In my last post, I cited 31 great scientists who made scientific arguments for the supernatural, and in so doing, flouted the tenets of methodological naturalism. One of these was the Scottish physicist, James Clerk Maxwell, who propounded the theory of electromagnetism.
I was surprised that Maxwell’s violation of methodological naturalism generated so little comment among commenters on my last post, so I have decided to re-post it. The interesting thing is that Maxwell himself had a firm conception of the kinds of questions that science should and shouldn’t concern itself with – only his conception was quite different from ours. And the bright line he drew between science and non-science didn’t rule out talk of a Creator; it merely ruled out discussion of his modus operandi. Let me hasten to add that Maxwell was no Darwin-dissenter: he never criticized Darwin’s theory of evolution, and his article, “Atom,” for the 9th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica (Edinburgh: Adam and Charles Black, 1875, Vol. III, p 48) indicates that he was probably an evolutionist, for after observing that each individual “either survives and propagates its species, or dies early, accordingly as it is more or less adapted to the circumstances of its environment,” Maxwell remarks that “it has been found possible to frame a theory of the distribution of organisms into species by means of generation, variation, and discriminative destruction” (the latter being a clear reference to natural selection). Readers who are curious about Maxwell’s views might like to peruse Ian Hutchinson’s highly engaging article, James Maxwell and the Christian Proposition.
James Clerk Maxwell and the supernatural
Who was Maxwell, and what was he famous for?
James Clerk Maxwell FRS FRSE, was a Scottish physicist and mathematician, whose greatest achievement was the formulation of classical electromagnetic theory, which united all observations, experiments and equations of electricity, magnetism and optics into a single, consistent theory. Maxwell’s equations explained how electricity, magnetism and light could all be understood as manifestations of the same phenomenon, namely the electromagnetic field.
How did Maxwell violate the principle of methodological naturalism, in his writings?
He argued that the matter of the universe must have been created, and that the hydrogen molecules we find in stars must have had a supernatural cause.
Where’s the evidence?
Maxwell argued that while science cannot tell us about the creation of matter out of nothing, science can tell us that molecules of matter were made, and that they were not made by a natural process.
(a) Maxwell’s scientific argument for the existence of a supernatural Creator
Maxwell put forward a scientific argument for the existence of a supernatural Creator in the concluding paragraphs of his famous Discourse on Molecules, delivered before the British Association at Bradford in September 1873:
But in the heavens we discover by their light, and by their light alone, stars so distant from each other that no material thing can ever have passed from one to another; and yet this light, which is to us the sole evidence of the existence of these distant worlds, tells us also that each of them is built up of molecules of the same kinds as those which we find on earth. A molecule of hydrogen, for example, whether in Sirius or in Arcturus, executes its vibrations in precisely the same time.
Each molecule therefore throughout the universe bears impressed upon it the stamp of a metric system as distinctly as does the metre of the Archives at Paris, or the double royal cubit of the temple of Karnac.
No theory of evolution can be formed to account for the similarity of molecules [here Maxwell is talking about molecular evolution, not Darwinian evolution – VJT], for evolution necessarily implies continuous change, and the molecule is incapable of growth or decay, of generation or destruction.
None of the processes of Nature, since the time when Nature began, have produced the slightest difference in the properties of any molecule. We are therefore unable to ascribe either the existence of the molecules or the identity of their properties to any of the causes which we call natural.
On the other hand, the exact equality of each molecule to all others of the same kind gives it, as Sir John Herschel has well said, the essential character of a manufactured article, and precludes the idea of its being eternal and self-existent.
Thus we have been led, along a strictly scientific path, very near to the point at which Science must stop, – not that Science is debarred from studying the internal mechanism of a molecule which she cannot take to pieces, any more than from investigating an organism which she cannot put together. But in tracing back the history of matter, Science is arrested when she assures herself, on the one hand, that the molecule has been made, and, on the other, that it has not been made by any of the processes we call natural.
Science is incompetent to reason upon the creation of matter itself out of nothing. We have reached the utmost limits of our thinking faculties when we have admitted that because matter cannot be eternal and self-existent it must have been created. It is only when we contemplate, not matter in itself, but the form in which it actually exists, that our mind finds something on which it can lay hold. (Emphases mine – VJT.)
What Maxwell is proposing here is an interesting design argument for a Creator, on scientific grounds: the fact that molecules are perfectly identical to one another suggests that they were manufactured according to an intelligent plan. What he had in mind was a “uniformity intended and accomplished by the same wisdom and power of which uniformity, accuracy, symmetry, consistency, and continuity of plan are … important attributes…” as he wrote in a letter to a friend. (See E.Garber, S.G.Brush, and C.W.F.Everitt, (Eds) Maxwell on Molecules and Gases, 1986, MIT Press, Cambridge Massachusetts, p. 242.)
