Notice that none of the thoughtful responses has
touched the concept of 'theological naturalism' yet?!
"Our definition of MN is designed, properly, to leave
this type of ['nature is all that there is']
speculation aside entirely." - Ted
Yes, your definition is designed, isn't it? It is
designed with its own presuppositions, as are all such
claims. In this case, when a natural scientist is
acting/practising science, that is, according to your
definition when they are applying MN, they are
effectively treating the world AS IF 'nature is all
that there is' because nothing non-natural exists to a
natural scientist in the laboratory. However, when
they embrace 'theological naturalism' then a kind of
'more than just nature' speculation can (perhaps
safely) enter the arena, thus effectively 'putting
science in its rightful/limited place'. Thankfully,
most here at ASA seem to find a way to end up in the
latter position, while somehow still defending the
former (MN) ideology.
"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)'." - Ted
Here is the problem with your definition of MN:
'within the category of the natural' is exclusive of
all sciences that do not explicitly study 'the
natural'. There are many sciences, for example, that
do not study natural laws, but rather positive laws
(human-social constructions). Yes, your def'n of MN is
a belief - that is not the problem. It is the unfair
bias again non-nautral sciences that exposes the
ultimate flaw with MN. Let me add that HPS is mainly
about studying natural sciences, to the exclusion of
knowledge about social sciences, at least in the
standard textbooks.
"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'." -
Ted
If 'the creation' is a better call for 'nature,' then
linguistically it makes sense to call all
'naturalists' also 'creationists'; because they beleve
in creation. That shoe just doesn't seem to fit the
picture in reality. It is nice to tokenly 'leave
space' for the Creator, whereas in practice
'naturalism' actually excludes all that is not nature.
"Science operating within the constraints of MN
works... There is simply no good reason for
scientists, whatever their religious beliefs, to
abandon MN as a presupposition for doing science: "If
it ain't broke, don't fix it"." - George
Such refusal to acknowledge the changes happening in
the contemporary discourse, i.e. such conservatism of
the status quo, doesn't seem to do justice to the
argument. Science works, natural science sometimes
works, scientists work (including non-natural
scientists); criticising MN is not the same as
criticising SCIENCE. In my first post to this thread I
wrote that there is not one method of science, but
many methods. Is this thought to be too post-modern
for anyone here trained in Popper/Kuhn to pick up?
Where are Lakatos and Feyerabend?
MN is not a 'presupposition for doing science.' It is
something else entirely: ŅIn truth, 'methodological
naturalism' is a pseudo-philosophy tailor-made to
counteract a perceived pseudo-science: It is
metaphysical naturalism pretending to be logical
positivism. In other words, 'methodological
naturalism' is a neologism designed to capture two
things at once that the history of the scientific
method has tended to keep separate: the source of
hypotheses and the conditions under which they are
testable." (Anon, 2007)
This pointed criticism of MN should at least be
considered. As a pseudo-philosophy MN should not be so
easily embraced by natural scientists as the best way
to debate or discuss the themes that are raised at
ASA. Why? Because it gives an incomplete and biased
perspective which privileges certain features of the
discourse ahead of others; it elevates nature and
natural sciences above ALL OTHERS in the academy. MN
abuses a balanced discourse by privileging natural
science, all the while drawing its heuristic power
upon a pseudo-philosophy in order to justify itself.
The solution is, of course, to allow philosophers to
correct the over-embracing of MN-ideology by natural
scientists and theologians. This can only happen by
positing another way to frame the discourse. Likely,
those NS's who embrace MN to philosophically justify
their SCIENCEs would gladly embrace another way to
consider things more holistically than MN/PN currently
allows. Refusal to consider this possibility goes
against the provisionality of science itself.
"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
If this is true, then it is up to Christian
philosophers of this age to correct the belief in MN
so that it is not exclusively biased against
non-natural sciences. Ted's history lesson should be
taken as an indicator that forward-looking thinkers
can embrace. We need not remain stuck in this
dichotomous thinking, which carries on the tradition
of Descartes, Darwin, Gould and Dennett
unsatisfactorily. We need not oppose natural and
supernatural so forcefully, so exclusive of all other
contrasts to what is considered 'natural' by natural
scientists.
So I stick by what I said earlier in this thread:
"MN/PN continues to be a philosophical red herring, a
transition dichotomy on the way to better
understanding that eclipses the dichotomy altogether."
This speaks to the idea of 'science's blind spot'
while also respectfully leaving space for scientific
discovery and innovation that focuses on the natural
world.
Arago
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
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 14:43:40 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jul 16 2007 - 14:43:40 EDT