May 2, 2005

• "naturalistic"

  "According to Miller, the Brown University biologist, academia is opposed to explanations that rely on God as a causal agent because they go against the very definition of science: seeking a natural explanation for natural events and phenomenon."

  Interesting rhetoric.  Notice especially the word "very" - which instantly attempts to set up a rhetorical/moral/sociocultural gradient by an appeal to an external body of commonly held truth.

  What they're saying is the following:

  1. If science is defined as strictly "natural" explanation, then by definition creationism (and practically also Intelligent Design) is "non-scientific."  If science is defined more broadly, as in its original meaning (from Latin 'scientia', "to know") of knowledge or general explanation, then of course creationism and ID would be included in "scientific" explanation.

  2. If an explanation is not "scientific" by the first definition ("strictly naturalistic"), then it is puerile, weak, reprehensible, unjustifiable, etc.  People are to be disdained and despised if they adopt any explanations that fall outside the realm of naturalistic science.
  It should be pretty obvious that #1 is correct (by definition).  However, #2 is actually very weak, and in my opinion, self-defeating.  #2 is actually very similar to logical positivism, which employs the so-called verifiability criterion in an attempt to say that the only sentences that have any meaning are the ones that state facts about things we can see, feel, taste, etc.  The problem is that the verifiability criterion is not itself something that we can see, feel, or taste, so it defeats itself... 

  Similarly, the point #2 above is not something that can be proved experimentally, so the statement itself is not scientific, and by its own thesis ought not to be adopted by reasonable people.

  The basic problem here is that science cannot reach outside of itself.  Science can certainly say, "This is the best explanation available without appealing to God," but it cannot say, "There is no God" or "This naturalistic explanation is the best one available, period."

  It basically comes down to an individual (or societal   choice to say, "I will not believe in anything that I cannot see."

  Then the question arises, of course... Why?

  Why would one rule out the possibility of intelligent design or special creation by God?  Is there any evidence for the supernatural?  Especially, is there any evidence that makes much better sense if we admit the possibility of the supernatural rather than denying it?

  Such as, for example, the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead...

  • 2:21 pm
  • Comments Off