ID as ‘Science of God’ (aka Theology)

_{Steve Fuller

August 6, 2012

Cosmology, Culture, Darwinism, Ethics, Intelligent Design, Philosophy, Science, worldview}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

A piece of mine has been just published in the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s (ABC’s) excellent Religion and Ethics website.

It provides a larger context for my own theologically positive approach to ID, which I realize is not everyone’s cup of tea.

However, like Gregory Sandstrom, I welcome johnnyb’s intervention, which raises the issue of which companies an ID supporter would invest in (or not). I personally find the choices a bit on the Rorschach side of plausibility — i.e. it tells us more about the beliefs of the proposer. So Eric Holloway is happy to regard ‘gamers’ as ‘human’ in a way that has not been contaminated by the AI ideology of Kurzweil et al., so he doesn’t see their ‘gamer’ status as already inching in the direction of the Singularity. Whatever…

I don’t believe that such neat distinctions can be maintained under close scrutiny. Perhaps Kurzweil has slippery sloped us to a place where we don’t want to be, but attempts to draw a sharp distinction between ‘human’ and ‘artificial’ beg too many questions without further elaboration. There are people — I think of Susan Greenfield, the Oxford chair in neuropharmacology — who believe that gaming is re-wiring people’s brains so as to de-humanize them. I think she’s bonkers, and have said so publicly, but her attitude is emblematic of people who believe that you’ve left humanity even once you become a gamer. So where to draw the line? I don’t think there is a principled line to draw here. Anyone who believes otherwise is bound to kill the ID project with a moralism that comes from somewhere other than ID.

If we’re honest, the anti-ID people are right about one thing: Most ID supporters are really no more than anti-Darwinists in disguise, and would like to banish Darwin simply to allow their own moral and cosmological beliefs free rein. To be sure, these beliefs cover quite a wide spectrum but so far there is little appetite to discuss positive visions of ID, for reasons that range from the perceived privacy of religious belief to the fear of public opprobrium from a wider secular culture. My own view is that what makes ID potentially very exciting is that it puts discussion of God’s nature back in the center of science.

Comments

By the way, since we are talking about univocal vs analogical reasoning, I should point out a video on the Thomistic view of ID which was previously mentioned here on UD: The Independence and Proper Roles of Engineering and Metaphysics. I take a somewhat middle view on the question of univocal vs. analogical. I agree that the distinction between God's actions and ours is worthwhile, but I think that as a describable action, they have equivalent effects. In other words, if I were 100% good, I would not be as good as God, for God *is* goodness. However, as a description of our actions in the "goodness" category in the world, they would perform equivalently.johnnyb_{August 7, 2012
August
08
Aug
7
07
2012
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT}

