Feser - Problems with his view of science and religion

[shunyadragon]

Dr. Edward Feser is considered one of the prominent Theologians of contemporary Christianity. He has recently published Scholastic Metaphysics where provides considerable detail concerning his view of the problems of the relationship between science and Religion. In this explanation he attacks atheism, but unfortunately misuses science in this misdirected attack. The following is from an interview with Dr. Feser. His unfortunate use of the concept of 'Scientism' further clouds the issues. I believe he makes some of the similar mistakes as Plantinga makes concerning a theological view of science.

BRANDON: You spend several pages engaging scientism. How do you define this notoriously controversial term? Why is scientism popular today, and why do you think it's self-defeating?



I will open the discussion with what I see as problems right off in the first paragraph:

First, it is false to assume that many or even considerable scientists consider 'science alone gives us knowledge of reality.' In reality only some if not only a few scientists believe this. In reality his description of 'scientism' is not popular today at all. It represents only the extreme of 'Philosophical Naturalism,' which represents only a minority of scientists, and the population in general. Most scientists believe in a diverse variety of beliefs, which do not directly influence their basic philosophical view of science.

I do believe that theological and philosophical considerations are important in the 'technology and application of science for the benefit of humanity.'

Second, he makes the statement that science should include philosophy and theology. In reality science is based on the philosophy of science that has evolved over the centuries on dealing with the nature of 'How science can best interpret and understand the nature of our physical existence. Over the years philosophers like Popper have contributed to the 'Philosophy of Science.'

I do not see any constructive contribution for the advancement of science in the writings of the ancient philosophers, nor theologians. Many contemporary Christian Theologians including Feser and Plantinga offer nothing constructive toward advancing the independent Investigation of Truth in science.

Third, including Theology in science is dangerous turf. The foundation of science is 'Methodological Naturalism,' which fortunately does not make any theological assumptions nor 'belief' considerations in science. This separation includes the rejection of any assumptions of atheism, nor the existence nor non-existence of Gods.

[MaxVel]

Dr. Edward Feser is considered one of the prominent Theologians of contemporary Christianity. He has recently published Scholastic Metaphysics where provides considerable detail concerning his view of the problems of the relationship between science and Religion. In this explanation he attacks atheism, but unfortunately misuses science in this misdirected attack. The following is from an interview with Dr. Feser. His unfortunate use of the concept of 'Scientism' further clouds the issues. I believe he makes some of the similar mistakes as Plantinga makes concerning a theological view of science.

BRANDON: You spend several pages engaging scientism. How do you define this notoriously controversial term? Why is scientism popular today, and why do you think it's self-defeating?



I will open the discussion with what I see as problems right off in the first paragraph:

First, it is false to assume that many or even considerable scientists consider 'science alone gives us knowledge of reality.' In reality only some if not only a few scientists believe this. In reality his description of 'scientism' is not popular today at all. It represents only the extreme of 'Philosophical Naturalism,' which represents only a minority of scientists, and the population in general. Most scientists believe in a diverse variety of beliefs, which do not directly influence their basic philosophical view of science.

I do believe that theological and philosophical considerations are important in the 'technology and application of science for the benefit of humanity.'

Second, he makes the statement that science should include philosophy and theology. In reality science is based on the philosophy of science that has evolved over the centuries on dealing with the nature of 'How science can best interpret and understand the nature of our physical existence. Over the years philosophers like Popper have contributed to the 'Philosophy of Science.'

I do not see any constructive contribution for the advancement of science in the writings of the ancient philosophers, nor theologians. Many contemporary Christian Theologians including Feser and Plantinga offer nothing constructive toward advancing the independent Investigation of Truth in science.

Third, including Theology in science is dangerous turf. The foundation of science is 'Methodological Naturalism,' which fortunately does not make any theological assumptions nor 'belief' considerations in science. This separation includes the rejection of any assumptions of atheism, nor the existence nor non-existence of Gods.

You've misread what Feser is saying. Try again.

[shunyadragon]

You've misread what Feser is saying. Try again.

Not at all, read it again and respond intelligently from the text. If you object, be specific.

[JonathanL]

You've misread what Feser is saying. Try again.

Shuny misreads nearly everything of what everyone is saying.

[shunyadragon]

Shuny misreads nearly everything of what everyone is saying.

Still waiting for an intelligent response.

[robrecht]

... Second, he makes the statement that science should include philosophy and theology. In reality science is based on the philosophy of science that has evolved over the centuries on dealing with the nature of 'How science can best interpret and understand the nature of our physical existence. Over the years philosophers like Popper have contributed to the 'Philosophy of Science.'

I do not see any constructive contribution for the advancement of science in the writings of the ancient philosophers, nor theologians. Many contemporary Christian Theologians including Feser and Plantinga offer nothing constructive toward advancing the independent Investigation of Truth in science.

Third, including Theology in science is dangerous turf. The foundation of science is 'Methodological Naturalism,' which fortunately does not make any theological assumptions nor 'belief' considerations in science. This separation includes the rejection of any assumptions of atheism, nor the existence nor non-existence of Gods.

then it becomes vacuous, because it now no longer rules out philosophy, theology'. Obviously he does not think that science should be vacuous so does not think that science should be defined so broadly that it would include theology or philosophy.

[shunyadragon]

I like these 'anyways' some use to lead to false argument. In the following citation Feser appeals to a false sense of popularity of scientism. Popularity is a fallacy regardless.

There is no such popularity of 'scientism' in the general public impressed with the success of science. Philosophical Naturalism is not a popular choice where 'science gives us all the answers.' Even among scientists where a higher percentage believe in Philosophical Naturalism, they do not believe so, because they are 'impressed with the success of science.'

