Haack v Ruse
Another passage from Haack’s book that is relevant to Ruse’s argument.
The commitment to naturalism is not merely the expression of a kind of scientific imperialism; for supernatural explanations are as alien to detective work and history or to our everyday explanations of spoiled food or delayed buses as they are to physics or biology. And the reason is not that supernatural explanations are alien to science; not that they appeal to the intentions of an agent; not that they rely on unobservable causes. The fundamental difficulty (familiar from the central mystery of Cartesian dualism, how mental substance could interact with physical substance) is rather that by appealing to the intentions of an agent which, being immaterial, cannot put its intentions into action by any physical means, they fail to explain at all.
Just so. Which is why it’s so irritating when religion-symps say, or jeer, that science can’t explain everything. Meaning religion can? Or meaning religion can explain the bits that science can’t? But religion can’t explain anything – not anything at all. Not really. It can pretend to, but it can’t actually do it. Answering ‘magic’ to every question really doesn’t explain anything whatever, does it. Well, answering ‘God’ for all questions that science can’t answer amounts to the same thing. If science can’t answer it, that means it’s the kind of question which can’t be answered by means of inquiry. Well – what else is there? Is there some other kind of epistemic endeavour that genuinely does find out things, but does it with completely different (yet still reliable, testable, coherent, logical, repeatable) methods? Some kind of science+++? Some kind of >science? No. No, what people mean when they say ‘science can’t explain everything’ is that there are some things that can only be explained by making up the explanations out of our own dear heads, without checking them against anything. And that isn’t an explanation. It’s a story, or an aphorism, or a pretty thought, but not an explanation.
It’s irritating in the same way when people say, as Michael Ruse did in a review of Dawkins’ A Devil’s Chaplain last year, that religion asks ultimate questions.
People like Dawkins, and the Creationists for that matter, make a mistake about the purposes of science and religion. Science tries to tell us about the physical world and how it works. Religion aims at giving a meaning to the world and to our place in it. Science asks immediate questions. Religion asks ultimate questions. There is no conflict here, except when people mistakenly think that questions from one domain demand answers from the other. Science and religion, evolution and Christianity, need not conflict, but only if each knows its place in human affairs – and stays within these boundaries.
I pitched a fit about this at the time – but that’s no reason not to pitch another. There is a conflict here – unless one is content to accept empty answers to questions, and ‘meaning’ based on the empty answers to those questions. It’s just way too easy to think we can be rational in one ‘domain’ and out in the ozone in the other ‘domain.’ Of course lots of people do that, but it doesn’t follow that philosophers ought to encourage the practice. It’s a dereliction of duty, if you ask me.
Do you suppose that Ruse has simply seen the insides of too many courtrooms? His formula sounds like a recipe for avoiding lawsuits and unseemly public spats.
And I notice that while he complains about “people like Dawkins”, he doesn’t name any names on the other side, just the non-specific “Creationists.” More evidence of an ‘oil on troubled waters’ approach?
‘Science asks immediate questions. Religion asks ultimate questions.’
Yes. And ultimate trumps immediate. And as they are by definition starting with the answers…
Ophelia, do I remember you remarking at one point that Ruse ‘isn’t silly’? Evidence, please.
“His formula sounds like a recipe for avoiding lawsuits and unseemly public spats. And I notice that while he complains about ‘people like Dawkins’, he doesn’t name any names on the other side, just unspecified Creationists.”
Bingo! Always placate the noisier nastier side. Fuck those scientist types–what kinda muscle have those little Poindexters got, anyway?
Don
Hmmmyeah, that statement does look shaky. On the other hand – I know damn well that if I talked to him in person it would take him about five seconds to make me look extremely silly (and probably cry), so it seems only prudent to say he’s not silly. Evidence is, erm, reputation, and I’ve read a good article of his.
I am quite puzzled by him. These arguments do seem just –
Maybe he uses weak arguments in public because they’re easier to understand? That could be it.
And since religionists often justify (in part at least) their faith by appeals to matters which have scientific implications if true – virgin birth, raising the dead, stopping the earth spinning for several hours, etc – the assent of those shallow scientists is a necessary condition for religion’s alleged deeper truths.
Do Ruse and all those who insist on the separation of science and relilgion ever acknowlege that religion has trespassed from the outset?
Did anyone else see that peculiar programme on the BBC on Wednesday? It purported to be about the interaction between science and spiritualism. For an hour it talked about seances, ectoplasm, the spirit world, etc. and at no time did anybody jump up and say IT’S ALL RUBBISH!!!
James Randi – where were you when I needed you?
P.S. I noted that the programme was made by the BBC’s Religion department. If you can believe one stupid thing…
I seem to remember Dan Dennett quoting Michael Ruse approvingly several times in Darwin’s Dangerous Idea (not that I can be bothered to look up exactly what he said), so its pretty surprising to see him writing this kind of crap. But he wouldn’t be the first really smart person to start saying silly things.
