Wyrdsmyth

Geoff has encouraged me to think in the Kuhnian sense, about how people jump from one paradigm to another. A popular image for this is people jumping from one ship to another, when the first ship finally becomes too shot through with anomalies to float any longer. Now, of course, there has to first be a second ship for people to go to, before they can abandon the first.

Before people could abandon the good ship NEWTONIAN PHYSICS, they had have the superior ship EINSTEINIAN PHYSICS to go to. So, even though Newtonian Physics had certain anomalies, which could not be explained away any longer under that system, it was still better to stay on that ship than jump overboard and not have any ship at all. So, it wasn't until Einsteinian physics came along and had superior explanatory power, that people began to be willing to leave their old vessel which had indeed served them well.

Now, let us carry this analogy to theism and metaphysical naturalism. Many traditional theists are unwilling to make the leap to metaphysical naturalism, because they feel that the latter does not have superior explanatory power. To take it a bit further, they refuse to even see that their ship is shot through with anomalies. There are Biblical literalists out there who simply refuse to accept the earth is older than 4004 BC or that the worldwide flood described in Genesis did not occur. They refuse to see the holes in their ship, so they refuse to consider abandoning it. But also, as I said, they feel that metaphysical naturalism does not in fact have superior explanatory power than their theism... So, they may reject the analogy of the good ships Newton and Einstein, that switching of scientific allegiances that occurred about a hundred years ago. They will point out that metaphysical naturalism cannot explain many things that theism can -- for example, love, abstractions, logic, morality, the 'meaning of life' and so on. Metaphysical naturalism, they say, is unable to 'account' for many of these intangibles, i.e., they say "there are things that cannot be reduced to mere physical descriptions."

So, the intelligent traditional theist has a few choices. He can become an apologist, and go on the attack -- he can seek to show that the Kuhnian Newton-Einstein example is disanalogous with the movement from traditional theism to metaphysical naturalism. How? By pointing out 'anomalies' in metaphysical naturalism, while denying the alleged anomalies that are in traditional theism (for example, unfulfilled prophecy, age of the earth, and lack of evidence for a worldwide flood).

Another option he has is to switch to a different boat, albeit not metaphysical maturalism. Traditional theism, you see, has life boats -- the life boats all have the motto LIBERAL THEISM on them. Liberal theism can disembark from the annoying anomalies that TRADITIONAL THEISM is shot through with. Once on the life boats, they can admit that traditional theism, such as that founded upon Biblical Inerrantism, was indeed illogical. And, while on these life boats, they can still launch sallies at the Ship of Metaphysical Naturalism... They can still accuse metaphysical naturalism of having it's own anomalies, of not being able to explain things that theism (of some form) can.

The thing about liberal theism though, is, it's a lifeboat but can't really claim to be a ship on its own, in the Kuhnian sense. It has cut itself loose of the traditional basis for theism -- the old scriptures, the testimonies of actual experiences with a deity, the basis for whatever personal character they'd assigned to God in the first place. Now, it must rely on mere arguments of a somewhat pale, intellectual character, that are not really as vital or persuasive or as emotionally moving as miracles or Mount Sinai or claiming one has ancestors who actually spoke with and interacted with God; no one ever shouts 'Hallelujah!' at the conclusion of a Kalam's Cosmological. Liberal theism is stuck between the other two ships. Those on board the life boat of liberal theism are saying:

"Yes, it is true the earth must be more than 6000 years old, the evidence shows that. The Bible is not inerrant. We don't believe the Pope is infallible. And we discount most, if not all, miracles and faith healings as hoaxes. Evolution may even be true. We don't all even know if God interacts with humanity at all, and we aren't claiming any special knowledge of such. Yet, we still believe in God. We still think 'there must be something else.' We're no longer sure exactly why we believe that, or how exactly we ought to define 'God.' We simply think metaphysical naturalism isn't that satisfying, and neither is traditional theism, so we're going to go our own way."

***

On this board, I feel like I'm primarily addressing two varieties of theists -- those on the sinking ship of Traditional Theism, and those on the smaller, albeit more seaworthy, life boat of Liberal Theism. To those on the HMS TRADITIONAL THEISM I can only say:

"Please open your eyes and see that your ship is sinking, and stop denying it."

To those on the little row-boat, LIBERAL THEISM, I say:

"I admire you for getting off that sinking ship. It took a lot of courage. But you can't make it forever on that little life boat. Yes, there are explanations for the Great Unknowns that you think some brand of theism can answer in a way that is superior to what metaphysical naturalism offers. But thing is they are equally Great Unknowns to you as they are to us. The only difference is you paint a God-face on them, and think you can thus explain them to your satisfaction, and we simply leave them Great Unknowns. We can lower you a rope. But it is up to you whether you want to come on board or not."

[ May 30, 2002: Message edited by: Wyrdsmyth ]</p>

Daydreamer

Don't forget - we must always keep an eye out for boats that just may be superior to our own, for fear of becoming stuck in the same circular course like the HMS Traditional Theism.

