Re: [asa] Science's Blind Spot: The Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism

>>> PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com> 7/15/2007 5:01 PM >>>quotes Wikipedia on
Methodological naturalism, as follows:

<quote>Naturalism does not necessarily claim that phenomena or
hypotheses commonly labeled as supernatural do not exist or are wrong,
but insists that all phenomena and hypotheses can be studied by the
same methods and therefore anything considered supernatural is either
nonexistent, unknowable, or not inherently different from natural
phenomena or hypotheses.</quote>

Then, Pim adds the following comment:

If all Hunter is interested in is pointing out that there may have
been some who had religious motivations to restrict science, such
should again not be confused with a methodological approach. Science
neither approves nor disapproves of the supernatural, which for all
practical purposes is the logical complement of natural.

Here are my comments:
First, this is not an adequate definition of MN, IMO. In fact, ironically,
it lends support to the incorrect argument from ID advocates, that MN simply
collapses into metaphysical or ontological naturalism. Thus, I'm surprised
that Pim quoted it. Note the language: " all phenomena and hypotheses can
be studied by the
same methods and therefore anything considered supernatural is either
nonexistent, unknowable, or not inherently different from natural phenomena
or hypotheses." Here is my paraphrase, aimed at making my point: If
scientific methods (ie, naturalism) can't detect it, it ain't real, it's
only a figment of one's imagination. Am I missing something here? If so,
please be explicit about what I'm missing. I do think this is the tone and
intent of this very poor definition.

Second, Pim, the definition you cite from wiki contradicts your own
comment, when you wrote: "Science
neither approves nor disapproves of the supernatural, which for all
practical purposes is the logical complement of natural." If the
supernatural is "nonexistent" or "unknowable," (see wiki), then the latter
part of Pim's sentences is entirely emptied of content. If the
"supernatural ... is not inherently different from natural phenomena or
hypotheses," then it collapses into the natural, and I fail to see how it
becomes "the logical complement of natural." Please have another look at
that wiki definition, Pim, and clarify your own view in light of it.

Third, I offer a much better (IMO) definition, taken from the entry on
"Scientific naturalism" that I wrote with philosopher Robin Collins for the
Garland encyclopedia of science & religion
(http://www.amazon.com/History-Science-Religion-Western-Tradition/dp/0815316569),
a shorter version of which (essays unabridged, however) from JHU press
(http://www.press.jhu.edu/books/title_pages/2308.html). Here is our
definition of MN: "the belief that science should explain phenomena only in
terms of entities and properties that fall within the category of the
natural, such as by natural laws acting either through known causes or by
chance (methodological naturalism)."

Why do I believe this definition is much superior? First, it spells out
that MN is a belief; one might even call it a belief about beliefs, in terms
of its implications. Our definition leaves ample ground (as it should) for
one to make reality claims about a God who really is bigger than "nature,"
and who actually interacts with "nature," which is better called "the
creation." It simply affirms, properly, that inferences about God go beyond
what science itself can claim. It in no way rules out the legitimacy of
such inferences. Second, when read in context (our definition of part of a
much longer definition of four types of naturalism), it is clear to people
that MN does not equate to or collapse into overreaching forms of
naturalism. Thus, e.g., we define "scientific naturalism" (our term for the
most wide reaching kind of naturalism) as follows: "the claim that nature is
all that there is and hence that there is no supernatural order above
nature, along with the claim that all objects, processes, truths, and facts
about nature fall within the scope of the scientific method." Our
definition of MN is designed, properly, to leave this type of speculation
aside entirely. Whereas the wiki definition, IMO, strongly suggests or
implies precisely that nature is all there is--at least, all that is
genuinely meaningful to discuss, which is the spirit of the logical
positivism that still underlies efforts to ridicule belief in God and keep
it out of the academy.

The definition Robin and I give, in what is frankly a far more reliable and
academically serious publication that wikipedia, is (I believe and I hope
others agree) a definition that is much more appropriate to consider on the
ASA list. I also believe it is much more accurate; the term MN itself
probably arose with Christian philosophical reflection on the limits of
science and the reality of a "supernatural" God, and our definition reflects
this.

Ted (ASA member, and glad of it)

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Jul 16 10:55:07 2007