"Anyway, the main reason scientism has the following it does is probably that people are, quite rightly, impressed with the technological and predictive successes of modern science. The trouble is that this simply gives us no reason whatsoever to believe scientism -- that is to say, it gives us no reason to believe that science alone gives us knowledge. To draw that conclusion you need to assume that if something is real, then it will be susceptible of a precise mathematical description that will make strict prediction and technological application possible. Now that is itself a philosophical or metaphysical assumption, not a scientific one. But it is also an assumption that there is not only no reason to believe, but decisive reason to reject, as I argue in the book."

[shunyadragon]

then it becomes vacuous, because it now no longer rules out philosophy, theology'. Obviously he does not think that science should be vacuous so does not think that science should be defined so broadly that it would include theology or philosophy.

Your point is well taken, but his accusation of the belief that 'scientism' dominates science is problematic. I will propose that he desires science to take philosophy more into consideration, and scientists should have more of a background in philosophy. This sort of a mixed blessing of a requirement. It would be nice, but most scientist are nuts and bolts sort and the research itself is based on established Methodological Naturalism.

[robrecht]

Your point is well taken, but his accusation of the belief that 'scientism' dominates science is problematic. I will propose that he desires science to take philosophy more into consideration, and scientists should have more of a background in philosophy. This sort of a mixed blessing of a requirement. It would be nice, but most scientist are nuts and bolts sort and the research itself is based on established Methodological Naturalism.

I suspect he thinks philosophers can handle the philosophy of science, presumably with input from scientists, and that scientists should be open to the philosophical questions without themselves needing to do the work of philosophers. That seems to be the common approach.

[shunyadragon]

I suspect he thinks philosophers can handle the philosophy of science, presumably with input from scientists, and that scientists should be open to the philosophical questions without themselves needing to do the work of philosophers. That seems to be the common approach.

[robrecht]

I have no doubt that Feser has a theological agenda, but then again so do you, in your belief that the Baha'i faith provides some kind of guidance to the modern world of science and technology, right? I've yet to see you quote Feser criticizing the quality of scientific

[shunyadragon]

I have no doubt that Feser has a theological agenda, but then again so do you, in your belief that the Baha'i faith provides some kind of guidance to the modern world of science and technology, right? I've yet to see you quote Feser criticizing the quality of scientificDo you yourself agree with the philosophical worldviews of Lawrence Krauss, Peter Atkins, Richard Dawkins, and Jerry Coyne? If you did not, would it not also be OK for you to express your disagreement with their philosophical views?

repeatedly commit very crude philosophical mistakes but also refuse to listen or respond when these mistakes are pointed out to them.

[MaxVel]

Ok, I have time for a longer reply...

Firstly, you need to be very clear about the difference between 'science' and 'scientism' (which Feser defines in your citation) - they are not the same thing, and he is not arguing against science in some general manner, but against scientism. I think you may have conflated the two

I will open the discussion with what I see as problems right off in the first paragraph:

First, it is false to assume that many or even considerable scientists consider 'science alone gives us knowledge of reality.' In reality only some if not only a few scientists believe this. In reality his description of 'scientism' is not popular today at all. It represents only the extreme of 'Philosophical Naturalism,' which represents only a minority of scientists, and the population in general. Most scientists believe in a diverse variety of beliefs, which do not directly influence their basic philosophical view of science.

Feser doesn't say what you argue against here (in the bolded above). In what you've quoted, and in his chapter on science in Scholastic Metaphysics, AFAICT he makes no claim about how many scientists hold to scientism. So you're attacking a straw man here.

I do believe that theological and philosophical considerations are important in the 'technology and application of science for the benefit of humanity.'

Second, he makes the statement that science should include philosophy and theology.

No he doesn't. Here is the relevant portion.


Note that he is comparing two hypothetical definitions of science that a proponent of scientism might use, and pointing out that they are both problematic for that position. Feser is not stating his own position, but giving possible positions of someone who holds to scientism.

In reality science is based on the philosophy of science that has evolved over the centuries on dealing with the nature of 'How science can best interpret and understand the nature of our physical existence. Over the years philosophers like Popper have contributed to the 'Philosophy of Science.'

I do not see any constructive contribution for the advancement of science in the writings of the ancient philosophers, nor theologians. Many contemporary Christian Theologians including Feser and Plantinga offer nothing constructive toward advancing the independent Investigation of Truth in science.

Third, including Theology in science is dangerous turf. The foundation of science is 'Methodological Naturalism,' which fortunately does not make any theological assumptions nor 'belief' considerations in science. This separation includes the rejection of any assumptions of atheism, nor the existence nor non-existence of Gods.

Again, the bolded above is not something Feser is arguing for in what you cited. (Nor anywhere else, AFAIK). He is arguing that scientists should be aware of the need for an understanding of the philosophical underpinnings of their own worldview before making pronouncements on what science can tell us about all of reality.

Also, he is not attacking 'atheist scientists' as a group, but people who use science credentials or background as a platform for making poorly informed public attacks on things that they don't know enough about or for making broad philosophical claims that science doesn't by itself show to be true - people like Coyne, Krauss, Rosenberg, Dawkins and so on.


Happy now? You've mischaracterized all that Feser said, and triggered by his use of your pet word 'science', pumped out an attack on a straw Feser.

Now try again.

[MaxVel]

He says it right in your citation.

right in the text you cited.

[robrecht]

repeatedly commit very crude philosophical mistakes but also refuse to listen or respond when these mistakes are pointed out to them.

So it seems you agree that Feser is not criticizing the quality of scientific work of atheist scientists, correct?