1 - iwpoe
- Member
Offline 
- From: Knoxville, TN
- Registered: 6/26/2015
- Posts: 1,080
Dealing with a Scientistic Naturalist
I'm having an argument with someone claiming:
"Fundamental physics suggests that nothing supernatural can interact with the natural world. I think that this is a significant point in providing evidence for naturalism. The physics behind our everyday experiences are completely understood with the standard model of particle physics. There are conservation laws and other unbreakable patterns that govern what interactions are possible. The only way that a supernatural force can act in the world or make any kind of difference is if the laws of physics as we know them are wrong. Fundamental science supports naturalism as it rules out an all powerful God in the only world that we know. It's due to our modern understanding of the world and other arguments (I can list some if you like) that renders naturalism more probable than not."
What does one specifically say to such a person directly? Obviously, the man is commenting on metaphysical matters by assuming that methodological assumptions in the sciences are metaphysically true, but is it even true that "Fundamental science supports naturalism as it rules out an all powerful God in the only world that we know." If you don't take that metaphysical position and are some sort of theist, what specifically would one positively say about God's operation in the world?
Fighting to the death "the noonday demon" of Acedia.
My Books
It is precisely “values” that are the powerless and threadbare mask of the objectification of beings, an objectification that has become flat and devoid of background. No one dies for mere values.
~Martin Heidegger
- John West
- Administrator
Offline
- Registered: 6/25/2015
- Posts: 1,254
Re: Dealing with a Scientistic Naturalist
Well, one problem with his paragraph is that it's just a grammatically correct string of unargued assertions. For instance, Thomists would disagree with his depiction of the laws of nature, arguing instead that they're laws of natures describing the way entities act given their natures. Others, like David Armstrong, would argue that the laws of nature are contingent, polyadic universals. It's not even clear that Hume thought the laws of nature absolute. I would ask him if he can unpack his case.
Take him up on his offer, too. Ask him to list some arguments, but ask him to list them without (him) going on a gish gallop. Ask him to list only the arguments he considers the strongest.
Last edited by John West (8/18/2015 3:51 pm)
- Scott
- Moderator
Offline
- From: Ohio, USA
- Registered: 6/26/2015
- Posts: 357
Re: Dealing with a Scientistic Naturalist
You might also specifically call him on this claim:
iwpoe's interlocutor wrote:
The only way that a supernatural force can act in the world or make any kind of difference is if the laws of physics as we know them are wrong.
So far as I'm aware, the "laws of physics as we know them," even on what is likely to be his own understanding of them, all say that such-and-such happens on the assumption that nothing interferes; when there's supernatural interference, that assumption doesn't hold. So in what way would supernatural interference falsify the "laws of physics as we know them"?
And do the "laws of physics as we know them" also rule out the possibility that our physical universe might be part of some overarching "superuniverse"? If so, why? If not, why do they rule out the purely "supernatural"? (Note that the response "Well, we don't have any evidence that that's the case" is both (a) significantly weaker than the original claim and (b) still question-begging anyway.)
Last edited by Scott (8/18/2015 3:46 pm)
- seigneur
- Member
Offline
- Registered: 6/26/2015
- Posts: 469
Re: Dealing with a Scientistic Naturalist
...but is it even true that "Fundamental science supports naturalism as it rules out an all powerful God in the only world that we know."
Of course it's not true. The scientific (and scientistic) fact is that the current standard model of cosmology can account for only 4.9 percent of the matter-energy that *should* exist in the universe. Much of the rest of the universe is made of the hypothesised "dark" (i.e. invisible and undetectable) matter-energy, and there's still some percentage left that no scientist can wrap their brain around.
So, science knows little (4.9 percent) and of what it knows, it cannot tell if it's God moving it or what.
If I were interested in talking to such a person, I would point out the holes in his cosmological account and lay out my awesome alternative account with far superior explanatory power in the same level of detail as he did his.
Last edited by seigneur (8/18/2015 3:46 pm)
- iwpoe
- Member
Offline
- From: Knoxville, TN
- Registered: 6/26/2015
- Posts: 1,080
Re: Dealing with a Scientistic Naturalist
It's particularly the conservation laws objection that I find confusing- since it seems that, yes, while conservation laws have ceteris paribus clauses how could you possibly explain anything with conservation laws if everywhere all the time there was the possibility of external energy imputs? Doesn't the application of conservation laws at a universal scale *have* to suppose some kind of non-interactionist metaphysical picure? Does that make any sense as a question?
Fighting to the death "the noonday demon" of Acedia.
My Books
It is precisely “values” that are the powerless and threadbare mask of the objectification of beings, an objectification that has become flat and devoid of background. No one dies for mere values.
~Martin Heidegger
- •
Thread Starter- John West
- Administrator
Offline
- Registered: 6/25/2015
- Posts: 1,254
Re: Dealing with a Scientistic Naturalist
Doesn't the application of conservation laws at a universal scale *have* to suppose some kind of non-interactionist metaphysical picure?
