Neuroscience and God

Filed under: ID, Philosophy — Barry Carey at 8:28 pm on Sunday, April 27, 2008

Here is Angus Menuge’s powerpoint presentation for his recent debate with P.Z. Meyers. It is titled, “Does Neuroscience Leave Room for God?” It is a nice resource with some interesting quotes pertaining to the subject. Among them is this one which causes one to question the materialistic commitment of many modern scientists:

“[A] rule of thinking which would absolutely prevent me from acknowledging certain kinds of truth if those kinds of truth were really there, would be an irrational rule.” - William James, The Will to Believe.

HT: Dangerous Idea

3 Comments »

76359

Comment by Steve Shivers

April 28, 2008 @ 10:24 am

Materialism?? Science has nothing to do with materialism. This is an obvious but futile attempt at a straw man argument.

I think the word you mean is naturalism. Although some Christians try to make naturalism a bad word too, it simply means that science restricts itself to the study of those things that can be observed, measured and experimented upon. Things that are not subject to the laws of nature are, by definition, supernatural. But, science does not necessarily deny the existence of the supernatural - it simply ignores those things that are outside the scope of scientific study.

BTW, the comic strip on slide number 5 makes MUCH more sense if you substitute “religious person” for “preconceptual scientist.”

76374

Comment by Barry Carey

April 28, 2008 @ 6:17 pm

In the context of the slide show, “materialism” was the correct word. Slide 4 was a quote by Richard Lewontin maintaining that “materialism” is absolute in science. If there is any confusion over the distinction between materialism and naturalism, the fault is not on the part of those like Menuge.

Obviously, there is a distinction between the two terms, but modern science often uses them interchangeably (see the Lewontin quote), and there is some overlap in their meanings, especially if not clearly defined by the one using the term.

76479

Comment by Gatsby Blastyn

April 30, 2008 @ 5:17 pm

Steve,
I think materialism and naturalism can both be used in this situation. We all understand what is being commented on.
You’re making the distinction between metaphysical naturalism and methodological naturalism - so you should be just as critical then towards atheists advancing their agendas. However, in your post you only comment on straw men being set up by theists - assuming it is a straw man.

Also, who are you to limit the scope of science or assume that your definition of it is the end all be all?
Saying that science limits itself to that which can be experimented on is short-sighted. Science assumes the existence of certain particles (in the absence of the type of proof you are demanding) that are below our ability to observe. Are we to waive away their existence because they don’t meet your criteria for existence? Regardless of how indirect their effects are felt?

Also, science rests on metaphysical assumptions and is guided by shaping principles. Neither being empirical in nature…. so your premise is flawed. Since we accept the validity of the findings of science we must then be accepting of those metaphysical assumptions, which we accept in the absence of evidential support.
Your philosophical approach leaves science sterile and worthless.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>