(b) Maxwell on the dividing line between science and religion
Note that the dividing line between science and religion is quite different for Maxwell than it is for modern scientists. For Maxwell, science could not explain the modus operandi of the Creator (especially the creation of matter out of nothing). But Maxwell felt quite confident in pronouncing, as a scientist, that certain entities (hydrogen atoms) did not have a natural origin. Today, proponents of the cosmological version of Intelligent Design have refined Maxwell’s position somewhat: they would argue that the laws of nature describing the behavior of hydrogen atoms do not have a natural origin.
How did readers respond to Maxwell’s argument for a supernatural Creator, in my last post?
The most substantive response to Maxwell’s scientific argument for a supernatural Creator came from Professor Joshua Swamidass, who recently interviewed Professor Ted Davis on the subject of methodological naturalism. He wrote:
We [i.e. Professor Ted Davis and I – VJT] would also emphasize that many scientists agree with you (and for example Lord Kelvin) in making an inference to design in our philosophical reflections of science, even today. Maxwell’s argument is a great example. I can, in principle, agree with him (it is a type of fine tuning argument), and I can see why he makes it to his colleagues. However, it reads to me as a “science inspired” argument not a “science” argument. He appears to be philosophically reflecting on meaning of scientific discoveries, not doing science per se. Similarly, Polkinghorne, Owen Gingerich, and myself are all critics of the ID movement, but make design inferences regularly outside of science in the same way. None of us are violating methodological naturalism (and neither is Maxwell in your quote).
In short: Professor Swamidass argues that Maxwell wasn’t putting forward a scientific argument in his 1873 Discourse on Molecules; he was simply engaging in philosophical reflections on the science of his day. I have to say I don’t buy that. Let’s have a closer look at Maxwell’s words:
None of the processes of Nature, since the time when Nature began, have produced the slightest difference in the properties of any molecule. We are therefore unable to ascribe either the existence of the molecules or the identity of their properties to any of the causes which we call natural.
That sure sounds like a scientific argument to me. I can find no mention of philosophy in this passage, and while it is true that Maxwell alludes to the atomic theories of certain Greek philosophers earlier on in his discourse, he firmly sets aside philosophical speculation regarding the nature of matter when he adds: “Our business this evening is to describe some researches in molecular science, and in particular to place before you any definite information which has been obtained respecting the molecules themselves.” In addition, the magisterial language Maxwell uses in the above paragraph (“We are therefore unable…”) suggests that in this discourse, he is speaking on behalf of a group of eminent people. Since Maxwell never wrote any books on philosophy, but published quite a lot on the subject of science, I am forced to conclude that he must have been speaking as a scientist, and not as a philosopher.
Later on, Maxwell adds:
Thus we have been led, along a strictly scientific path, very near to the point at which Science must stop, – not that Science is debarred from studying the internal mechanism of a molecule which she cannot take to pieces, any more than from investigating an organism which she cannot put together. But in tracing back the history of matter, Science is arrested when she assures herself, on the one hand, that the molecule has been made, and, on the other, that it has not been made by any of the processes we call natural.
Again, no mention of philosophy here. On the contrary, Maxwell explicitly declares that he has been led “along a strictly scientific path.” He then discusses how far science can go, and it is worth noting that Maxwell thinks scientists may legitimately conclude that molecules were made, but not by any natural process. In other words, science can take us to a supernatural Creator. Although he does not use the word “Creator” in his discourse, Maxwell must have believed in the existence of such a Being, for he adds: “Science is incompetent to reason upon the creation of matter itself out of nothing.” By definition, creation implies a Creator.
Another commenter, named Seversky, argued that Maxwell’s argument for a supernatural Creator did not violate methodological naturalism [MN], because the Creator didn’t figure in any of his scientific hypotheses:
James Clerk Maxwell was by all accounts a devout evangelical Presbyterian. He believed the universe was created by God. But unless his equations include a term for divine intervention then there is no violation of MN. Scientists can believe whatever they like about the origins of life, the universe and everything but, as long as their hypotheses and theories don’t include explanatory gaps labelled “Here there be Miracles” then there is no violation of MN.
The trouble with this argument is that it either proves too much or too little. For that matter, Intelligent Design researchers don’t include “a term for divine intervention” in their equations. Would Seversky claim that ID proponents adhere to the tenets of methodological naturalism? Very interesting!
