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

Like you, I've accepted the MN phrase as consistent with my beliefs
about both Christianity and science. And I can see what you mean about
the statements below, especially the second one. The first one I think
I could accept although I would never phrase it that way because it
would communicate the wrong thing to too many. Science can proceed "as
though" -- as long as it is clear that it is the science doing the
proceeding, not the person and their belief system as a whole. The
second statement, unlike the first explicitly states that a non-theist
(or deist) perspective is (or should be) required while doing science.
That oversteps the MN that I've accepted and I would call that PN, and
as such reject it. If these become the widely accepted definitions,
then I see problems on the horizon about this. --and the birth of some
new unpolluted term to describe our version of MN.

--Merv

Steve Martin wrote:
>
> 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.
Received on Sun Nov 25 09:40:45 2007