An alternate look at Naturalism

Maybe take a look at the article I posted just before your post. Again, this thread is not about ID but about (methodological) naturalism which a priori rules out a supernatural agent (which answers your point entirely).

I read the article, and it turns out I was right: Meyer seems to (probably deliberately, to make a point) misunderstand what methodological naturalism is. It does not assume materialism a priori.

Does ID propose an agent causing design on the natural world?

I read the article, and it turns out I was right: Meyer seems to (probably deliberately, to make a point) misunderstand what methodological naturalism is. It does not assume materialism a priori.

Does ID propose an agent causing design on the natural world?

Sorry, Malf - point me to the part where materialism is not assumed. By materialism, I assume you mean the denial of the supernatural?

Before we can move to our first task, we must clarify briefly what naturalism is. Naturalism is a metaphysical view that denies the existence of supernatural entities. Usually this view amounts to a kind of materialism and therefore it denies the existence of non-material beings such as God. Some scientists hold that naturalism is a necessary condition of science. For example, Arthur Strahler, a geologist, said: “The naturalistic view is that the particular universe we observe came into existence and has operated through all time and in all its parts without the impetus or guidance of any supernatural agency. The naturalistic view is espoused by science as its fundamental assumption.

 Methodological naturalism is an epistemological principle that governs how science is practiced. It prohibits the use of supernatural explanations in science.

There are differences both in the terminology used and in the definitions put forth. There are also differences with respect to the role the principle plays in science and in the arguments that have been used to justify its use in science.


For example, with respect to terminology, Eugenie Scott, an anthropologist who works for the National Center for Science Education, calls the principle ‘methodological materialism.’

Perhaps you misread this part where the author proposes "methodological neutralism" rather than "methodological naturalism"?

The principle of methodological neutralism states that scientists should simply search for causes without setting any a priori conditions on what ontological status those causes must have. By not setting any a priori conditions with respect to ontological status the principle of discovery is not jeopardized in any possible way. By not setting any a priori conditions with respect to ontological status we can follow the evidence wherever it might take us.

Sorry, Malf - point me to the part where materialism is not assumed. By materialism, I assume you mean the denial of the supernatural?




Perhaps you misread this part where the author proposes "methodological neutralism" rather than "methodological naturalism"?

Answer my question, and it may become clearer:

"Does ID propose an agent causing design on the natural world?"

Answer my question, and it may become clearer:

"Does ID propose an agent causing design on the natural world?"

You'll have to elaborate. I repeat - this thread is about naturalism (or methodological naturalism as Paul prefers and which is somewhat more precise). So when Meyer talks about it, he talks about the prohibition - a priori - of a supernatural agent. 

I'm guessing that you are implying that ID doesn't identify the whether the evidence of design points to a supernatural agent but, even if it doesn't explicitly, I think we can take that as read (@nbtruthman would be better able to answer that definitively). Intelligence implies mind: consciousness at work. That is what is rejected by materialists who posit purely natural (materialistic) mechanisms along with chance. Mind, according to materialists (and I'm assuming you agree), is produced by the material brain which has evolved (in humans). It cannot exist independently under materialism. Therefore mind without brain would be considered to be outside of nature and thus beyond the scope of (and prohibited by) science. 

Outside of ID, we have the whole subject of the so-called paranormal (supernatural) which, again, is denied scientific legitimacy by methodological naturalism. This prohibition really is imposed a priori so I really don't know how you can claim that it isn't.

Just to repeat my own view, I don't particularly like the separation of natural and "super" natural. I think that the natural world is a manifestation of mind and therefore mind is fundamental in nature. This is one of the ways I diverge from Meyer and the religiously inclined ID proponents.

You'll have to elaborate. I repeat - this thread is about naturalism (or methodological naturalism as Paul prefers and which is somewhat more precise). So when Meyer talks about it, he talks about the prohibition - a priori - of a supernatural agent. 

I'm guessing that you are implying that ID doesn't identify the whether the evidence of design points to a supernatural agent but, even if it doesn't explicitly, I think we can take that as read (@nbtruthman would be better able to answer that definitively). Intelligence implies mind: consciousness at work. That is what is rejected by materialists who posit purely natural (materialistic) mechanisms along with chance. Mind, according to materialists (and I'm assuming you agree), is produced by the material brain which has evolved (in humans). It cannot exist independently under materialism. Therefore mind without brain would be considered to be outside of nature and thus beyond the scope of (and prohibited by) science. 

Outside of ID, we have the whole subject of the so-called paranormal (supernatural) which, again, is denied scientific legitimacy by methodological naturalism. This prohibition really is imposed a priori so I really don't know how you can claim that it isn't.

Just to repeat my own view, I don't particularly like the separation of natural and "super" natural. I think that the natural world is a manifestation of mind and therefore mind is fundamental in nature. This is one of the ways I diverge from Meyer and the religiously inclined ID proponents.

ID posits an agent that is literally designing nature. I simply can't see how such an agent could be considered supernatural? It is defining nature. 

Unless I am missing something fundamental about ID, it should be completely amenable to the tenets of Methodological Naturalism, irrespective of one's favoured reality model. Meyer and his DI chums just need to be more specific about what they are proposing in order to design testable hypotheses to falsify. Unfortunately, remaining vague and cagey seems to suit their (well documented) purposes/agendas.

