Blogotional

I have mentioned briefly that I am currently reading Total Truth by Nancy Pearcey. I am only halfway through it, but there is a passage which I must comment on, granting that she may address my concerns later in the book. From page 203:

OUT OF THE NATURALIST'S CHAIR

Some even do it explicitly. Consider Christians who are theistic evolutionists: Though they would never agree with atheists that nature is all that exists (metaphysical naturalism), they do agree that science must be limited to natural causes (methodological naturalism). As philosopher Nancey Murphy of Fuller Theological Seminary writes: "Christians and atheists alike must pursue scientific questions in our era without invoking a Creator." Why? Well, because that's what atheists have decided: "For better or worse, we have inherited a view of science as methodologically atheistic."

But who says that we have to play by the rules set down by atheists? If Christianity is true, then it's not at all obvious that valid science can be done only by making the counterfactual assumption that atheism is true. Theistic evolutionists generally accept exactly the same scientific theories as atheists or naturalists; the only thing they ask is that they he allowed to propose a theological meaning behind it all - known only by faith, and not detectable by scientific means. In essence, they allow atheists to define scientific knowledge, so long as theology is allowed to put a religious spin on whatever science comes up with.

In that case, however, what does this theological meaning amount to? It is reduced to a subjective gloss on the story told by naturalistic science. God's existence doesn't make any difference scientifically because He does not act in ways that can be detected. As a result, theology is no longer regarded as an independent source of knowledge; it is merely an overlay of value on otherwise value-free facts.

Science is, in fact methodologically naturalist - it cannot be otherwise How can we possible measure objectively that which is supernature? The scientific method begins by defining the system being studied, it must be a system that is bounded and finite. God, and supernature are neither, thus they cannot be allowed for in the scientific method.

Now, none of this means that the problems Ms. Pearcey cites are not real - they are very real, but I think there a different and better way to deal with them.

The primary problem with the formulation that Ms. Pearcey grants here is that she to plays by the rules defined by others - in this case in what she defines as science. The fact of the matter is that the scientific method, with its naturalistic presumptions, has been incredibly successful in the hard sciences. A commenter on yesterday's post linked below said this

One of my professors used to say that the "hard" sciences had been so much more successful than the social sciences because they only deal with the easiest questions.

I am not sure if it was is intention, but I think he makes my point for me. The hard sciences have been so much more successful because they have tackled problems that can be solved using only naturalisitc methodology. There is a place for this methodology, but it is limited.

Ms. Pearcey's over arching goal is to do away with the mental construct of a dual reality. You can read the book if you want to understand that more. But the fact of the matter is that on some levels, God's creation is terribly clockwork and deterministic - not on all levels mind you, but in some areas, He really did choose to make it that way. The scientific method, with its naturalistic presumptions, works very, very well on those levels, and her arguments will, at least as I have read them to date, break down very seriously on those same levels.

No, the problem has come when people have attempted to apply the scientific method to other areas of study, areas where God has clearly created a non-deterministic reality. Ms. Pearcey plays by others rules by granting that all those other areas of study qualify as science, or at least hard science.

Ms. Pearcey is right to try to do away with a dualistic mindset, but, at least as far as I have read to date, the recombined world she seems to be headed for will not be as monolithic as I think she is implying it will be.

There really is not the spiritual and naturalistic realms, completely divided, but there is a continuim. Some things are almost purely naturalisitic and some are almost purely spiritual, but there is a whole lot in between. And that is an important understanding.

Even in the hard sciences, we do not know as much as we act like we know. I am not sure there is much to be gained by somehow expanding Christianity to encompass all that "science" has learned. I think the issue, rather, is to put science back in it's proper box and perspective.

Science is a naturalistic pursuit, but that definitionally limits it.

Related Tags: science, faith, religion, Nacny Pearcey, Total Truth, Christianity, naturalism, supernaturalism