Materialism: Circular Logic
I agree with the OE blogger Helena Blavatsky who suggested that the Darwinists' weak-spot is their addiction to scientific-naturalism, otherwise known as the “materialist assumption” - the nihilistic conjecture that the only things worth thinking about are the mundane. I concur that we have to show the flaws in materialism if we are to engage the scientific community and show the folly of evolutionary dogma, but what shall we replace it with?
If we merely knock-down the materialistic assumptions on which Darwin's theories are constructed, might something even worse rise to fill it's place? Not if we take responsibility and suggest an alternative to the flawed concepts of materialism. Fortunately such a concept exists, and it is one with an excellent philosophical pedigree. But first, let me turn my attention to the failings of materialism:
Just look at the Discovery Institutes's definition of materialism:
“Cultural materialism means living as if there were no God or moral absolutes, and all that matters is matter. Philosophical materialism means to argue that there is no God to establish any moral absolutes, and matter is all there is. The former world-view finds its justification in the latter. Actually, in the modern world, philosophical materialists act as the secular priesthood of a lifestyle based on hedonism and moral relativism. “ ( Source: Under God or Under Darwin? DI )
These are sobering words from one of the worlds most respected research organizations. Why then should we allow materialism to dominate our culture?
Behe establishes that materialists limit themselves; that is, since most of us are forced by society to be obligatory materialists, both theists and atheists are restricted in their beliefs. Behe states that this restricts the sciences, forcing them to accept the theory of evolution as universal fact, even if it does not apply everywhere. This results in the same problem that the geocentric model, Newtonian physics, or extreme Puritanism posed in their time: arrogance about their theory, proponents do not notice that evolutionary proofs require us first to accept materialism – they are guilty of blatant circular reasoning.
Wouldn't it be great if we could break out of the prison of materialism when common-sense requires it? For example, when tackling scientific problems (such as the origin of species) which do not lend themselves well to materialistic analysis, we can ask ourselves if a non-materialistic solution makes more sense? Fortunately such a philosophy exists, and it is every bit superior to materialism: It's proponents call it “Theistic Realism”
According to Philip E. Johnson ,the founder of the Theistic Realism school, true knowledge must start with the acknowledgment of an intelligent designer as creator; This is self-evident from the unifying, ordered characteristics of the universe. Theistic Realism directly challenges materialism's presumption that the intelligent designer cannot exist.
According to Johnson:
“Naturalistic evolutionary theory, as part of the grand metaphysical story of science, says that creation was by impersonal and unintelligent forces. The opposition between the [common-sense] and naturalistic stories is fundamental, and neither side can compromise over it. To compromise is to surrender.”
“.[T]here is absolutely no mystery about why living organisms appear to be the products of intelligent creation, and why scientific naturalists have to work so hard to keep themselves from perceiving the obvious. The reason living things give that appearance is that they actually are what they appear to be, and this fact is evident to all who do not cloud their minds with naturalistic philosophy or some comparable drug.”
What can I say other than it is all undeniable common-sense. When an evolutionist claims that Intelligent Design is not science because it does not follow the normal rules of science (materialism), I suggest that you respond that it is the evolutionist's concept of science which has failed to evolve past it's two-hundred year old assumptions.
Point them to Philip Johnson's matchless “Darwin on Trial”, and if they have a shred of objectivity, I am sure they will be convinced.
The problem with attacking "naturalism" is that there are multiple variants of naturalism. You cannot lump them all together since some variants do not assume materialism.
Also, ID does not assume the supernatural although obviously it can offer epistemic support for the religious.
I only object to the forms of naturalism which make an a priori assumption that non-materialistic phenomena do not exist or exist only in the imagination of the people who propose it.
These naturalists are the ones who deny ID on the basis that they believe it invokes non-materialistic causes for natural phenomena which for some unstated reason they wish to rule out.
We should all embrace forms of naturalistic materialism that do not seek to contradict the existence of God and the healing power of prayer. I do not have any problem with that kind of naturalism.
http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe/blog/patrick/pragmatic_naturalism
There is also antisupernaturalistic naturalism which is also called religious naturalism and theistic naturalism by its proponents (David Ray Griffin, Howard Van Till, others).
There are various modifiers people can prefix to the term "naturalism". I was assuming the commonly understood meaning of the term as referring to a viewpoint that observable phenomena can just as easily explained without assumptions of supernatural intervention, so that asserting such causes is not necessary to understand anything we observe in nature.
Some ID proponents claim that intelligent agency need not be supernatural, but there are only so many possibilities:
1) Intelligent human life on Earth
2) Alien life elsewhere in the universe
3) Some intelligent agent acting from outside of our material existence
I don't think any ID proponent is suggesting that the bacterial flagellum arose on Earth as a result of design work by 1) or 2).
Actually, there are ID proponents who are in favor of directed panspermia. But obviously a good number of them support #3. Oh, and multiple teams are working on modifying the flagellum for other uses.
There are various modifiers people can prefix to the term "naturalism". I was assuming the commonly understood meaning of the term as referring to a viewpoint that observable phenomena can just as easily explained without assumptions of supernatural intervention, so that asserting such causes is not necessary to understand anything we observe in nature.
That's the common usage certainly for methodological naturalism but there are multiple philosophies of science, which many scientists don't even realize. The problem is that some people are equating a philosophy to being Science.
Also, that version is fairly new...if I remember aright the term "naturalism" arose during the 1600's and Newton was a "naturalist" (the term "science" had not been invented yet). The phrase “methodological naturalism” was coined by the philosopher Paul de Vries who introduced it at a conference in 1983 in a paper subsequently published as “Naturalism in the Natural Sciences”. Obviously the concept had been around before then but had never been formalized. The distinction arose due to the common folk’s erroneous habit of attributing unusual phenomena to divine intervention even when that wasn't warranted.
I suppose naturalist ideas probably date back to at least Thales.
Regarding philosophies of science, Wikipedia also has a good overview.
Naturalism is self-limiting?
Hi HeLa,
It is interesting that you suggest that the naturalist perspective is self-limiting. I would say that the only tools we have available to us to directly explore the physical world are those that are present or can be produced from the physical world itself. This is not a limitation that we chose for ourselves, it is a limitation we have to live with because we have no other means available to us.
We are fortunate that the constituents of nature obey a set of laws that are (so far) known to be independent of location and time, since this is the only way that we can develop models of our physical world that can be verified or invalidated by anyone anywhere, independent of their cultural background.
We currently have no means for probing or understanding anything that may exist outside of the material universe, at least not in a way that would result in universal agreement. This should be immediately obvious from the history on our planet of so many diverse religions and spiritual practices that in many cases cannot agree on a unifying idea regarding our existence or its possible causes.
Still, I think you are correct in observing that these physical models can become over-cherished to the extent that people begin to adopt a dogmatic attachment to a theory even in areas where people are still working to test or understand it. This can be seen in discussions on the fuzzier points in evolutionary biology, and perhaps even more intriguingly in string theory and cosmology.
I think the reason people continue to pursue physical explanations for observations in nature is because we have such a long history of physical explanations overtaking supernatural explanations and broadening our understanding as a result. This very drive is responsible for your ability to post your thoughts on this subject to a blog, and for me to respond to them, without the two of us ever having even met.
For many, this kind of investigation also results in a deeper appreciation of the idea of God, because the implication of the natural explanation is even more awe-inspiring than its predecessor. I would argue that, Richard Dawkins' irresponsible rants aside, the naturalist approach to understanding the world has served to help make abundantly clear to believers exactly how sweeping and wondrous, yet still unknowable, God is.