![]() ![]() The standard response to this has been to insist that science is not committed to any such metaphysical doctrine, but only to a methodological version of naturalism, according to which science may only appeal to natural entities and processes. The text is ideal for both students and scholars, providing the appropriate level of explanation of arguments to provide a starting point for research, while at the same time delivering an important contribution to current scholarship.Ĭreationists have long argued that evolutionary science is committed to a dogmatic metaphysics of naturalism and materialism, which is based on faith or ideology rather than evidence. Bringing clarity to often complex arguments, Koperski covers a broad range of issues which include divine action, free will, the fine-tuning argument, naturalism, the laws of nature, the relation between science and religion, and the controversy over Intelligent Design. The Physics of Theism offers a significant and necessary middle ground between these disciplines, presenting a critical analysis of the ways in which physics is intertwined within matters of religion. Bridging the gap between these fields, however, has proven to be problematic those in religion and the humanities typically interact with the mathematical sciences only at a popular level, and physicists are often dismissive of metaphysics and religion. From the fine-tuning of universal constants to quantum mechanics, relativity, and cosmology, physics is a subject surprisingly widespread in its connection to the area of religion. Theologians and philosophers of religion have become increasingly interested in science, and especially in the area of physics. In the end, theism is able to provide justification for the philosophical foundations of science that naturalism cannot. I will discuss these arguments as well as possible responses. In particular, they argue, metaphysical naturalism is in conflict with several metatheoretic shaping principles, especially explanatory virtues such as simplicity and with scientific realism more broadly. But as Robert Koons and Alvin Plantinga have argued, this is more difficult than is typically assumed. Today, of course, naturalists reject the influence of theism and prefer to do science on their terms. This interplay between theism and shaping principles is often unappreciated in discussions about the relation between science and religion. For example, the notion that nature conforms to mathematical laws flows directly from the early modern presupposition that there is a divine Lawgiver. While many shaping principles have endured since the scientific revolution, others have changed in response to conceptual pressures both from within science and without. Some of these principles are metaphysical (e.g., the uniformity of nature) and some are methodological (e.g., the need for repeatable experiments). Science presupposes a number of metatheoretic shaping principles in order to judge good methods and theories from bad. Scientific knowledge is not merely a matter of reconciling theories and laws with data and observations. Surprisingly, differences within the open theology camp are more relevant to these issues than open theism itself. Of particular interest will be naturalism (both metaphysical and methodological), reductionism, and realism. ![]() My second goal is to consider how certain shaping principles impinge on open theology. ![]() ![]() Particular attention will be paid to their suspension and rejection, even of widely held principles. My first goal is to categorize these principles and show how they’ve operated in the history of science. There are also the “explanatory virtues” of simplicity, testability, internal and external coherence, fruitfulness, and wide scope. Researchers are thereby relying on two metaphysical doctrines: the uniformity of nature and mechanistic causation. For example, we assume that the causal regularities observed today will also hold tomorrow. There is, however, a third layer where philosophy of science and science proper overlap, the realm of metatheoretic shaping principles. Scientific knowledge is often categorized as experimental or theoretical. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |