home | what's new | other sites | contact | about

  

 

Word Gems 

exploring self-realization, sacred personhood, and full humanity


From Pythagoras to Darwin:
A Brief History of the Unspoken Underlying
Metaphysical Assumptions of Modern Science
and How They Affect the Evolution Debate:

Part II

 

 

return to "Evolution Controversy" contents page

 

The following discussion derives from the lectures of Professor Steven Goldman, Lehigh University.

 

 

 

Editor's note:

On the “Knowledge” page, I feature an article which explores the lectures of Professor Steven Goldman, an award-winning teacher in The Great Courses pantheon.

Dr. Goldman's work is also referenced in the "Not Enough Time, Part III" evolution article.

 

 

Modern science inherited much from the Middle Ages. Four major ideas from that early time were adopted as part of the philosophical equipment employed by science today.

 

Adelard of Bath and the four precepts

An Englishman, Adelard of Bath (c. 1080 - c. 1152 AD), wrote a book called “Natural Questions.” It proposed four precepts which, he thought, should undergird science’s quest for truth in the natural world.

Editor’s note: The term “scientist” was generally not in vogue until around 1830. Before then, “natural philosophers” studied nature, as opposed to philosophers who studied ethics, metaphysics, logic, and the like.

 

excerpts from "Natural Questions," written in the form of a dialogue with a nephew, who represents the religious view of the day:

ADELARD: I take nothing away from God, for whatever exists is from Him and because of Him. But the natural order does not exist confusedly and without rational arrangement, and human reason should be listened to concerning those things it treats of. But when it completely fails, then the matter should be referred to God. Therefore, since we have not yet completely lost the use of our minds, let us return to reason...

those who live without rational thought, and defer mindlessly to authority, are like beasts led around by a halter

It is difficult for me to talk with you about animals, for I have learned one thing, under the guidance of reason, from Arabic teachers; but you, captivated by a show of authority, are led around by a halter. For what should we call authority but a halter? Indeed, just as brute animals are led about by a halter wherever you please, and are not told where or why, but see the rope by which they are held and follow it alone, thus the authority of writers leads many of you, caught and bound by animal-like credulity, into danger.

Whence some men, usurping the name of authority for themselves, have employed great license in writing, to such an extent that they do not hesitate to present the false as true to such animal-like men. For why not fill up sheets of paper, and why not write on the back too, when you usually have such readers today who require no rational explanation and put their trust only in the ancient name of a title?

For they do not understand that reason has been given to each person so that he might discern the true from the false, using reason as the chief judge. For if reason were not the universal judge, it would have been given to each of us in vain...

I will cut short this discussion of the fact that in my judgment authority should be avoided. But I do assert this, that first we ought to seek the reason for anything, and then if we find an authority it may be added. Authority alone cannot make a philosopher believe anything, nor should it be adduced for this purpose...

I believe that man is dearer to the Creator than all the other animals. Nevertheless it does not happen that he is born with natural weapons or is suited for swift flight. But he has something which is much better and more worthy, reason I mean, by which he so far excels the brutes that by means of it he can tame them, put bits in their mouths, and train them to perform various tasks. You see, therefore, by how much the gift of reason excels bodily defenses...

To one who does not understand, everything seems impossible: but when things are understood, everything becomes clear...

 

 

the four ideas (upon which modern science is built)

First: The task of natural philosophy is to explain natural phenomena in terms of their causes.

Second: Nature is a closed system.

This idea has two facets:

Nature is closed epistemologically (Greek root = knowledge); that is, when explaining natural phenomena you must do so, Adelard contended, only by referring to other natural phenomena. This is a clarification of the first idea: natural phenomena must be explained exclusively in terms of natural causes.

Nature is closed ontologically (Greek root = what is “real”); the real things of nature cannot be created or destroyed.

Third: There is a centrality of importance concerning experience and experiment in natural philosophy, as opposed to a reliance on authority or revelation. Natural philosophers cannot simply quote ancient authorities, they must anchor their claims to knowledge in experience.

Fourth: The recognition that mathematics is peculiarly useful to describe natural phenomena.

