I’m going to demonstrate this using Bayes’ Rule. I will represent the hypothesis that (a non-Deist, i.e. an interventionist) God exists as 
, and the evidence of complex life as 
. What we want to know is the posterior probability that 
is true, given , written
![\[P(H_{G}|L_N)}\]](http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/wp-content/ql-cache/quicklatex.com-3f2ddf730ccbd821f6f5020f49419cdb_l3.png "Rendered by QuickLaTeX.com")
which, in English, is: the probability that God exists, given the evidence before us of complex life.
By Bayes rule:
![\[P(|H_G|L_C)}=\frac{P(L_C|H_G)*P(H_G)}{P(L_C|H_G)*P(H_G)+P(L_C|\neg H_G)*P(\neg H_G)}\]](http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/wp-content/ql-cache/quicklatex.com-26c8fd48de8891f67fc7bfb2bf2956e5_l3.png "Rendered by QuickLaTeX.com")
Where
is the probability of complex life, given that God exists,
, is our prior belief that God exists, expressed as a probability,
is the probability of complex life, given that God does not exist, and
is the probability that God does not exist (which equals 
.
is the probability of complex life, given that God exists,
is the probability that God does not exist (which equals 
.So first of all we have to set our prior, 
, the probability that God exists, which I am happy to set high, for instance, at .98.
We also have to set the likelihood of complex life existing, given the existence of an interventionist God (after all, an interventionist God might simply have decided not to bother, or to make something else, like marvellous crystal palaces, instead). However, I will actually set this to 1, as it seems just weird to posit an interventionist God who doesn’t make complex life.
The first thing to note is that the term on the numerator is identical to the first term in the denominator. In our case we have .98*1 on the top, and .98*1 + something on the bottom. I will set the likelihood of Complex life given no interventionist God (
) at something very small, let’s say .0001. This gives us:
![\[P(H_G|L_C)}=\frac{1*.98}{1*.98+.0001*(1-.98)}\]](http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/wp-content/ql-cache/quicklatex.com-eecbc4fd31508bb954849cb600078d1d_l3.png "Rendered by QuickLaTeX.com")
Which gives me a posterior probability that an interventionist God exists of .999998!
So, by setting the probability of complex life, given no God, very small, I have vastly increased my posterior faith that God exists! And if I make it still smaller, then my posterior faith in God grows still further! Take that, atheists! If IDists can show that the probability of complex life, given no God, is sufficiently tiny that it effectively cannot occur within the lifetime of the universe, that second term on the denominator will go to zero, and God becomes a certainty!
So far, so good. Or would be, if it were ever possible to show that something is impossible, which, 500 coins notwithstanding, it isn’t. That’s because there are many different nulls to reject, and there is always likely to be one you haven’t thought of. No matter, that dead horse has been beaten enough in recent posts.
What I want to do here is to look at it the other way round. Let’s say that scientists show that, far from complex life being near-impossible given no God, they discover it’s a virtual certainty – we even manage to do it in a test-tube using conditions known to prevail on early earth, we find all the intermediate fossils we need to fill out the various radiations since dot, and moreoever, get a bunch of SETI signals telling us we aren’t even alone as intelligent beings in the universe.
So instead of setting the likelihood of Complex life given no interventionist God () to something very small, let’s make it 1. Here is our equation now:
![\[P(H_G|L_C)}=\frac{1*.98}{1*.98+1*(1-.98)}\]](http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/wp-content/ql-cache/quicklatex.com-9e73638d465348a30a0172248bc70c2c_l3.png "Rendered by QuickLaTeX.com")
What is my posterior probability that God exists? Well, now the denominator simply sums to unity, leaving our belief in God exactly where it started: .98.
In other words, finding out that life is perfectly possible in the absence of an interventionist God tells absolutely nothing at all about whether God exists. It simply leaves us with the faith we had in the first place.
The good news for theists, then, is that there is nothing to fear from naturalist science – it cannot rock your faith, no matter how good a naturalist explanation for anything scientists come up with. If your faith is absolute, absolute, it will remain. If your faith is 50:50, it can only go up, not down.
However, the good news for atheists is that if it starts at near zero, good naturalist explanations will keep it there. Science, therefore, as Dawkins says, allows him to be an “intellectually fulfilled atheist”.
But for theists, it can do absolutely nothing to dent your faith.
So have a very happy Christmas!
Please spell it out for us then: what is Lizzie’s simple, clear-cut definition of ‘naturalist science’? Both myself and Neil Rickert don’t know what it means, and surely silent others are not sure either. Simply suggesting/insisting that she *has* provided a definition over months at this site and in various threads is not a satisfying answer.