Chris, I couldn’t watch it all but dipped in and out, I particularly liked the women with gauze stuffed in their mouths, sorry, I mean, spewing ectoplasm. What was really curious were the constant references to how spiritualism couldn’t be properly tested by science due to the nature of the phenomena, as if that was why science regarded it as rubbish, when in fact the debunking of mediums was widespread.
“religionists often justify (in part at least) their faith by appeals to matters which have scientific implications if true – virgin birth, raising the dead, stopping the earth spinning for several hours, etc “
If (IF) God performed a miracle, why would that have scientific implications? If God exists, God can suspend the laws of nature at will, yes? Assuming that God exists, God’s mind is separate from humankind’s mind, and God isn’t bound to doing things in ways we can understand.
I realize it’s a circular argument, and I don’t expect you to buy it. I don’t even know if I buy it. But it’s a tautology: religious faith means accepting something that is unverifiable. It’s quite plain to me that science has nothing to do with it.
Keep posting those links to Ruse’s work, because I like him and agree with him.
What do you folks think of the angry crusade Dawkins is on? The last several years, Dawkins spends much more energy denigrating religion than he does advancing or promoting science.
“If (IF) God performed a miracle, why would that have scientific implications? If God exists, God can suspend the laws of nature at will, yes? Assuming that God exists, God’s mind is separate from humankind’s mind, and God isn’t bound to doing things in ways we can understand.”
Because, if God did these things (assumption a, how he did them doesn’t matter here because that is outside science by this definition, assumption b), he directly altered the physical world. And anything that has an impact on the physical world can be studied by science (assumption c). Ergo, assuming that (a)’God is outside the purview of science’, and (b)’God did these things with material consequences’ leads to a contradiction, suggesting that either (a) or (b) or both is false. If you want them to both be true you need to somehow establish that (c), that the physical world can be studied by science, is false – but that would be a very odd position to take.
Chris, I did see a BBC article that must have been based on that programme, and didn’t link to it in News because it was so riddled with stupid mistakes – that science ‘proves’ all its claims, that science is about certainty while spiritualism is about tentativity, etc. Talk about bad journalism!
Dix Hil,
You asked what we thought of Dawkins’ ‘crusade’ – so I’m pleased to answer. First off, I don’t think it is a crusade at all; he is simply brave enough to stick to a strictly logical stance, despite the unpopulatity of such a position. Ruse is who calls this a ‘crusade’ and people like Ruse (and the feeding media) who continuously bring him up.
Still, Dawkins is acting as the current incarnation of Darwin’s Bulldog, filling in Huxley’s shoes as is probably necessary, perhaps moreso in these times than it was in 1860. He is being combative – if telling people that Santa Claus does not exist can be considered combative. Yes, he is going beyond the culturally accepted ‘respect for all beliefs’ but, really, when has anyone ever offered that fairness to atheists? So, I’m glad he is doing what he is doing, and I respect him for his dangerous efforts on the behalf of rationality. I’d vote for him for anti-pope, if I were an anti-cardinal.
OB,
Ruse is insidious. Thanks for posting pieces relating to him. He makes me squirm in my seat – how does such a Chimera exist? With nonbelievers like him, who needs Christians?
MP
You bet, Mark.
I’m going to have to do an In Focus on Ruse – because there are a lot of links on him by now, so I should put them all in one place for convenience.
TO Mark:
“Yes, he is going beyond the culturally accepted ‘respect for all beliefs’ but, really, when has anyone ever offered that fairness to atheists?”
Well, this is a statement that i hear way too often, too bad that it might also be simply due to ignorance on religion, but hey, it “sounds so good” that it simply cant be tricky, rite? Evidence, please, evidence, especially if you claim to support rationality.
Paul Ricoeur could be one famous example (but yeah, militant atheists rarely believe that it might necessary to know about religion before talking about it).
Or for that matter we could also mention Galilei himself, before someone starts claiming that he was personally told from Galileo how his faith was a pure opportunistic position he HAD to take… :)
As for Dawkin’s crusade i find it partly interesting – because the guy puts in some delighting arguments – but still it’s the same old story since atleast 2600 years, and I’m getting quite tired of it and hoping serious scientists finally find better things to do. But the main problem with this crusade is that it gets us accustomed to moving discussions into an ideological realm, so that much more important problems like health, global warming, biodiversity, information and the economic systems arent really discussed scientifically and agnostically anymore, but through a prejudicial “partisan” attitude, through slogans and unverified models… (atleast on the mainstream media; serious journals luckily reflect this only partially). So Richard, please look at the bigger picture!
All very well, but I can’t find Ruse saying what you say he said in his review of The Devil’s Chaplain.
I guess you must’ve read it somewhere else.