Methodological naturalism

From: Doug Hayworth (hayworth@uic.edu)
Date: Thu Jul 06 2000 - 13:53:08 EDT

  • Next message: Quinatwork@aol.com: "Re: DPS Velocity"

    At 09:28 PM 7/5/00 -0700, Joel Bandstra wrote:
    >In the message below Bob brings up an excellent point concerning the
    >purposelessness of Darwinian Evolution versus our belief that God has been
    >quite intentional in his creation of the universe and, more specifically,
    >his creation of each of us. I propose, however, that this is where the
    >distinction between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism
    >becomes of central importance. In methodological naturalism we
    >intentionally posit no purpose or ultimate goal in our theory of how nature
    >operates. We do this, knowing all the while that nature is purposeful
    >because at the root of it all is God. In Philosophical Naturalism, to the
    >contrary, one presupposes that nature itself has no purpose.
    >
    >Perhaps the problem here is the blurring of the line between the theory and
    >the phenomena. As Christians we never think of phenomena as being an
    >accident but as scientists we almost always ascribe our explanations of and
    >predictions concerning physical phenomena to purposeless theories. For
    >example, one could ask, "is there a purposefulness in classical mechanics?"
    > The answer would be no. Classical mechanics presupposes no god, no goal,
    >it does not even attempt to explain why it works or outline it's
    >limitations. This purposelessness of classical mechanics does not,
    >however, mean that the phenomena of planets orbiting the sun is without
    >divine intent. Perhaps it would be good to wonder for a while if it would
    >even be possible to do science under the auspices that every theory ought
    >to start explicitly with the existence of the triune God and the truth of
    >the Bible and then follow logically from there.

    I said in my earlier post that natural science has been (and will continue
    to be) so powerful in helping us to understand the natural order precisely
    because it never rests in assuming and searching for natural causes. There
    is no logical point on this side of eternity beyond which natural science
    should give up in this quest. To do so is, BY DEFINITION, to engage in
    something other than NATURAL science.

    My understanding is that Phil Johnson and the anti-naturalism movement does
    not appreciate any distinction between methodological naturalism and
    philosophical/metaphysical naturalism. Implicit, and perhaps also
    explicit, in their objectives is to replace a godless natural science with
    an intentially theistic natural science. This would be a grave
    mistake. It would effectively kill fruitful inquiry in natural science and
    also make Christian theology (also a science, but based on interpretation
    of revelatory data, i.e., scripture, person of Christ, etc.) subservient to
    Creation (when, in fact, our theological understanding of the MEANING and
    purpose of Creation should be subservient to God's Revelation).

    This is NOT to say that natural science is prohibited from legitimately
    investigating the physical/historical basis of biblical miracles, or even
    the evolutionary basis of human altruism and morality. What it means is
    that, as Christians, we do not make the knowledge derived from natural
    science the primary basis for understanding God and his Revelation. We
    work the other way around: using our understanding of God's Revelation to
    help us interpret the metaphysical significance (meaning) of natural
    science. Perhaps an evolutionary analysis of morality would suggest that
    we are inclined/adapted to do something or other that is less than what we
    know God has called us to do and be. No problem. This would simply
    confirm to us that God did indeed call us by his Revelation to be more than
    what we are in our physical nature. Yet, we don't deny the reality of the
    physical component.

    I find the idea of a "theistic natural science" to be an oxymoron, like
    "spiritual car mechanic". When I go to have my car fixed, I want a
    mechanic who is methodologically a naturalist; he rightfully assumes to the
    bitter end that there is a physical basis for the problem. If he never
    finds one, and God somehow the problem goes away, I thank God. For me,
    having faith that God will provide, it was a miracle, a special provision
    in a time of need. If the mechanic finds a problem and fixes it, I also
    thank God, and trust Him to provide for me to pay for the work. By either
    outcome, I want the mechanic to be a relentless methodological naturalist
    (and, significantly, I give thanks to God for his purpose in my life). If
    my mechanic is a Christian, that's all the better; but only in the sense
    that he will (hopefully) have a higher level of integrity and tenacity in
    solving my car problem, i.e., his Christianity makes him a better
    methodological naturalist. As a Christian, he will also be able to share
    in my experience of provision.

    This is why I believe it is entirely inappropriate for creationism to be
    taught alongside evolution in biology classes. One is a natural science
    while the other is not. Alternatively, discussion of evolution in biology
    classes should not include discussion of the merits of the Christian
    doctrine of Creation.

    Of course, we can't expect highschoolers to understand and appreciate such
    philosophical complexities, can we? Secondary education is all about
    memorizing the the bare facts. No critical thinking, please. ;)

    Doug



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 06 2000 - 13:52:25 EDT