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

Steve Martin wrote:

> 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).

These definitions distort the intended meaning of "methodological
naturalism." It does not imply anything about the manner and extent
to which God acts in Creation. It merely clarifies the limits of
scientific inquiry. This was the intent of the original coining of
the term.

Possibly the earliest detailed use and discussion of the term was in
1986 by Paul deVries, an evangelical Christian philosopher at Wheaton
College. He used the term methodological naturalism to describe the
legitimate purview of science as one limited to explaining and
interpreting the natural world in terms of natural processes and
causes. He describes scientific inquiry as follows:

“The goal of inquiry in the natural sciences is to establish
explanations of contingent natural phenomena strictly in terms of
other contingent natural things -- laws, fields, probabilities. Any
explanations that make reference to supernatural beings or powers are
certainly excluded from natural science. … The natural sciences are
limited by method to naturalistic foci. By method they must seek
answers to their questions within nature, within the non-personal and
contingent created order, and not anywhere else. Thus, the natural
sciences are guided by what I call methodological naturalism.”

Furthermore, deVries embraced this understanding of the nature and
limitations of science because he saw it as consistent with, and
supportive of, a vibrant and vital role for theology. He went on to
state:

“If we are free to let the natural sciences be limited to their
perspectives under the guidance of methodological naturalism, then
other sources of truth will be more defensible. However, to insist
that God-talk be included in the natural sciences is to submit
unwisely to the modern myth of scientism: the myth that all truth is
scientific.”

Paul deVries is arguing above that MN gives proper intellectual space
to theological inquiry and rejects science as the ultimate arbiter of
all truth claims. In his view, to broaden science to include the
supernatural would be yielding to a culture of scientism.

P. deVries, 1986, “Naturalism in the natural sciences: a Christian
perspective,” Christian Scholars Review, v. 15, p. 388-389.

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/

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 18:05:00 2007