The Non-Scientific Effects of
Methodological Naturalism
This page builds on the foundation of a page about the compatibility of science and religion that asks, "If you learn and use science, will this weaken your faith?" and "Are science and religion at war?", and examines the relationships between science and natural process, miracles, and scientism. Here are some excerpts:
comment: I've deleted this section (with quotes from the page about science-religion compatibility) to avoid duplication because, like many other parts of this page, it has been moved into another page, into Science and Worldviews in the part (in the right column) that describes how science can influence worldviews. / Eventually, probably sometime in March, I'll finish editing this page (the one you're reading) so it contains only sections that offer "added value" that you won't find in other pages. Until then, I recommend reading "Science and Worldviews" first.
Non-Scientific
Effects of
Methodological
Naturalism
Two
Limits for Science
What are the limits for what can claim
to be science? One proposal is methodological naturalism (MN)
which requires that scientific theories can postulate
only natural causes.
What are the limits for what MN-Science
can claim to explain? If we decide to accept MN, a second limit is
logically necessary: If an event really does
involve a non-natural cause, any explanation of the event by MN-Science (in
terms of only natural causes) will be incomplete or incorrect. This
limit, regarding the potential for unavoidable error in MN-Science, is MN-Humility.
A Change of Mind
In 1998, I was willing to support either
of two options: accepting MN (and MN-Humility) or rejecting MN. Summarizing
the rationality of MN-plus-Humility, I said: "We
can view a restricted MN-science as one aspect of a broader 'search for truth'
that considers all possibilities without imposing metaphysically biased restrictions
on theorizing. In this open search for truth,... MN-science can be
a valuable resource that should be respected as an expert witness, but it
should not be the judge and jury when we're defining reality and rationality."
Two years later, when I began revising
my overviews of Origins Questions, I concluded that it was more rational
to reject MN, mainly because I had become
convinced that open science is better science, but also because of the
rarity and futility of humility.
The Futility of Humility
In principle, a combination of "MN-Science
plus MN-Humility" is logically acceptable. In practice, usually
the result is not satisfactory because even when MN-Humility is acknowledged
(which
is
rare) it is not effective. Why?
Think about what happens when a "non-scientific" design
theory and a "scientific" non-design theory both claim to describe
the same event, such as the origin of life. Due to the cultural authority
of science, the nonscientific theory is not respected because most people
assume that, for a theory about nature, "not scientific" means "probably
not true." Instead, the scientific theory is assumed to be more
plausible, even if the scientific evidence does not support it. And
in a classroom where "only science is taught," only the non-design
theory is taught.
Bypass
the Process, Claim the Support
The Grand
Conclusion of MN-Science — that no matter what is being studied,
or what is the evidence, it happened by natural process — is
actually the assumption of MN. The circular logic of MN, which
converts a naturalistic assumption into a naturalistic conclusion, is automatic
and unavoidable. But usually MN-Humility is ignored. Instead
of explaining the logical weakness of MN-Science, there is an implication
that the assumption made by MN (that
it happened by natural process) is a conclusion reached
by science, and is therefore true. MN provides a way
to bypass the process of science and then claim the authority
of science as support.
Is methodological naturalism theologically
acceptable?
Is a naturalistic science compatible
with Christianity? Yes. By
defining terms carefully — by distinguishing between methodology and
philosophy, and between naturalism and naturism — we see that Methodological
Naturalism is not Philosophical Naturism:
According to a non-theistic religious philosophy of naturism,
nature is all that exists, with no God and no divine action, so everything that
happens is caused by matter-energy in natural operation. This philosophical naturism differs
from methodological naturalism in
two ways. First, philosophical is not methodological; a theist
can
adopt a naturalistic methodology (for the purpose
of doing science) but not a naturalistic philosophy (about
the way the world really is). Second, naturism is not naturalism; theists
believe that natural process is designed, created, and sustained by
God,
and
possibly is guided by God, so even though naturalism means "it
all happened naturally" this does not mean "it all happened without
God," which is the claim of naturism.
Methodology
can influence Philosophy
In principle, methodology
and philosophy can be independent. In practice, they are interactive
and each influences the other.
In principle, MN-humility can prevent
the naturalistic methodology of MN-science from influencing our philosophical
thinking about "the way the world is," about what does and doesn't
happen, and what is and isn't real.