The technical meaning of adding ‘-ist’ or ‘-ism’ is to imply ideologue or ideology (aside from professions, as indicated above). Natural science is not ideological. Pragmatist natural science or materialist natural science or spiritualist natural science or (lol) IDist natural science *is* ideological by the implication of adding the chosen adjective. Are you suggesting this technical meaning is wrong, inaccurate, only sometimes applicable…or? If you mean that she was referring to the profession of naturalists, that would narrow her ‘proof’ claim in the title significantly. (And perhaps that is indeed her back door option to admit ambiguity in her title – mere ‘professional naturalists; not all scientists nor all science.’)
O.k. then let me help you to see better (iow, “for your information, let me ask you a question”); Yes or No: do you (right now) consider yourself as holding a ‘naturalistic’ worldview (or ‘comprehensive doctrine/world-picture,’ in KN’s eclectic-philosophist terms)? You’ve told (part of) your story about losing your Christian faith, about turning away from theism (here: http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/?p=2846&cpage=1#comment-26846) So what worldview do you hold now, Robin? You did not say you were an atheist or a ‘naturalist’ here at TSZ afaik.
Well, I hope you’re right about her willingness to answer in a post here. My first comment at the top of the thread asks a very simple question. Why add the ‘-ist?’ Was it really necessary? I’m ‘skeptical’ of that! And frankly, she has already said she thinks discussion of ideology is ‘silly’ or a waste of time, which makes me think she isn’t cut out for much deep or reflexive thinking, much like William Dembski and Paul Nelson who simply refuse to educate themselves about how ideology (Darwinism) differs from natural science (Darwinian theories).
As it is, with Lizzie’s story about walking away from her Catholic faith, it may indeed have become convenient and perhaps even thought necessary for her to defend ‘naturalism’ as an alternative ‘worldview,’ or as an ideology that she uses to define her activities as a (practising) natural scientist. As for me, the label ‘naturalist’ is unnecessary and is only a philosophical naivety in the human-social sciences that displays prior commitments, rather than rigorous, scholarly work. It is just such laziness of the ‘naturalistic’ natural scientist to think I must be a ‘socialist’ because I am a social scientist that displays an important distinction between science and ideology for our electronic-information epoch. Likewise for atheists to forget that “Darwin forgot the spirit” and we know this well in the post-modern mindset is enough to help challenge the ‘naturalist’ ideology cum worldview that more and more ‘westerners’ (but not recent east-to-west immigrants) have come to embrace.
To me it is entirely not surprising that Lizzie wrote the title as she did. What is illuminating is that she didn’t and doesn’t seem to realise (along with several others here) how it actually reveals her current worldview position by including the term ‘naturalist’ and invalidates her ‘proof.’ Unintentional word-usage, nuanced to linguistic relativism doesn’t innocently escape the fact that social meanings *are* largely traceable and ideologies often expressed in what people write and say.
Good. A basic internet search would show you that it is (other than for a few marginal, lowbrow ‘freethinkers’).
To be clear, I’m coming at this with a keen eye gained through training with some of the best in the field around the world and identifying ideology when and where it is being expressed. In English language, this is precisely what the terms ‘-ism’ and ‘-ist’ (in the vast majority of cases) are intentionally meant to signify. There is good reason for this, which is available to be tested by reading works in philosophy and sociology of science. I cannot be held responsible here nor blamed for intellectually impoverished or low-level dialogue that conflates ‘natural science’ with ‘naturalistic science’ as if the two are equal signifiers. They are not. Please stop conflating them.
That’s where Lizzie should answer for herself…and she will likely do so pretending (falsely, without understanding) that she is an ideology-free, neutral thinker. Hogwash! That position is simply impossible to defend after the hermeneutic turn and contributions in philosophy and sociology of science from the 20th and early 21st centuries. It is a façade that I learned from the best to easily see through and to launch legitimate critiques against it.
Lizzie ‘ideologically modified’ the concept ‘natural’ to become ‘naturalist,’ whether intentionally or not. That’s a cold, hard fact…unless and until she changes her title in this thread.
No, I’m not at all ‘bent out of shape.’ I’m a scholar who studies these things carefully and closely; more carefully and closely than probably all but a very small few in the USA or UK. The appropriate term (in this case ‘natural science,’ instead of ‘naturalist science’) should seek the common good of truthful communication, not expect people to conform to some obscure, false meaning as if it should be understood and embraced (in this case, only by naturalists) and then accepted by all.
Would it not have been o.k. with you, Robin, had Lizzie titled the thread either of the 2 ways I suggested above instead? It seems therefore that I’m providing actual, practical options, but instead you prefer to criticise me simply for identifying communicative ambiguity in Lizzie’s title, rather than actually facing the suggestions I’ve made (e.g. like refusing to distinguish ‘natural science’ from ‘naturalist science’ in *your* meaning). I expect mainly ad hominem responses at TSZ, by people who avoid facing the key point of the discussion.
