Skip to comments.Contemporary Academia's ID
Posted on 06/07/2012 8:09:27 AM PDT by se99tp
...many of the greatest scientists in history have been metaphysical dualists who accepted the existence of matter and spirit. Why this idea should be considered unscientific is never fully explained. It is sufficient to know that materialism is the dominant philosophy of todays scientific establishment. Any scientists who dare to publicly disagree with materialism arent going to gain any career advantage. Materialism, in fact, has become a political power in the academic world
(Excerpt) Read more at wp.me ...
I’m not sure how your comment goes with the article. On FR, both the ID and Evo proponents claim that the other side is using the same flawed premises of AGW.
This is between lines :)
What is so hard to understand about the idea that science by definition of the word "science" deals only with the natural and empirical, not anything metaphysical.
The term for it is methodological naturalism.
So anything supernatural, spiritual, metaphysical, preternatural or just plain miraculous is, by definition, beyond the realm that natural science can deal with.
Of course, to working scientists the assumptions of methodological naturalism are just that: working assumptions.
They do not imply disbelief in the existence of the supernatural, and some scientists are highly religious.
But science itself can only deal with natural things.
Yes, some scientists do go beyond the working assumptions of methodological naturalism and claim those of Metaphysical, Ontological or Philosophical naturalism.
If you'll forgive me, I'll call that "M.O.P." Naturalism for short.
"M.O.P." Naturalism can rightly be seen as the enemy of any metaphysical, spiritual or religious ideas, since M.O.P. Naturalism denies even the existence of anything beyond the natural world.
So M.O.P. Naturalists are the "bad guys", especially since, invariably they are socialists, big-government types dedicated, it seems, to replacing the real God with their own omnipotent government.
But, my point here is: M.O.P. Naturalism is not the same thing as the the working assumptions of science = methodological naturalism.
Nor does science depend on M.O.P. Naturalism for any of its assumptions or results.
Bottom line: to work in the fields of science you must, by definition, adopt the assumptions of methodological naturalism, but you are in no way required to hold the M.O.P. for a gang of big-government socialists who are just one step removed from abject nihilism.
So don't go there -- you don't need to, you don't want to.