[ May 30, 2002: Message edited by: Daydreamer ]</p>

lpetrich

Although I agree with the premise of Kuhnian paradigm shifts, I wish to quibble with the specific example given: Newtonian vs. Einsteinian physics. Einsteinian physics includes Newtonian physics as a low-velocity limit, and has many similarities to it, though Einsteinian physics does have some differences, such as a cosmic speed built into the geometry of space-time, the speed of light in a vacuum.

A better example might be Newtonian physics itself vs. pre-Newtonian physics, at least to the extent that it could be said to exist, since it was usually little better than hand-waving. An example was Aristotle's view that different elements tend to go to their natural locations; earth and water downward, and air and fire upward (I'm doing this from memory).

Likewise, the modern conception of "elements" is a paradigm shift relative to such ancient conceptions as Greek earth, air, fire, and water, and Chinese wood, metal, earth, water, and fire. This paradigm would become included in such later paradigms as the valence theory of chemical bonds and the Periodic Table of Elements, which would, in turn, be accounted for by quantum mechanics applied to atoms and molecules.

Quantum mechanics has sometimes been called a big paradigm shift, but here also, it was a superset of previous paradigms -- Newtonian and Einsteinian classical mechanics.

In geology, some major paradigm shifts were the discovery of a complex geological history and the discovery of continental drift. The former was a case of a paradigm emerging when not much had been present earlier, while the latter, IMO, was more Kuhnian, since there had been a lot of work done on theories of mountain-building and the like before continental drift became generally accepted.

In biology, Darwin's presentation of evolution caused a major paradigm shift; he showed how the hypothesis of descent with modification could solve a wide variety of biological riddles.

Likewise, Mendelian genetics caused a similar paradigm shift; what had previously been vague speculations and endless controversy became a serious science.

Sometimes paradigms emerge where essentially nothing had been previously present, as in biochemistry and molecular biology; the closest thing to a Kuhnian paradigm shift was the discovery that nucleic acids (DNA, RNA) are the carriers of heredity and not proteins. Furthemore, molecular-level genetics became yet another superset paradigm, this time of earlier Mendelian-genetics work.

I think that in the natural sciences, true Kuhnian paradigm shifts have been relatively rare; a more common occurrence has been the creation of superset paradigms.

The Messiah

Quote:
Now, let us carry this analogy to theism and metaphysical naturalism. Many traditional theists are unwilling to make the leap to metaphysical naturalism, because they feel that the latter does not have superior explanatory power.
-----------------------------------------------
An interesting point. However, I don't think this addresses the reasons why theists hold onto their beliefs. The philosophy, it seems, is less important than the rituals and stories associated with the religion. If you examine the posts of theists it seems clear to me that they want to get across how their belief makes them feel rather than what it actually means in a deterministic sense. If Atheism is ever going to become more popular or become more influemncial in the world it will have to provide similar rituals, that are equally fulfiling. Atheism, for lack of a better word, must also become a religion.

Essentially this would amount to expressing that which we know about the world in terms that are emotive and therefore more marketable. An example might be that the world in which we live is the atheist bible, its a book (four dimensional) and science is the discipline dedicated to reading the book of life.

Wyrdsmyth

Well... here I have a qualified disagreement with you. I think many of the theists argue on the basis of philosophy, and why we rationally ought to (or are entitled to) believe something they define as 'god' exists, and they are not ostensibly appealing to merely how the belief makes them feel (some might, but not all). And that is what I was addressing with the Kuhnian line of thought. Basically, a lot of apologetics is about 'attacking naturalism' or trying to show that it has anomalies (more than what they have?), and thus does not indeed have superior explanatory power to what their paradigm does. And that is what many of the critiques of evolution, materialism and so forth are all about; it's easier to attack than defend.

But, the question still is: Is Kuhn applicable here? I don't know. I'm tossing this on the table, since Geoff brought it up. Historically, are we seeing a movement from theism to naturalism, due to the latter having superior explanatory power? Is there an argument here for this? Or not?

I think there is. As naturalism (and science) makes more advances, it seems to reduce the sphere of theism. The less unknowns there are, the less places it seems there are for gods to fill in the gaps. As the sphere of naturalism increases, the sphere of theism seems to correspondingly diminish. And this seems especially true of what we call Traditional Theism, or such brands of theism devoted to such things as Biblical Inerrancy. But it is more broadly true of all forms of superstition. Now, instead of just praying for bad spirits to leave someone's body when they are sick, we take them to a medical doctor. And now, instead of assuming the stars and planets are spheres controlled by deities, whose movements are interpreted by astrologers and priests, we rely on the explanations of astrophysicists. And now, instead of assuming that 'we' are fundamentally disembodied 'spirit minds' inhabiting corruptible physical vessels which we simply will discard when we 'die,' we know from neurology that damage to the brain has a corresponding influence on a given person's 'mind' -- who they are and how they think -- indeed, their very personality. Supernaturalism, in general -- not just theism -- is under a steady erosion from the advances of scientific knowledge. So, perhaps there is a historical argument here.

[ May 31, 2002: Message edited by: Wyrdsmyth ]</p>

Tercel

Wyrdsmyth,
Interesting thoughts... if somewhat biased.