 

Editor’s note: Adelard conjures his “four ideas” as response to the heavy-handed, stultifying authority of the RCC. He understood that the “halter of the beast,” led by oppressive ecclesia, was a severe problem in terms of discovering truth in the natural world. However, as we'll see, he went too far.

Dr. Goldman: Concerning idea number two, "nature is a closed system ontologically," a more-recent version is “the conservation of matter and energy.” This is a proposition that cannot be proved but we inherited the essence of it from Adelard of Bath.

this idea 'has never been challenged'

Dr. Goldman: Concerning "nature is a closed system epistemologically," this idea became part "of the de facto founding principles of natural philosophy and was inherited by modern science and has never been challenged. It is one of the most fundamental principles of natural science that you must use only natural causes to explain natural phenomena. You may not refer to supernatural causes in order to explain natural phenomena. The causes may be non-material – today we speak of energy fields – but they are not supernatural, and all explanation must be within the framework of nature."

Editor’s note: We have here an amazing statement! - “this has never been challenged”! And the question is, why not? Aristotle’s science held for 2500 years but was challenged and overthrown. Newton was considered to be the voice of God, his views dominated for over 200 years but were overthrown by Einstein. But Einstein, too, was shown to be incorrect in certain areas, was challenged, and has suffered modification. But a precept from 1100 AD “has never been challenged” and remains sacred materialistic doctrine. What’s going on with this?

the problem of causation and induction

The issue just raised deserves much discussion, and cannot be adequately addressed here, but for brief bullet points. All of this becomes a facet of what is famously called in philosophy “the problem of causation and induction.” David Hume (1711 – 1776) is considered to be the best voice on this important matter, and I would encourage you to see the article and watch a few introductory videos on youtube. However, the essential issue is this, as it relates to the evolution discussion.

There is no way to prove that “nature is a closed system.” Yet this precept is strictly adhered to. There are practical reasons why belief in certain constants in nature is convenient for Science. As Dr. Goldman put it, “if everything changed all the time we couldn’t have a scientific theory. If the constants of nature changed over time, then we have two possibilities: either there’s a pattern to the change, which does not change over time, or – you can’t have science.”

This intransigence of clinging to constants, however, has become more and more difficult since Werner Heisenberg’s discovery that the bedrock essence of reality is one of probability, not certainty. Also see, Dr. Rupert Sheldrake’s comments on how the so-called constants of nature are likely to be a myth.

We understand the dilemma of Science needing some sort of patterning or regularity of nature’s ways; however, I will say this – there’s more going on here than a debate about “causation and induction.”

It comes down to this: Science is extremely loath to adopt any idea that even hints at what they would call a “supernatural” cause. We get it. Adelard explained it to us. The RCC “poisoned the well,” for the ensuing thousand years, of the entire area of authority and revelation as basis for knowledge. And modern Science has adopted Adelard’s viewpoint here. It’s not entirely unreasonable. So much of Religion becomes the antithesis of rational enquiry; unfortunately, if Science isn’t very careful, it ends up engaging in the same dogmatic, unreasonable thinking.

There's a prejudice against “the scientific evidence of the afterlife.” It’s deemed to be “supernatural.” The term “supernatural” can be a meaningless term. Everything about the evidence for the afterlife is part of the natural world; much of it is part of physics, energies vibrating at a rate undetectable to what we’re used to. This doesn’t mean it’s unreal.

Again, all this is a very large subject. It impinges upon the issue of evolution - because consciousness, not matter, forms the basis of reality, and consciousness cannot be weighed on a balance scale or measured with a ruler – but this doesn’t mean it’s some form of “supernatural” fairytale. 

For Science to dismiss something simply because it's different or because it escapes the five senses or because it doesn't conform to hallowed traditional scientific doctrine or because it contradicts ancient authority, is to commit the same sin of dogmatism that the RCC was guilty of.

 

Editor's last word:

My own view is that, strictly speaking, I don’t think there are constants in nature. Dr. Sheldrake gives evidence for this in his book “Science Set Free.” I think the right path will be along the lines of what Heisenberg discovered. Everything’s in flux, defined by probability; everything, at the heart of reality, is fluid – allowing it to move toward future goals, enhancements, and refinement.

See the article on "Metaparadigm" concerning how one's world view leads one to certain assumptions. A metaparadigm can be the hidden cause as to why some things are never challenged.