Theism, naturalism, and scientific realism

Scientific knowledge is not merely a matter of reconciling theories and laws with data and observations. Science presupposes a number of metatheoretic shaping principles in order to judge good methods and theories from bad. Some of these principles are metaphysical and some are methodological. While many shaping principles have endured since the scientific revolution, others have changed in response to conceptual pressures both from within science and without. Many of them have theistic roots. For example, the notion that nature conforms to mathematical laws flows directly from the early modern presupposition that there is a divine Lawgiver. This interplay between theism and shaping principles is often unappreciated in discussions about the relation between science and religion. Today, of course, naturalists reject the influence of theism and prefer to do science on their terms. But as Robert Koons and Alvin Plantinga have argued, this is more difficult than is typically assumed. In particular, they argue, metaphysical naturalism is in conflict with several metatheoretic shaping principles, especially explanatory virtues such as simplicity and with scientific realism more broadly. These arguments will be discussed as well as possible responses. In the end, theism is able to provide justification for the philosophical foundations of science that naturalism cannot

Divine Action, Determinism and the Laws of Nature

Action; Determinism; Divine; Jeffrey; Koperski; Laws; Natur

Randomness and providence: Is God a bowler or a curler?

Most Abrahamic theists affrm divine providence, the doctrine that God brings about or allows everything that happens in the universe; moreover, they hold that God controls creation so that all things either are good or work together for good. How, then, does God do it? How does God’s providential guidance work? These are old questions, but the traditional answers did not have to face the modern scientifc claim that nature is, to some degree or other, random. How then can God ensure that God’s providential aims are met? This is the central question of this volume. We briefy present some of the issues in this introduction

Creationism

Creationism is usually paired these days with evolution, as in “The Creation vs. Evolution Debate.” Although there is something right about that, it is not the whole story. The controversy is older than Darwin and touches on far more than biological evolution. In this chapter, we consider broader questions about the origin of the universe and the relation between science and Scripture: How old is the universe? If God created it, how did he do so? How should we interpret the account of creation in the early chapters of Genesis? There are four main approaches to these questions. The first is naturalism: nothing exists beyond the realm of nature, material objects, and energy. Most naturalists consider religious beliefs to be purely matters of faith, making no contribution to history or science. Although naturalism and atheism are not synonymous, when it comes to matters of religion, they are essentially the same. The second view is young earth creationism (YEC), which takes a literal interpretation of Genesis and the six days of creation. The last two views, progressive creationism (PC) and theistic evolution (TE), reject this interpretation and agree with contemporary science about the age of the universe. The difference between PC and TE has to do with God’s activities after the initial creation of the cosmos. Although there are nonchristian theists in each camp, the debate is a much larger, defining issue among contemporary, Protestant Christians than it is in other religions

Frames, Brains, and Chinese Rooms: Problems in Artificial Intelligence

Advocates of strong artificial intelligence believe that properly programmed computers can go beyond the simulation of intelligent acts so as to instantiate and exhibit true intelligence, that is, intelligence equivalent to that of man. In this thesis, I consider three problems for strong-AI. First, John Searle\u27s well-known thought experiment of the Chinese Room is used to reestablish the syntax-semantics distinction and to show how this distinction applies to computer programs. I review the Chinese Room, consider a variety of objections to it, and then expand on the key points in Searle\u27s work. Second, I examine the Frame Problem in artificial intelligence, a guest ion made popular by Daniel Dennett. Rational agents have the ability to adjust their conceptual schemes and update their noetic web of beliefs so as to maintain a representation of the world. This ability is easily observed but not well understood. I argue that computers lack this ability altogether. The Frame Problem examines this deficiency and programming techniques designed to overcome it. Third, the Overseer Problem examines the need for artificial systems to have a rational agent in place who designates a given task and determines when that task is successfully completed by the system. I argue that as long as this need exists, artificial systems cannot be considered intelligent in an unequivocal sense

Stability in Cosmology, from Einstein to Inflation

I investigate the role of stability in cosmology through two episodes from the recent history of cosmology: (1) Einstein’s static universe and Eddington’s demonstration of its instability, and (2) the flatness problem of the hot big bang model and its claimed solution by inflationary theory. These episodes illustrate differing reactions to instability in cosmological models, both positive ones and negative ones. To provide some context to these reactions, I also situate them in relation to perspectives on stability from dynamical systems theory and its epistemology. This reveals, for example, an insistence on stability as an extreme position in relation to the spectrum of physical systems which exhibit degrees of stability and fragility, one which has a pragmatic rationale, but not any deeper one

Stability in Cosmology, from Einstein to Inflation

I investigate the role of stability in cosmology through two episodes from the recent history of cosmology: (1) Einstein’s static universe and Eddington’s demonstration of its instability, and (2) the flatness problem of the hot big bang model and its claimed solution by inflationary theory. These episodes illustrate differing reactions to instability in cosmological models, both positive ones and negative ones. To provide some context to these reactions, I also situate them in relation to perspectives on stability from dynamical systems theory and its epistemology. This reveals, for example, an insistence on stability as an extreme position in relation to the spectrum of physical systems which exhibit degrees of stability and fragility, one which has a pragmatic rationale, but not any deeper one