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

Thanks all - very helpful responses. For me, the last one by Keith hits the
nail on the head. It clearly outlined the goals, methods, & limitations of
MN – goals, methods, & limitations with which I'm comfortable. I did some
further digging through the ASA archives (for those like myself that are
either relatively new or can't find the time to read some of these 50+ email
threads) - Ted Davis provides a good definition of MN at:
http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200707/0263.html - that too was very
helpful for me.

On the terminology itself, I believe I have seen "methodological atheism"
used as a synonym for MN even by those who are theists (eg. I think Nancey
Murphy). I'm really not sure why we would use this term – it just seems to
be an invitation for others (both PN's or theists who are uncomfortable with
MN) to get the wrong impression.
thanks,

On 11/25/07, Keith Miller <kbmill@ksu.edu> wrote:
>
> 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/
>
>
>

-- 
-- 
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.