[asa] Definition for MN in PSCF Sept. 2007 issue: consenus definition?

I'd like to hear reactions to statements made in the September 2007 PSCF
article "From Scientific Method to Methodological Naturalism: The Evolution
of an Idea" by Poe and Mytyk. Before reading this article, I was pretty
comfortable with MN as I understood it. It seemed (at worst) innocuous to a
Christian worldview (PN obviously is not); best case, one could say that an
MN perspective coheres very nicely with faith in a God who respects the
functional integrity of his creation ie. He is not a fickle, impulsive,
capricious, or untrustworthy deity.

However, two definitional statements in this article struck me the wrong
way. Poe and Mytyk say of MN:

"In the science and religion dialog, the term "methodological naturalism"
> refers to the need for science to proceed as though God did not exist, or at
> least as though God has no part to play in the physical world."
>

And later Poe and Mytyk restate the second part of their paragraph above:

"Methodological naturalism suggests that scientific study should be
> conducted with the perspective that God plays no part in the physical world"
>
>

My first question: Is this a generally accepted definition of MN? Or is
this is a definition used by those who wish to discredit MN, useful as an
interim step towards Plantinga's term "Provisional Atheism" that is referred
to in the same article? I find Plantinga's term unacceptable (and, for that
matter, don't like the term "Methodological Atheism" sometimes used as an
alternative to MN either).

If Poe & Mytyk's definition for MN is the consensus definition, then I guess
I have trouble with MN itself. Why should I ever "proceed as though God
does not exist"? And why should anything "be conducted with the
perspective that God plays no part in the physical world"? Why should I
as a theist conduct myself as if I were a deist? I believe God plays a part
in the physical world, so why act otherwise? Articulately a model for
divine action may be difficult, but it doesn't affect my belief that God
does act.

My second question: I'm wondering if there is a definition in which I don't
need to "pretend to be an atheist or a deist". Maybe that's difficult. A
related question: Do we actually need a succinct definition in which all
clauses are acceptable to all participants? The article authors' definition
could be modified to be:

"In the science and religion dialog, the term "methodological naturalism"
refers to the need for science to proceed as though either:

a) God does not exist, OR
b) God has no part to play in the physical world, OR
c) The pattern of God's cooperative action in the physical world is
normally extraordinarily consistent"

In this way, atheists, deists, and theists could all agree on how to proceed
with science. (ie. Gaps – like the formation of first life - are assumed to
be gaps in our knowledge of the natural processes, and not gaps in the
natural processes themselves). At the same time, none of us needs to act
in a way contrary to our own metaphysical position. Ie. I can choose c)
above, deists can choose b) and atheists can choose a).

thanks,

-- 
Steve Martin (CSCA)
http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.