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

Given that this has been rehashed, probably many times here, I looked
back & found this statement that Phil wrote back in May in a thread
coming out of all the Gonzalez affair: subject: "Is
Philosophical Naturalism replacing Methodological Naturalism?"

Quote (written by Phil, I think)

/To correct the statement, it should say something like this,
"Methodological naturalism [is] a procedure that works from the
assumption that observable phenomena may be explained without reference
to supernatural beings or events in order to search for natural
explanations."

<End quote> /

I would buy into most of that statement -- and, as I think Phil would
agree if I read the post aright, there can't be too much emphasis on the
word "procedure" in that quote as an explicitly stated limitation for
the domain of the said assumption. In fact, (and I think Phil might
agree with this too, given other things he said in that post), the word
"assumption" might even be too strong. This is the only word in the
statement I would quibble with. I.e. the holder of the assumption (if
he is Christian) does not believe the assumption is always necessarily
correct. He is merely operating by it *procedurally* as he does
science. So it is an assumption only with regard to the "procedure" of
science, not an assumption beyond the domain of that procedure. I
don't know what better word could have been placed there, however.

Phil, sorry if I misrepresented anything you said here -- hopefully you
won't have too much cleanup to do after me on this one.

--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 16:47:27 2007