If, on the other hand, it is the presence of an “explanatory gap” that constitutes an infraction of the cardinal principle of methodological naturalism, and if ID proponents are charged with violating this principle when they conclude that unguided natural processes are incapable of explaining life, in all its rich variety, then how is that different from Maxwell concluding that no natural process can explain the origin of molecules? If the former is an “explanatory gap,” then so is the latter.
Professor Swamidass and Seversky were the only commenters on my last post who addressed Maxwell’s argument for the supernatural. What do other readers have to say?
Two topics for discussion:
Is Maxwell’s “bright line” between science and religion more rationally defensible than the one invoked by today’s methodological naturalists?
When was Maxwell’s “bright line” replaced by the one we use today, and why? Are there any historians of science who can answer this question?
And now, over to you.
Vincent
The same kind of argumentation as Maxwell’s appears in the evolutionary writings of Alfred Russel Wallace in The World of Life, which apart from anything else are closer in time to us (c 1910) and therefore bring any change in MN discourse closer to us.
I was struck in your piece on Maxwell about his claim to be working entirely from scientific principles, for that is the same claim that Wallace makes when he argues for an organising mind behind the process of evolution.
We therefore appear to have the situation where, if these two leading scientists were actually doing philosophy based on science, they were apparently totally unaware of it, and thought they were arguing scientifically.
It’s more likely than not that they shared their own generation’s conception of scientific methodology than that they were outliers, and so I conclude that to draw a distinction between their science, ruled by methodological naturalism, and their philosophy, which they kept in a separate intellectual compartment, is anachronistic.
Clearly, there has been a change in what is considered scientific methodology since their time, as you set out to show. One might be able to argue that that’s a good thing, but it seems to me wrong to argue that it’s the way things have always been.
VJT, Maxwell is in the all-time first rank of physicists, with electromagnetic theory his major breakthrough, compressed into his famous four equations that often appear on tee-shirts; sometimes with, “And God said . . . [the eqns: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations#Formulation_in_SI_units ] . . . and there was light.” It is noteworthy that Einstein’s first paper on relativity is about e-m: On the electrodynamics of moving bodies. Another point of interest is that part of Maxwell’s thought background for e-m, evidently, was the concept of the trinity as triune. And of course Faraday has honourable mention here. Hertz’s spark-gap experiments built on Maxwell and led directly to the world of radio-based telecommunications technology. KF
JG, where methods change, they can change again, especially on considerations of the nature of induction. Where also it is notorious that demarcation and dismissal arguments at the core of scientism, have failed. No, there is no one size fits all and only definition of science and its methods, guaranteeing them a higher degree of warrant than other forms of knowledge; cf here: http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-614439 . KF
VJT, Maxwell’s usage of molecule obviously extends to atoms and particles, also pointing to cosmological fine tuning. KF
“The imprimatur of science should be awarded only to a theory that is testable… Only then can we defend science from attack.”
http://www.darwinthenandnow.co.....l-society/
“And there will be no night there. And they need no lamp, or light of the sun; for the Lord God gives them light” (Revelation 22:5). Therefore such light cannot be physical.
Clearly, that light is of God.
The great possibility arises; “Let there be light” was of supernatural origin. http://creation.com/light-life.....ory-of-god
It is written, “I am the Light of the world,” said Jesus, and through Him all things were created.
A mentor in my electrical engineering work in radionavigation and communication always used to say, “Let’s go back to Maxwell’s equations.” What he meant was that first principles of the world, elegantly described by Maxwell, are the bedrock for everything else that scientists and engineers design. Starting from there, and progressing in a systematic and testable way, we can maximize the effectiveness of our design, most fully understand the anomalies we see, and minimize the opportunity for and probability of error. It was his own version, I suppose, of Kronecker’s famous dictum, “God created the integers; all else is the work of man.”
As a Christian and electrical engineer, Maxwell is my hero.
VJT, I wouldn’t be surprised by a dearth of comments on any particular part of your 31 scientists post. It was so large and weighty (really) that it may be dwarfing more pedestrian replies, kind of like the battlefield immediately after the detonation of a massive weapon, either conventional or otherwise.
mw @ 5, If “science” retained an appropriate level of humility and open-mindedness about truth beyond its borders, it would be easier to take this seriously. But its refusal to do so, and its arrogance in assuming itself as the only arbiter of Truth, makes this difficult. In the case of ID, an inference to the best explanation should be treated with gravity and respect even if it is not directly testable. In that case, the lack of testability should not diminish the phenomenon or its most likely Source; it should instead cause scientists to reaffirm their own smallness, inadequacy, and desperate need for humility.
