Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law & Education

Rating:
Summary: Never assume, becasue . . . you know the rest!
Review: "The matrialists are offensive to me in many respects; their doctrines I hold to be pernicious, and I am disgusted at their arrogance. If their system could be of any utility to man, it would seem to be by giving him a modest opinion of himself, but these reasoners show that it is not so; and when they think they have said enough to prove that they are brutes, they appear as proud as if they had demonstrated that they are gods." Alexis de Toqueville, Democracy in America, Book I, chp. 15

This is a gripping book. The deepest cuts always come from the sharpest knives, and Squire Johnson's blade is true.

I think the most important thing I gleaned from the books was an appreciation for the unquestioned assumptions we have. Fro example, we in the west believe that we are separate and individual entities, but in eastern thought, there is the principle of "moksha," where you undergo an epiphany and realize that all things are manifestations of a great cosmic one. The problems with that, is that, theoretically, since my neighbor and I are one, then I can conceivably be punished for my neighbor's crimes.

Johnson discusses two concepts: evolution as a type of metaphysical assumption, and the impact of this evolutionary assumption on education and law. I found it absolutely flabbergasting that Johnson asked if evolution was true, and the professor looked at him dumbfounded.

Part of the appeal of Evolution and Naturalism is the label of "science," which is a powerful hallmark and seal-look at attempts at "Cliometrics" in history. But labeling something as "scientific" doesn't make it "scientific," and secondly, not everything that isn't labeled "science" is useless. Love, as many poets have pointed out, is quite unscientific, computer dating services notwithstanding. But, as Thomas Sowell pointed out in "Vision of the Anointed," "One of the most common benedictions of the anointed is in the use of the word `science' to describe notions which are consistent with their vision, but which neither have the certainty not the intellectual rigor of science. . . . . The most important characteristic of science-empirical verification-is often omitted entirely by those with the vision of the anointed. Indeed, much of their verbal dexterity goes into evading empirical evidence. The crowing irony is that no empirical data are collected or sought as to how these `scientists' are wrong." (p. 214-215)

It seems more like a type of posturing than producing data. The reason why this goes on is that the ideas have consequences, and what we believe determines what we do. Which brings me to methodological and metaphysical naturalism. Plain and simple, metaphysical materialism is the reason why we have methodological materialism. You can be a methodological materialism, but lurking in the background is the idea of metaphysical materialism, since the methodology assumes the metaphysics. This presupposition about metaphysics, regardless if you believe it or not, influences your interpretation of the data.

This book is an easy read, since Johnson has smooth prose. It is geared for college level, but anyone ambition can tackle it, since there is no technical-eese.

Rating:
Summary: Eye opening.. but what are we watching?!
Review: I read this about a year ago and a propos for a book of this nature, it has garnereed scowling criticism and adoring praise, but not much in between. Well, here I come to fill the dearth.

I am an evolutionist, but I have, like Johnson, grown tired of scientism (the belief that everything non-science is nonsense) and an over-reliance on naturalism (calling everything that is merely naturalistic a full-fledged science). On issuese related to this he stands his ground well (better than any other IDer I've read). His point is this: science and naturalism have become increasingly synonymous and we are living in an age that craves for naturalism and naturalistic explanation even at the cost of accuracy or coherence. What does this lead us to? An uber-reductinism that, as William James puts it, leaves room for nothing we can care about: those intangibles like feelings, moral thought, ideals and such. They are dismissed as frivolity and 'touchy feely'. Instead we get 'selfish genes', reduction of the mind solely to matter (even though thoughts themselves are intangible as such), and our new moral code: game theory.

Another area Johnson picks up on is that science is starting to pass the threshold of being contingent on experiment and sense data. Rather, disciplines like sociobiology and theoretical physics are so theory based and oriented not on matter, but models, that they are hardly 'sciences' anymore. Johnson hits that on the head too. But instead of calling them philosophy (where they may better belong, being so theory based) we call them science; not becuase they are experimental, but because they are naturalistic.

