agree?

    On one meaning of “natural”, that’s true. But it is the wrong meaning if we are talking about “naturalism”.

  21. Gregory:
    petrushka,

    If you can’t come up with anything so far, what would make anyone believe you would take their word for it once you were presented with actual alternatives?

    You have at least a high school education, I imagine. What would make you believe experts, umpteen times more professional and educated than you, when you could simply and safely go into your own shell of elevating naturalism as your personal worldview?

    Why would you ever accept anything ‘non-natural’ that is not ‘supernatural’? Can you express any reason for this?

    Nothing is worth saying to a universal naturalist who *will* not allow anything ‘non-natural’ to possibly exist.

    Why are you so resistant to providing examples of what you consider to be real but non-natural? At the moment I have no idea what you mean by those words. You claim to be able to give a dozen in 90 seconds — let’s see them.

  22. Gregory:
    “I mean’t non-natural and supernatural.”

    That’s not very clear and contradicts what I and others in Science Studies and Philosophy of Science have been saying.

    It’s YOU not being clear! I’m asking YOU how YOU are defining, respectively, “non-natural” and “supernatural”. You seem to be using two terms as though they have different referents. Can you please give the referents!

    “if you want to be persuasive, please explain the difference between non-natural and supernatural.”

    The prefix super- is additive to ‘natural.’ The prefix ‘non-‘ distinguishes as ‘other’ than ‘natural.’ Unfortunately, ‘naturalists’ don’t seem to cognitively accept this.

    I have no idea whether I “accept” it or not, and won’t, unless you clarify what, in your usage, the terms actually mean! Can you give an example of something that is a) non-natural but not supernatural, and b) something that is supernatural and/or non-natural?

    O.k. then, let’s put this to the test. Who here at TSZ is *not* a naturalist?

    I’ll pause as I await an answer (that likely won’t come…out of fear?).

    Out of incomprehension, most likely. If you can explain what you mean by the term, I will attempt to give you an answer. But, FWIW, I do not think that “real” and “natural” are necessarily coterminous.

    “natural is something not made by people.” – Lizzie

    O.k. so ‘technology’ is not ‘natural,’ do we agree?

    Did you read the rest of what I wrote there? Because it would seem not.

    “I do not regard the words as interchangeable.”

    But you appear to be wanting to have your cake and eat it too.

    Perhaps you should re-read my post?

    “I may well take it up.”

    I hope you do. It will ultimately serve to disabuse you of your ‘THE scientific method’ myth (which sadly you still seem to maintain, not having spoken against it)

    AAAAARRRRRGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!111111!!!!!!!!

    GREGORY!!!!

    *takes a deep breath*

    WHAT “myth” are you ascribing to me?

    and possibly allow you to embrace the view that ‘methodological naturalism’ is an insufficient view of ‘science’ and that ‘science’ can also study ‘non-natural’ (better with a positive name) things.

    Seriously, are you reading my posts at all?

    “I hold no strong brief for restricting the word “science” to the use of methodological naturalism.”

    Good, let’s move forward then.

    yeah. Let’s.

    “My point is simply that using methodological naturalism we cannot detect the non-natural. By definition.”

    That’s not an important point. It is obvious. That’s like saying apples are not oranges.

    Indeed. Phew. Glad that’s out of the way. It would be nice if ID proponents found it as obvious and unimportant as you do. But many seem to be convinced that somehow naturalist methodology (a better term) will deliver them a conclusion that indicates non-natural causation. It won’t work, because it can’t.

    So what? Natural scientism is sitting on your doorstep and you haven’t (and seeming *will* not) publically rejected it, seemingly on the basis of your embrace of methodological naturalism = science fantasy.

    I am absolutely mystified why you keep saying this, when I have repeatedly told you that I am perfectly prepared to define science to include other methodologies than methodological naturalism. It’s like you just can’t see the words I write, on your screen. Truly weird.

    So, where do we go from here?

    You read the parts where I disavow the thing you say I refuse to disavow?

    “I am both pro-theist and atheist” – Elizabeth

    Good for you, schizophrenic!

    *tries and fails not to cringe at the metaphor “schizophrenic” to describe two opposing views attributed to the same person, and fails – perhaps a thread on schizophrenia sometime? Maybe*

    No. You can be pro-fighting but not a fighter. I am not a theist; I do not believe in god. But I am perfectly in favour (“pro”) of the belief itself – I think there are good arguments for theism. I just happen not to find them persuasive, simply because I think they rest on an incoherent understanding of volition. However, I am very much aware that other people think my characterisation of their position is itself incoherent, and they may be right. I used to think they were. I am perfectly willing to entertain the possibility that I am mistaken. And I do think that theism has some huge potential benefits. Sadly, I also think that specific religious beliefs can be highly dangerous, and propagate untruths. Quakers are pretty good, though, and I like some aspects of buddhism (although that’s not, strictly, theism).

    “see no reason why theism should be incompatible with traditional science. For reasons you yourself give.”

    Yes, welcome back to non-schizophrenia.

    I never left non-dichotomous thinking.

    “what changed my mind was not a finding from methological naturalism (I didn’t think – yikes, Darwin! God must not exist!), but an argument from philosophy.”

    Which ‘argument from philosophy’ would that be? I’m educated in philosophy, even if not an expert. Surely I’d consult my expert philosophical colleagues to discuss the ‘argument from philosophy’ that ‘changed your mind’ about theism and turned you into whatever you are now. Are you actually willing to face philosophy or more likely to denigrate and dismiss it as some people here do?

    Depends on the philosophy. I’ve read good and bad (though I’m not a philosopher). The philosopher in question was Daniel Dennett, and the specific work was Freedom Evolves (which, despite the title, is not about evolution, primarily).

    Be not dissuaded, I ‘hear’ you sing, Lizzie. But I’m not sure you believe in what you sing, even if you say it. The atheist-skeptics choir is mostly not worth listening to. But if that’s the company you wish to keep, I’m not one to stop you.

    I find most people worth listening to. I’m interested in why people think what they do, even when I disagree. And sometimes I find myself agreeing, even when I started out by not doing so. This is a good thing.

  23. I’m not sure how he is distinguishing unnatural from supernatural; but I suspect “unnatural” correlates more closely with behaving in an unusual or abnormal way.

    Then “supernatural” corresponds to something above or beyond natural; something often associated with deities.

    But that still leaves the question on the table about how one goes about detecting the supernatural.

  24. Gregory, reading other people’s responses to you, something strikes me:

    You seem to have come here, expecting that the regular posters here (I can’t think of a better word – not a very good one, as you yourself are a very welcome regular poster, but whatever collective noun you want to use for the posters here who are not ID proponents) share some monolithic and impermeable view of the world that you take issue with

    This is simply not the case. Some people here are atheists, some are theists, some are scientists, some are other things, (including, I believe, engineers), and some of those categories overlap. Please do not assume that we all think one thing, and please do not jump to conclusions about what each of us thinks. There is no credo at TSZ, and all are welcome, including ID proponents. I dearly wish more of them would post here. Not because I want to convert them to my way of thinking, but because I think that reasonable people can disagree, but do so more comfortably if they can drill down to where they actually differ, rather than be guided by what they think are the labels on the tin.

    I’d like to know your own stance, for instance. Can you say what your reading has brought you to think? Rather than berate me for not having read certain books, can you explain what it is about the ideas contained that make them worth reading?

  25. Excuse me, but I think we are at the stage of defining terms, something necessary in order to have a useful discussion. If we associated the same things with the same terms, we might e able to discuss our differences.

Leave a Reply