Methodological Naturalism (Materialism)

[lucaspa]

This has come up on the thread about C.O.P.E and their objection to the science standards in Kansas. But it is an essential component of understanding the relationship of science and religion.

Many times MN is portrayed as a choice of scientists and science. That science only permits itself to look at material causes and (supposedly) ignores "miracles". Instead, MN comes directly out of how we do experiments and instead is a limitation of science that prevents us from commenting on the role of God nature and/or the existence of God.

Let's say you want to find ALL causes/entities necessary for plant growth. So you go out and get a number of plants. You put them in the following conditions:
1. Sunlight, water, soil, air
2. Sunlight, water, soil, but in a clear box where the air has been pumped out.
3. Sunlight, water, no soil, air.
4. Sunlight, no water, soil, air
5. A darkened box with no sunlight, but with water, soil, air.

This scientific protocol will tell you if these 4 entities/causes are necessary for plant growth. You can add others if you wish but you will follow the same scientific protocol: you always have a control where you know the entity is absent and compare it to an experimental where you know the entity is present.

Now comes the kicker. How about the supernatural or deity? Where is my control for that? Which plant can I point to and say "this one has no supernatural in it?" or "God is not in this plant?" I can't. Which plant can I point to and say "I [I]know[/I God is in that one?" Again, I can't. ]Therefore I am limited to looking at only material causes that I can set up "controls" for.

Now you know why science is limited to the material/"natural". And now you also know why science is agnostic and can't comment on the existence of deity or its role in nature.

" To say it for all my colleageues and for the umpteenth millionth time (from college bull sessions to learned treatises): science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God's possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can't comment on it as scientists." SJ Gould, Impeaching a self-appointed judge. Scientific American, 267:79-80, July 1992. http://www.stephenjaygould.org/revie...-on-trial.html

Once everyone understands MN, then we can talk about how people try to sneak God into science.

[robertb]

Depending on how one feels about intercessory prayer, perhaps one plant could be placed in a vacuum sealed pot with no soil, light, water or air and prayed over.

[lucaspa]

Depending on how one feels about intercessory prayer, perhaps one plant could be placed in a vacuum sealed pot with no soil, light, water or air and prayed over.

All that tells you is that intercessory prayer has an effect. It says nothing about whether, normally, God causes plants to grow, does it? :) The underlying hypothesis you have is that God answers prayers. BUT, that underlying hypothesis is not the one we are testing.

This gets us into how God/supernatural gets into science. So how can we get God/supernatural into science? We have to try to sneak it in the backdoor. We propose a material method by which supernatural/God works and then look for the method. The classic example is Flood Geology. God caused a world wide flood and the flood caused all of geology. The flood is the material cause. So science tested whether a world-wide flood caused all of geology and found that idea to be wrong, false.

Another material method proposed for God/supernatural to work by is direct manufacture. God zaps something into existence in its present form. An example would be God speaking the stars and moon into existence in Genesis 1. Another example would be abiogenesis: God zaps the first cell into existence.

Another material method proposed for God to work would be answering prayers. So we go out and test intercessory prayer. This has, in fact, been done numerous times and it does have an effect (yes, even in the Benson et al. paper often quoted as IP having no effect, it had an effect). But one of those papers testing IP carefully said this in the Discussion:
"Neither this study nor that of Byrd provided any mechanistic explanation for the possible benefits of intercessory prayer. However, others have speculated as to what they might be10; they generally fall into 2 broad categories: natural or supernatural explanations. The former explanation would attribute the beneficial effects of intercessory prayer to "real" but currently unknown physical forces that are "generated" by the intercessors and "received" by the patients; the latter explanation would be, by definition, beyond the ken of science. However, this trial was designed to explore not a mechanism but a phenomenon. Clearly, proof of the latter must precede exploration of the former. By analogy, when James Lind, by clinical trial, determined that lemons and limes cured scurvy aboard the HMS Salisbury in 1753, he not only did not know about ascorbic acid, he did not even understand the concept of a "nutrient." There was a natural explanation for his findings that would be clarified centuries later, but his inability to articulate it did not invalidate his observations.

