Good article, Joel. I hope you and the family are well.
I think what a lot of people mean when they accuse Christians of not holding to the 'scientific worldview' is simply not holding to naturalistic Darwinism, which is itself an empirical system with many more implied miracles than Christianity. It's a bait-and-switch of sorts, using the term 'science' in its most rigorous sense (i.e., falsifiable truth claims backed by sufficient experimentation to establish a hypothesis as a scientific theory) but applied to a group of atheistic true-believers who prefer their dogmas be accepted as scientific truth rather than the non-falsifiable claims they really turn out to be upon closer inspection.
And I think you’re exactly right about that. Explanation of life and of nature from below is the essence of the naturalistic worldview, but but that is not something that science has shown. People want to use the stamp of approval “science” to label their worldview.
Being falsifiable by experience is much more essential to science, and that means that even Darwinism is falsifiable. (and some of us think it’s already been falsified!)
Using your terminology to restate something I have thought since I was a young man:
Methodological naturalism causes origin of life researchers to publish research that only mentions naturalistic hypotheses for the origin of life, without mention of a supernatural Creator.
But nothing in methodological naturalism requires that such researchers claim that their current hypotheses are very satisfying or convincing. It is perfectly in accord with methodological naturalism to say "We have been investigating naturalistic explanations for the origin of life, and current we have significant unresolved issues, so that we cannot claim we are close to having a convincing explanation." No God references are needed in this honest and scientifically humble statement.
However, philosophical naturalism makes it very unsatisfying to make this statement, especially in a society where the ever-present boogeyman of the religious creationist lurks. Thus, the philosophical naturalist is tempted to overstate the degree of current naturalistic understanding of the origin of life problem. In such overstating, are they being "rational" in some sense? I think not.
This is a great article. Reason is a very difficult word to pin down.
Your critique of Bayesian reasoning is well taken. People don't realize how difficult it is to determine the philosophical meaning of probability theory. The math is just a rather odd sort of measure theory, but the philosophy of probability seems impossible.
And you didn't include the biggest problems with Occam's razor. The first of these is that it seems to me to require solipsism. The second is that it is empirically unjustifiable, and if you are committed to empiricism, there is no reason to accept it.
Thank you. That reminded me of one of R.C. Sprouls more technical lectures on theological apologetics. If you're not familiar with RC, I mention that as a compliment on the quality of your work.
You start out by saying that being “scientific” is being “left brained” about things. You suggest this is incomplete by appealing to the artistic, which you call “right brained.” Yet I think the words that a rationalist might prefer, for such things, are “objective” and “subjective.” I submit, therefore, the following possible target for you: perhaps a “rationalist” is someone who believes that there is a dividing line between the objective and the subjective. The rationalist further believes that the objective is what we know by way of science or logic, and it should be the same for everybody. The subjective is also important, and nobody could live without it, but it is unscientific and we shouldn’t expect it to converge on a single truth.
In that case, “Christianity requires a leap of faith, beyond reason,” becomes, “Christianity cannot be demonstrated objectively and is instead reliant on the subjective, which is always unreliable in the search for hard truths.”
(This is not quite my own viewpoint, and it may still be too simplistic, but I think it is a better target than the possibilities that you have listed.)
I suppose one primary point of contention would be the phrase "which is always unreliable in the search for hard truths." Unless "hard" is defined so that this becomes a tautology, I don't agree. It is "subjective" whether a sunset over the Grand Canyon is more beautiful than a pile of garbage, but I have never encountered any subjective dissent on that question unless someone is being obtuse for the sake of argument. There is a lengthy discussion underlying this point: Is all beauty subjective, or just some ideas of beauty, or is beauty a truly transcendent attribute that we try to perceive?
There is also the question of what "demonstrated" entails. Unarguable proof, or abductive reasoning to the best possible conclusion?
Good article, Joel. I hope you and the family are well.