Doesn’t that definition of ‘naturalism’ disprove Lizzie’s so-called ‘proof’ in your opinion, Robin? In such a definition, the naturalism -> naturalist terminology suggests that Lizzie simplistic ‘proof,’ convenient to buttress her own ideological naturalism, is actually self-contradictory and thus invalid.
Here: http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/?p=3724&cpage=1#comment-36256
I am suggesting that you are making an assertion without actually providing any evidence or example to support said assertion. You may well believe that “the technical meaning of adding ‘-ist’ or ‘-ism’ is to imply ideologue or ideology…”, but I don’t find your opinion any more relevant than mine or anyone else’s. But here’s the kicker – Lizzie has stated she is not using the term to denote ideology. Why should anyone doubt her?
No.
My worldview can be summed up as, “I’m hungry”.
Gregory – comments like this don’t impress most people and in general leave one questioning the author’s intellect, never mind respectability. It raises the question of why you think you are deserving of some authority recognition or respect in terms of your opinions about “deep and reflexive thinking”. My advice would be to try and demonstrate that you are capable of deep and reflexive thinking through clear and concise articulation of your particular ideas rather than opining about the perceived shortcomings of others. You’ll look less like a putz and a few people might actual consider taking your statements a bit more seriously.
See above Gregory. This kind of assertion is not going to be taken seriously unless and until you can A) demonstrate this isn’t merely your whimsical opinion and B) present it in a way other than mere arrogant decree. You may well believe that the label “naturalist” is unnecessary, but so far you’ve given few people (if any) any reason to agree with you.
Gregory…you might be totally and completely correct on this point that Lizzie’s use of the term “naturalist” reveals some inherent ideological worldview, but your continued harping about the term in spite everything else that has be posted on the subject has removed what little care I had for the issue.
Hogwash and irrelevant to boot. The fact is, whatever your credentials and background, you lack any actual credibility – or demonstrated authority – to impugn Lizzie’s stated intent. Simply put, why should anyone take your word over Lizzie’s?
On the contrary Gregory, you can and will be held responsible and blamed for intellectual impoverishment when you arrogantly decree “truth” without reference. I’m not about to “read works in philosophy and sociology of science” simply to succor your arrogant claims. That’s called a Burden of Proof fallacy. Look it up.
So, when you get off your high horse and start providing substantiation for your assertions, I might take your assertions a bit more seriously. Until then, they simply strike me as uninteresting.
If that were the case, you’d have dropped the issue long ago. Thus, I find your claim rather disingenuous at best.
…and yet some of us could still follow Lizzie’s intent in the OP simply by reading her explanations. As a “scholar who studies these things carefully and closely” I find it rather interesting that such an approach is apparently beyond daunting for you.
I would have had no problems with either of the titles you suggested Gregory, but then I have no trouble with the title Lizzie chose. I personally just don’t see it as that big a deal.
And just for the record, I’m not sure what ad hominems you are referring to, but I’ve certainly not provided any.
Wait…what? Why would KN’s acceptance of Plantinga’s definition of naturalism (for the sake of an argument) have ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to do with Lizzie’s use of the term “naturalist”. You have totally lost me on this one.
I asked: what is Lizzie’s simple, clear-cut definition of ‘naturalist science’?
Robin, amazingly, linked this: http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/?p=3724&cpage=1#comment-36256
Those are Robin’s words, not Lizzie’s!! He presumed her thoughts with: “Seems to me…seems to me.” All she wrote was ‘This.’
Wow, what a Whopper of a laugh! Thanks, Robin, I’m no longer hungry! = )))
Let’s just hear what Lizzie meant by using the term ‘naturalist science,’ instead of simply ‘natural science,’ shall we?
I’m tired of Robin speaking on her behalf, especially as someone obviously uneducated and admittedly uninterested in philosophy and sociology of science, which is one of the main fields that studies ‘ideology,’ iow, the main problem with Lizzie’s misleading title and ‘proof’ in this thread.
And I wasn’t using the term ‘Whopper’ to denote an American hamburger! Parrots are not birds. Children are not younger than adults. Mobile phones aren’t devices one can make phone calls on. And “I’m hungry” is a credible, mature answer to “what worldview do you hold now, Robin?” Right, who’s gonna believe these things? 😉
Because if ‘naturalism’ is “the view that there is no such person as God or anything like God,” as Plantinga says, then it disproves the title of the thread and Lizzie’s so-called ‘proof.’ It would then make no sense at all to try to ‘prove’ that “naturalist science can be no threat to faith in God” because by definition “naturalism” doesn’t believe in “such person as God or anything like God.” The argument would be moot at the start.
Which is precisely why I’m asking these very simple, clear and exact questions to Lizzie:
The terms ‘natural’ and ‘naturalist’ have intentionally different meanings. But Lizzie seems to want to conflate them. Why? What does Lizzie mean by ‘naturalist science’ that distinguishes it from ‘natural science’?
