Steve Fuller (and fuller) writes to ID creationist Bill Dembski's blog about the question Do We Need God To Do Science?:
I debated the question with the historian Thomas Dixon, who basically holds that while we may have needed God to do science, we donât need the deity anymore. My own view is that if we mean by âscienceâ something more than simply the pursuit of instrumental knowledge, then that quest still doesnât make much sense without the relevant (Abrahamic) theological backdrop. I continue this line of argument in a new book, due out this summer.
The question's answer is "no." This has been a simple answer to a stupid question.
I'm not surprised that Fuller can expand that answer to a whole book, and still wind up with the wrong answer. His testimony in the Dover creationism trial wound up being cited heavily in support of the plaintiffs, despite his having testified at length for the defense, so his own awareness of where his arguments lead is clearly imprecise.
But does one need Abrahamic religion to do science? No.
There's an interesting discussion to be had about how Chinese science related to our modern, Western concept of science, but the Chinese made major advances in math, probability, and practical applications of chemistry and physics long before adherents of Abrahamic religions did. And non-theists today do just fine in science.
So do religious people, of course. Ken Miller says that he pursues science precisely because he's religious â that he thinks the intelligibility of the universe reflects the deity's desires and intent. And that's a common enough view among many religious scientists. But the intelligibility of the universe is self-sufficient, and doesn't require any theistic perspective or background to discover. Scientific advances from the discovery of fire and fermentation onward have been rooted in the trial and error approach which ultimately yields modern scientific methods.
I haven't seen Fuller's latest book, but the only way one can plausibly defend the claim above is to argue for a fairly narrow understanding of "science," thus excluding Greek science and Chinese science because they are not descendants of the intellectual lineage of Newton and Bacon, and that science must display certain traits unique to that lineage. But again, this claim fails to bear up under pressure. Science is a varied enterprise, with modern scientists employing a quite different approach to science than that proposed by Bacon and employed by Newton. Whether they're as different as Chinese science was from European Enlightenment science is worth discussing, but that doesn't alter the fact that science writ large can operate in a range of cultural contexts.
- Log in to post comments
Fuller describes himself as an atheist, as I recall. UD needs to trot him to make the point that ID is not about Christianity. But UD pays a price; witness his performance at Dover. His support for ID seems to emanate more from an argument for academic freedom, mixed in with philosophical disdain for any arguments that invoke the "bulk of the evidence."
Large chunks of East Asia live with the view of karma, not a creator god. It would be nice if atheists, abrahamacists, etc. would, for once, evince the slightest understanding/acknowledgement of this view when they debate about what are and aren't human universals. Asians living in Asia need an Abrahamic viewpoint before they be real, heartfelt scientists?
I simply despise Fuller. He's a walking conservative version of the Sokal hoax. But it is astonishing how he can claim to be non-religious then claim an Abrahamic God is necessary to do science. This is a person for whom words do not mean things.
That said, there's a person in a slightly similar case, Henry "Hank" Bauer, an electrochemistry professor, who wrote great books about philosophy of science ("The Myth of the Scientific Method") and the intersection of science, fringe science, and crankdom ("Beyond Velikovsky"). I find his case very sad.
After a while, he became very right-wing, and it ended up coloring his views. Now he's largely known as an AIDS denialist. He's actually embraced a raft of right-wing denialism nowadays, stuff you'd find in Regnery Press's Politically Incorrect Guides.
Of course, this retroactively tends to discredit his philosophy of science book and arguments, but in fact, they were very sound and reasonable. His explanation of the boundaries of science and non-science was the best I've ever read.
What really saddens me is the way the most well-known or at least squeaky philosophy of science (history of science, science studies, sociology of science) people will discredit the majority.
It's a vicious circle too - if you can't get respect and attention for meta-scientific studies, it seems like the next best thing looks like getting into fringe science and denialism.
I'm reminded of the late Marcello Truzzi and his Zetetic Scholar, and of Lee Smolin's praise for the input from the late Paul Feyerabend. I think they're on the right track, but criticism of skepticism has to police itself tightly.