Although we cannot know why we obtained the results we did, we can comment on what our data do not show. For example, we have not proven that God answers prayer or that God even exists. It was intercessory prayer, not the existence of God, that was tested here."
WS Harris, M Gowda, JW Kolb, CP Strychacz, JL Vacek, PG Jones, A Forker, JH O'Keefe, BD McCallister, A randomized, controlled trial of the effects of remote, intercessory prayer on outcomes in patients admitted to the coronary care unit. Arch Intern Med. 1999;159:2273-2278

[Jedidiah]

In other words science is designed to study the creation and is totally useless in making any statement whatever about the Creator.

[robertb]

Perhaps a smilie would have helped.

Anyway, as I have proposed an experiment to show the causal power of some sort of unexplainable phenomena, I believe that I have answered your question regarding the ability of methodolical naturalism to test for some sort of what may be considered supernatural causation, though admittedly, one would tend to look for any other possible non-supernatural explanation before positing the supernatural as the actual cause.

[phank]

Many times MN is portrayed as a choice of scientists and science. That science only permits itself to look at material causes and (supposedly) ignores "miracles". Instead, MN comes directly out of how we do experiments and instead is a limitation of science that prevents us from commenting on the role of God nature and/or the existence of God.

I think the error here lies in attempting to insert gods where they are unnecessary. Science is indeed carefully limited to what can be tested, according to strict rules. The scientific method (briefly, observe, hypothesize, test, observe, iterate forever) produces reliable predictions, which are quite intrinsic to the process. If subjective speculations about metaphysics are inserted, science stops working instantly.

I suppose it could be said that science makes a tradeoff in this way -- in exchange for being probably correct about material causes of material phenomena, it sacrifices the ability to say anything about anything else. So I think you are on the right track so far, and I agree with Gould. Science must regard the supernatural, whatever that might mean, as outside its competence to investigate.

This gets us into how God/supernatural gets into science. So how can we get God/supernatural into science? We have to try to sneak it in the backdoor. We propose a material method by which supernatural/God works and then look for the method. The classic example is Flood Geology. God caused a world wide flood and the flood caused all of geology. The flood is the material cause. So science tested whether a world-wide flood caused all of geology and found that idea to be wrong, false.

This formulation bothers me. There is not necessarily anything supernatural about a global flood hypothesis. After all, floods are common (and the effects of glaciation often look like the effects of floods). So the global flood hypothesis is scientific, because it is as testable as the hypothesis of ice ages. No gods need be invoked or involved in any way. They certainly are not being snuck in any back door. The flood hypothesis failed the tests, the ice ages hypothesis has so far passed the tests. I suppose one could argue that the flood hypothesis was inspired by tales found in religious texts, but this doesn't make it a religious hypothesis, anymore than a priest drinking milk thereby means milk is Catholic.

Another material method proposed for God/supernatural to work by is direct manufacture. God zaps something into existence in its present form. An example would be God speaking the stars and moon into existence in Genesis 1. Another example would be abiogenesis: God zaps the first cell into existence.

No, the same problems exist here as well. The history of the development of the solar system is in fact subject to a great many hypotheses and tests. ANY statement about the origin of planets and stars can be tested, and are therefore scientific statements regardless of whether anyone anywhere believes in any gods said to do anything. Abiogenesis is a hypothesis that life as we know it can develop by means of ordinary chemistry and physics involved in iterative feedback processes. In principle this is quite plausible. In practice, it's hard to test but not impossible, and several groups are currently working to develop such tests. This is pure science and once again, whether or not anyone anywhere believes in any gods said to do anything are quite irrelevant.

Another material method proposed for God to work would be answering prayers. So we go out and test intercessory prayer. This has, in fact, been done numerous times and it does have an effect

I regard this statement as misleading. Here we learn that intercessory prayer does have an indirect effect - those who were told they were being prayed for did better whether or not it was true. Those who were prayed for but did not know it, did no better. Whethere there is something supernatural about the healing powers of optimism and positive thinking is dubious. Gould's (original) cancer had a prognosis of about six months, but he refused to accept it, kept faith in statistical curves and distributions instead, and lived another 20 years (and didn't die of that cancer). Of course, the possibility of Divine Intervention can not be ruled out, or in, or anything. For all we can know, Odin decided to keep Gould alive because Odin enjoyed the Natural Science essays. Considering how entertaining those essays were, Odin probably enjoyed them a great deal, if Odin exists and reads essays.

