Gregory Arago said:
"p.s. to Poe and Mytyk - 'ideas' don't 'evolve'; they are not biological
'things' (e.g. 'res cogitans')"
I think ideas do evolve. Memes, as compared to genes. They evolve from
simple ideas to more complex. For just one obvious example, math:
1. counting
2. adding
3. subtraction
4. add/subtract with carry's and borrows
5. multiplication/division
6. algebra
7. geometry
8. calculus
Etc.
Yes, not sequentially, but as a tree like bio evolution.
...Bernie
________________________________
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Gregory Arago
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 2:44 PM
To: Steve Martin; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: [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
<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
<http://ca.promos.yahoo.com/newmail/overview2/>
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Nov 29 18:14:13 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Nov 29 2007 - 18:14:13 EST