[asa] Silent MNism was [Definition for MN in PSCF 2007]

As people adapt the term ‘methodological naturalism’ to suit their own frames of conception/perception, let me add to the dialogue by discussing different sides:
   
  “the term MN itself probably arose with Christian philosophical reflection on the limits of science and the reality of a "supernatural" God, and our definition reflects this.” – Ted Davis (“Science's Blind Spot: The Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism” – ASA list)
   
  So, according to Ted, we see that a Christian philosopher, intent on showing the 'limits of science,' yet unfortunately still stuck in the ancient dichotomy of natural/supernatural, decided to COIN a new dynamic duo/term to describe what he saw/heard.
   
  “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.” – Paul de Vries (1986)
   
  Notice that he speaks specifically about ‘natural sciences’ and not about ALL sciences! The title of de Vries’ paper was “Naturalism in the Natural Sciences.” Doesn’t that tell it all (or at least much)? He was not even speaking about a larger portion of the Academy; i.e. non-natural sciences excluded. This really needs to be flushed out at ASA, or at least on this natural-sciences-centric list! MN as a phenomenon of ‘natural-sciences-only’ equates with MN-ism, which is a silent, but present belief among many on the ASA list.
   
  That’s probably enough for a thread in itself! Natural sciences require (the flawed ideology of) methodological naturalism; non-natural sciences don’t. When people speak of MN, in the sense that de Vries meant it, they are referring ONLY to natural sciences.
   
  Can this be accepted?>?
   
  G. Arago
   
  p.s. to Poe and Mytyk - 'ideas' don't 'evolve'; they are not biological 'things' (e.g. 'res cogitans')
   
  p.p.s. I wonder if Steve went to sources other than pro-MN/PN (dichotomy) advocates in order to conclude his views on the issue; it (acceptance of ASA-MNism) seemed quite one-sided to me
  

Steve Martin <steven.dale.martin@gmail.com> 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 
       
---------------------------------
Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail  
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.