I'm pretty sure Alexander just wrote: "Yes". Your interlocutor might, however, have some justification for the claim—rendering it non-fallacious—and it's only fair to him to ask and find out, I think.
Last edited by John West (8/18/2015 5:10 pm)
- iwpoe
- Member
Offline
- From: Knoxville, TN
- Registered: 6/26/2015
- Posts: 1,080
Re: Dealing with a Scientistic Naturalist
It's particularly the conservation laws objection that I find confusing- since it seems that, yes, while conservation laws have ceteris paribus clauses how could you possibly explain anything with conservation laws if everywhere all the time there was the possibility of external energy imputs? Doesn't the application of conservation laws at a universal scale *have* to suppose some kind of non-interactionist metaphysical picure? Does that make any sense as a question?
I'm pretty sure that's what Alexander just wrote. Your interlocutor might, however, have some justification for the claim -- rendering it non-fallacious -- and it's only fair to him to ask and find out, I think.
What I mean to ask is whether the fields themselves do this. I take it that, for instance, cosmology, as a field, presupposes the universal operation of conservation laws to know anything about the structure of the cosmos.
I'm asking whether I have to bite the bullet and go ahead and say that science simply doesn't know or can't know the picture of, for instance, the development of the universe that they think they know. Do I, for instance, loose cosmology as genuine knowledge *if* I argue for philosophical theism?
Last edited by iwpoe (8/18/2015 5:17 pm)
Fighting to the death "the noonday demon" of Acedia.
My Books
It is precisely “values” that are the powerless and threadbare mask of the objectification of beings, an objectification that has become flat and devoid of background. No one dies for mere values.
~Martin Heidegger
- •
Thread Starter- John West
- Administrator
Offline
- Registered: 6/25/2015
- Posts: 1,254
Re: Dealing with a Scientistic Naturalist
Physicists are welcome to correct me:
I'm asking whether I have to bite the bullet and go ahead and say that science simply doesn't know or can't know the picture of, for instance, the development of the universe that they think they know. Do I, for instance, lose cosmology as genuine knowledge *if* I argue for philosophical theism?
Well, I don't think so. For instance, do the conservation laws require the universe to be closed in terms of every possible kind of cause or entity, or only energy and matter? If the latter, then since God isn't energy or matter there's no problem.
Last edited by John West (8/18/2015 5:33 pm)
- iwpoe
- Member
Offline
- From: Knoxville, TN
- Registered: 6/26/2015
- Posts: 1,080
Re: Dealing with a Scientistic Naturalist
Physicists are welcome to correct me:
I'm asking whether I have to bite the bullet and go ahead and say that science simply doesn't know or can't know the picture of, for instance, the development of the universe that they think they know. Do I, for instance, lose cosmology as genuine knowledge *if* I argue for philosophical theism?
Well, I don't think so. For instance, do the conservation laws require the universe to be closed to every possible kind of cause, or only energy and matter? If the latter, then since God isn't energy or matter there's no problem.
Well, if god is getting things done doesn't that ential an energy input into the system? If god brings it about that anything comes into the universe, moves, or changes isn't that an increase or decrease or energy in the system? Or am I thinking about that badly? I'm not used to thinking about God's actions *and* physics.
Last edited by iwpoe (8/18/2015 5:41 pm)
Fighting to the death "the noonday demon" of Acedia.
My Books
It is precisely “values” that are the powerless and threadbare mask of the objectification of beings, an objectification that has become flat and devoid of background. No one dies for mere values.
~Martin Heidegger
- •
Thread Starter- Scott
- Moderator
Offline
- From: Ohio, USA
- Registered: 6/26/2015
- Posts: 357
Re: Dealing with a Scientistic Naturalist
Well, if god is getting things done doesn't that ential an energy input into the system?
Creatio ex nihilo doesn't entail such "input." The creation of physical matter (or energy) from nothing does increase the amount of matter (or energy), but the new matter (or energy) isn't coming from anywhere. (Likewise with annihilation. An object God stops sustaining in existence doesn't go anywhere.)
Also, God can bring about some physical effects simply by suspending the ordinary "laws" of physics, that is, by not concurring (as primary cause) in the ordinary (secondary) causal operations of this or that physical object. So if e.g. God were to make an object float in mid-air (Jesus's walking on water might be an example) by suspending the ordinary operation of gravitational forces on that object, there might be a change in the total amount of potential + kinetic energy in the universe as a result. But again, the energy wouldn't be coming from anywhere or going to anywhere. God wouldn't be like a physical battery or a heat sink, passing energy back and forth between Himself and the physical universe.
Even if God worked a particular miracle by changing the ordinary "laws" of physics, that wouldn't mean He was acting as an energy source or sink. Suppose e.g. that He multiplied loaves and fishes not by creating new matter from nothing but by giving existing matter some extraordinary power to "grow." He still wouldn't be the physical source of the additional matter.
Last edited by Scott (8/18/2015 6:15 pm)