I think what a lot of people mean when they accuse Christians of not holding to the 'scientific worldview' is simply not holding to naturalistic Darwinism, which is itself an empirical system with many more implied miracles than Christianity. It's a bait-and-switch of sorts, using the term 'science' in its most rigorous sense (i.e., falsifiable truth claims backed by sufficient experimentation to establish a hypothesis as a scientific theory) but applied to a group of atheistic true-believers who prefer their dogmas be accepted as scientific truth rather than the non-falsifiable claims they really turn out to be upon closer inspection.
Hey Jason! We are doing well.
And I think you’re exactly right about that. Explanation of life and of nature from below is the essence of the naturalistic worldview, but but that is not something that science has shown. People want to use the stamp of approval “science” to label their worldview.
Being falsifiable by experience is much more essential to science, and that means that even Darwinism is falsifiable. (and some of us think it’s already been falsified!)
Using your terminology to restate something I have thought since I was a young man:
Methodological naturalism causes origin of life researchers to publish research that only mentions naturalistic hypotheses for the origin of life, without mention of a supernatural Creator.
But nothing in methodological naturalism requires that such researchers claim that their current hypotheses are very satisfying or convincing. It is perfectly in accord with methodological naturalism to say "We have been investigating naturalistic explanations for the origin of life, and current we have significant unresolved issues, so that we cannot claim we are close to having a convincing explanation." No God references are needed in this honest and scientifically humble statement.
However, philosophical naturalism makes it very unsatisfying to make this statement, especially in a society where the ever-present boogeyman of the religious creationist lurks. Thus, the philosophical naturalist is tempted to overstate the degree of current naturalistic understanding of the origin of life problem. In such overstating, are they being "rational" in some sense? I think not.
This is a great article. Reason is a very difficult word to pin down.
Your critique of Bayesian reasoning is well taken. People don't realize how difficult it is to determine the philosophical meaning of probability theory. The math is just a rather odd sort of measure theory, but the philosophy of probability seems impossible.
And you didn't include the biggest problems with Occam's razor. The first of these is that it seems to me to require solipsism. The second is that it is empirically unjustifiable, and if you are committed to empiricism, there is no reason to accept it.
This is really really good. I’ve read the first half twice and been interrupted both times. Will be back again to finish it.
Thank you. That reminded me of one of R.C. Sprouls more technical lectures on theological apologetics. If you're not familiar with RC, I mention that as a compliment on the quality of your work.
Thank you, Greg! That’s quite a compliment for the kind of theology and philosophy I’m trying to do!
You start out by saying that being “scientific” is being “left brained” about things. You suggest this is incomplete by appealing to the artistic, which you call “right brained.” Yet I think the words that a rationalist might prefer, for such things, are “objective” and “subjective.” I submit, therefore, the following possible target for you: perhaps a “rationalist” is someone who believes that there is a dividing line between the objective and the subjective. The rationalist further believes that the objective is what we know by way of science or logic, and it should be the same for everybody. The subjective is also important, and nobody could live without it, but it is unscientific and we shouldn’t expect it to converge on a single truth.
In that case, “Christianity requires a leap of faith, beyond reason,” becomes, “Christianity cannot be demonstrated objectively and is instead reliant on the subjective, which is always unreliable in the search for hard truths.”
(This is not quite my own viewpoint, and it may still be too simplistic, but I think it is a better target than the possibilities that you have listed.)
I suppose one primary point of contention would be the phrase "which is always unreliable in the search for hard truths." Unless "hard" is defined so that this becomes a tautology, I don't agree. It is "subjective" whether a sunset over the Grand Canyon is more beautiful than a pile of garbage, but I have never encountered any subjective dissent on that question unless someone is being obtuse for the sake of argument. There is a lengthy discussion underlying this point: Is all beauty subjective, or just some ideas of beauty, or is beauty a truly transcendent attribute that we try to perceive?
There is also the question of what "demonstrated" entails. Unarguable proof, or abductive reasoning to the best possible conclusion?