But here is where I part ways with him. From here he assumes that science should not 'rig the game' by only allowing naturalistic explanations. Instead (this is where he gets sneaky) we should look at supernatural causes as a possible explanation (and his favorite, Intellegent Design theory). But what Johnson fails to hit on is that even the theoretical disciplines above a.) try to explain (rather than postulate and stop there) even if it is by model rather than experiment, and b.) that the above disciplines he castigates as 'not sciences' are at very least falsifiable (sociobiology might be, for example, by the fossil record or further DNA evidence). Intellegent Design merely replaces the mystery of matter's origin with the mystery of the 'designer' it posits but does not attempt to start explaining. And it is literally unfalsifiable because it lacks content other than "a designer did it".

From here, it goes far downhill as Johnson gets into all the supposed moral consequences of naturalism: moral relativism, nihilism, secularism in law and education, etc. He shows, though, only that these are POSSIBLE consequences of naturalism but never seems to come around to why - if one does not posit an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibonevelent creator - that one has to end up a relativist and a nihilist. In fact, he failse even to cite the most embarrasing fact to his case: most sociobiologists are as stertnly committed to fighting relativism and nihilism as he is (and sometimes, as in the case of Dawkins, more vigorously)!!

In conclusion, I gave the book 3 stars because despite the fact that I disagree with much in this book, the perceptions about naturalisms connection to science and vice versa are spot on, and the rest of the book is, if anything, quite learned. I think that even those into science and naturalistic philosophy should at least benefit by reading some of Johnson's adroit criticisms particularly in the first half of the book. Unfortunately, outside of those good points, there is much passionate asserting and little explaining.

Rating:
Summary: Not bad exegesis of the problem but ....
Review: I think my impression is similar that of others who reviewed this book. Johnson does a good job of making the case that philosophic naturalism, or materialism is often afforded a privileged position as the starting ground of much science, without itself being all that scientific (if science is understood as experimental, falsifiable, etc.) Darwin's theory of natural selection is usually, as here, the locus of the debate.

However, Johnson's argument seems to suffer from a problem that most Intelligent Design arguments suffer from: They try to show us that evolution by natural selection is not all that great a theory, so why not ... Creation by God? Well, because Creation by God is not all that great a theory either. It is certainly not MORE scientific than natural selection, and since the only "evidence" for it is a vague and primitive religious text, well, Johnson certainly doesn't offer any motivation why anyone should choose Intelligent Design OVER natural selection.

The logical conclusion of a successful argument against natural selection is skepticism about natural selection, not automatic acceptance of some other theory, especially one like Intelligent Design. It's not like there are only two options and we have to choose one. The responsible scientific position would be to remain always (at least a little bit) skeptical and accept the fallibility and provisional nature of all attempts to explain the world around us.

Rating:
Summary: Important for understanding why you believe what you believe
Review: Johnson is an articulate and excellent writer, for those who can actually follow what he is saying. Be prepared to think hard about what you are reading (i.e. this is no easy reader).

Keep your mind open as you read; Johnson is trying to show why we can't just take everything we learn in school, university, and culture as truth. Most of us know just how much of a product of our culture we are. Science as we know it is something we take for granted as absolute truth because our culture just assumes it is. It is time to analyze why it is that science is considered truth. If you are willing to set aside what has been ingrained into your head as you've been educated by a secular society, your eyes may be opened to the way things really are, not just what mother culture tells us they are.

Rating:
Summary: Great Lawyering, bad philosophizing.
Review: Philosophical naturalism, ie. metaphysical naturalism, is the belief that nature is all that exists. Methodological naturalism is the method which science, medicine, plumbing, psychiatry etc, use to develop natural explanations for natural phenomena. Johnsons book is based almost completely on a gross and incredibly naive confusion of the two.

Apparently angered that scientific methodological naturalism, to which no one has ever provided a remotely coherent alternative, will not support his religion, he turns to scapegoating metaphysical naturalists. This furnishes him with two poweful but ultimately vacuous rhetorical advantages he flogs throughout the book: 1. He is free to promote the confoundingly ignorant veiw that naturalism engenders blind acceptance of whatever modern theory of evolution is in vogue and vise versa. 2. He conveniently excuses himself from having to deal with the arguments of those philosophers who *really* do hold and defend metaphysically naturalist positions.

