IMS Magazine - Summer 2012 edition in PDF format - Institute of ...

COMMENTARY
Commentary
On ‘A Reconcilable Conflict’,
by Benjamin Mora (Spring 2012)
All ways of knowing are equal, but
some are more equal than others
By Adam Santoro, PhD student
I would like to thank Benjamin Mora for submitting
a thoughtful commentary in the previous
issue of the IMS Magazine. Mr. Mora
offered a contrasting opinion to that which
I presented in the Winter 2012 issue, stating
that “…flourishing dialogue between science
and religion in recent years is testimony to
the fact that, far from being irreconcilably
conflicted these two domains of human
knowledge can fruitfully interact.”
Mr. Mora presented three arguments: firstly,
that I was incorrect to state that scientists
who are religious have not thought deeply
about the issue, or are acting in a non-scientific
manner; secondly, that my views succumb
to an erroneous method of thinking
called scientism; and thirdly, that I can only
successfully support methodological (and
not philosophical) naturalism, which allows
for a great number of plausible and fruitful
interactions between science and religion.
As per his first argument: Mr. Mora contends
that there are numerous “top-thinking” scientists
who have thought deeply about the
issue at hand. He presented a list of “topthinkers,”
presumably to illustrate how some
individuals maintain a high degree of scientific
integrity and still think about the issue
deeply. To this I would simply state that an
individual’s scientific prowess does not necessarily
translate to matters not published in
Science or Nature; because an individual is a
leader within his scientific field, it does not
necessarily follow that he maintains sufficient
scientific integrity when dealing with issues
outside of the published literature (especially
those that enter the realm of philosophy).
Mr. Mora listed a plethora of scientists, all of
whom are Christian. This is indeed curious,
and raises numerous questions (i.e., why not
list names of top-thinking scientists who are
non-Christians?). I assume that it has to do
with Mr. Mora’s theological bias, which leads
me into the rest of the discussion.
As per his second and third arguments: Mr.
Mora implies that scientists who support my
viewpoint suffer from scientism, which states
that the scientific way of knowing is the only
way to discover truth. Those who share Mr.
Mora’s epistemic viewpoint acknowledge
that there are different ways of knowing,
and theology and science are merely two of
such ways. With this worldview, theological
knowing can inform one about the natural
world, and science can inform one about theology,
since both ways of knowing are equally
valid. There is a problem with this view. It is
undoubtedly the case that a priori theological
beliefs necessarily dictate those natural
phenomena that can be explained by science
(e.g., something inherently boring and obviously
un-divine as Brownian motion), and
those that seemingly require theology (e.g.,
evolution vs. Intelligent Design). To those
with this view, theology only succumbs to
science when it would be to approach insanity
to deny the scientific truth (see: the history
of evolution, the Heliocentric Model,
etc.). Thus, it is not a simple case of complementary
systems of knowing that can live in
harmony; all ways of knowing are apparently
equal, but some are more equal than others.
Regardless, straw-men aside, I was careful
to present an argument that did not depend
on a single way of knowing. Instead, I (perhaps
naively) assumed that scientists support
methodological naturalism – a viewpoint
that says all natural phenomena must be
explained by science, and theology cannot
dictate when it cannot. Mr. Mora should
take note that the theological way of knowing
is not lost with this worldview; instead
it is limited to the knowing of non-natural
things. So, much like how in some views
theology often dictates the limits of science,
from my perspective it is science that dictates
the limits of theology. Methodological naturalism
does not assume that the theological
way of knowing is invalid or incorrect; it simply
states that it cannot conflict with science
when dealing with the natural world. In my
article I merely interpolated some conclusions
from this viewpoint. Firstly, if theology
cannot step on the toes of science on matters
concerning the natural world, then nearly
all theistic religions are to be rejected (since
they all make naturalistic claims in some
capacity, all of which conflict with scientific
principles and natural laws). Second, deism
is the only position a scientist/methodological
naturalist can support, since this position
does not contain conflicting views of natural
phenomena. Thirdly, a scientist should support
methodological naturalism fully – to
pick and choose avenues where science is to
be usurped by theology is to lack scientific
integrity. Thus, an individual who is properly
scientific and truly accepts methodological
naturalism can be a deist, at most.
As a final point, it is commonly argued that
methodological naturalism can be in harmony
with theology since a theistic God can
act upon the natural world in ways that we
cannot detect (and hence, by their very nature
are in tune with natural laws and can
be studied with science). For example, God
could drive mutations during evolution in
subtle ways that we cannot detect. This is
merely a logical game (you cannot prove the
non-existence of the Tooth Fairy with 100%
certainty). This viewpoint would seriously
undermine the credibility and integrity of a
“top-thinking” scientist, since the invention
of ad hoc hypotheses is wonky at best.
03 | IMS MAGAZINE SUMMER 2012 GENOMIC MEDICINE