Re: Methodological naturalism

From: SteamDoc@aol.com
Date: Fri Jul 07 2000 - 09:39:57 EDT

  • Next message: George Murphy: "Re: Involvement in evolution"

    In a message dated 7/6/00 3:43:58 PM Mountain Daylight Time, crossbr@SLU.EDU
    writes:

    > The problem is that MthN is not just a search for
    > natural causes; my proposed method does that. MthN is
    > a belief, a commitment to the existence of undiscovered
    > natural causes. As a methodology it carries with it
    > the implicit assumption that natural causes lie behind
    > whatever phenomenon to which it is turned.

    Bryan continues to misconstrue the term "methodological naturalism," or at
    least to define it differently than everybody else does. MthN may always
    *look* for "natural" explanations behind every phenomenon in nature, but that
    does *not* entail the assumption that such explanations must exist. Some
    practitioners of MthN may make that additional metaphysical assumption
    (perhaps because they are metaphysical naturalists, or perhaps because of
    other metaphysics such as a theological commitment to "functional
    integrity"), but MthN proper is just a way of doing science, not any
    assumption that "natural" explanations are always there to be found or that
    they exhaust reality.
    Note also my quotes around "natural" to remind us that it is an unbiblical
    denial of providence to say that natural (proximate) causes mean the
    phenomenon is independent of God.

    In the hope of reaching consensus on the meaning of "methodological
    naturalism," let me quote Phil Johnson from a 1992 lecture (quoted in a
    footnote on p.212 of Reason in the Balance) [*italics* in original]:
    "The statement defining the agenda for this Symposium asserts that an *a
    priori* commitment to metaphysical naturalism is necessary to support
    Darwinism.... *Methodological* naturalism -- the principle that science can
    study only the things that are accessible to its insturments and techniques
    -- is not in question. Of course science can study only what science can
    study. Methodological naturalism becomes metaphysical naturalism only when
    the limitations of science are taken to be limitations upon reality."

    That is a clear and useful distinction, and I think it would be helpful if we
    all used the terms that way in our discussions here.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    Dr. Allan H. Harvey, Boulder, Colorado | SteamDoc@aol.com
    "Any opinions expressed here are mine, and should not be
     attributed to my employer, my wife, or my cats"



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jul 07 2000 - 09:40:10 EDT