ADVERTISEMENTS

In no surprise whatsoever, Jerry Coyne has also endorsed Sean Carroll's attempt at a de novo philosophy of science, without regard to the work of generations of philosophers and scientists who have come before. Coyne's adoption of Carrollism has some amusing aspects.

Carroll cites, as a central example of his particularly muscular version of "inference to the best explanation," the theory of quantum uncertainty and its defeat of the theory of determinism. And yet, it was not very long ago that Coyne was complaining that Francis Collins was allowing "his scientific statements and beliefs to be infected with religion" because Collins had the temerity to point out that quantum uncertainty was an area of the world, as revealed by science, in which a God could act without our being able to detect such action or to even be able to say that that such action is against "the laws of nature." Coyne plaintively complained that theists would not give up their beliefs if we eventually find out that what appear to be totally unpredictable events entailed in quantum uncertainty really do have a deterministic causation. Coyne, of course, does not ask that of Carroll.

Which brings us to the mind-numbingly ironic part. If theists appealing to the facts of the world as revealed by science are "infecting" or "contaminating" their science with metaphysics, what is Carroll doing when he says:

It is a neat Catch-22. Theists who are scientists cannot so much as point to any aspect of science that might be congenial to their beliefs upon pain of being declared polluters of that noble calling, while "atheist-scientists" as Coyne calls them, can appeal to science with complete abandon, even based on what can only be charitably designated dubious philosophy, to support their metaphysics.

The only real question is whether this Catch-22 is forged in cluelessness or shamelessness.
.

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.