THE QUESTION: Should we avoid the term "Metaphysical Naturalism"?
THE BASIC IDEA:
If we define "natural" as "normal appearing" (this contrasts with
"miraculous appearing"), Methodological Naturalism accurately describes
a methodology claiming that scientists should use only natural mechanisms
(with normal-appearing events) in their theories. This term is OK.
But if we want to emphasize that "natural" does not mean "without God"
or "no theistic action," using "naturalism" to describe the worldview of
"a universe without God" does just the opposite!
By contrast, "metaphysical materialism" accurately describes an
atheistic theory which claims that "matter (i.e., matter/energy and
its operation due to interactive forces,...) is all that exists."
OTHER PROS AND CONS:
If "nature" is defined as "the material universe," anything we say
about nature (which involves God) also applies to matter (which involves
God). Yes, but nature (the universe, which has included both natural and
miraculous events) differs from natural (which excludes the miraculous).
In my conceptualization of NATURALism, NATURAL (not nature) is the
base-word. { Here, the choice of a base-word is important. }
another consideration: Do Christians want to use words with positive
connotations (like NATURAL and HUMAN) to describe atheism?
Besides its meaning in metaphysical naturalism (that "only nature
exists" with no supernature), "naturalism" has other meanings: as in
metaphysical naturalism; as in "Linnaeus and Muir were naturalists";
a naturalistic approach to the study of science claims that "science"
should be defined by observing what scientists ACTUALLY do, not by
deciding what they SHOULD do.
But would a common meaning of materialism (love of material wealth)
also cause confusion?
Is another term (besides Nat or Mat) better? maybe Physicalism or...?
ABBREVIATIONS?
In "methodological naturalism" and metaphysical materialism,"
3 of the 4 words begin with m! :<(
Some possible solutions to this m-problem -- pM, wM, aM, or rM;
and mN or MN -- are discussed in paragraph 64.
What do you think?
Craig Rusbult