Larry commented as follows:
----------------------------
"I also have this problem with Phil's writing. I think my definition of
methodological naturalism would be:
a) "When trying to understand some phenomenon (such as what happened to
my sandwich?) start by assuming that natural law applies". All of us
scientist types do this, of course. But I would also include in my
definition the idea that :
b) "If this approach fails, then consider what other logical explanations
might apply" (like maybe there is an intelligent sandwich thief lurking
nearby)
Phil's complaint is that sometimes when discussing biology with Christian
Biologists at Christian Universities, they say they are methodological
Naturalists. But then they insist on limiting the Bio-discussion to
natural causes, ie. Natural selection. In that case I think they are
clearly behaving as Philosophical Naturalists, and should be willing to
recognize this."
--------------------------------
First of all, an intelligent "sandwich thief" lurking nearby is a theory
about the natural world, which includes such miscreants.
But if you could not find one, and ruled out the possibility of one, and
your sandwich was still missing, if you then said to me "I suspect a
supernatural intelligent agent took it away," (note that this could be a
benign angel, trying to control your overeating), I would kindly suggest
pursuing the matter farther in the natural world. Perhaps it dropped on
the floor, or out a window. Or -- maybe -- you ate it while in deep
thought about Phil Johnson.
Even if you could demonstrate that none of the above happened, would you
REALLY then posit a supernatural intervention? I think not -- but just
ascribe the incident to "Some of the strange things that have happened to
me category."
Now if your sandwich disappeared each and every day in this manner you
(and I) might get really excited about looking for the NATURAL CAUSE of
such shenanigans. A student dropping a fishhook through the ceiling
perhaps? But still, even if the events went on for many months, I, at
least, would still be looking for that natural cause. So, I suspect,
would you.
On your last paragraph; you are absolutely correct. The PRACTICE of
methodological naturalism, which Peter Berger, the sociologist, calls
"methodological atheism," can easily be defined as "behaving like a
philosophical naturalist" in so far as scientific investigation is
concerned. I think they (the Christian Biologists you refer to) recognize
this, although they might describe it a little differently than I do.
The MN principle, as I see it, simply means doing all science as if the
natural world is all there is. In this sense, it is fair to call the
practice of science a "game," not pejoratively, of course. The game of
science, as Richard Petersen (I think it was he) said in PERSPECTIVES a
few years ago is to assume only the natural world and see how far one can
go with explanations of that world (I am sure he said it better than my
poor paraphrase).
I deeply believe in that game as being the best way to do science. Take
it away and the science that results will be considerably inferior.
Burgy (John Burgeson)
www.burgy.50megs.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 02 2001 - 16:16:27 EDT