The two most direct paths to such a proper attitude are gratitude and worship.
Maxwell got this exactly right, as evidenced by the Biblical passage he had inscribed on the doors of the first Cavendish Laboratory, in Latin: Magna opera Domini exquisita in omnes voluntates ejus’, meaning ‘The works of the Lord are great, sought out by all them that have pleasure therein’. (Psalm 111:2). The new Cavendish laboratory shares this motto, which was proposed by a graduate student and adopted, apparently, without objection.
Maxwell, no doubt was a brilliant scientist and faithful Christian.
Dean_from_Ohio, I totally agree with what you say.
There is human brilliance: Genius in fact, and there is divine brilliance.
“And he was transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his clothes became dazzling white.” (Matt 17:2)
On the 6th Aug, the Transfiguration is remembered in the Catholic Church.
What is significant about the Transfiguration, is that Jesus speaks to Moses, whom He, in the Essence of the Holy Trinity, at Sinai, gave divine law, of which He said, as “the truth” (Jn 14:6), He fullfiled to the letter (Matt 5:17-19).
What is significant about human Genius, is that evolution theory has difficulty to explain in incremental steps how a Genius is born.
Surely it is a free gift from God. Meaning, God, in various ways, is directly involved in human direction within the limits of humankind. Including Personally giving Divine Law.
ps, It was the God of Sinai, as God-Man, (“I am”) who was Transfigured on Mount Tabor. So we may believe.
Not being on the same philosophical level as many on here, I’ll put my brute force proposition that Maxwell was demolishing scientism more than MN. In short he could have been implying something that I believe, and that is there is no sharp dividing line between what can and cannot be studied by science, but that there are regions beyond the reach of science. Somewhere in the fuzzy regions, there are phenomena which are within reach of science but outside of regions where MN is of any use. An example would be in the field of conciousness research, where MN is a hindrance. Such studies can include the best data available, being repeatable, accessible with the use of mind expanding substances and which can bring experiences to the subjects which are beyond the “Newtonian-Cartesian paradigm” as Stan Grof would put it, which he labels the “transpersonal experiential realms”. Again why I consider this science is because it is repeatable across a wide variety of subjects, and the icing on the cake is that astounding therapeutic results are generally achieved in the subjects, which provides some validity to the reports by the subjects on what they have experienced.
But even in consciousness research, given tha MN has been left out, there are regions where science cannot go. For example the questions “Why do I have weird dreams” or “Why do weird dreams make me feel good” might be considered as forever unanswerable. Which would demolish scientism.
BTW for the edification of UD people I’m commenting here on KF’s Maxwell is in the all-time first rank of physicists, with electromagnetic theory his major breakthrough, compressed into his famous four equations that often appear on tee-shirts….
Yes those 4 equations are called Maxwell’s equations but did you guys know that there was a period where there was contention on whether to call them Maxwell’s equations or Heaviside’s equations?
Here is why: Maxwell’s equations were 12 in number, and were built using what are called quaternions. These were systems of equations with 2 x 2 matrices that were widely used in the 19th century, and with 4 terms, could of course accommodate 3 dimensions. The fact that they required 12 equations is maybe even a further testament to Maxwell’s genius.
However had Maxwell been born a few decades later he would have been able to take advantage of magnificent strides in mathematics which included the developments in vector calculus.
The polymath and original electrical engineer Oliver Heaviside not only mastered Maxwell but mastered vector calculus which, with its new symbology he could compactly express the original 12 equations as the 4 equations we call Maxwells equations, not the Heaviside equations that used to be so-called, since it was Heaviside that “compressed” them into the “famous four”.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Quaternion.html
Groov, Heaviside was a heavy-weight too; though perhaps not of the rank of Newton or Archimedes or the like. KF
The Victoria league had many scientists who opposed evolution. i think rutherford almost became a member.
I have absolutely no objection to ID proponents pursuing research into the subject following the principles of methodological naturalism. In fact, I suspect we both remember instances where scientists have urged them to do just that. If they were able to develop a means of identifying the fingerprint of design such that they could reliably distinguish artifice from nature, that would be a great achievement in itself.
Let me say that my own version of naturalism in a sense is founded on the principle or law of identity, which Wikipedia describes thus:
So what makes a thing itself is the set of properties or attributes that are unique to that thing. The Greeks called it “essence”, I call it the thing’s nature although the name doesn’t really matter. Science, as a means of understanding the world, engages in the methodical study of the natures of the things of which it is composed. This obviously means that anything that can be held to exist at all – be it ghost, God or intelligent designer – thereby has a nature which, at least in principle, makes it a fit subject for naturalistic investigation.