Please let her speak for herself; the misleading title of the thread is hers, not anyone else’s.
Gregory, dear, have you attended any school past elementary? I find it truly unbelievable that you are an adult in our modern world, speak English, and are totally clueless as to the meaning of that little term “this”
Well, since you are clueless, dear, let me explain it to you. Internet usage of the single term “this” following a quoted passage means the author (here, the author is Lizzie, in case you’re having a hard time following along) agrees so completely with the quoted material that the author is happy to have it stand as his/her own words without adding or subtracting anything.
The reader does, however, have to be intelligent enough to substitute pronoun references if necessary to match the quote with the author’s first-person PoV. So for example, Gregory, you must be capable of reading
and understanding that by “this”, Lizzie meant exactly this:
We know you’re a clever boy, Gregory, and we’re sure you can work it out for yourself now that you know what “this” means, after a quotation.
You’ve got your answer now.
And yesterday you premised you had said your “peace” and had enough. Do feel free to drop your demands for answers, anytime now, and really leave us all, Lizzie included, in peace.
Fair enough. I think Lizzie does a far better job of speaking on her own behalf anyway.
For someone who claims philosophy as a scholarly expertise, you seem rather confined to one-dimensional thinking. Pity…
…for KN perhaps. But KN’s opinion of the accuracy and appropriateness of Plantinga’s definition does not then make that definition suddenly true for everyone. More simply, KN no more speaks for Lizzie than I do. I don’t know that what KN thinks of Plantinga applies to Lizzie. More to the point, neither do you. So Plantinga’s definition is rather moot in this context then.
Cue Lizzie’s response in…
For the record, I certainly did not think that my appropriation of Plantinga’s definition of naturalism has anything to do with Lizzie’s point about natural science. Nor did her use of “naturalistic” to mean “natural” faze me one bit, since the context makes it perfectly clear what she meant.
I was appealing to Plantinga as a way of characterizing metaphysical naturalism, and what I like about Plantinga’s way of going about it is that it solves the content problem: it specifies the concept of “metaphysical naturalism” in terms of the concepts of “person” and “animal,” rather than by specifying “naturalism” as “anti-supernaturalism,” which is clearly vacuous.
Lizzie’s point, one with which I fully concur (though for reasons of my own), is that there is no inferential route that leads from the methods and results of natural science to metaphysical naturalism. In any metaphysics there is a speculative moment that transcends empirical knowledge, and metaphysical naturalism is no exception.
^This.
And thanks for the clarification KN. 🙂
First, she didn’t use the term ‘naturalistic.’ She used the term ‘naturalist science.’ I suggested above that ‘naturalistic’ would be the more accurate adjective and also clarified it is possible Lizzie was referring only to naturalists-by-profession; only the science of naturalists-by-profession. But we can’t know until she speaks.
Second, if that’s what she did, i.e. mistakenly use ‘naturalist science’ to mean ‘natural science,’ then let her say that and/or explain herself. That’s all I’ve asked for; Lizzie’s clarification, not apologetics for her error as supposedly ‘perfectly clear’ in context. It could have been an honest error (which I’d like to believe), not realising that ‘natural’ and ‘naturalist’ have different meanings.
Third, KN is a self-proclaimed ‘naturalist’ who is not a theist, who doesn’t believe in God (he mentioned being an ex-Reform Jew). That personality ‘fact’ just perhaps, maybe, might, on the off chance impact his position here in this thread, right? An apologetic ‘naturalist’ who thinks natural science and naturalist science are equivalent; conflation for KN’s eclectic-naturalistic-pantheistic/animistic worldview purposes. That sounds like an appropriate fit for the lone resident ‘philosopher’ in a Skeptical Zone! 😉
Gregory,
So are you going to carp and whine about how we’re not using your preferred terms, or are you going to engage with us in a substantive discussion about the relevant issues? Are you here for reasoned dialogue with people whose world-pictures differ from yours, or just deliver snide insults?
I meant the kind of science in which you fit models to data and then test the predictive power of your model against new data.
And that’s called ‘naturalist science’ to you, Lizzie? That just sounds like what your definition of ‘natural science’ would be, wouldn’t it? Why bother adding the ‘-ist’ then? Did you simply forget about Ockham?
The ‘relevant issue’ in this thread is Lizzie’s claimed PROOF, which includes the term ‘naturalist science,’ an awkward and unconventional term. Sure, I’m willing to have a substantive discussion on that; I’ve already spoken more than is needed on the topic to show you Lizzie’s mistake and the difference it makes.
But KN, you’re a self-proclaimed ‘naturalist’ advocating for equivocation. You are obviously biased on this topic. Better to keep silent on this one. It’s Lizzie’s title error, not yours.