I'd probably have to disagree with your contrast of Traditional Theism vs Liberal Theism, if only because it would seem to imply that they are necessarily different. What you mean by "Liberal" and "Traditional" I would hesitate to guess, but suffice to say I would without hesitation apply both terms to my own beliefs.

Some of your thoughts are on target as far as I am concerned: I see metaphysical naturalism as unacceptable, and even if you were to capsize my lifeboat it would only avail you of landing me in a different one.

As far as God o'the gaps goes, I'm inclined to think you've got less amunition in that gun than is commonly claimed. Before people had scientific explanations, I can just imagine them having great fun making up stories to explain things. Sitting around the fire, a child would perhaps ask one of the elders where the sun goes at night. And everyone would sigh and settle down for a good old story about how the sun-god drove his chariot around the sky, being pulled by horses of fire... etc. I'm sure making up such stories provided great entertainment for many. Did some people take them seriously and believe them? Sure. But there have beeen ignorant and foolish people in all times and places and we shouldn't judge society by its least sophisticated members. The Greek philosopher Epicurus taught that world could be explained by natural phenomina, and early Christian writers pointed out that things like lightening were natural phenomina and the pagans need not be using ideas of gods to explain them.
Even so, it seems that your position blurs the distinction between how and why. Before Newton's theory about gravity, the common explanation in the Christian world as to why stuff falls was "God makes it fall". After Newton we could say "because of gravity". Of course the curious might enquire what it is that's making gravity work... no doubt Newton would have answered "God". To "explain" something through science, it is not to disprove Goddidit. God is an answer to the "why?" question, a scientific explanation is an answer to the "how?" question. "By gravity" does not prove that God isn't ultimately causing it. To know that objects fall at 9.8m/s2 is to know something which describes how the object falls, but it is not to answer the question of why the object falls. The advances of science then, it would seem, push the God of the gaps precisely nowhere. Science can only ever answer the how questions, while philosophy and religion deal with the why questions.

Edit: Whoops... left the n't of shouldn't!

[ June 01, 2002: Message edited by: Tercel ]</p>

Wyrdsmyth

Well, you know me.

What I meant to articulate here was a broad distinction. It is necessarily broad, since I concede that there might be theists like yourself who consider themselves both "Liberal" and "Traditional." So, at a certain time, historically, we might call Protestants liberal Christians, since they were breaking with a certain tradition. Yet, they established their own traditions. Nowadadys you can have traditional Protestants, and liberal ones -- and that seems to reduce my distinction to a rather subjectively drawn line in the sand. But what I originally meant was by "Traditional" are those theists who take it on faith that a certain body of holy texts are from something like a Deity, and are thus absolutely true, down to the smallest word. Biblical Inerrantists would fit this category, the people who believe that the Bible is literally true, in all its parts and parcels. And what I mean by "Liberal" are those theists who may perhaps give up this unswerving devotion to the holy texts as being absolutely true, yet still cling to some belief in a deity that may be related to that tradition. There are Christians out there who don't take the Bible absolutely literally, and accept for example that the earth is much older than what can be concluded from a timeline constructed from Biblical genealogies. Of course, even this distinction I have sketched out can be contested with, but I was trying to look at what might be a broad historical movement away from "traditional literalism" and to "liberal interpretation."

Yes; dislodging you from, for example, Biblical Literalism doesn't necessarily mean you'll come skipping over to the naturalist side. There is room between the ships, and a variety of lifeboats that may look perfectly comfortable to you.

Did you mean to say shouldn't? Otherwise, what you propose is a rather counter-intuitive criterion, and seems to go against what you wrote earlier.

I find that example very interesting. Can you please cite the source?

Well, that would seem to go along with the opinion of quite a few people who think science and religion operate in entirely different spheres of influence. Yet, these two endeavors have clashed, historically. Galileo clashed with the church, when all he really wanted to do was look through a telescope and publish his findings. Geological dating contradicts Biblical dating of the earth. And of course, there is Darwin. The thing is, when a religious tradition espouses certain 'truths' about how the world is, and science contradicts that, we have a clash. That is what I'm addressing.

[ June 01, 2002: Message edited by: Wyrdsmyth ]</p>

The Messiah

Well, that would seem to go along with the opinion of quite a few people who think science and religion operate in entirely different spheres of influence. Yet, these two endeavors have clashed, historically. Galileo clashed with the church, when all he really wanted to do was look through a telescope and publish his findings. Geological dating contradicts Biblical dating of the earth. And of course, there is Darwin. The thing is, when a religious tradition espouses certain 'truths' about how the world is, and science contradicts that, we have a clash. That is what I'm addressing.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Can you see a way that science could be viewed as a religious activity i.e. redefine the word religion to tie it in with what science is currently doing and create a new more robust ship (theology)for the theists to jump on. After all, even if we find a theory of everything we will always lack a necessary being or source to explain where the rules come from. This is what people mean by God after all the chaff has cleared, the problem is that they keep personifying this abstract concept.

Jobar

Very interesting, but not for EoG. I choose to move this one to Philosophy, with the understanding that the mods there may decide to move it again.