This book is another in a long dreary series of Josh McDowell level apologetic pamblum. In my opinion its only likely to convince those who've come, a priori, to same the conclusions Johnson has and are disposed to believe pretty much anything which they feel remotely supports their position. It will also ensnare those too philosophically unsophisticated to deconstruct Johnsons arguments and expose them for the propogandizing that they are. I was taken aghast at the numerous reviewers who found this book a "Hard read" or "It made me think." Someone needs to think a little harder.

Ironically this book is precisely what we would expect coming from someone with Johnsons credentials. Take a dash of sophistry, one subtle conflation, alot of scapegoating, broad emotional appeals, and mix them together.. you get what? You get the same rhetorical tactics that have been winning court cases since the adversarial trial system came into being. Unfortunately for Johnson and his well meaning but ill informed disciples, the disciplines of science and philosophy recognize and rightly reject Johnsons courtroom demagoguery for exactly what it is.

Whats truly sad are the number of well meaning xtians I've observed who read stuff like this and immediately begin proclaiming it as indisputable gospel truth on their campuses, no pun intended. Then they get into the inevitable public argument against someone with formal training in philosophy and logic, and they end up looking really, really dumb.

Stick to William Lane Craig =)

Rating:
Summary: The Debate Continues.
Review: REASON IN THE BALANCE is one of Phillip Johnson's follow up works to his book DARWIN ON TRIAL. REASON originated in the discussions and debates that Johnson partook while promoting DARWIN ON TRIAL and some of his experiences in the evolution versus creative design debate.

The book illustrates the far reaching affects of naturalism in everything from education to the law. Naturalists place their trust in reason, yet, as Johnson also points out they often arrive at conclusions and take place in discussions in a very unreasonable manner. The book examines how naturalism has eroded away the ethical and moral foundation on which much of our society was based and how decisions based upon a naturalistic world view are often far from reasonable and very unlogical.

The book is not light reading and mixes terms from law, philosophy, and science. A person who hasn't had much reading experience may find the book difficult to get through. However, if one reads the book with and open mind and heart, it is worth the while.

Rating:
Summary: The Debate Continues.
Review: REASON IN THE BALANCE is one of Phillip Johnson's follow up works to his book DARWIN ON TRIAL. REASON originated in the discussions and debates that Johnson partook while promoting DARWIN ON TRIAL and some of his experiences in the evolution versus creative design debate.

The book illustrates the far reaching affects of naturalism in everything from education to the law. Naturalists place their trust in reason, yet, as Johnson also points out they often arrive at conclusions and take place in discussions in a very unreasonable manner. The book examines how naturalism has eroded away the ethical and moral foundation on which much of our society was based and how decisions based upon a naturalistic world view are often far from reasonable and very unlogical.

The book is not light reading and mixes terms from law, philosophy, and science. A person who hasn't had much reading experience may find the book difficult to get through. However, if one reads the book with and open mind and heart, it is worth the while.

Rating:
Summary: Your reactions are showing...
Review: The very nature of the negative reviews on this book prove Johnson's point: people committed to a system are unwilling to examine that system. This book's detractors have--in this review space--called Johnson a multitude of names (ad hominem), called his credentials into question by saying he's not worthy to question their god, science (poisoning the well), and pathetically parodied him to make his arguments appear backward (straw man).

Once and for all: Johnson is not attacking science. He is attacking the assumption that, when it comes to explaining our origins, only philosophical naturalism and materialism are available to explain it. It is not testable, falsifiable, or observable that only materialist means created (or developed) the universe, and therefore defining evlution as the only valid scientific theory is outside of the realm of science (indeed, origins are in some sense outside the realm of science). If scientists and their supporters really wanted to be as objective as they love to claim, there would be no hesitation in admitting this. The fact that they don't is, once again, proof of Johnson's theories. The evolutionists have an agenda: explain our origins without God. They cannot give this up. They can say, "well, God created the universe and then it evolved." But yet they have no proof for evolution that cannot be explained in other ways (namely, I.D./creationist theory). And many things are explained BETTER by I.D. theory; so why push evolution if there's not a prior committment to materialism? The creationists are being the real scientists...