Btw, you still haven’t addressed my question in your ‘Speculative Naturalism’ thread, where you presume to speak on behalf of a ‘standard’ (that you call “The standard”) which is actually just a figment of your imagination. Your assertation is not based on facts about ‘design theorists’ and is just as misleading as Lizzie’s unconventional term that serves to defeat her own ‘proof’: ‘naturalist science.’
If you actually mean Intelligent Design theorists, and Lizzie actually means ‘natural science,’ then why don’t you folks just say so? What’s so hard about being accurate?
Sure, people don’t like to ‘admit defeat’ or to be corrected in on-line forums, but the discussion could end rather quickly if “Good point. I’ll change it” could be expressed. I’m not interested in ‘winning,’ just in clear and accurate communication.
“Naturalist science *IS* a threat to faith in God” because by definition “naturalism” doesn’t believe in “such person as God or anything like God.”
Why should a non-theistic metaphysics be a threat to theistic metaphysics?
Gregory: And that’s called ‘naturalist science’ to you, Lizzie?
It’s what I meant by “naturalist science”.
I’m not especially concerned about what label people want to give it, as long as people know what I mean.
I simply forgot about Gregory.
I think you mean that “naturalism” is a term some people use to refer to lack of belief in “such person as God or anything like God.” Atheism is another word for the same thing, I guess.
No doubt that’s why you refrain from repeatedly demeaning KN with the epithet “philosophist”, because you’re so “not interested” in winning.
I suggest you go back to school and take a beginning class in avoiding hypocrisy, Gregory.
btw, the reason I didn’t use the term “natural science” is that the term “natural sciences” are often used in contradistinction to “social sciences”, and I did not mean to exclude “social sciences” – after all the study of intelligence is in the domain of psychology which is often not regarded as a “natural science”.
However, nor did I wish to use the simple term “science” as I was specifically referring to the kind of science that many theists think poses a threat to theism, and not to the kind of “science” that IDists call “science”.
So I apologise for any confusion, and hope the sense in which I used the term “naturalist science” in my OP is now clear. I chose the term from its relationship with “methodological naturalism”.
Then you could also have titled your OP “Why atheist science can be no threat to faith in God”?!
Gregory,
Accurate communication requires effort and competence on the part of both sender and receiver. Every commenter but you understood what Lizzie meant by “naturalist science”.
The failure is entirely yours.
So ‘naturalist science’ is supposed to include social sciences!? What about all of the non-naturalist social sciences then? Wow, you’re digging even deeper holes now, Lizzie, even though your honest intention is to be inclusive.
Look, I appreciate the fact that you’ve finally answered. But it’s getting worse quickly. Why not just say ‘natural science’ and drop the ‘naturalist science,’ which implies ideology by adding the ‘-ist.’ You haven’t addressed this question of meaning, which is a glaring hole in your ‘proof’.
Well, IDT and what “IDists call ‘science'” was not mentioned in the OP, so my view is it would be better left out of the conversation. If you want to turn the OP into an IDT-conversation, that’s up to you. Science doesn’t pose a threat to theism; but ‘scientism’ (just like naturalism) sure does.
Again, please recognise Lizze, that ideology is a huge factor in this conversation, as should be evident in terms like Darwinism, scientism, naturalism, materialism, atheism and theism, etc. Blocking out responsible and mature, deep and insightful, personal or collective conversations about ideology and its impacts on human thought and self-understanding (including psychology) is just bound to exaccerbate the problems rather than to aid in solving them.
Lizzie, you’ve already been quoted for waffling and not understanding MN in the thread I wrote. Paul de Vries regrets coining the term MN and it has sadly been highjacked by ‘naturalists’ such as KN and others with WAP (weak American philosophy) to justify disenchantment, superficiality, nihilism and atheism (or eclectic-pantheism/animism), rather than to constructively identify an important feature of ‘doing science.’ And doing social science, Lizzie, certainly does *NOT* require ‘naturalism,’ any more than it requires ‘socialism.’ So your attempted clarification quite significantly misses the mark.
Thus, I still can’t fathom what categorical mis-understanding you are facing to think that ‘naturalist science’ is a responsible or helpful term in the conversation that you are seemingly trying to address, which is that science, philosophy and theology/worldview *can* work together cooperatively. This cooperation is your main point, is it not, Lizzie?
If it is, do you see now that since I agree with that, my challenge to your mistaken usage of ‘naturalist science’ is simply stated; it is not to suggest that (natural &/or social) science *IS* a threat to faith in God because that is not what I believe. Most Christians, Muslims and Jews who are educated do not find a problem of reconciliation as you seem to suggest as an agnostic currently living outside of a particular community of faith/belief.
What this means then is that your claim of “the kind of science that many theists think poses a threat to theism” is really either just ideological ‘naturalist science’ that actually denies/doesn’t believe in God/Allah/Yahweh or some other ideological distortion of science (e.g. relativism, atomism, evolutionism) that indeed *DOES* pose a threat to theism by its unbelief or anti-theistic meaning. I just don’t see why you are requiring this of your vocabulary when better alternatives are available.