On this basis, I see no use for a concept or domain of the “supernatural” other than as a repository for those phenomena which might forever be beyond the reach of science or which some people would prefer to be beyond that reach. I don’t see Maxwell’s “bright line” as marking the outer limit of science so much as the boundary between what we have some knowledge of and what we have no knowledge of – yet.
Science, as a means of understanding the world, engages in the methodical study of the natures of the things of which it is composed.
Apart from being a non-standard definition of science, this is full of problems.
History has no nature, but can be studied – though not scientifically.
Information exists, but does not consist of things, so cannot be studied naturalistically (although information theory can say something on the broad nature of information itself, it can say nothing about the information content).
Consciousness exists, but is intriniscally subjective so cannot be studied objectively by deficition.
God is not made of things, so cannot be studied by science. Nor even angels.
Quite apart from that, science has eschewed the study of formal causes since Bacon: which makes your concept of universal “natures” (which are universal forms) problematic.
Apart from that, your definition of science will do quite well.
Vjt, quoting Galileo; “The Bible was written to show us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.” http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ernatural/
(Presumably, that sentiment stands for all the scientist’s you highlight?)
______________________________________________________
If so; yes, in relation to physical laws, but no in relation to miracles, as the Divine Nature was not ordered by nature, or is subject to nature and the flesh.
The Bible is a book of truth. It is inspired by the Holy Spirit; it reveals the Divine Law; it says the main protagonist are “the truth,” of the Father (Jn 17:17), Son (Jn 14:6) and Holy Spirit, whom the Son sends from the Father (Jn 15:26) and (Jn 16:13).
Therefore, the Bible in relation to miracles, provides much documented observed evidence of an unknown super-science which overrides or can operate through natural laws. The Bible does indeed show, as a statement of truth, that in the miraculous beginning, how the heavens went: the means of communication, itself a miracle at Sinai. The heavens go according to the truth set in divine law; stemming from the miraculous into the natural.
At that point, at Sinai, God set down once and for all in Divine Law how heaven and earth were born in six days. It is a belief because it cannot be given to humans any other way. We cannot test the power of God.
Looking back over the scientists that you invoke vjt, with some material cited from creationists who believe in “a Designer of Nature,” you say you believes in “an old universe” and “common descent;” fine. I believe tested are ideas and stretched when we respectfully engage with alternative views.
Nevertheless, skimming through the evolution of evolutionism (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought ); what struck me was that, there are only two basic ways to understand how life formed, the prime way, as given in Divine Law at Sinai, supernaturally, and the other, induced through human thought and now evolution theory, agreed by scientific consensus; but not by testable, repeatable, or reproducible law.
It seems to me, evolutionism in some form has existed from ages past, it is humanities default position against Verbatim Divine Law. Once the Divine Law of the Judaeo-Christian God is cast out, as Darwin did, basically, the only alternative left is that life must come via some form of materialistic naturalism, including from other planets; or combined with some form of theistic evolutionism.
Eugenie Scott said:
_______________________________________________________
“The scientific definition of evolution makes no mention of theological issues such as whether God created. Science as practised today is methodologically naturalistic: it explains the natural world using only natural causes. Science cannot explain (or test explanations about) the supernatural.” http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/M.....naturalism
_________________________________________________________
In a deliberate self-limiting and self-restricted sense, ID is making a theological claim. Fine, it combines such strengths and weakness with science.
Nevertheless, the scientists highlighted by you vjt provide sound theories and laws while sharing belief. Such belief may have helped fashion their theories and laws, just as the contrived theology of Darwin did when he rejected Divine Law.
Yet, it is scoffed at when the Creator of those scientists provides sound law on simple aspects of miraculous creation. Yet, we do not even know how a particle of the spirit is place in flesh at the creation of the soul.
If we but admit, we cannot understand the science of the laws of miracles.
God guides us from the beginning, in truth.
The Catholic Church placed Galileo on a charge of heresy because of his belief that the earth rotates around the sun. The Bible never states in Divine Law about any such relative rotations. From Sinai, pointing back to Genesis; implied, created was the earth before the sun and moon, all within six days; and that is all.
Heresy of a type is now what God is ‘charged’ with by many fallen men/women. Of course, not in so many words, and not face to face with the Divine. His words are politely dismissed as mainly ‘cuckoo,’ judged against the Big Bang Theory and Darwinism.
Such can only lead on way. Some miracle is needed for God to save His word. Inevitably it seems, linked with Divine Justice.