These two remarks about Fuller are so totally offbase. First of all, there is nothing conservative about Fuller's political standpoint. Are you simply inferring this from his support of ID? Also, I've read his Dover testimony, and he never talks about academic freedom in that context. He also has never called himself an atheist, as far as I know. He calls himself a 'secular humanist'. You might want to acquaint yourself with his views:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2006/jan/31/academicexperts.highere…
Also, he has written about the karmic world-view (which he strongly opposes) in The New Sociological Imagination (Sage, 2006).
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sociological-Imagination-Professor-Steve-Fuller…
I'm not saying you need to like his views, but you should begin by acquainting yourself with them.
Googling, Fuller has been described as an atheist, agnostic (by Denyse O' Leary, with no objection following), a non-deist, and a non-Christian (again, no objection in an interview; link below). He has described himself as a "secular humanist." My "atheist" designation is from a memory of a bio at Uncommon Descent. Can't seem to dig it up, though.
As far as karma goes, I'm not surprised that Fuller has touched on it. And opposes it. There's no discussion of karma, surprise, surprise, in the relevant UD article, or in the audio interview with Fuller and Dixon (http://www.premierradio.org.uk/shows/saturday/unbelievable).
Fuller does, however, say that the view that humans have some privileged role in the world (supposedly an important motivator of scientific inquiry/advancement) is purely a product of abrahamic religion. That's bunk. Google "precious human birth"...you'll get a load of karma-talk and buddhism.
Lost in these discussions, of course, is whether god-belief is a motivator of science in the year 2010, as opposed to eras when your continued existence was best served by endorsing certain religious dogmas. Abrahamic religion's historical need for the technologies of war is also ignored; instead, we're supposed to think that abrahamic scientists were heroically striving to understand the mind of god.
Well, I don't know how much you can rest on a radio discussion, where karma was not the most obvious topic....
In any case, I'd like to see the link (you didn't provide it) where Fuller is described as not-anything-close-to-theistic. It seems to me that he's definitely orientated towards the Abrahamic religions.
Which also raises the question of whether science is simply neutral to the Abrahamic war-mongering. I'm a bit sceptical of science as this helpless pawn, since it seems capable of playing all sorts of political games.
By the way, there's more to Fuller's view than that humans are privileged. He buys into the Abrahamic view that we're created in the image and likeness of God. At least that's part of what he thinks motivates cience. That's a much stronger view, one not found in Buddhism -- unless I'm mistaken.
Norrie:
I'm reasonably familiar with what Fuller claims his views are. Due to the history of his actions, I am basically saying he's either not telling the truth, or those values are epiphenomena.
When I say he's a walking Sokal hoax, I mean that, too. Any troll can call a radio show or comment on a story and say "as a secular humanist ..." or anything else they want to ... and finish with " ... but I say America will be blessed if we put Jesus in charge like the Founders wanted!"
He's never applied the standards he pretends to advocate to the right-wing groups he's always been employed by.
Also, Fuller's the worst writer on philosophy of science I've ever read. I've read a lot of authors - Kuhn, Lakatos, Popper, Feyerabend, Hank Bauer, Alfred DeGrazia, etc.
Fuller reads like someone trying to push the line of the Discovery Institute across the board (which is a right-wing agenda from a right-wing think-tank) while at the same time discrediting all them postmodern-y academics.
Norrie:
It occurs to me, though, that you confused what I was saying about Hank Bauer (about whom I was mostly talking) with Steve Fuller.
Hank Bauer did become a right-wing crank with age. Steve Fuller has simply become the trusted servant of right-wing cranks.
Also, I dont care about his views, because the books those views produce are junk.
I mentioned Hank Bauer because science studies is really important, and I think Fuller and nowadays Bauer give a good discipline a bad name. If that was unclear, maybe this clears it up.
