From: Howard J. Van Till (hvantill@chartermi.net)
Date: Sat Aug 30 2003 - 08:44:44 EDT
Ted,
Thanks for the commentary on the term "methodological naturalism" by Ron
Numbers. I had forgotten about Paul de Vries' paper on the topic.
> The phrase "methodological naturalism" seems to have been coined by
> the philosopher Paul de Vries, then at Wheaton College, who introduced it
> orally at a conference in 1983 in a paper subsequently published as
> "Naturalism in the Natural Sciences," Christian Scholar's Review 15 (1986),
> 388-96. De Vries distinguished between what he called "methodological
> naturalism," a disciplinary method that says nothing about God's existence,
> and "metaphysical naturalism," which "denies the existence of a
> transcendent God."
As here used, "methodological naturalism" is a descriptive statement about
the way contemporary natural science is ordinarily done, not a metaphysical
proposition about the nature of what exists. I'm comfortable with that.
I'm not as comfortable with using the term "metaphysical naturalism" as the
name of the form of naturalism that explicitly entails the denial of the
existence of a transcendent God. For that strong form of naturalism I prefer
David Ray Griffin's term, "maximal naturalism." It could also be called
"ontological naturalism" or "materialism."for its core statement about the
nature of what is.
That leaves conceptual space for another form of naturalism that Griffin
calls "minimal naturalism," which also entails a metaphysical proposition
about the nature of what is, but one that is significantly different from
(and less demanding than) the denial of the existence of a transcendent God.
Minimal naturalism does reject the concept of supernatural action (divine
action of the coercive intervention type) but remains agnostic about both
the existence of God and the reality and effectiveness of non-coercive
divine action.
Griffin proposes that the prevailing conflict between religion and science
could be resolved by each of the two parties making a significant change.
1) Science must break its (misguided) association with maximal naturalism
and embrace minimal naturalism, which Griffin sees as not only adequate for
the entire scientific enterprise, but a superior metaphysical basis for it.
2) Religion must reject supernaturalism and adopt a naturalistic theism that
accepts minimal naturalism.
Religion and science would then have their acceptance of minimal naturalism
in common. End of the religion/science warfare.
Now, I am fully aware that most members of this list-serve will not be
inclined to adopt 2). All I ask for is the recognition that "minimal
naturalism" is significantly different from "maximal naturalism." Both make
metaphysical statements about the nature of what is, but minimal naturalism
does not entail a categorical denial of the existence of a transcendent God.
Howard Van Till
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Aug 30 2003 - 08:49:01 EDT