All of the Creation must revolve around one truth: the axis of truth. It was set in stone. If every person on earth was a scientist from now to judgement day, we could not prove or disprove God created in six days.
VJT
I really enjoyed this post.
I agree with this reasoning and think we can extend this reasoning to sequences or biological information.
There are certainly disagreements to where the edge of science is and I don’t think where that edge is, is as important as a consistent definition of science.
If Science is restricted to a hypothesis that tests a mechanism then ID does go away, but also so does most of the TOE.
Jon Garvey @ 14
I agree it’s not standard but then what is? They all have problems. This is one of the things that keeps philosophers of science gainfully employed.
History is just the name of the discipline. Science can certainly study the past of the phenomena that make up the universe to some extent. If it’s observable, even if only through fragmentary clues left behind, then it can be studied.
That depends on what you mean by information. What we commonly think of as information is embodied in – and transmitted by – things which science can study.
Again, it’s observed as a property or attribute of physical beings with physical brains. How the two are related is undoubtedly proving a tough nut to crack. Maybe we can’t crack it but we’ll never know unless we try.
You can’t get something out of nothing. If God and angels exist, they are something, not nothing. They are made of something and, being ordered, they have a nature. Science can study that nature, if only in principle.
Maybe, or maybe the idea was discarded too soon.
In other words, science can study natures if it changes to another kind of science from the methodological naturalism that only studies “repeatable material efficient causes”.
Sounds like you’re in alliance with the Discovery Institute on that, then, against established science.
That definition catches most of your other points, too.
History consists of unrepeatable causes, so cannot be reduced to the abstractions of science (Marxist theory of history was wrecked on that rock).
Information indeed must be embodied to be utilised – but is definitionally formal causation, for it cannot be reduced to the material as information. And formal causation, like the hylemorphic human soul – also an information concept – was excluded from science since Bacon. No science can fully explain the information in this post, however much of the process it can describe. The same description would apply to a post on yorkshire terriers or cooking.
The point on consciousness here is that the idea of studying it objectively is conceptually impossible. If you’ve not read Nagel on bats, you should. It’s like plugging away at proving something that Godel’s Incompleteness theorems have proven already to be unprovable.
As for God, you clearly have no concept of God either philosophically or theologically. As First Cause he is what all things derive from, so cannot be made from them. But less controversially, science itself excluded God from study by restricting itself to repeatable (God is unique) material (God is not material) efficient causes (God has no efficient cause as First Cause).
On your final point, should you get your way and have formal causes re-introduced to science, you would then have to ask where universals come from if not God the First Cause. In fact that problem exists already in explaining why there should be the universals called “physical laws” without a lawmaker: how do you propose science should “explain” (rather than simply assuming) the existence of laws?
And in any case, if you once abandon science’s exclusion of formal causes, you have to justify the exclusion of final causes (teleology), which Bacon made on very similar grounds.
Over at “The Skeptical Zone” admin and moderator “Patrick” claimed:
I offered in rebuttal, James Clerk Maxwell.
Patrick then claimed that he did not mean what he said.
Very thorough and well researched article as always. Here is another article which adds some good information about Maxwell.
From the article:
crev.info/?scientists=james-clerk-maxwell
Jon Garvey @ 18
The Discovery Institute is opposed to established science where it is held to be in conflict with its camouflaged theological commitments. There is nothing, however, to prevent it from conducting naturalistic investigations into intelligent design but, if it wants to introduce so-called “supernatural” elements, it is bound to describe them and justify any claim that they provide additional explanatory power.
If the principle of uniformitarianism holds then past events are comprised of the same phenomena and processes subject to the same laws as current events, so we can investigate them to that extent. We may not be able exactly re-create the Battle of Gettysburg down to the smallest detail but we have enough data from and about that period which, combined with our observations of current events, yields a reasonably accurate account of the battle and its context
Information, as we know, has a number of different meanings, none of which is necessarily more right than any of the others. If you are arguing that descriptions of the semantic information that is allegedly a property of this post are incomplete, I would agree provisionally. But an incomplete explanation is better than no explanation at all.
I agree that we may never know what it is like to be a bat without being a bat just as I will never know what it is like to be you without being you. That doesn’t mean I can’t infer anything useful about your consciousness based on my own conscious experience and the observation of others.
All we are saying here is that our knowledge of the world and even ourselves is necessarily incomplete. Inductive inferences must always lack the certainty of deductive necessity. That doesn’t mean we can never know anything about ourselves or the world I which we find ourselves, just that we must be satisfied with less than full confidence in it.
