There is only a difference between methodological naturalism and ontological
naturalism if we are open to the possibility that there may be other methods
of inquiry (besides naturalism) that could potentially lead to truth.
Take Dane's disclaimer -- that science "because it is a constrained
discourse, it cannot claim, within its own four corners, to give us a full
picture of Truth." If this is indeed inappropriate (does Professor Jamar
mean unconstitutional?), then we really have crossed over into ontological
naturalism.
Chris
From: Steven Jamar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
<religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: Dover Case Questions
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 09:31:10 -0500
On Dec 22, 2005, at 9:05 AM, Perry Dane wrote:
Some scientists and philosophers -- folks like Richard Dawkins
and Daniel Dennett most vocally lately -- argue that the conclusions of
science, such as evolution, shred any possible basis for belief in God.
Would it be constitutional for this sort of Dawkins/Dennett claim to be
one of the propositions officially taught as a part of a science
curriculum? I assume not. Would it be constitutional to tell students
that there are no truths that are unamentable, in principle, to scientific
study and verification? I assume not. (I'm not saying that these sorts
of thing couldn't be discussed in public school classrooms.) All that
some of us are arguing, then, is that it would be constitutional simply to
advise students that the methodological naturalism built into scientific
inquiry (and which properly excludes the teaching of "intelligent design
theory" as a subject _within_ science) should not be taken for an official
commitment to the ontological naturalism of folks like Dawkins and
Dennett.
Wow! Your science teachers and students must be well ahead of the pack to
understand the philosophy of science and concepts like methodological
naturalism.
But the problem with your disclaimer is that methodological naturalism
isn't religion and so no disclaimer is appropriate. Indeed, it would be,
within the current context, just another undermining of the science
teaching and learning that is happening. And we don't need any more of
that.
I seriously doubt that HS science books make the entirely legitimate
religious/philosophical argument that the conclusions of science point to
the non-existence of god. I'll bet they avoid such stuff with great vigor.
In my experience with HS students, they do not need to be told that science
is not everything!
Steve
--
Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017
Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567
2900 Van Ness Street NW
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar/
"In these words I can sum up everything I've learned about life: It goes
on."
Robert Frost
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or
wrongly) forward the messages to others.
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
