Tuesday, March 13, 2007
"Scientific Materialism's Failure"
One of the canards regularly vomited up by fundamentalists (and not-so-fundamentalist believers) is that scientific materialism is responsible for atheism. Typical of such claims are those made by The Discovery Institute's Wedge Strategy. Theologians in the Catholic Church express similar concerns, and there are other examples.
It's clear that many religious people don't like scientific materialism. But is it true that scientific materialism leads to some other, more insidious form of materialism?
The short answer is no.
First, some definitions. There is no such thing as scientific materialism; it's a phrase dreamed up by religious opponents to science by conflating two things:
- Methodological naturalism, which is a formal name for the scientific method. Methodological naturalism assumes that the observable effects in nature are best explained by natural causes; supernatural causes are unnecessary. It does not make any statements about the existence or non-existence of the supernatural.
- Metaphysical naturalism. Metaphysical naturalism does claim that the natural world is all there is - it denies the supernatural.
All scientists accept methodological naturalism, and many (but not all) scientists also accept metaphysical naturalism. Some scientists (P.Z. Meyers and Richard Dawkins come to mind) vociferously advocate both.
Back to the now clarified question: does methodological naturalism lead people to metaphysical naturalism? In some cases, the answer is maybe. Richard Dawkins has said that his study of evolution led him to atheism. While his atheism is the result of his study of evolution and not of methodological naturalism per se, it is a conclusion he arrived at while using methodological naturalism.
But is that true of the population at large? The answer is clearly no.
Many polls (one by Baylor University and the Gallup Organization is here) provide factual evidence that that claim is false. Despite the importance most Americans place on science (and despite the fact, horror of horrors, they were taught evolution in high school), it hasn't swayed their views about God or the supernatural. In the poll referenced above, 91.8% of Americans say they believe in God. Most people also believe in "the paranormal," such as prophetic dreams or "ancient advanced civilizations." Astrology remains popular.
Despite the supposed efforts of scientists/atheists to sway innocents to their "materialistic" philosophies, most Americans are unmoved. If atheism were a primary or even a typical secondary result of science, 91.8% of Americans wouldn't believe in God. Scientific materialism has failed!
Why, then, the fundamentalist hysterics? Well, they consider a universe without the supernatural to be no universe at all. In other words, they believe metaphysical naturalism is a false belief - it doesn't jive with their "sacred" texts. And they can't stand "deviant" ideas, because those ideas might challenge their authority to keep gays in the closet and women in the kitchen.
I also suspect that they're using accusations against science as a cover for the failure of religion to significantly alter the behavior of most people. Religious people don't like materialism (which is typically defined as greed, casual sex, etc.), but they haven't been able to do much about it for thousands of years. In the 19th century, science conveniently reared its blunt head. Since science focuses on the natural world without requiring God (which led religious people to make the philosophically-bankrupt conflation of methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism), science became a proxy for economic materialism and hedonism.
In short, fundamentalists are pissed that the pursuit of self-interest trumps religion (and science, by the way). They're so pissed by their failure to "reform" human behavior according to their Iron Age standards they're willing to lie about science.
Lovely people, they are.
It's clear that many religious people don't like scientific materialism. But is it true that scientific materialism leads to some other, more insidious form of materialism?
The short answer is no.
First, some definitions. There is no such thing as scientific materialism; it's a phrase dreamed up by religious opponents to science by conflating two things:
- Methodological naturalism, which is a formal name for the scientific method. Methodological naturalism assumes that the observable effects in nature are best explained by natural causes; supernatural causes are unnecessary. It does not make any statements about the existence or non-existence of the supernatural.
- Metaphysical naturalism. Metaphysical naturalism does claim that the natural world is all there is - it denies the supernatural.
All scientists accept methodological naturalism, and many (but not all) scientists also accept metaphysical naturalism. Some scientists (P.Z. Meyers and Richard Dawkins come to mind) vociferously advocate both.
Back to the now clarified question: does methodological naturalism lead people to metaphysical naturalism? In some cases, the answer is maybe. Richard Dawkins has said that his study of evolution led him to atheism. While his atheism is the result of his study of evolution and not of methodological naturalism per se, it is a conclusion he arrived at while using methodological naturalism.
But is that true of the population at large? The answer is clearly no.
Many polls (one by Baylor University and the Gallup Organization is here) provide factual evidence that that claim is false. Despite the importance most Americans place on science (and despite the fact, horror of horrors, they were taught evolution in high school), it hasn't swayed their views about God or the supernatural. In the poll referenced above, 91.8% of Americans say they believe in God. Most people also believe in "the paranormal," such as prophetic dreams or "ancient advanced civilizations." Astrology remains popular.
Despite the supposed efforts of scientists/atheists to sway innocents to their "materialistic" philosophies, most Americans are unmoved. If atheism were a primary or even a typical secondary result of science, 91.8% of Americans wouldn't believe in God. Scientific materialism has failed!
Why, then, the fundamentalist hysterics? Well, they consider a universe without the supernatural to be no universe at all. In other words, they believe metaphysical naturalism is a false belief - it doesn't jive with their "sacred" texts. And they can't stand "deviant" ideas, because those ideas might challenge their authority to keep gays in the closet and women in the kitchen.
I also suspect that they're using accusations against science as a cover for the failure of religion to significantly alter the behavior of most people. Religious people don't like materialism (which is typically defined as greed, casual sex, etc.), but they haven't been able to do much about it for thousands of years. In the 19th century, science conveniently reared its blunt head. Since science focuses on the natural world without requiring God (which led religious people to make the philosophically-bankrupt conflation of methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism), science became a proxy for economic materialism and hedonism.
In short, fundamentalists are pissed that the pursuit of self-interest trumps religion (and science, by the way). They're so pissed by their failure to "reform" human behavior according to their Iron Age standards they're willing to lie about science.
Lovely people, they are.