As an atheist I have no concept of God other than what is provided by believers. Since there appears to be some variation in the concepts on offer, how am I to choose between them?
The assumption of a First Cause is driven by dissatisfaction with the prospect of an infinite causal regress. The problem with a First Cause is that if you cannot get something from nothing and if nothing precedes a First Cause by definition then the First Cause must always have existed, which brings us right back to an infinity that the First Cause was intended to prevent.
I’m not denying that there is a profound mystery concerning the origins of the Universe and the laws by which at appears to be governed. I find I am in the unsatisfactory position of having to be content with not knowing. That ignorance means that I cannot rule out the possibility of a God or some other form of Intelligent Designer but neither are they necessarily entailed by it.
Good post, Severesky.
mw @ 8&9: Amen! See Matthew 16:17.
The Sev’s post is an exercise in hypocritical semantics. Only someone who wanted to deny the truth would find it to be a ‘good post’.
For instance, in his first sentence, the Sev states:
It is the height of hypocrisy for a Darwinist to accuse IDists of camouflaged theological commitments.
If you disagree that Darwinism is one of the most theologically entangled sciences going, and is really ‘just science’, you are more than welcome to present a rigid demarcation criteria to test against so as to ‘potentially’ falsify it as a scientific theory.
Ba:
It is the height of hypocrisy for a Darwinist to accuse IDists of camouflaged theological commitments.
I think that is not a denial.
You can disagree with me if you wish, but accusing me of being someone who wants to “deny the truth” is baloney. No one has cornered the market on truth when it comes to many matters. I suggest a little less arrogance.
jdk, the only thing that is arrogant baloney is Darwinists insisting their theory is scientific when it is nothing of the sort. Darwinian evolution is a nothing but a non-falsifiable pseudo-science that refuses to submit itself to rigorous testing as all other scientific theories submit themselves to rigorous testing.
My remark had nothing to do with evolution. Seversky made a number of points about the nature of knowledge that I thought were good points, and well-stated.
“Seversky made a number of points about the nature of knowledge that I thought were good points, and well-stated.”
And you and Seversky are both severely misguided in your atheistic delusions.
Assuming naturalism as true leads to catastrophic epistemological failure of science itself.
Contrary to popular belief, Darwinian evolution, and atheism/naturalism in general, are built entirely upon a foundation of quicksand that quickly engulfs our conception of reality itself into a quagmire of illusions and fantasy.
First off, in regards to Darwinian Evolution, atheists hold that the design that we see pervasively throughout life is merely an illusion, i.e. merely an ‘appearance of design’. Richard Dawkins puts the situation this way.
Richards Dawkins is far from the only prominent atheists who seem to be afflicted with the mental illness of seeing the ‘illusion of design’ pervasively throughout life. The well known atheist Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA, seems to have been particularly haunted by this illusion of seeing design everywhere he looked in molecular biology:
Yet, despite the fact that, according to many leading atheists themselves, life gives the overwhelming ‘appearance’ of having been designed for a purpose, all the purported scientific evidence, that is suppose to demonstrate for us how this overwhelming appearance of design in life came to be by unguided material processes, turns out, itself, to be ‘illusory’.
Franklin M. Harold, whom I believe is also an atheist, calls Darwinian accounts ‘a variety of wishful speculations’. Specifically he states:
In fact, one of the main themes of many of Michael Behe’s talks is that all ‘grand Darwinian claims rest on undisciplined imagination’:
Thus, since atheists themselves are self admittedly seeing the ‘illusion of design’ in life, and yet they have no experimental evidence whatsoever that unguided material processes can produce this ‘illusion of design’ that they are seeing, then of course the ID advocate would be well justified in saying that this ‘illusion of design’ that they are seeing in life not an illusion after all but the design they see is indeed real and that these atheists are not really suffering from some sort of a mental illness after all.
In fact, I hold that Darwinists are ‘naturally detecting design’ because of the inherent ‘image of God’ that they have within themselves.
Moreover, this illusory nature inherent to the evidence for atheistic naturalism gets worse for the atheist. Much worse! For instance, although reliable ‘observation’ of reality is a necessary cornerstone of the scientific method itself,,,
,,, Although reliable ‘observation’ of reality is a necessary cornerstone of the scientific method, the reductive materialistic foundation that Darwinian evolution rests upon undermines this cornerstone.
That is to say, Given materialistic/atheistic premises, not only are our personal beliefs about reality held to be somewhat flawed, but even our perceptions/observations of reality itself is held to be untrustworthy and thus ‘illusory’ given the materialistic premises of atheism.