It reflects poorly on you, Lizzie that you choose a clearly ideological term – ‘naturalist’ – to address a topic in which you are simply trying to protect belief in a God that you don’t (seem to) believe in just because a very small few theists are fixated on opposing (neo-)Darwinism with IDT.
Geez, Gregory.
No. That would specifically NOT have conveyed my meaning. It would have conveyed the precise opposite of my meaning. I do NOT consider that discoveries made using the scientific methodology sometimes referred to as “methodological naturalism” can pose any threat to belief in God.
And to be specific, I mean the methodology that involves fitting models to data and testing the predictive power of those models against new data.
I
Place your bets, people: What’s the ‘over/under’ on Gregsy never bothering to actually, like, identify any of the quote, non-naturalist, unquote, social sciences to which he refers here?
“The failure is entirely yours.”
I’m sure it *must* be, simply because I am not a ‘naturalist,’ and because I accept theism, while you, keiths are both a ‘naturalist’ and either an atheist or agnostic who rejects theism. Please do correct the record if that is not true. You have an obvious vested interested in protecting Lizzie’s ‘naturalist science’ term because of your worldview, while I reject her terminology because it is unnecessarily ideological in trying to make her ‘proof’ that faith in God need not be threatened by (doing) ‘natural science.’
Gregory,
I am late to the party, but let me ask: Is there a non-naturalist version of physics or chemistry, Gregory? Where can I read about it?
You are completely welcome to reject my terminology, Gregory. My only request is that you attempt to understand what I was attempting to convey.
Is this the kind of “science” where a person word-games and bends the data to fit one’s sectarian beliefs instead of constructing concepts that fit the data?
Such an approach to phenomena in the real world already makes data-free assumptions about the existence and properties of a deity and then bends and breaks evidence to fit those assumptions; that is at the heart of ID/creationism, so we can read about it in ID/creationist literature.
Building concepts and theories that explain the phenomena one observes in the real world, and then adjusting one’s data-free concepts of deities, would seem more “natural” if one has to survive in the real world.
Bending data to fit preconceived concepts about deities – while it may be a historically “natural” tendency – actually should be called “unnatural science.”
I find it strange that Gregory rails against ID/creationism yet appears to think like an ID/creationist.
I didn’t think you meant that, Lizzie, which is why your statement is confusing.
You guess or that’s what you mean? A lot of people mean that, Lizzie, it is not something I am making up without reason.
The term ‘naturalist,’ as I’ve already indicated at length normally means something different than what Lizzie either currently thinks or *wants* it to mean. That is why the ‘proof’ in this thread is a moot argument right from the start.
If the question you now want to argue about is ‘how many’ people (e.g. in USA, in UK, in Australia or globally) accept Plantinga’s meaning of ‘naturalism’ as (to quote KN) “the view that there is no such person as God or anything like God,” then that is a question probably well worth addressing here at TSZ.
You could try to come up with your own definition of ‘naturalism’ (just as Steven Pinker recently tried to come up with his own definition of ‘scientism’ and was met with a firestorm of criticism) here at TSZ that makes *no reference* to anything ‘non-natural,’ ‘extra-natural’ or ‘supra-natural,’ or even to anything ‘natural.’ This still wouldn’t overcome the most popular definition of ‘naturalism’ that ‘nature’ is all there is (which thus denies ‘super-natural’). You’re basically stuck in a conundrum, Lizzie, now that you’ve accepted the natural sciences “contradistinction to social sciences’,” a distinction with which I wholeheartedly agree. Iow (in a nutshell), ‘social’ is distinguishable from ‘natural’ and therefore ‘naturalist science’ does (read: should) not apply to ‘social sciences.’
Putting your trust in KN’s sophistry at this point, however, or with most other naturalist ideologues here at TSZ is like just giving away your money to the house for free. Isn’t it obvious folks: OF COURSE all ‘naturalists’ want to promote the idea of ‘naturalist science’ that Lizzie is mis-naming! It serves their ideological preference and worldview position better than the correction and clarification that I have been attempting to make.
What is so ironic, is that Lizzie has professed not to be an atheist, while most posters defending her ‘naturalist science’ term against my call of misnomer are either already self-declared (at TSZ) atheists or simply undeclared atheists and agnostics.
There is not a single theist (e.g. Steve Schaffner) on this thread other than yours truly, which goes to show quite simply the obvious lines that are drawn on the point at issue.
Yet this is not a discussion that Lizzie, who is trained in music and cognitive sciences, is fit to win (well, who really ‘wins’ on blogs anyways?!) because those are not fields that carefully study the impact of ideology on science. I’m telling you folks that ‘natural science’ differs from ideological ‘naturalistic science’ because that’s the way it is understood by experts on this topic.
