Re: Are American Public School Science Programs Anti-Christian

>
> Thanks for your input. I guess part of teh difficulty here is how we
> define "methodological naturalism." What is your definition?
>
> I am using Plantinga's definition (linked from my page): The
> philosophical
> doctrine of methodological naturalism holds that, for any study of the
> world
> to qualify as "scientific," it cannot refer to God's creative activity (or
> any sort of divine activity).

I'm reluctant to define methodological naturalism as a philosophical
position, because then it is not a method but a philosophy and so is
misnamed. However, even such a definition as Plantinga's does not
demonstrate that methodological naturalism is inappropriate for Christians;
it is a demarcation of what is considered science. As a Christian, you
could say "I am doing science when I restrict my consideration to the
physical causes, effects, and patterns, though I know theologically that all
of them are under God's sovereign direction and guidance."

I would not a priori assert that science cannot have any reference to
supernatural activity. Rather, I would assert that science cannot address
the sort of supernatural activity that we ought Biblically to expect. For
example, I consider it a scientific test of a supernatural claim when
someone checks the experiences of large numbers of people and demonstrates
that newspaper horoscopes are wrong.

The main problem with the term "methodological naturalism" is that in
practice it often functions as a way to slander someone as an atheist if he
doesn't entirely buy into ID.

> I believe that God acts in all "natural" processes. Am I being
> unscientific
> if, while I am conducting an experiment, I am wondering how God acts in
> such
> a situation?

No, but you are wondering about something that science can't especially
address while doing the science. "Suprascientific", "extrascientific", etc.
would be more appropriate terms.

>The alternative is to do the experiment while thinking that these things
happen "on their own" which is a theological statement in and of
itself--full
of philosophical and theological baggage and implications. Things do not
happen on their own at all in the world (For by Him, and Through Him, and to
Him are all things.)<

True. However, in doing the experiment, you are making the assumption that
things will behave in a meaningful and comprehensible manner. You are
probably making the assumption that it is very highly likely that the
results will accord with know natural laws, even though you know that God
could intervene miraculously if it served His purposes. In fact, making
such assumptions is making good use of the abilities that God gave us.
Learning about the ordinary way things work serves towards learning how to
be better stewards over creation, as we were called to do in Genesis 1.

>There may be another alternative, as I explained, which is to use more
philosophically neutral language, such as correlation rather than causation.
Causation is a philosophical/theological issue. To say that things happen
on
their own, that "a" causes "b" on its own is to say that the universe is
autonomous, and this has trememndous theological implications, or so it
seems
to me.<

I don't see the term "causation" as implying autonomy. I would say, for
example, that grape juice causes stains on white cloth, even though the
juice is under God's sovereignty and even under that does not generally get
itself onto cloth without some assistance by another agent. Correlation
seems too weak a term-it would cover both the claim that the stains result
from application of juice and the claim that the juice is preferentially
attracted to regions of the garment that, for reasons unrelated to the
juice, will turn purple. There is a correlation between children's shoe
size and academic ability, but this is because increases in both are in part
causally related to greater age.
Received on Fri Jan 6 16:50:45 2006