Norrie...I simply googled "Steve Fuller atheist" and got a
variety of readouts on his religious views.
He's not easy to pin down, however. When he began posting at UD, he irked a number of the regulars by suggesting that they use their "science" to discern the nature of the designer. That's a no-no. He also runs off on philosophical tangents that aren't of interest to your typical IDer. I guess he serves UD's interests more than he harms them.
I don't find any evidence that he "buys into" the view that humans are created in the image of god. He sees it as an important motivator of science. Obviously, he's correct that eastern religions don't subscribe to this. He also sees the privileged position of humans as a motivator, and goes on to say that eastern religions lack this view. He's very wrong here...an understanding of buddhist basics (e.g. the "six realms") would have spared him the error. Fuller's argument requires him to be aware of widely-held opposing views...but he isn't.
Delgado, I'm afraid you haven't read any of Fuller's books or you've read books by people you're confusing with Fuller. (I've read a few of the books.) I'm also not sure what right wing groups you think have been employing him. He's not a fellow of the Discovery Institute. And is he trying to discredit postmodernists? Most of the time it seems that he is accused of being one, though he denies it.
Also, ngong, from reading The New Sociological Imagination, I don't think the nicety you raise about Buddhism really affects his argument. After all, the supposed 'privilege' that Buddhism grants humans didn't help to advance science, did it?
After all, the supposed 'privilege' that Buddhism grants humans didn't help to advance science, did it?
But this privilege does advance science when it inspires Christians? (did you listen to the radio interview?)
Let's not consider contingency,accidents, and snowballing effects in the development of science. Forget about climate and geography. Ignore abrahamic religions' needs for evangelizing and warmongering and manifesting/discovering magical substances. Toss out any complicating arguments about abrahamic religions' anti-science propensities. Toss out neutral events too (e.g. a need for time-keeping devices for medieval monks). Ignore what non-abrahamic religions actually say, and poo-poo any science that did emerge in non-abrahamic areas. And then Fuller can claim that science was motivated by the religion of his upbringing.
Norrie:
I don't want to quibble over the details of what creates Fuller's public writings. It may very well be the DI's Center for Science and Culture publishes him, the Thomas Moore Law Center used him and the DI recommended him to the school board, he wrote a blurb for the latest version of Pandas and People, and he told people via Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed that Darwinism leads to abortion and euthanasia as separate and unconnected events.
That he gets his paycheck from the U of Warwick I never doubted. I will change employed to used - with his full and vigorous cooperation.
Meanwhile, he subscribes to Teabagger Science, including the misuse of the term fascism to describe mainstream scientists.
Also, since what I have read of Fuller's was to me turgid, almost parody prose, why would I seek out his books, seriously? He's been a dreadful writer in my experience, and he does more to harm the useful parts of postmodernism than Norman Leavitt could have ever dreamt of.
- BBC(1 February 2010): Professor's alien life 'seed' theory claimed - New evidence from astrobiology "overwhelmingly" supports the view that life was seeded from outside Earth, a scientist has claimed - Prof Chandra Wickramasinghe of Cardiff University says the first microbes were deposited on Earth 3,800m years ago...
- The Guardian (21 January 2009): Charles Darwin was wrong about the tree of life...Ingredient for life detected in comet dust:
http://cristiannegureanu.blogspot.com/2010/02/bbc-professors-alien-life…
By the way, I came up with a compromise theory between Intelligent Design and Random Mutation with Natural Selection:
Budget Life.
The theory is that life on most planets was NOT designed, but was instead a cheap, shoddy knockoff of Designed life. And the various shortcuts taken producing the cheap knockoffs explain some of the variety.
I now have another theory - any design in life was done by a social constructionist, so the meaning and order, while there, are impossible to locate and demonstrate.
Fuller life.
Delgado, what drugs are you taking?
What exactly has Fuller published with the Discovery Institute?
When did he endorse Pandas and People? He's on record being against it.
See a doctor immediately! Or stay out of debates that are way beyond your comprehension!