Dr. Fuller (38): No, I wasn't joking. Apparently you and I are eager to address such different points that we are not communicating. I'm fully aware of the historical relationship between Christian theology and the rise of modern natural science. (More aware than you could suspect, without knowing the real name and academic track record behind the Greek pseudonym.) I'm not challenging your historical and theological analysis. I'm making a different point, and one that you appear to be either entirely missing, or brushing aside without very much thought. I'm not at all trying to be sarcastic in saying what follows, but I have to be direct to make my point. (I've heard you speak, however, and I think you are thick-skinned enough to handle directness and not take it as a personal slam.) You have a tenured position in the sociology etc. of science. No matter what ID proponents who are chemists, biologists, astronomers, etc. do, your academic position and salary are secure for life. Now, your advice to young ID proponents, many of whom will be seeking tenure in their various fields over the next decade or so, seems to be this: "Be up front that ID is the scientific application of your belief in God! Say loudly that ID as a *scientific* endeavor *assumes* and *depends on* the existence of God, and even upon the Jewish/Christian doctrine of the *imago dei*. Don't be afraid to say this at scientific conferences where you are reading papers in hopes of impressing potential academic employers. Don't hesitate to speak of it during radio and TV interviews, in articles you submit to peer-reviewed journals, and in your covering letters for job applications. Grasp the nettle boldly! In the long run, it will work out better for you than if you continue to speak of design without speaking of the designer." That's what I'm hearing you advising the ID folks, on the practical level. If I've got that wrong, please correct me, but I can't put any other construction on your words above (which you've stated on other occasions as well). Let's look at a particular case in which someone did something like what you advised -- went public, but only in a very mild and guarded way. Guillermo Gonzalez, a first-class astronomer, was denied tenure at Iowa State for being an ID proponent. (His detractors will argue differently, but they are mostly lying, and in any case certainly wrong, since it is now known, and even admitted by a least one department colleague with voting power, that his ID sympathies were a factor.) He never taught ID in his classroom, nor mentioned it in any of the 68 peer-reviewed papers he had in astrophysics and extrasolar planetary research. His citation record was higher than that of anyone in his department. But the fact that he had co-written a popular book on cosmic fine-tuning was enough to do him in. Even if that book had never been mentioned on his tenure application, it was well-known that he had written it due to a whispering campaign started by an atheist professor of religious studies (!) at his university. Gonzalez is now teaching in a little Christian college, with limited scientific research facilities, when he could have been teaching at a big state university. And Gonzalez, being American, lives in a country with a strong conservative Protestant ethos where there is a small network of alternate employment for Christian scholars and scientists who are cast out by the secular academy at the Ivy League and the big state and private colleges. ID proponents in other countries, Britain, Canada, Australia, etc., have no such "safety" net. In such countries, almost *all* universities and colleges are secular and mostly state-funded. If Gonzalez were a Canadian or Briton he would be driving a taxi or delivering pizza now, not teaching astronomy in a Christian college. Dr. Fuller, surely you as a sociologist are aware of how dissent is dealt with by communities (scientific, religious, whatever). So how do you respond to this? Is your advice the following: "Sure, there will be sacrifices. Some of you are going to lose jobs. Some of you will never realize your dreams of becoming biochemists, astronomers, biologists, etc. Some of you will have to switch fields and get an MBA or a degree in library science to make a living. Others of you will eke out a part-time living teaching scattered science courses here or there at several different colleges, commuting all over the place and having no permanent academic home from which to do research, and being too darned tired from all the excess teaching and commuting to doing any research anyway. But it's worth it for the cause. A couple of generations down the road, your sacrifice will have altered the nature of science, to produce a more God-oriented science. Some have to be willing to suffer academic death so that the phoenix of a new theistic natural science can rise out of the ashes." This, as far as I can see, is what you are telling all the untenured ID folks to do -- to run an 80% or better risk of career suicide for the noble cause. As I said, I'm not trying to be sarcastic. I'm trying to be realistic. I'm three years older than you are, and I've been around universities three years longer than you have. I know academic politics extremely well. I know what scientists and other academics do to the lives and livelihoods of those who will not bend the knee to the reigning paradigm. I've seen careers and personal lives destroyed. That the odd exception, such as yourself, makes it through the obstacle course and gains a platform for expressing maverick views, does not alter the general case. So, unless you are promising to hire all the casualties at Warwick, isn't your advice to young ID theorists both pragmatically and morally questionable?Timaeus_{August 7, 2012
August
08
Aug
7
07
2012
10:15 AM
10
10
15
AM
PDT}

"ID’s design inference cannot begin with a theological assumption of design since its whole point is to argue the case for design–not to presuppose its presence. " There's two levels of ID here - design in biology specifically, and design more generally. I think that ID *does* presuppose a reality of design. That is, there is something which we call "design" that can be described and characterized. We have to *know* that in order to even ask the question if biology has characteristics of design!johnnyb_{August 7, 2012
August
08
Aug
7
07
2012
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT}

Steve Fuller - "However, in the fideist mode, which is all too common today, faith is used as a science-stopper, often highlighting science’s many errors and missteps, seemingly to discourage the conduct of science, especially into certain religiously sensitive areas." I think you slightly misunderstand the goal. It is not to discourage the *conduct* of science, but to discourage the over-aggrandizing of science and the false certitude that often comes with science. Going to your next point, we can see that more clearly: "However, to my mind, to place so much emphasis on human fallibility as to discourage scientific ambitions is tantamount to discouraging people to be as good as they can because they already know they can never be as good as Jesus." But you misunderstand the point. The point is when people boast in their own goodness, it is laughable on its face. It isn't that we shouldn't try to be good, it's that when we mistake our goodness for perfection, and think that our mild goodness does anything but pale in connection with God's, we are being irrationally presumptuous. So, I think a lot of what you read on this blog is not to discourage the *practice* of science, but rather discourage scientists from being irrationally presumptuous. I'm sure we go too far on occasion, but that's only because of the constant bombardment of crass materialist presumption that occurs in the wider culture. G.K. Chesterton wrote that science was able to go so far because of its humility. Today, that humility is long lost, and the pride of the scientific community is causing its undoing. We want science to go forward, but we think that the proud and presumptuous manner that is currently taken is worthy of being knocked down. I think a good book which covers this is Robinson's Absence of Mind. She laments the move of science from a careful, skeptical body of knowledge to one that is essentially one of materialistic ideology. I should also point out that this is one reason why ID is a "big tent" - we realize that there are a lot of ideas worthy of consideration, which needn't be dismissed out-of-hand, nor propounded as if they were the absolute truth. That's why ID's set of propositions are so small rather than so large. It is a small (but growing) toolset meant to make small judgments. It is not a grand, overarching view of the world. As I said in a previous post, to get that, you need a philosophy of nature.johnnyb_{August 7, 2012
August
08
Aug
7
07
2012
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT}