[MooseOnTheLoose]

Methodological Naturalism (Materialism) - how nothing used nothing to create everything.

I think that sums it up without any pseudo intellectual dressing.

[phank]

Methodological Naturalism (Materialism) - how nothing used nothing to create everything.

I think that sums it up without any pseudo intellectual dressing.

Whereas any well-trained person knows that the REAL explanation is that everything is Pure Magic - some supernatural entity of undefined origin, using undefined powers alleged to be infinite, poofed all of reality out of nothing.

I'm not sure metaphysical supernaturalism is really all that much more satisfying. Especially since the metaphysical supernaturalist just says "Take it or leave it", while the methodological naturalist says "Well, let's go check it out and see."

[robertb]

Methodological Naturalism (Materialism) - how nothing used nothing to create everything.

I think that sums it up without any pseudo intellectual dressing.

I think that you meant to say that the fundamental forces of nature (gravity, EM, the strong and weak nuclear forces) create everything from pre-existing matter/energy.

So the only thing you need to explain is the existence of matter/energy, I suppose.

This may be as simple as saying that if matter/energy did not exist, we wouldn't be asking the question.

Further we might say that matter/energy is itself contingent. What we cannot say is that once it is true that matter/energy exists that it is then possible for matter/energy to cease to exist, per the law of the conservation of energy.

Therefore, we might simply say that the existence of matter/energy must be a brute fact as from nothing, nothing comes.

[Jorge]

This has come up on the thread about C.O.P.E and their objection to the science standards in Kansas. But it is an essential component of understanding the relationship of science and religion.

Many times MN is portrayed as a choice of scientists and science. That science only permits itself to look at material causes and (supposedly) ignores "miracles". Instead, MN comes directly out of how we do experiments and instead is a limitation of science that prevents us from commenting on the role of God nature and/or the existence of God.

Let's say you want to find ALL causes/entities necessary for plant growth. So you go out and get a number of plants. You put them in the following conditions:
1. Sunlight, water, soil, air
2. Sunlight, water, soil, but in a clear box where the air has been pumped out.
3. Sunlight, water, no soil, air.
4. Sunlight, no water, soil, air
5. A darkened box with no sunlight, but with water, soil, air.

This scientific protocol will tell you if these 4 entities/causes are necessary for plant growth. You can add others if you wish but you will follow the same scientific protocol: you always have a control where you know the entity is absent and compare it to an experimental where you know the entity is present.

Now comes the kicker. How about the supernatural or deity? Where is my control for that? Which plant can I point to and say "this one has no supernatural in it?" or "God is not in this plant?" I can't. Which plant can I point to and say "I [I]know[/I God is in that one?" Again, I can't. ]Therefore I am limited to looking at only material causes that I can set up "controls" for.

Now you know why science is limited to the material/"natural". And now you also know why science is agnostic and can't comment on the existence of deity or its role in nature.

" To say it for all my colleageues and for the umpteenth millionth time (from college bull sessions to learned treatises): science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God's possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can't comment on it as scientists." SJ Gould, Impeaching a self-appointed judge. Scientific American, 267:79-80, July 1992. http://www.stephenjaygould.org/revie...-on-trial.html

Once everyone understands MN, then we can talk about how people try to sneak God into science.

***************************************************

The above clearly shows that you are a product of an education system
that is based on a Materialistic worldview. You can't be blamed.

The rest is just sheer ignorance on your part, not even worthy of comment.

Jorge

[technomage]

In other words science is designed to study the creation and is totally useless in making any statement whatever about the Creator.

Replace "totally useless" with "incapable," and you've hit the nail on the head.

[technomage]

***************************************************

The above clearly shows that you are a product of an education system
that is based on a Materialistic worldview. You can't be blamed.

The rest is just sheer ignorance on your part, not even worthy of comment.