In practice, methodology often influences
our thinking because naturalistic assumptions automatically become naturalistic
conclusions about "the way the world is according to science," and
many people are influenced by science. People can be influenced
because they want to believe what MN-science is telling them, or because they
trust science but they don't realize that naturalistic "scientific conclusions" are
not scientific conclusions. Instead, these conclusions are just assumptions
that are cleverly disguised, that are difficult to recognize when the laundering
of circular logic changes assumptions into conclusions.
According to Webster's Dictionary, scientism is "an
exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science." Most
people, including me, trust science as a method that usually is effective
for attaining reliable knowledge, searching for truth about nature,
and developing useful technology. We think science is a valuable
resource that should be respected as "an expert witness" but
that science (whether it's MN-science or open science) should not be "the
judge and jury" when defining reality and rationality. But
people with "an exaggerated trust" use
MN-science as the foundation for constructing an atheistic worldview
about "the way the world is." They think that belief
in God is unscientific and is wrong. They think belief in God
is a delusion that should be explained scientifically in terms of individual
psychology and group sociology. But their claims are based on
scientism, not science.
Open
Science and Open Discussions
Two proposals are discussed below: 1) we
should adopt an Open Science; but if not, then 2) in situations
where a Closed Science has been adopted, there should be a clear explanation
of MN-Humility and an open discussion of ideas that are relevant and
important.
Should we apologize
or improve?
The advantages of an open science
— liberated from rigid-MN — are described in a page about methodological
naturalism. The
main reason to reject MN is its logical deficiency: MN
demands that scientists should ignore some possibilities,
even though logic demands that scientists
should consider all possibilities.
the timing of MN-plus-Humility: First,
we reach a conclusion by using an approach (MN) that is logically deficient. Second,
with MN-Humility we apologize for the logical weakness of our approach by
explaining why the naturalistic conclusion might be wrong. / a
summary of the two steps: Bypass the process
of science,
and claim the authority of science.
Another option, which seems more rational,
is to fix the deficiency by letting logic (not naturalism) be the highest
priority in scientific thinking. Appropriate timing is important. If
we want science to be an effective method for constructing accurate theories
about nature, we should let scientists use the entire process
of science (including a logical evaluation of all competitive
theories) when they are determining the conclusions
of science.
Hidden
Arguments and Open Discussions
When MN is adopted in science,
how can we minimize the negative consequences in science education, both
inside and outside the classroom? To
reduce the possibility of atheistic implications (with science implying
naturalism
and then atheistic naturism) and biased evaluations, we can improve the
neutrality of our educational philosophy and
the quality
of our
thinking. {
Of course, these improvements are useful whether science is closed or open.
}
Occasionally
an atheistic worldview is explicitly stated, as when Carl Sagan
(winner of awards for science education) opened Cosmos by asserting
that "The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be." More
often, atheism (or deism) is implicitly communicated, even if this
is not intended, when "no theistic action in scientific descriptions
of the universe" implies "no theistic action in the universe." Due
to these implications, ignoring religious perspectives (as in a simplistic
policy of "teaching only science") does not produce a neutral
balance.
Implicit arguments can be persuasive
because only one view is presented, with no opportunity for counter-argument. Because
the arguments are hidden, they are not critically analyzed, so fallacious
reasoning can survive and thrive.
By contrast, open discussions will encourage
understanding and critical thinking. Possible discussion topics include
the goals and methods of science, arguments for and against MN, the logic of
MN-Humility, interpretations of natural process, scientific evidence for and
against theories of non-design and design. Or there could be an objective
evaluation of nondesign theories, even if design is not mentioned. During
discussions, important ideas from major
viewpoints should be expressed accurately
(with
no weak, distorted "strawmen")
so the ideas can be understood and evaluated.
MN-Humility can be introduced
by waiting for a topic, such as the origin of life, when humility is justified,
and
then explaining how MN-science ignores the possibility of design-action,
and why "nondesign (with undirected natural
process) for most events" is
compatible with "design-action (either natural or supernatural) for
occasional events."
Strategies for coping with the challenges
that teachers face when they try to teach wisely and well, with integrity
and skill, are outlined in Origins
Education.
A respect for religious perspectives,
with an absence of "faith versus reason" implications, is important. Without
respect, a discussion of important ideas can be harmful. With respect
and wisdom, it can be helpful and educationally productive.
