Recent posts on Methodological Naturalism (I'll call it m.n.) have
brought out some disagreements over whether or not it precludes
Christianity or can be incorporated as a valid mode of thought within a
Christian world view. Christians already have a parallel approach or
tension that is much older than our enlightenment age.
What is the efficacy of prayer? We are obviously commanded to seek
God's attention in this way and to trust that this is not only a
worthwhile activity, but essential and effective to the ends sought
within God's will. Yet, if we lean so heavily on prayer alone,
neglecting the demanded actions (which some have wisely pointed to as a
real form of prayer in their own way -- 'pray without ceasing'), then
we quickly find ourselves facing the Biblical corrective that faith
without action is dead. James 2:15-17 ...what good is it to wish
someone well and then do nothing to meet their need? Faith without
works is dead in itself.
It seems to me that Christians have their own version of "m.n." to
contend with. We pray, yes, but we also work (or we should) as if the
very solution itself must come from our own hands. The paradox is that
we know it really comes from God whether or not our own hands had a part
in the orchestration. I see no conflict with the scientist, Christian
or otherwise, acknowledging the limitation of scientific method to a
naturalistic methodology. The difference is that the Christian sees
this as a real and substantial limitation because he believes in a
Creator that transcends the created and even operates on it and within
it. Naturally, science cannot touch this, although as an unbelieving
friend of mine insists, science should still be able to at least observe
these alleged interventions and recognize them as such. The unbeliever,
on the other hand, sees this acknowledgment (the m.n. limitation) as a
trivial (indeed meaningless) concession because he doesn't believe
anything else exists anyway. He is happy to toss what he sees as a
'phantom bone' to the philosophers and proselytes. Our preconception
in this will determine how we define science, and hence whether or not
it would be possible to recognize a 'miracle'. The unbeliever sees a
fantastic phenomenon and immediately subsumes it into his repertoire of
observed naturalistic phenomena - he sets about finding the natural
causes (or discovering the 'trick' if it was a human contrivance), and
the possibility of 'miracle' is precluded for him from the outset. The
most he can concede on it is that it may remain for the moment an
unsolved mystery. Hence, the philosophical "skeptic" assures by his own
preconceptions that no divine interventions will ever be observed. The
believer can (and as a scientific thinker probably will) do all the same
things with the one significant difference being that he does not, from
the outset, preclude the possibility of the Divine hand. Another
non-trivial difference is that the believer ought not concede in the
first place, that naturalistic phenomena cannot be of Divine origin.
For him, everything - whether gap or not, is a subset of the Divine reality.
The interesting thing for us as scientists and Christians to wrestle
with is /how/ God accomplishes work in this natural world. Within a
loose m.n. philosophy one can always posit that God works 'through us'
- that is our prayer works on us and others and then God still uses our
own hands to accomplish work. The strict naturalist rejects even this,
however, since humans are viewed as only one more naturalistic
phenomenon, ourselves a subset of that restriction. In the end (or
should I say beginning) God does have to work directly on our world if
the Christian message is true. Even the Deist concedes the creation
event, and Christians must insist on much more than that. But how, and
how often, and how often through us, those will probably remain
unanswerable within a naturalistic framework.
Science (whether Christian or not) has no choice but to operate by m.n.
What else could it possibly do? Yet as a wider assumption or philosophy
about all reality (including the reality within our observable world) -
that is where it seems to me the Christian must part company with the
naturalist.
One last bit, if you've waded this far, then here is a fictitious
dialogue I wrote some time ago as I wrestled with this. Maybe it will
help provoke further discussion.
A tale of three: Beta, Psi, and Simplicio
"I see the world. I study nature. Her book is the easiest to read!",
cries Beta.
"I see God. I study the Word which is the source of Truth", answers Psi.
"Look at the suffering and thirsty, they need comfort and water",
observes Simplicio.
"Be wise and open your eyes to what you can see," urges Beta.
"Be wise and pure in heart that you may see God," answers Psi.
"Be compassionate, and not wise in your own eyes," said Simplicio.
"Think, and use the capacities which you have been given," said Beta.
"Understand, accept, and obey the Authority that is over all," said Psi.
"Why are the widows and the fatherless unvisited?", pleads Simplicio.
"Why do you not accept our understanding of the Universe?", shouts Beta.
"Why can you not accept our understanding of God?", shouts Psi
"Lean not on your own understandings," interjects Simplicio.
"We must plan! We must build! We must avert disaster!" cries Beta.
"We must fast! We must pray! The end could be near!" implores Psi.
"I need some water," whispers Simplicio.
--merv
Received on Tue Jan 10 06:34:33 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jan 10 2006 - 06:34:33 EST