--John Garvey: "The drawback of your [B], as Gregory would hasten to remind us, is that it assumes that humans can operate impartially without any preconceptions, which is the rationalist fallacy. “We scientists are objective: you believers are subjective.” But in reality, if you’re committed to naturalism, a toaster found on Mars is evidence for the powers of chance, not the presence of design." That some scientists are presumptuous doesn't mean that all science is reduced to the rationalist fallacy. Again, there is a confusion here between, methods, motives, and preconceptions. In effect, you are saying that the scientist cannot divorce himself from his presuppositions long enough to let the evidence speak for itself. If that was the case, it would be impossible for the scientist to even isolate a variable in an experiment. ("You may think you isolated that variable, but you cannot really get it out of your mind. It's still part of your methodology whether you like it or not so you might as well confess that there is no warrant for your conclusions.) On the contrary, the whole point of a methodology is to provide the kind of intellectual rigor that minimizes ideological intrusion and sloppy thinking.StephenB_{August 7, 2012
August
08
Aug
7
07
2012
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT}

John Garvey, thank you for your post. As theoretical examples for the positive influence of theology on science, you write: * Since I believe the world is rational because I believe in a rational God, my attempt to “think his thoughts after him” should be rewarded, for the praise of God and the good of mankind… oh look, gravity! Yes, this is a psychological motivation for doing science. It is not a metaphysical assumption necessary to, or appropriate for, science or the methodology of science. The assumptions of science are limited to the rules of right reason (law of causality, assumption of order, law of non-contradiction, legitimacy of math to measure, ability of language to communicate, correspondence of rational minds to a rational universe etc) * Since both from that original presupposition and the natural conviction of our senses that the world is designed, the attempt to find empirical evidence for it should be rewarded… oh look, irreducible complexity! Again, this is a psychological motivation. There is no metaphysical assumption about the presence of design or even the existence of God in the methodology, which always begins with an observation. The inference to design is based ONLY on [A] The metaphysical assumption of reason's rules, and [B] is followed by an observation of evidence, from which [C] an inference to design is made. Irreducible complexity follows from the practice of allowing evidence to speak for itself. If you assume design as part of the methodology for interpreting evidence, then you cannot also follow the evidence to design in the form of an inference. To infer is to draw an inference about the general from a particular instance (THIS DNA MOLECULE provides evidence for design--it is not to begin with a general assumption about all DNA molecules (all DNA molecules were designed, therefore, so is this one). "THEN (re Fuller’s version of Neo-ID, if I’m not misrepresenting him): * My presuppositions about God, which have now proven so fruitful in science generally and in design science, are a good basis for investigating the methodology and maybe implementation of that design (OPTIONAL: for the priase of God and the good of mankind). It is a wonderful psychological motivation, but it cannot suffice for a metaphysical assumption or, equally important, provide the basis for a methodology, which is solely evidence oriented (again, except for the assumption of reason's rules) Here is a list of the presuppositions of modern science from William Lane Craig "(1)The existence of a theory-independent, external world; (2) the orderly nature of the external world; (3) the knowability of the external world; (4) the existence of truth; (5) the laws of logic; (6) the reliability of our cognitive and sensory faculties to serve as truth gatherers and as a source of justified true beliefs in our intellectual environment; (7) the adequacy of language to describe the world; (8) the existence of values used in science (e.g., “test theories fairly and report test results honestly”); (9) the uniformity of nature and induction; (10) the existence of numbers" You will notice that there is nothing there about the assumption of God's existence or anything about his designs. To assume any of these things as part of the investigatory process is to rule out the possibility of drawing inferences about design from the evidence. Again, I distinguish between a psychological motivation and a metaphysical assumption. The difference is critical.StephenB_{August 7, 2012
August
08
Aug
7
07
2012
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT}

--johnnyb: "I agree that theology is not a faith-based methodology, but neither is it strictly empirically- based." The point at issue is this: ID's design inference cannot begin with a theological assumption of design since its whole point is to argue the case for design--not to presuppose its presence. The historical references about theology's influence on science are all true, granted, but that same dynamic cannot be applied to ID science. Otherwise, it will no longer be ID science. ID science cannot benefit by assuming its conclusion.StephenB_{August 7, 2012
August
08
Aug
7
07
2012
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT}