If Lizzie wants to retreat into making it a discussion of so-called ‘methodological naturalism,’ that’s her prerogative. It was suggested to her above that she could easily change the title to “Why methodological naturalism can be no threat to faith in God.” So far she has refused to make the change. And I found her responses on the MN thread I started far from advanced or coherent, just as her misnamed title is here in this thread. (Which of course doesn’t mean she’s not competent and good at other things than this! 😉 )
Nevertheless, ‘naturalist science’ and ‘methodological naturalism’ are far from synonyms. And given Lizzie’s recently stated desire to include social sciences in her chosen term, she’s now effectively cooked her own goose of terminological confusion and loose talk.
p.s. oh, I’ve attempted to ‘understand’ what you chose as your term, Lizzie, don’t worry about that. I’m well ahead of you (and your ‘proof’) on this and you are operating on disciplinary territory I’m well familiar with and trained in. Would you be willing to consider that perhaps what you’re saying isn’t understandable (because it is nonsense) to those who actually know, and that it rather appears that you are simply cow-towing to naturalists and atheists here at TSZ, who make up the majority of contributors?
olegt,
Not that I’m aware of. Typically physics and chemistry, along with astronomy, biology, ecology, physiology, anatomy, etc. are categorised as ‘natural sciences.’ Would you agree?
Could you then answer me a question now, olegt? Are there any ‘sciences’ other than ‘natural sciences,’ according to your preferred categorisation (map of knowledge) or does ‘science’ operate definitionally as synonymous and exclusively with ‘nature’ and ‘natural’?
Thanks,
Gregory
p.s. your screen name seems Slavic. Does the term ‘nauk’ mean anything to you?
No, Gregory is not an ID/creationist. But Mike Elzinga is an atheist/agnostic who thinks and acts like a vulgar USAmerican culture warrior. But hey, he used to teach physics at a 4th rate mid-western university, so everyone here should just trust him without questioning his ideological biases and blindspots, right? All he can seemingly do, folks, is bring things back around again and again to ID/creationism, mock non-scientists, sling mud at theists (even intelligent scientific ones) and squawk on and on about deities he doesn’t believe in. He leaves a scar on Lizzie’s blog with his angry-man fanaticism.
Hmmm…I need a judge’s ruling on this. What exactly would be a “non-naturalist social science” that Lizzie’s term would exclude? Can you even give one example Gregory?
FTFY Gregory
Your conclusion above does not actually follow from any evidence provided Gregory.
Well…it may reflect poorly on Lizzie in your eyes, Gregory, but at this point I’m betting that’s not much of a concern…
It would really further the discussion if you could provide some actual evidence or detailed substantiation of this supposed “unnecessarily ideological” terminology rather than repeatedly declaring it such by fiat.
“What exactly would be a “non-naturalist social science” that Lizzie’s term would exclude? Can you even give one example Gregory?”
Yes, I could give many examples. Let walk though this then, shall we Robin? It also shows why Lizzie’s ‘naturalist science’ title is just plain silly, especially in light of her recent claims.
Above, I asked you: “Yes or No: do you (right now) consider yourself as holding a ‘naturalistic’ worldview?”
You answered: No.
O.k. so then please name 3 ‘non-natural’ things that are (in your opinion) real. Without this, we cannot make any progress. Unless you actually own the vocabulary it will never make any sense for you.
An answer like your worldview being “I’m hungry” will not suffice and would justify ending the conversation.
But you won’t. It wouldn’t fit in with the rest of your childish blustering.
Maybe you should tell us more about how you “put evolutionary theory in its proper scholarly place, refusing to allow it to be over-estimated in the Academy.” like you bragged about on your blog here.
So now we know that you think the University of Michigan is a “4th rate mid-western university.”
Why is that not surprising?
Well, that paper is published in a renowned international series on Evolution, so having you call it bragging or blustering means little. It is what it is. You could point us to one of your papers, ‘thorton,’ published in a peer-reviewed credible scholarly journal or book that opposes it or exposes its weaknesses, if you’d like. And yes, there are many, many examples to provide, even for ‘naturalists’ who don’t want to be spoon-fed healthy knowledge that they think tastes bad. The point is that the ideology of naturalism (and in this thread, the misnomer of ‘naturalist science’) is standing in the way of learning for some people; it is a crutch, a substitute for deeper thought, a strike against wisdom and humanity. So, yes, I reserve the right to calmly and reasonably protest against it as a destructive force in late-modern thought.
Gregory,
So, yes, I reserve the right to calmly and reasonably protest against it as a destructive force in late-modern thought.
It might be a refreshing change of pace if you did
I went and looked it up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Michigan#Research
Sounds boss!
If they are 4th rate I can’t wait to see the top tier set!
“renowned international series on Evolution” – LOL! that’s pretty funny!
