Thanks for this. I found it quite helpful as I have been unhappy with the
way "methodological naturalism" is often used for some time. Part of my
unease has been the way the argument often runs: methodological naturalism
leads to metaphysical naturalism and that seeing Christians in science often
use methodological naturalism they are therefore guilty by association of
being camp followers of metaphysical naturalism, despite supposedly rejecting
it. However this does not mesh with either how I think about God and His
world, or the way I practice science. I think you have gone some way in
disentangling the issues surrounding the use of terms such as "natural",
nature, etc., which I will try and put into effect.
I feel there is a similar need to disentangle what we mean by the word
"miracle". There are several uses which crop up.
1) Something that is inexplicable to us in our present state of knowledge (or
was so to a past generation).
2) Something unique, a singularity.
3) Something fundamentally inexplicable within the natural world
(supernatural).
4) Something incapable of scientific study.
4) The Biblical concept of signs, wonders, and mighty acts. Some of these
might be fundamentally inexplicable (Elisha's floating axe head, for example
in ). Others might have been inexplicable in terms of Biblical knowledge, but
might now be explicable (the swallowing up of the sons of Korah in as due to
an earthquake). Still others may be attributed entirely to natural processes
known at the time, such as the parting of the Red Sea (Exodus ).
The significance of these lies in the fact they demonstrate God's power,
especially in salvation and providential care of His people, and they are
events that induce awe and worship. It is important to notice that the
natural events of the world in Job or in Psalms, the weather, the seasons,
the lives of animals, are also signs of God's power which should induce awe,
wonder and worship. The destination between these "natural signs" and
wonders and the various types of miracles I have delineated above, seems to
have been trivial to the Biblical writers, compared with the awesome reality
of a God who acts.
is in supernatural processes. It is interesting to note that, although belief
in supernatural miracles is often seen to be an inextricable part of faith,
Jesus seems to imply in that an excessive desire to seek supernatural
miracles is a sign of lack of faith, rather than faith itself.
So where does that leave our understanding of miracles, particularly in the
conversation regarding the necessity of miracles in creation? Is it
necessarily to regard them as "supernatural" , or are they God working
through His creation in ways we have not realised yet? How do we tell,
scientifically or Biblically? Does it matter? In one sense I suspect not,
because, as a theist, I see God is at work in any or all of these? However
some people do seem to have a theological need for God to act supernaturally,
especially in the creation of the biological realm. Why is this? Is it
because biological systems are so wonderful they call out for "supernatural"
creation? Why would this be more wonderful (in a Biblical sense) that God
working through His creation to the same end?
Feed back on this will be appreciated, hopefully clearing rather than
muddying the waters!
God Bless
Jonathan
Craig Rusbult wrote:
> The following is a "distilled essence" of paragraphs 14-18 and 60-64,
> located at http://www.sit.wisc.edu/~crusbult/origins/asa.htm#natmat
>
> 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