Steve F: Thanks for the clarification. We've distinguished "faith" from "fideism", which is important, I think. StephenB: Sorry I didn't answer your question - it was because I was answering Steve Fuller, rather than you! But I'd agree with John Kelly that you seem to propose a false dichotomy. The kind of "theological assumption" Fuller seems to be advocating is along the lines followed by early scientists: * Since I believe the world is rational because I believe in a rational God, my attempt to "think his thoughts after him" should be rewarded, for the praise of God and the good of mankind... oh look, gravity! THEN (re ID): * Since both from that original presupposition and the natural conviction of our senses that the world is designed, the attempt to find empirical evidence for it should be rewarded... oh look, irreducible complexity! THEN (re Fuller's version of Neo-ID, if I'm not misrepresenting him): * My presuppositions about God, which have now proven so fruitful in science generally and in design science, are a good basis for investigating the methodology and maybe implementation of that design (OPTIONAL: for the priase of God and the good of mankind). That's to be distinguished from your Creation Science example, which would be: "Because I'm committed to a materially literal interpretation of the Bible, the task is to find ways to show that the evidence conforms to that view." A different aspect (and quality, in my TE view!) of theology, a different aim, and a fundamentally different methodology, if only in the number of epicycles it demands. The drawback of your [B], as Gregory would hasten to remind us, is that it assumes that humans can operate impartially without any preconceptions, which is the rationalist fallacy. "We scientists are objective: you believers are subjective." But in reality, if you're committed to naturalism, a toaster found on Mars is evidence for the powers of chance, not the presence of design. Fuller points out (or if not him, Plantinga!) that naturalistic presuppositions are actually inconsistent with science, which operates on assumptions that arise from theism. So theistic presuppositions are both more reasonable, and more fruitful.Jon Garvey_{August 7, 2012
August
08
Aug
7
07
2012
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PDT}

"They have already been merged"---John Kelly Show me how or where theological assumptions have already been merged with ID's empirically-based paradigms of "Irreducible complexity" and "specified complexity."StephenB_{August 7, 2012
August
08
Aug
7
07
2012
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PDT}

Dr. Fuller, John Kelly, and Jon Garvey I appreciate your attempts at a response, but you appear not to understand my question: [A] The theologically-based approach is to assume design and then reason forth on that basis, as is the case with Creation Science. ***ASSUME design >> and then harmonize the evidence to conform to that assumption (moving from cause to effect) [B] The science-based approach is to infer design as the best explanation only after having first examined the evidence and them coming to that conclusion, as is the case for intelligent design. ***EXAMINE evidence >> and then draw inference to design as the best explanation (moving from effect to cause) How is it possible to both ASSUME design (in which case the conclusion of design is a mere tautology since it was already embedded in the assumption) and INFER design (in which case design is the conclusion arrived at as the best explanation for the evidence) in the same analytical process?StephenB_{August 7, 2012
August
08
Aug
7
07
2012
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT}

Jon Garvey: Yes, I agree that it may be that many of these scientists did not believe that science could solve all the problems of knowledge but they didn't dwell on that fact, except to remind them of their fallibility. In fact, sometimes they even appealed to faith in a science-empowering way. My book -- Science: The Art of Living (Acumen and McGill-Queens UP) -- takes its epigraph from one such statement, by Norbert Wiener (the founder of cybernetics and a Unitarian): `Science is a way of life that can flourish only when men are free to have faith'. However, in the fideist mode, which is all too common today, faith is used as a science-stopper, often highlighting science's many errors and missteps, seemingly to discourage the conduct of science, especially into certain religiously sensitive areas. A lot of what passes for ID -- more on this blog than in the formal ID literature, to be sure -- appears to have this character. In this respect, Darwinists are right to wonder what exactly lies behind ID beyond simply pointing out problems that the smarter Darwinists already know about -- especially since ID people are so coy about offering there own alternative explanations (other than the term 'intelligence'). However, clearly a fideist might be motivated to sabotage an overambitious science for purposes of 'making room for faith'. The fideist might even have SJ Gould (courtesy of NOMA) as an ally. And I worry that much of ID's current support base consists of such folks, who from a scientific standpoint turn out to be professional sceptics. However, to my mind, to place so much emphasis on human fallibility as to discourage scientific ambitions is tantamount to discouraging people to be as good as they can because they already know they can never be as good as Jesus. Again, this point follows from the idea of 'univocal predication': the difference between our qualities and God's is a matter of degree not kind. It is always better to be better -- and that includes knowing more.Steve Fuller_{August 7, 2012
August
08
Aug
7
07
2012
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT}