Yeah, so you keep blustering, but you never produce. You’ll certainly understand when people think you’re full of shit .
That would be the European Humanities University that employs our self-proclaimed world renowned scientist, scholar, and evolution falsifier Greggsie here.
Gregory, would you describe psychology as “natural science”?
Well, Gregory is obviously correct, because the UofM is not constructed of stone quarried by 15th-century peasants, unlike the Mittleeuropean self-evidently 1st rate Lithuanian or Polish or Latvian school Gregory is currently at, wherever the hell it is. It’s self-evidently 1st rate because Gregory is there, innit!
Of course, the UofM has some lovely stone buildings, but they weren’t quarried by peasants (instead quarried by vulgar Caterpillar machines, probably driven by atheists, god forbid!) so they don’t count. Checkmate, midWesterners!
“Gregory, would you describe psychology as “natural science”?” – Lizzie
Good question. It depends on which type of psychology one is doing. Some of it is purely physicalistic, quantitative, natural-science mimickry. To these ‘psychologists,’ the ‘psyche’ is merely material, physical, non-soulish, non-spiritual, dead-at-death, etc.
A relative of mine just completed her PhD in psychology and received her master’s degree in ‘psychological science.’ We spoke about the scientificity of psychology on several occassions. I find it an interesting topic.
In my ‘map of knowledge,’ psychology is one the over-lapping fields between natural sciences and social sciences (note that I prefer a slightly different typology from the usual Anglo-American version), along with ethology, geography and anthropology (e.g. merely physical vs. linguistic, economic & cultural).
Thus, social psychology is not (‘purely’) a ‘natural science,’ or at least it doesn’t use only natural scientific methods. It cannot be ‘reduced’ to those methods alone otherwise it will reduce humanity to mere numbers and figures. And that’s crucial to your argument, which is obviously methodology-heavy.
I’ve got a paper coming out on this in a couple of months, in case it might interest you. The way one ‘maps’ the ‘sciences’ is crucial to why (I believe) calling it ‘naturalist science’ is a misnomer for the ‘proof’ you tried to make with Bayesian logic (not to mention the things I said above about naturalism as untheistic). Does that help?
You mean Gregory is casting aspersions upon Mike Elzinga, the University of Michigan, and US/UK accomplishments in general, from high atop the “towers” of an academy that has no significant history, no accomplishments, no science/technology classes, and only 3 — no, that’s not a typo; it’s only 3 — doctoral students altogether?
Well, I’ll be! God bless his little heart.
I am with Richard Feynman on this.
LOL! That was uncanny how accurately Feynman nailed our little genius “social scientist” here.
according to the blog linked to Gregory’s nym, that paper was published in:
Tee hee.
To be charitable, it could be the Most-Important Yearbook that everyone has never heard of, and that might be because of evilutionists and atheists suppressing their publications and expelling them. I mean, it could be …
It certainly couldn’t be that Gregory’s writing is so terribly incoherent and his work so infested with deepities that the only publisher willing to host one of his papers turns out to be Russian, with a comparative disadvantage in seeing through the fog of English-language obfuscation, could it? No, couldn’t be …
That said, I would count economics among sciences. Economic activity can be viewed as a natural phenomenon. Most importantly, economic theories are pitted against observations, so there is that feedback loop and not just he said, she said.
olegt, so you want me to guess – “No, there are no other sciences than ‘natural sciences’,” – is that your position? So you consider yourself a ‘naturalist’ of the variety that Plantinga identifies, right?
Feynman was a naturalism ideologue and an ‘avowed atheist.’ Should I assume that you are with him on that too?
Thanks for the video – I hadn’t seen it before. It reminded me of Feyman’s statement: “I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy [sic].”
The main problem with this thread is a nonscientific issue, the issue of ideology signified in Lizzie’s title of ‘naturalist science.’ You agree, right?
Btw, an answer to my p.s. would be courteous. Thanks.
Great! Uhh…so…umm…where is this walk-through list then?
Quite so…
WHAT??!?! LOL! No, no, no, no, no no, no no no!
Your ability (or lack thereof) to list a “non-natural social science” that Lizzie’s term would exclude does not in any way rely upon anything I believe or accept. You made the claim. It is your burden to defend or not. Either post what you feel falls outside Lizzie’s parameters or don’t, I could care less. But if you don’t, it will merely confirm my opinion of your lack of credibility.
…and to this I say – RUBBISH! You are merely engaging in a burden of proof fallacy by way of red herring. Nice try, but no soup for you.
And once again you demonstrate the limits of your so-called “scholarship”…
Well, I do hold a bachelor’s degree in economics, though apparently that’s not enough to qualify as a ‘scientist’ of economics.
Here’s a sociologist of science speaking about the supposed ‘scientificity’ of economics: http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/nobel_by_association_beautiful_mind_non_existent_prize