Sunday, October 10, 2010
PZ Adopts Methodological Naturalism
PZ Myearshertz has joined those who, unlike Larry Moran, accept that the methodological naturalism of science makes it impossible to scientifically test the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural, at least when those claims do not entail repeatable empiric observations about the world (e.g. that the Earth is only 6,000 years old):[A]ny evidence of a deity will be natural, repeatable, measurable, and even observable…properties which god is exempted from by the believers' own definitions, so there can be no evidence for it. And any being who did suddenly manifest in some way — a 900 foot tall Jesus, for instance — would not fit any existing theology, so such a creature would not fit the claims of any religion, but the existence of any phenomenon that science cannot explain would not discomfit science at all, since we know there is much we don't understand already, and adding one more mystery to the multitude will not faze us in the slightest.Now, of course, it is perfectly rational to reject the god hypothesis because there can be no evidence for it but it does not follow that science has disproved it or can even be brought to bear on it in a meaningful way.
So yes, I agree. There is no valid god hypothesis, so there can be no god evidence, so let's stop pretending the believers have a shot at persuading us.
In any case, PZ, welcome to the club.
________________________________________
Update: PZ follows up with a more detailed explanation.
________________________________________
Update II: PZ replies to Jerry Coyne.
.
Labels: Methodological Naturalism
Comments:
<< Home
It's interesting to consider this post with your previous one. His complaint about the plasticity of the definition of god is a differing opinion from the idea that studying the natural world helps to better understand god than ancient texts and revelation alone.
# posted by 
: 12:16 PM
: 12:16 PM
Yes, but "science" had not yet been quite separated from "philosophy" back then and the emphasis on empiric evidence, while there, had not been adopted as the raison d'être of science.
Methodological naturalism seems to reduce the notion of god to the same improbable level as there is a pixie you have never seen nor never will see in your back yard. That is, it wipes away most everything certain traditions have ever said about god, leaving a best a deity no one much cares about or thinks likely.
# posted by : 2:19 PM
: 2:19 PM
Methodological naturalism seems to reduce the notion of god to the same improbable level as there is a pixie you have never seen nor never will see in your back yard.
Like I said, it's rational to reject the supernatural because of the lack of evidence but be clear that that is a philosophical result, not a scientific one.
As to who cares about a god immune to science, I can only say I've known quite a few and denying their existence is not very rational.
Like I said, it's rational to reject the supernatural because of the lack of evidence but be clear that that is a philosophical result, not a scientific one.
As to who cares about a god immune to science, I can only say I've known quite a few and denying their existence is not very rational.
"Yes, but "science" had not yet been quite separated from "philosophy" back then and the emphasis on empiric evidence, while there, had not been adopted as the raison d'être of science"
But one should want their philosophy - or theology - to be consistent with what science tells us. It seems that changing to make it so would be a good thing, unless of course one's goal is to defeat rather than reform.
But one should want their philosophy - or theology - to be consistent with what science tells us. It seems that changing to make it so would be a good thing, unless of course one's goal is to defeat rather than reform.
# posted by : 3:09 PM
: 3:09 PM
Like I said, it's rational to reject the supernatural because of the lack of evidence but be clear that that is a philosophical result, not a scientific one.
I see.
As to who cares about a god immune to science, I can only say I've known quite a few and denying their existence is not very rational.
Our experience here varies. With the exception of a few deists, I have not known very many people who genuinely care about that kind of god. They might say they do, but they really don't. But the difference in opinion between us is probably just a matter of who've we've chanced to meet in life.
Post a Comment
I see.
As to who cares about a god immune to science, I can only say I've known quite a few and denying their existence is not very rational.
Our experience here varies. With the exception of a few deists, I have not known very many people who genuinely care about that kind of god. They might say they do, but they really don't. But the difference in opinion between us is probably just a matter of who've we've chanced to meet in life.
# posted by : 10:57 PM
: 10:57 PM << Home