Steve - "The point of my piece at the ABC website is to deny what StephenB’s dialogue presupposes, namely, that theology is a ‘faith-based methodology’. " I agree that theology is not a faith-based methodology, but neither is it strictly empirical. I think the problem is that we are missing a category of knowledge - precisely because of the overwhelming materialism present in today's culture. Philosophy and theology need not be fideistic to be outside of science. "Johnnyb’s (and other’s) description of ID as a ‘science of mind’ is a little strange since we already have a science of mind – it’s called ‘psychology’" True and false. Psychology arose as a means of getting *out* of a science of mind. I.e. Freud's goal was to explain it away in terms of materialism, rather than have a science of mind itself. In addition, psychology today primarily deals with affect, a closer link (though still mostly materialistic) would be cognitive science. In fact, my own ID conceptions show how to link mental and physical actions within cognitive models without being reductionistic. Eric Holloway, though currently only marginally successful, has been working on measuring CSI in human activity. In fact, Dembski's book The Design Inference focused on human-caused design. So, it isn't entirely improper to look at ID as subset of cognitive science if you were to expand them to include non-material causes. However, I would argue that cognitive sciences are focused on human mental processes, while ID is more concentrated on mental processes irrespective of their embodiment. In other words, I think of ID as an independent body of work, but one in which psychology and cognitive sciences would do well to incorporate. "Clearly human minds (the clearest examples of minds that we have) didn’t cause life, the universe, etc. to come into being" I always have trouble considering the cause of the universe as part of ID. That does seem to be very philosophical to me, precisely because we have no way - even in principle - of testing the origin of the universe. However, with life, there are many *aspects* of life at least which clearly could be caused by humans, and in fact are being caused by humans right now. We can witness the kind of deliberation and the kind of effects that humans have. Going back to what I said earlier, I think the biggest problem is that you are missing a category between fideism and materialism (in fact, perhaps several). What you are talking about is a philosophy of nature, which, as Ed Feser points out, cannot be based on the natural sciences. In fact, it's interesting because Ed Feser's criticism of ID is that it doesn't work as an apologetic - which we agree with! One needs a solid philosophy of nature to do apologetics. ID is only one piece in the puzzle - providing a science of mental causes which is distinct from materialism.johnnyb_{August 7, 2012
August
08
Aug
7
07
2012
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT}

Here’s the interesting sociological point: Religious believers would probably have a bigger problem with my proposal than practicing scientists. Religious believers are comfortable in their ‘fideism’ and like the idea that science can’t explain everything, and this is why they’re more than happy if ID just continues the Darwin-bashing campaign because then the believer can go on believing whatever they want without worrying about science knocking on their door.
Steve, your point is interesting, but in my view only partially true, though I endorse the interaction you had with nullasalus. "Fideism" and "faith" should be distinguished. JohnnyB was right to say above:
It wasn’t just that theological views (like the orderliness of God and nature) played a role in the shaping of these disciplines, but rather specific content from religion has been used time and again in shaping these disciplines, and it would be helpful if people understood the extent to which theology informs science.
One has only to look at examples like Kepler (lutheran), Maxwell (Church of Scotland elder), Faraday (Sandemanian elder) etc to show that many, if not most, of those actual practitioners of science who advanced it from a theological perspective did so from a position of deep personal faith, rather than from a purely theological/philosophical view of God as an explanatory principle. I doubt that any of these giants believed that science can explain everything - in fact, they would have argued (strongly) for humility in the face of God's transcendence and their own sinful humanity at the same time as pushing the boundaries of knowledge as far as possible. They also sought not only true knowldege, but God's glory. Without that humility, I think they would have claimed, the scientific enterprise would become as arid as the atheistic science that has come to dominate since Darwin. It's a far cry from blind fideism.Jon Garvey_{August 7, 2012
August
08
Aug
7
07
2012
05:13 AM
5
05
13
AM
PDT}

3) Unless you have a general theory of intelligent causation, you won’t be able to tell the difference between ‘real’ and ‘apparent’ design.
Read "Nature, Design and Science" by Del Ratzsch- we already have that methodology in place-> see archaeology and forensic science. Namely when agenicies act they tend to leave traces of their actions behind. And per Newton's four rules of scientific investigation we can flesh those out.Joe_{August 7, 2012
August
08
Aug
7
07
2012
04:55 AM
4
04
55
AM
PDT}

A faith-based methodology, which is proper to theology, must begin with a religious presupposition and cannot, therefore, also begin with an analysis of data.
Yes, it can.
An empirically-based methodology, which is proper to science, must begin with an analysis of data and cannot, therefore, also begin with a religious presupposition.
Yes, it can.
Steve Fuller and Gregory appear not to be troubled by these differences. So, my question for both of these men is this: How does one answer their call to expand ID science into the theological realm, that is, how does one merge these two distinct methodologies (one moves forward from cause to effect and the other moves backward from effect to cause) into a single, coherent analytical process?
It's already been done. They have already been merged. When, where, or how is the best way to go about demonstrating it?John W Kelly_{August 7, 2012
August
08
Aug
7
07
2012
04:42 AM
4
04
42
AM
PDT}