Richard Dawkins puts the situation like this:
In the following video and article, Donald Hoffman has, through numerous computer simulations of population genetics, proved that if Darwinian evolution were actually true then all of our perceptions of reality would be illusory.
Thus, in what should be needless to say, a worldview that undermines the scientific method itself by holding all our observations of reality are illusory is NOT a worldview that can be firmly grounded within the scientific method!
Moreover, completely contrary to materialistic premises, conscious observation, far from being unreliable and illusory, is experimentally found to be far more integral to reality, i.e. far more reliable of reality, than the math of population genetics predicted. In the following experiment, it was found that reality doesn’t exist without an observer.
Apparently science itself could care less if atheists are forced to believe, because of the math of population genetics, that their observations of reality are illusory!
Moreover, as Nancy Pearcey alluded to in her ‘Why Evolutionary Theory Cannot Survive Itself’ article, given the materialistic/atheistic premises of Darwinian evolution, not only are our observations of reality itself held to be illusory, but even our sense of self, i.e. the belief that we really exist as real persons, which is the most sure thing we can know about reality, becomes illusory too.
Thus, in what I consider to be a shining example of poetic justice, in their claim that God is not really a real person but is merely an illusion, the naturalist also ends up claiming that he himself is not really a real person but is merely an illusion. Francis Crick stated,,,
Thus, given materialistic premises, people become illusions whose observations of reality are illusory.
And why in blue blazes should anyone trust what illusions having illusions have to say about reality?
Finally, this unconstrained ‘illusory’ nature inherent to naturalism/materialism becomes even more acute when atheists try to explain the origin and sustaining of the universe, i.e. try to explain the origin, fine-tuning, and quantum wave collapse of the universe.
That is to say, every time an atheist postulates a random infinity to try to get around the glaringly obvious Theistic implications of the Big Bang, fine-tuning, and the quantum wave collapse, of the universe, then the math surrounding that random infinity tells us that everything that is remotely possible has a 100% chance of existing somewhere in that random infinity of possibilities that the atheist had postulated. Even an infinite number of Richard Dawkins riding on an infinite number of pink unicorns becomes assured. Since that absurdity is epistemologically self-defeating, then the atheistic worldview is falsified as a coherent theory of knowledge. Scientific knowledge or otherwise.
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-610687
Thus basically, without God, everything within the atheistic/naturalistic worldview, (i.e. sense of self. observation of reality, even reality itself), collapses into self refuting, unrestrained, flights of fantasies and imagination.
I cannot fathom a more unscientific worldview than atheistic naturalism!
Verse, Video and Music:
One of the points Seversky made was this:
Do you see anything wrong about that statement, BA?
according to naturalism there is no seversky. Only an illusion.
I’m done.
That’s definitely baloney. Where is our oil-filled strawman when we need him? 🙂
But, BA, do you as a theist see anything wrong with the statement of seversky’s I quoted?
Well, I do. Seversky’s original point was this:
Which, being roughly interpreted means that everything that actually exists can be investigated by science (duly redefined and broadened from its actual definitions), except what obscurantists only pretend to exist as “supernatural”.
Having shown him a number of things that undoubtedly exist, and a number that if they do exist would be automatically beyond the reach of science, Seversky retreats to a humble agnostic stance and says we can’t know everything about the world.
And that, in other words, means that many things even in the natural world are not, after all, accessible even to his idiosyncratic extension of the scientific paradigm, but that he’d rather remain ignorant of them all than accept that there are means of knowing beyond empirical, reproducible science.
And that is simply to concede what he was denying at the beginning of the thread, and in effect to consign many of the most significant things in nature to a dustbin category of “supernatural.”
Remember, that “supernatural” bin must even contain the meaning of semantic texts like this, of which he says:
I hope his text contains semantic information more than “allegedly”, from his point of view, or it would be a waste of time my reading it here in England. But assuming he’s just being humble again, the fact is that science can’t give an incomplete account of the meaning of the text – it can say nothing about it at all.
And if that makes literature “supernatural”, then welcome to the re-enchanted world, or stop pretending that only science provides understanding.
vj
What happened to your review of Dr Axe’s new book Undeniable? The review appeared in my RSS feed but it’s not appearing on the Uncommon Descent site. When I try an follow the RSS link it can’t be found.
I was hoping to discuss some of your points like the one you made near the end:
This seems to be a recommendation of some kind of peer review.
Hi Ellazimm,
Here it is: http://www.angelfire.com/linux/vjtorley/axe.html
Doug Axe, author of Undeniable, on The Dennis Prager Show
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLF4PPzNC20