Rating:
Summary: Well written but missing a full argument...
Review: This book is sometimes overtly and sometimes subtly a polemic regarding the potential consequences we face as individuals and as a society if we reject, out of hand, Christian theism and just allow ourselves to be swayed by naturalism. I think Johnson makes a lot of good points about how terms are often used to exclude other areas of research by the very definition of the term. However, I often think Johnson takes this too far. What it all really boils down to is quite simple: those who make positive claims (whether in "science" or "religion") have the onus of proof on them. What Johnson tries to do is skirt this issue by refuting some the overall concept of evolution without saying the whole thing is wrong. While he often says the alternative is Christian theism (or divine creation), he very rarely makes positive assertions for that (which would put the onus on him). What if often boils down to is: if a supernatural Creator exists, this Creator might have chosen to do some creating. This Creator may have designed things. Yes, *if* that supernatural Creator exists, these are, I suppose, possibilities. But what is the methodology for determining that? Obviously Johnson says it cannot be "methodological naturalism". Fine. So how should one determine the viability of the hypothesis? On that point Johnson is quite silent. And that is a pity because it would go some way towards making his case.

As in Darwin on Trial, Johnson often states that he is not advocating an alternative claim necessarily but rather just showing how the current theory of origins is lacking; however, Johnson is certainly touting the idea of a Creator within the context of Christian theism. So he actually *is* proposing an alternative. Johnson says of himself (on page 49): "I am convinced that God is objectively real, not merely a concept or fantasy in my own mind." That is fine and usually the backbone on which alternatives to "naturalism" are based. Johnson argues that, to a certain extent, his statement "God is a fact" is like the statement "evolution is a fact". But that seems a little disingenuous. After all, many people point out that evolution, in sum total, is not a completely factual account because there is some evidence that the theory does not account for. But Johnson does not provide *any* evidence at all for "God is a fact". He says *some* of evolution is demonstrably true but the overall concept is lacking. But not even *some* of God being a fact has been objectively demonstrable, much less *all* of it, at least that I have seen in Johnson's writings. So by that logic even if some of evolution is not true, it does not automatically suggest divine creation. What we need for things to have an objective reality (and Johnson notes this) is an empirical basis, presentation of hypotheses, making falsfiable predictions relative to those hypotheses, and suggesting some sort of research or experimentative agenda. I would be happy to hear Johnson's view of all this regarding his statement of God being an objective fact, whether in contrast to evolution or not.

Johnson might also want to ask why *if* evolution is wrong, the alternative would necessarily be Christian theism. Why not some form of polytheism? Or why not another naturalistic theory? Or why not aliens seeding the planet? In other words, is Christian theism (or divine creation) a fait accompli if evolution has gaps? Can the evidence of biology potentially support a creationist viewpoint? If so, how? That would go a long way towards making it seem a viable alternative in some sense which is what Johnson's aim appears to be. Is the notion of divine creation falsifiable in some sense? If so, how? That would go some way towards utilizing some of the elements of science that Johnson claims he does not want to dismiss.

Rather than worry about terms like "atheist materialists", "agnostic naturalists", or "theistic evolutionists" as he does, I think Johnson is on much surer ground when he talks about the metaphysical assumptions or predispositions of science and the issue of allowing various elements of creationism to have a fair hearing. There is a lot of logic in what he says regarding these issues because it is true that heuristic assumptions in science can become fact by fiat rather than by empirical corroboration. It is also certainly true that the treatment of religious topics in schools and other areas has been contradictory in various legal cases. I definitely recommend this book (and I speak as an atheist) because Johnson does present his points well and he is a good writer. But I think one should also be careful to look for the shortcomings in Johnson's own arguments (or lack thereof). He is very good with words and, as such, it allows him a certain dexterity in skipping over a few points here and there that really should be addressed if he truly wants to convince his readers.

Rating:
Summary: spiritual meat!!
Review: This book may be challenging reading for someone new to apologetics. However, all apologetics books require study and thought. Prepare to think! All science students at the university level should read this book. It points out some of the typical bias opinions that are supported in the typical university setting. Johnson is a great author and this book will stengthen your faith. By the way I emailed Johnson with a question, and he wrote me back!