Steve, Now I see where you're coming from - that answer helped. Perhaps more a little later, but thanks for the direct, no-BS response. Much appreciated. Very interesting.nullasalus_{August 7, 2012
August
08
Aug
7
07
2012
04:18 AM
4
04
18
AM
PDT}

Nullasullus: You put it a bit boldly, but yes. I actually think it simply amounts to resuming how the history of science would have likely proceeded, had Darwin the person never existed. I stress this point because a theologian (Malthus) invented the most striking feature of Darwin's theory (natural selection) and theologians had no problem taking it on board until the First World War. However, Darwin as the icon of 'losing faith through science' has really been the sticking point -- empowering the likes of Karl Barth and Richard Dawkins, in their opposing ways. Had Wallace or even Huxley come up with the theory we now attribute to Darwin, we wouldn't be where we are now, with ID struggling to show that it's 'science but not religion'. Here's the interesting sociological point: Religious believers would probably have a bigger problem with my proposal than practicing scientists. Religious believers are comfortable in their 'fideism' and like the idea that science can't explain everything, and this is why they're more than happy if ID just continues the Darwin-bashing campaign because then the believer can go on believing whatever they want without worrying about science knocking on their door.Steve Fuller_{August 7, 2012
August
08
Aug
7
07
2012
04:06 AM
4
04
06
AM
PDT}

Steve, I'm trying to get a greater handle on what you're suggesting here, so let me ask this. Would it be fair to say that your suggestion isn't to merely redefine ID as a type of theology, but to actually - for the Abrahamic faiths (muslims, jews, Christians, etc) - declare the whole of science to be part of theological discourse and understanding in one fell swoop? So instead of, say... regarding scientific laws as these superficially metaphysically neutral concepts and principles, instead consider them to be exactly what Newton apparently did - as instances/aspects of design implemented by the Creator? In other words, utterly denying that science proceeds by methodological naturalism, and instead declaring science across the board - from the physical sciences to the social sciences - to be theology, complete with its own methodology/methodologies? Rather like countering "NOMA" by declaring that, instead of everything being under the authority of science, everything is instead under the authority of theology - including science itself? Am I close?nullasalus_{August 7, 2012
August
08
Aug
7
07
2012
03:13 AM
3
03
13
AM
PDT}

Timaeus, I hope you're joking. Theology says a lot more about the nature of God than simply repeating the deity's name. In fact, the idea of physical law was part of a solution the problem of divine governance in the 17th century. And Malthus' views about population control -- which Darwin secularised as 'natural selection' -- was also part of a solution to the problem of divine governance, now in the late 18th century. Similarly, the phrase 'natural selection' also means very little by itself if uttered as a mantra but details then follow, much of it controversial, to be sure. Perhaps you can't get the idea that God might be higher-order theoretical concept, like natural selection, that then generates specific hypotheses in specific cases. As for improving ID's standing in 'the secular life sciences community', then I'm afraid it's a bit late for that. If that's your main concern, then simply change sides now. ID's best bet is to become its own distinct scientific paradigm, and that may even mean inventing a new discipline that straddles the divinity school and the science lab. At least it's worth considering.Steve Fuller_{August 7, 2012
August
08
Aug
7
07
2012
03:05 AM
3
03
05
AM
PDT}

Dr. Fuller: You've just said (36 above): "ID’s refusal to deal with causal questions squarely limits its explanatory potential as a science. This is why ID needs theology to provide an account of the sort of intelligent causal agent that could produce the sort of ‘real design’ we observe in nature." I'm sorry, but I don't think I understand your thinking here. Let me express my confusion in a "before" and "after" scenario: **************** Before (ID comes out of the theological closet): Steve Meyer argues, at a 2011 conference of world-class origin of life researchers, that unguided processes cannot have produced the first cell, and that therefore intelligent design was involved. The origin of life researchers say: But what sort of intelligent agent could have been around to produce the first cell? Steve Meyer is tongue-tied, because he can't say "God"; so he mutters something about alien biochemists or time travellers. The scientists are unconvinced. ********************** After (ID comes out of the theological closet): Steve Meyer argues, at a 2013 conference of world-class origin of life researchers, that unguided processes cannot have produced the first cell, and therefore that intelligent design was involved. The origin of life researchers say: But what sort of intelligent agent could have been around to produce the first cell? Steve Meyer, now liberated to talk about theology, says triumphantly: "God!" And the origin-of-life scientists, 90-95% of whom (according to polls) self-identify as agnostics or atheists, are now convinced, and ID moves into the realm of scientific respectability. ********************* As one of the early science-fiction robots used to say, "That does not compute." Dr. Fuller, are you actually telling the ID theorists that they should offer "God" as a *scientific* explanation for the origin of the first life? (Or, mutatis mutandis, of the evolutionary process?) And that you think this will *improve* their standing in the secular life sciences community?Timaeus_{August 7, 2012
August
08
Aug
7
07
2012
02:26 AM
2
02
26
AM
PDT}

