Methodological naturalism, from Cobb County

> > So, if God did supernaturally acts, then the assumptions of
> > methodological naturalism are false and the foundations on which
> > scientific discoveries are based are nonexistent. If God does or did
> > act in the events of the universe in a supernatural way and science
> > assumes a priori that such actions are not present, then if they are
> > present, science will always miss describing the universe or its
> > history accurately.
> >
> > If we a priori exclude the possibility of discovering supernatural
> > signatures in science, is that really science? How can one claim that
> > certain types of evidence will always be ignored or interpreted to
> > mean something else just because of a presupposition of methodological
> > naturalism?

What is methodological naturalism?

I would define it as the assumption that ordinary physical laws are probably in operation in a given situation, and thus these laws make good initial hypotheses in trying to explain a given observation. This assumption is justified by everyday experience, and by the historical record, including the Bible. More importantly, it is theologically justified by the Bible. The universe was created by an orderly and unchanging God, Who made us to rule over creation. Thus, we should expect creation to behave in an orderly manner and we should expect that humans are able to understand a fair amount of how it works. Additionally, there are no other gods or forces outside His control that might disrupt things, contrary to the situation in standard pagan polytheistic models. The purpose and nature of Biblical miracles is also important. First, for a miracle to be recognized as such, it has to be exceptional. E.g., Joseph and Mary both clearly knew that virgin conception is not nor
 mal for
humans. Thus, the rest of the time, things ned to act consistently. Secondly, the purpose of miracles is as signs, distinctly pointing to God. Thus, in the Bible they are asscoiated primarily with new revelation or with direct contrasts such as "YHWH or Baal". They are not for convenience nor for show, contrary to Satan's demands at Jesus' temptation or to the whim of Herod at the trial. The miracles generally seem to minimize the violation of physical law to the extent possible to achieve the event. For example, in crossing the sea in Exodus, the passage mentions the role of the wind. Likewise, a dry crossing of the Jordan can be acheived with a conveniently-situated rockslide a little ways upstream. In these cases, the actual violation of physical law seems confined to the foretelling of the event, though the timing is certainly not well-explained by coincidence. In other cases, just enough happens to achience the need. The water turned to wine, but still had to b
 e served
in the ordinary way. The axe head floated, but had to be retrieved and re-fastened.

In fact, the Bible has criticisms of people who demand signs or who fail to use natural methods when they know they ought (e.g., Jas. 2:16).

Of course, the philosophical position that methodological naturalism explains absolutely everything is incompatible with the Bible, but the assumption that methodological naturalism is a good starting hypothesis is Biblical.

Science is confined to things that are in principle replicable, because it can't deal with unique events. Although we can't actually replicate the Big Bang in the lab (and it might not be safe if we could), we can model the relevant laws of physics and make predictions about what the astrnomical evidence should be like; we can test some aspects with particle accelerators, etc. We can't re-crucify Christ to see if He comes back to life again, nor is there any way we could have predicted the resurrection save by study of the Old Testament (and even then, we probably would not have figured it out) or otherwise experiment with the relevant factors (unless one counts the experiment of putting faith in Jesus or refusing to do so, the results of which are scientifically inaccessible).

Science can address claims that supernatural forces or beings act in repeatable ways. E.g., a study of the experiences of various people will confirm that newspaper horoscopes are untrue. However, God is not constrained to act in a particular way. Such manipulatable supernatural forces are typical of superstitions and pagan religions.

If a legitimate exaple of intelligent design sensu Johnson could be found, the inference of a designer would not be a scientific conclusion. Rather, it would be a deduction from the failure of science to provide an explanation. Although the type of formulas proposed by Dembski et al. could provide scientific evidence of design if a valid one could be found, there's no particular reason to expect to find such non-natural design in creation. Such design fails to point uniquely to God and is not obviously necessary to achieve the goal of creating life.

    Dr. David Campbell
    Old Seashells
    University of Alabama
    Biodiversity & Systematics
    Dept. Biological Sciences
    Box 870345
    Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0345 USA
    bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com

That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at Droitgate Spa
Received on Mon Jan 24 19:42:32 2005