As explained in Naturalism and the Origin of Life, scientists who are studying the origin of a feature should consider all possibilities: 1w (a natural event of low probability), 1w* (an event with apparently low probability that in reality is highly probable because there are so many universes), 1x (a current naturalistic theory is approximately true), 1y (a future naturalistic theory will be approximately true), 1z (a naturalistic theory is true, but we will never propose and accept it), 2A (natural design and construction), or 2B (supernatural design and creation).
As described earlier, methodological naturalism and philosophical naturism differ in two important ways:
METHODOLOGICAL is not PHILOSOPHICAL
Does a naturalistic methodology require
a naturalistic philosophy? No. Most scientists think that philosophy
is not very important in their science, and usually they are correct. {
For example, MN makes no difference in most areas of science, since nobody
wants to propose non-MN theories in these areas. } For most scientists,
it's easy to put philosophy and methodology into separate categories, and
to temporarily adopt a methodology of "naturalistic assumptions" while
they are doing science, even if they are not philosophical naturalists.
Does naturalistic methodology necessarily
lead to naturalistic philosophy? No. It is not logically justifiable
to convert the methodological assumptions of MN-science into a philosophical
worldview about "the
way the world is," including what is and isn't real. But some
influence is possible, because MN-assumptions automatically become scientific
conclusions about "the
way the world is," and many people
accept these conclusions about reality without realizing that some naturalistic "conclusions" are
actually the naturalistic assumptions of MN.
NATURALISM is not
NATURISM
"natural" does not mean "without
God" if we define natural as "normal
appearing" (which doesn't affirm or deny supernatural action) and undirected
natural process as "appearing to be undirected and normal." A
theist believes that God is actively involved in natural process because God
designed and created nature, and constantly sustains nature; and God can
guide nature so one natural result occurs instead of another natural result. Empirical
evidence cannot let us distinguish between theistic and nontheistic interpretations
of normal-appearing natural events. * And
a naturalistic formative history is compatible
with miracles in human history. / * But
evidence for an intelligent
design
of nature may support a theistic claim
that natural properties were designed by God.
The main differences between naturalism and naturism are
summarized in the table below, which shows the distinctions between theistic
creationism (TC) proposing young-earth creation or old-earth creation,
creation by theistic
evolution (TE), deism (D), and
atheistic philosophical
naturism (PN), regarding four questions: Was the universe
designed and created by God? Is God involved in natural process,
by creating and/or directing it? Have miracles occurred (and are
they occurring) in the salvation history of humans? Did
miracles occur in formative history?
TC
|
TE
|
D
|
PN
|
|
universe designed/created by God?
|
yes
|
yes
|
yes
|
no
|
God involved in natural process?
|
yes
|
yes
|
?
|
no
|
miracles in salvation history?
|
yes
|
yes
|
no
|
no
|
miracles in formative history?
|
yes
|
no
|
no
|
no
|
If we define "naturalism" to be a "mere naturalism" that involves only the claim that all events (in part of history, or in all of history) occurred by normal-appearing natural process, then the no-answers are naturalistic: there is a naturalistic formative history in theistic evolution (so it is partly naturalistic), and a naturalistic total history in deism and naturism (so they are fully naturalistic). Notice the meaning-difference (symbolized by a color-difference) between no and no: three views have no-answers, but only naturism has no-answers. Do you see the difference between a mere-naturalism (with some "yes" answers") and an atheistic-naturism that answers "no" to all four questions? theistic evolution is partly naturalistic, and deism is fully naturalistic, but these two naturalisms are not naturism.
Evolution and Atheism: Some people, including both atheists and theists, try to link evolution with atheism by implying that "If natural evolution could produce the complexity we observe in nature, then God either does not exist or is not active in history." This claim, which ignores the possibility that biological complexity was produced by a designing of natural process and/or by a guiding of natural process, should be challenged. And even though evolution is required for atheism, so "if atheism then evolution" is justified, a reversed claim that "if evolution then atheism" is not justified.
This website for Whole-Person Education has TWO KINDS OF LINKS:
an ITALICIZED LINK keeps you inside a page, moving you to another part of it, and a NON-ITALICIZED LINK opens another page. Both keep everything inside this window, so your browser's BACK-button will always take you back to where you were. |
The ideas
in this page are explored
more thoroughly in other pages about the mutual interactions between non-scientific factors and science , especially in Science and Worldviews. |
This page is
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/worldviews.htm
Copyright © 2002 by Craig Rusbult
all rights reserved