Three comments: (1) The point of my piece at the ABC website is to deny what StephenB’s dialogue presupposes, namely, that theology is a ‘faith-based methodology’. That characterisation only becomes dominant after the First World War, largely through Karl Barth’s influence. Before that time, theology was as rational as any other academic discipline, which was an important reason why it ran into so many problems with clerics and ordinary believers. ID’s favourite theologian, William Paley, is a great case in point: He believed that God was an Ultra-Utilitarian: not the warmest message for the flock to hear. (2) Johnnyb’s (and other’s) description of ID as a ‘science of mind’ is a little strange since we already have a science of mind – it’s called ‘psychology’. Early on, psychology’s scientific footing was challenged by the need to show how mind interacted with/is expressed in matter. This problem remains if ID wants to call itself a ‘science of mind’: Clearly human minds (the clearest examples of minds that we have) didn’t cause life, the universe, etc. to come into being. Other candidates: Aliens? God? It’s hard to avoid this question, if you want to seriously engage with the fact that biological reality has a material basis. (3) Unless you have a general theory of intelligent causation, you won’t be able to tell the difference between ‘real’ and ‘apparent’ design. Dawkins solves the problem easily: Unintelligent nature produces merely apparent design, intelligent humans (occasionally) produce real design. ID’s refusal to deal with causal questions squarely limits its explanatory potential as a science. This is why ID needs theology to provide an account of the sort of intelligent causal agent that could produce the sort of ‘real design’ we observe in nature.Steve Fuller_{August 7, 2012
August
08
Aug
7
07
2012
12:33 AM
12
12
33
AM
PDT}

Hi johnnyb, The difference between us is inconsequential – probably only related to what we are willing to defend. I am sure you would agree that to answer the question of whether or not design is detectable in the material world, would ultimate require you to distinguish whether or not design is even required in order to explain what we see. The counter argument is that design is an illusion, regardless of how much we observe designing minds. It seems to me that the focus should be on the matter, not the mental, and I don't put a lot of stock in the idea that the causal influence of the mind is somehow grossly misunderstood by humans. I needn't have said anything, so I retract my comment. - - - - - - - - - - Hello John, A major facet of ID is that it meets its opposition on their own evidence. - - - - - - - - - -
LYO: “The important question is not where it came from, but what it is. And what it is, is a denial of where it came from”.
Design was the default position for the vast majority of human existence. Now there is a socially powerful group that says “design is an illusion” while being very careful not to claim they have the observations which demonstrate this to be true. But either life was designed or it wasn't, and throughout mankind's entire time on Earth, men and women have chosen both to believe and deny it. So which question would you like to avoid most, LYO? The question as to how anyone might hold a position in 2012 that has no historical roots either way? Or, the question of whether or not it is even possible to transfer recorded information without the use of material representations and material protocols?Upright BiPed_{August 6, 2012
August
08
Aug
6
06
2012
11:00 PM
11
11
00
PM
PDT}

"Steve Fuller and Gregory appear not to be troubled by these differences. So, my question for both of these men is this: How does one answer their call to expand ID science into the theological realm, that is, how does one merge these two distinct methodologies"
It would also be of interest to those looking on, whether or not proponents of expanding ID to include a definite theological identity, first accept that design is a phenomenon unique to, and detectible by, intelligent agents; and that the qualities specific to intelligent causation can be objectively ascertained.Chance Ratcliff_{August 6, 2012
August
08
Aug
6
06
2012
10:30 PM
10
10
30
PM
PDT}

Gregory wrote, about ID: "As several people at UD have argued, it is simply an objective (follow the empirical evidence where it leads) naturalistic (looking in/at nature) [*1] neutral (for information) study, based on observations (of molecular, read: organic ‘machines’), that has *nothing whatsoever* to do with the personal religious beliefs or theology of those who founded/formed/invented it as a theory. [*2] This is said so that ID will not be viewed as a science of God (aka theology), [*3] but rather as a science of Nature." A few comments: 1. "naturalistic," in philosophy of nature and theology, does not mean "looking in/at nature". It means "insisting upon exclusively natural causes." ID is certainly not "naturalistic". In fact, it has usually been accused of being the opposite -- "supernaturalistic." The latter charge is false, but the point is that even its worst enemies never accused it of being "naturalistic." More accurate and less confusing terminology is desirable. 2. ID proponents have never claimed that their investigations have "nothing to do" with their personal religious beliefs. They have claimed that *the validity of their arguments for design* does not rest on their particular religious beliefs. Thus, I would be very surprised if the religious beliefs of most ID people did not incline them to think that nature was designed; but their arguments do not ask the reader to share their religious beliefs. That Gregory cannot grasp the distinction between "motivation" and "argument" even though it has been explained to him many times, is a continuing source of wonder. 3. ID is certainly not theology. It may be motivated by theological or religious beliefs; it may have theological or religious implications. But it is not theology. It is an argument for design in nature, and against the claim that complex, integrated biological systems arose through chance.Timaeus_{August 6, 2012
August
08
Aug
6
06
2012
10:28 PM
10
10
28
PM
PDT}