ID posits an agent that is literally designing nature. I simply can't see how such an agent could be considered supernatural? It is defining nature. 

Unless I am missing something fundamental about ID, it should be completely amenable to the tenets of Methodological Naturalism, irrespective of one's favoured reality model. Meyer and his DI chums just need to be more specific about what they are proposing in order to design testable hypotheses to falsify. Unfortunately, remaining vague and cagey seems to suit their (well documented) purposes/agendas.

I think you have gone off on your own tangent here, Malf. Any support for your interpretation? Seems to me like unnecessary semantics.

ID posits an agent that is literally designing nature. I simply can't see how such an agent could be considered supernatural? It is defining nature. 

Unless I am missing something fundamental about ID, it should be completely amenable to the tenets of Methodological Naturalism, irrespective of one's favoured reality model. Meyer and his DI chums just need to be more specific about what they are proposing in order to design testable hypotheses to falsify. Unfortunately, remaining vague and cagey seems to suit their (well documented) purposes/agendas.

Methodological naturalism can discover whether or not it is capricious, I think. As far as I can tell, that seems to be what makes something "supernatural". So there's no a priori prohibition against the "supernatural", but rather just a recognition that MN will have difficulty saying something useful about a capricious agent. MN could find that the designing agent is not capricious, though.

Linda

Again you are fixing the rules in advance. You demand objective evidence when, by its nature (unfortunate or ironic word but can't think of another right now) what we describe as supernatural is not objectively evident. Physical things are objectively evident - you can touch them, measure them, weigh them, etc. Mind is not in that category of measurable things. You can't, for example, set up a lab experiment with a "supernatural agent" and watch while it designs something (that's a facetious example but you get the gist, I'm sure).

Except the claim is that the supernatural agent can affect the natural world, so there has to be some kind of nexus or interface. That should be observable.

Have you considered that RM+NS might be a convenient explanation but it does not offer proof? You might be able to show that something could have evolved that way but does that mean it did? Meyer talks about "inference to the best explanation" which is another way of saying he can't prove design but it may be the best explanation. Would you claim that neo-darwinian explanations amount to proof or inference? Maybe it is the best explanation if you fix the rules by prohibiting intelligence or teleology before you start looking for evidence. Certainly then, NS+RM will look like the only candidate (or maybe not even then, according to the Third Way folks).

So let's allow teleology. Now what? It's vapid, fruitless. I'm not even sure you could describe how it might work.

So there is this invisible intelligence that affects genes.

How?

It skews the random mutations every now and again.

How? What is the mechanism by which an invisible intelligence makes randomness nonrandom?


Where do we go from there? If there is no path forward, scientists will simply ignore the idea and keep working. They will not be swayed by some argument that the ID+NS theory is somehow a better explanation than RM+NS, because there is no explanation.

~~ Paul

Except the claim is that the supernatural agent can affect the natural world, so there has to be some kind of nexus or interface. That should be observable.

So let's allow teleology. Now what? It's vapid, fruitless. I'm not even sure you could describe how it might work.

So there is this invisible intelligence that affects genes.

How?

It skews the random mutations every now and again.

How? What is the mechanism by which an invisible intelligence makes randomness nonrandom?


Where do we go from there? If there is no path forward, scientists will simply ignore the idea and keep working. They will not be swayed by some argument that the ID+NS theory is somehow a better explanation than RM+NS, because there is no explanation.

~~ Paul

Shit, Paul - I don't know how. I'm not a researcher nor a philosopher. I'm just convinced that the view that accident from chaos is the inevitable cause of all the complexity and apparent design in our universe has to be wrong and is based on the ideological rejection of mind: the commitment to materialism. Clearly the universe has physical laws. Why? Why not pure chaos? Why anything at all? The most parsimonious answer is to invoke mind but you can't have that because mind would allow for a deity and you are nothing if not a committed atheist. These discussions here are nothing to do with skepticism, they are a thinly veiled proselytisation of atheism and materialism.

In answer to your next question, perhaps mind is uncreated and eternal just as wise men have been saying for thousands of years.

Don't limit it to ID - broaden your scope. Don't you see that in order to maintain your ideology you have to reject, a priori, all that we discuss on this forum (and, of course, that is exactly what you do). Nothing beyond the "natural". Mind arising mysteriously from chemicals and all of parapsychology a futile pursuit of the impossible. You are doing what Methodological Naturalism has done to science - limit the scope of what you can consider to what you find acceptable.

Except the claim is that the supernatural agent can affect the natural world, so there has to be some kind of nexus or interface. That should be observable.

Why should it be, though? You're assuming that said "supernatural" agents are somehow bound by the matter and physics they created and defined. Why should they be restricted by these limitations? They could influence the direction of evolution in ways that cannot observed nor understood, perhaps because the evolutionists are looking in the wrong place. There doesn't have to be a nexus or interface.

Or maybe... it is simply the consciousnesses of all the living beings that are influencing their own evolution on an unconscious level. The nexus or interface would therefore be the body itself, going with the brain-as-a-filter/reducing-valve theory. There is the idea of a group mind among many who are interested in consciousness. The Hundredth Monkey Effect is an example of this. Rupert Sheldrake called it Morphic Resonance. Perhaps this collective unconscious, this group mind, is what is driving the evolution of a species.