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

> 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.

The definition of AS IF is important. They are treating the world
using similar physical techniques to the person who assumes that
nature is all that there is. However, the Christian can be thinking
"I am studying the ordinary patterns in how God runs the universe."
Because they are physical patterns, it is appropriate to use physical
methods to study them, while realizing that they are not all that
exists.

Attacks on MN are not consistent. We use the assumption that things
will act according to physical laws all the time. The real question
is when (if ever) and on what basis do we expect to see exceptions to
the usefulness of MN. (I am disagreeing with the Wikipedia definition
as quoted above in my assertion that methodological naturalism is a
method and decisions as to when it applies are philosophical.)

Unfortunately, attacks on MN tend to serve two incorrect functions:
a) You reach that conclusion by assuming that natural laws are valid,
therefore I can dismiss you as a covert agent or dupe of atheism.
b) My supernatural conclusion is valid, regardless of its match for
the evidence.

In reality, we need to ask not whether MN is any good (as George
pointed out, it works very well for a number of purposes) but rather
why we think it is a good method and where its limits are.

> "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).

By this definition, those may not be sciences, though the exact line
is hard to draw. As long as it is understood that this merely says
"When I use the word science, I am not including several fields often
included under social science", without implications as to the merits
of those other fields, it should not be a problem.

-- 
Dr. David Campbell
425 Scientific Collections
University of Alabama
"I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.