Re: methodological naturalism - origin of the term?

From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. (dfsiemensjr@juno.com)
Date: Wed Aug 27 2003 - 19:56:18 EDT

  • Next message: John W Burgeson: "Re: Student perceptions re evolution"

    On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 10:10:11 +0100 "Steve Bishop"
    <stevebishop_uk@hotmail.com> writes:
    > >From: "Steve Bishop" <stevebishop_uk@hotmail.com>
    >
    > So far the earliest mention I have found is by Alvin Plantinga in
    > Christian
    > Scholar's Review XXI:1 (September 1991): 8-33
    >
    > "We are sometimes told that natural science is natural science. So
    > far it is
    > hard to object: but how shall we take the term 'natural' here? It
    > could mean
    > that natural science is science devoted to the study of nature. Fair
    > enough.
    > But it is also taken to mean that natural science involves a
    > methodological
    > naturalism or provisional atheism..."
    >
    I hold that the inclusion of "provisional atheism" is tendencious. MN is
    not restricted to exclusion of God as explanatory within science. It also
    excludes vitalism, the once popular notion that there was a vital force
    or _elan vital_ in all living things. It excludes panpsychism, which is
    currently popular in Process Theology. It excludes a soul or spirit, that
    is, dualism. Since it cannot measure any of these things, it says nothing
    about their existence or nonexistence. For that one has to accept
    metaphysical or ontological naturalism.

    Consider an analogous situation. George Mueller supported an orphanage
    without the usual fundraising techniques. An obvious explanation for this
    is that God provided the funds. This will obviously not do for an
    accountant's explanation. They need a list of donors and their
    contributions, which obviously were there. The psychologist cannot
    measure input from spiritual sources, so must look for triggers to
    memory, etc., that would lead to donations. The theological explanation
    is incomplete, but the other explanations, equally incomplete, do not
    rule it out. To ascribe "provisional atheism" to them and other
    scientific approaches is a propaganda move to tar science. It is both
    vicious and perverse.
    Dave

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Aug 27 2003 - 20:03:10 EDT