--"It is possible." I understand that the knowledge arrived at through religion is compatible with the knowledge arrived at through science and that each discipline can illuminate the other. I am, however, discussing the methodologies through which that knowledge is attained. A faith-based methodology, which is proper to theology, must begin with a religious presupposition and cannot, therefore, also begin with an analysis of data. An empirically-based methodology, which is proper to science, must begin with an analysis of data and cannot, therefore, also begin with a religious presupposition. Steve Fuller and Gregory appear not to be troubled by these differences. So, my question for both of these men is this: How does one answer their call to expand ID science into the theological realm, that is, how does one merge these two distinct methodologies (one moves forward from cause to effect and the other moves backward from effect to cause) into a single, coherent analytical process?StephenB_{August 6, 2012
August
08
Aug
6
06
2012
09:37 PM
9
09
37
PM
PDT}

The important question is not where it came from, but what it is. And what it is, is a denial of where it came from. It allows its major proponents to publicly deny its historical roots, and it allows people to deny where it comes from personally. It's "praise the Lord", in many more words. I'm baffled that Steve Fuller, world renowned expert in human behavior/motivations, doesn't understand that.lastyearon_{August 6, 2012
August
08
Aug
6
06
2012
07:43 PM
7
07
43
PM
PDT}

These discussions always go the same way. Sociologist critic: Expand your science to include theology ID proponent: In what way? SC: Just do it. ID: No, you don’t understand. I am asking how one can integrate a faith-based methodology with an empirically-based methodology as part of the same analytical process. How is this even possible?
It is possible. But, if it is scientifically shown that 'God' is the designer, while at the same time and with the same methodology, it is religiously shown that 'faith' may contain some fiction, then what scientist would want to hear it and what theologian would want to believe it? It is a paradox...or the birth of a new paradigm...or bothJohn W Kelly_{August 6, 2012
August
08
Aug
6
06
2012
07:31 PM
7
07
31
PM
PDT}

“I look at ID as a view that has been expanded out of theology, not into it.”
Would the leaders of IDM-ID ever agree to support such a view or would they see it as necessarily compromising their natural science-only mission?
Maybe it depends on the amount of politician in them? haha. Honestly, I hope they could at least agree on where it came from...even the ID-opponents *know* where it came from.John W Kelly_{August 6, 2012
August
08
Aug
6
06
2012
06:53 PM
6
06
53
PM
PDT}

These discussions always go the same way. Sociologist critic: Expand your science to include theology ID proponent: In what way? SC: Just do it. ID: No, you don’t understand. I am asking how one can integrate a faith-based methodology with an empirically-based methodology as part of the same analytical process. How is this even possible? SC: Just do it. ID: Can you at least tell me what the finished product would look like since I can’t conceive it? How can I honor your request if you will not tell me exactly what you want me to do? SC: Just do it. ID: At least tell me this: Would the new and improved ID retain its current paradigms, such as “irreducible complexity” and "specified complexity." Or, would the new formulation displace these approaches? SC: Just do it. ID: Since it’s your idea to transform ID, why don’t you follow up and develop the new and improved paradigm yourself? SC: Just do it.StephenB_{August 6, 2012
August
08
Aug
6
06
2012
05:51 PM
5
05
51
PM
PDT}

"If ID did not grow from ‘spiritual’ roots, then where did it come from?" As several people at UD have argued, it is simply an objective (follow the empirical evidence where it leads) naturalistic (looking in/at nature) neutral (for information) study, based on observations (of molecular, read: organic 'machines'), that has *nothing whatsoever* to do with the personal religious beliefs or theology of those who founded/formed/invented it as a theory. This is said so that ID will not be viewed as a science of God (aka theology), but rather as a science of Nature. "I look at ID as a view that has been expanded out of theology, not into it." Would the leaders of IDM-ID ever agree to support such a view or would they see it as necessarily compromising their natural science-only mission?Gregory_{August 6, 2012
August
08
Aug
6
06
2012
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply