Re: Methodological Naturalism

Jim:

> Does anyone know if Paul de Vries coined the term "methodological
> naturalism"?
>
> He used the term in his 1986 "Naturalism in the Natural Sciences: A
> Christian Perspective" [Christian Scholars Review, vol 15,
> 388-396], but
> I'm wondering if he is the source of the term.

Ted Davis put me onto the Paul de Vries article, and indicated that
Ronald Numbers thought it to be the first use of the term. The
article itself suggests that de Vries thought it to be his original
term.

I do know of an earlier paper in which the term was used. It was
pointed out to me by a new philosophy of science hire at Kansas
State. The article is -- Edgar Sheffield Brightman, 1937, "An
empirical approach to God", The Philosophical Review, Vol. 46, No. 2,
p. 147-169. The paper is rather philosophically dense for me, and I
don't entirely follow all of his argument. However, his real focus
is "metaphysical naturalism," which he usually just refers to as
"naturalism." He introduces "methodological naturalism" only to
distinguish it from this "metaphysical naturalism" and does not
really develop the idea.

Below is a partial quote of the paragraph in which the term is given --

"Every thinking experient will, in some sense, reach the stage of
naturalism. He will accept nature as the space-time order described
by the sciences. .... Such a universal naturalism -- common to
idealists and realists, to naturalists and theists alike -- may be
called scientific or methodological naturalism. But methodological
naturalism is sharply to be distinguished from metaphysical
naturalism. The latter takes the incomplete description and
heuristic methods of the former to be either final truth about
reality or at least the limits of present human knowledge." (p. 157-158)

The author then goes on to argue that theology and philosophy are
valid ways to knowledge and address aspects of human experience that
naturalism cannot. Examples discussed include mystical experience,
purpose and meaning, teleology, and values. He is essentially laying
out his philosophical argument for the existence and study of God.

While there are elements of de Vries argument in Brightman's essay,
the meaning and significance of MN is not really developed. It is
not clear, at least to me, what exactly Brightman had in mind.

So, I would say that it is de Vries who first lays out the full
meaning of MN for both science and faith.

However, I should also stress that I have made no independent
literature search on this term myself.

Keith

Keith B. Miller
Research Assistant Professor
Dept of Geology, Kansas State University
Manhattan, KS 66506-3201
785-532-2250
http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~kbmill/
Received on Wed Mar 15 15:54:01 2006