Sunday, February 15, 2015

Atheistic Science

Atheistic Science

From RationalWiki:

"Methodological naturalism is the label for the required assumption of philosophical naturalism when working with the scientific method. Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural causes, because any attempts to define causal relationships with the supernatural are never fruitful, and result in the creation of scientific "dead ends" and God of the gaps-type hypotheses. To avoid these traps scientists assume that all causes are empirical and naturalistic; which means they can be measured, quantified and studied methodically.

"However, this assumption of naturalism need not extend beyond an assumption of methodology. This is what separates methodological naturalism from philosophical naturalism - the former is merely a tool and makes no truth claim; while the latter makes the philosophical - essentially atheistic - claim that only natural causes exist."

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Methodological_naturalism

Can anyone doubt that the grand scientific theories simplified and promulgated in the mainstream discourse of our day are intended to form our understanding, not only of our physical surroundings, but of our self-understanding, and the courses of action we should take?

It cannot be doubted.

The grand theories of cosmology, evolution, climate change, and all the rest are narratives composed and arranged out of facts selected by the method of methodological naturalism. 
What is more, all narratives must follow a certain logic.  In our day, this logic is supplied by philosophical naturalism, i.e., materialistic atheism.

Therefore, the above quoted definition disingenuously separates method from philosophy.

However, the scientific method wasn't always practiced this way.  In the past, many theistic scientists assumed a Creator and a creation designed to operate according to laws established by the Creator.

For the Christian, there is an additional source of true information found in special divine revelation--the Bible.

The Bible isn't a scientific textbook or naturalistic historical account.  Yet, it presents us with true facts pertaining to history, natural phenomena, and the origins of the universe.  

Before dismissing me as a wild-eyed biblical fundamentalist, let me ask a simple question:

What should have priority in the Christian mind--the Christian Creed or atheistic narratives arranged from facts selected by a method presupposing naturalism?  In other words, is Theology the Queen of the Sciences or not?

5 comments:

fschmidt said...

The scientific method says that for 2 statements to be meaningfully different, there must be some objective observable difference between the 2. But how does one objectively differentiate between the natural and supernatural? There is no way, and therefore, from a scientific perspective, the distinction is meaningless. And therefore methodological naturalism is just unscientific nonsense.

If methodological naturalism isn't scientific, what is it? It is atheism, which isn't scientific in the least. It is simply another faith. Faith in what? Faith in the teaching of Plato, of human reason over reality.

The common modern division of belief systems is between the religious and the secular. This division is fairly meaningless. The real distinction is between belief systems that make humans the source of truth versus belief systems that make the external the source of truth. The first type of belief system is an expression of human arrogance. It includes both Atheism and idol worship. After all, idols are man-made, so idol worship is worshipping a human creation instead of respecting the real world. Belief systems based on God, Shinto spirits, or the scientific method all belong to the second category which doesn't put the human mind at the center of the universe. Only such systems have the humility required to actually make scientific progress. All of the great periods of scientific development in history were preceded by strong religion. And all these periods ended when respect for religion ended. This is no accident. When Einstein was upset with quantum theory and said "God doesn't play dice" Niels Bohr responded to Einstein "don't tell God what to do". This is exactly what methodological naturalism is doing, telling scientists what theories are acceptable and what aren't based on their own preconceived notions of reality instead of just objectively accepting reality as it is as judged by the scientific method.

Mark Citadel said...

As I said to Vox Day, today's 'settled science' is tomorrow's flat eart society. Science promises only endless revolution with no truth in sight. God promises eternal and unchanging truth. You decide which is better for society.

Frank said...

What are your thoughts on Usury?

Frank said...

Would you be interested in debating Jay Dyer?

http://jaysanalysis.com/2016/02/23/jaysanalysis-wfr-moody-orthodox-theology-roman-catholicism-thomism-palamas/

A. M. said...

I don't like it.

Not sure what we'd debate. He'd probably wipe the floor with me, but sure, I enjoy having a discussion with him sometime.