Jorge

Well, now we know your opinion of the issue at hand. But unless you have some concrete, specific criticism, your input is ... less than enlightening.

[phank]

Maybe I'm getting ahead of the game here, but I went out and did some reading about metaphysical naturalism, and it wasn't too close to what I expected. Philosphically, whether or not it is considered a valid philosophical position depends on one's posture with respect to qualia. In a nutshell, "qualia" refers to a sort of purely and deeply personal and subjective experience, "raw feels", which are defined as sensations, appreciations, or feelings so ineffably subjective that they have no physical basis, not even patterns of neuron firings in the brain.

The basic idea, as well as I can understand it, is that IF qualia (as defined) actually exist, then metaphysical naturalism fails. Many noted philosophers consider that qualia exist; many others consider that they do not. And if they do not exist, if even the most purely subjective impressions not connected in any way to objective reality (for example, belief in gods) can be ultimately traced to internal neural firing patterns in the brain, then metaphysical naturalism is not only valid, but required. Conversely, if purely subjective impressions do not arise from brain activity, then metaphysical naturalism is unsupported and wrong.

Methodological naturalism, on the other hand, MIGHT rest on metaphysical naturalism as the underlying philosophy, or it might rest on some other ontological formulation, but if it does, none has been proposed.

Now, what's interesting here (and new to me) is that there is no mention of the supernatural anywhere involved, except perhaps as one possible purely subjective feeling or impression, like the appreciation of the color red or whether some artistic work has meaningful merit. The idea is, two people might agree that an object is "red" but their internal experience of the color might be entirely different. IF there is such a variation in the internal experience of "red", can this be (at least in principle) tracked to neurological activity? If yes, qualia do not exist. If no, metaphical naturalism is wrong.

Now, I will admit right out that as far as I'm concerned, ALL appreciations of ANYTHING, whether or not they map to objective reality, or are pure delusions, are ALL the result of neurological activity. And what this means (when we combine appreciations of tested, intersubjectively validated objective reality with any and all subjective wackiness) is that metaphysical naturalism includes every possible aspect of human experience and understanding. In other words, there is NOTHING beyond the scope of science, which encompasses all of reality including personal impressions, delusions, hallucinations, irrational convictions, and so on. And of course, this assumes that the exact neuron-firing-by-neuron-firing within the brain can eventually yield to scientific examination.

And THAT means that religious believers in various gods are in practice hiding in gaps science has yet to illuminate, "defending" their position by saying "there is a great deal that is real and meaningful that lies beyond the narrow limitations of the scientific method". And what IS this stuff science can't investigate? Well, it's "qualia". And do qualia exist as defined? If they DO exist, then at least some human brains are being invaded by supernatural forces for inscrutable purposes. Pure woo.

[Jorge]

In other words science is designed to study the creation and is totally
useless in making any statement whatever about the Creator.

********************************************

I disagree. Through logical inference, natural science is definitely able
to make statements about the Creator of the natural cosmos.

Think of it like this : you listen to a musical piece such as The 1812 Overture.
Afterwards you state:

(1) This musical piece did not occur by the random mixing of sound.
(2) Ergo, there was a thinking "creator" of what you just heard.
(3) There appears to be some kind of "message" because there is a progression
leading to an 'explosive' climax at the end.
(4) It was the intent of the "creator" to communicate this "message"

and so on ... other inferences are possible. You may make some incorrect
inferences, but you are certainly able to arrive at some correct inferences
concerning the "creator".

Jorge

[technomage]

(1) This musical piece did not occur by the random mixing of sound.
(2) Ergo, there was a thinking "creator" of what you just heard.
(3) There appears to be some kind of "message" because there is a progression
leading to an 'explosive' climax at the end.
(4) It was the intent of the "creator" to communicate this "message"

and so on ... other inferences are possible. You may make some incorrect
inferences, but you are certainly able to arrive at some correct inferences concerning the "creator".

I realize that I am rarely serious in my interactions with you--this is one of those times.

Obviously you disagree with the mainstream definition of science, because the mainstream definition specifically acknowledges that it is not competent to discern anything about the existence or nature of possible spiritual entities. How would you define science so that it is competent to discern spiritual things?