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

Hi Greg,

I *think* what you are saying is that a) MN doesn't work / can't be
supported in those disciplines and that b) "MN is an acceptable methodology"
in the natural sciences. Is this what you are saying?

re: my reading of other views on MN, I have read some of Plantinga's stuff
as well. Do you have other suggestions for a non-pro-MN points of view?

thanks,

On 11/29/07, Gregory Arago <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> 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 *<http://ca.promos.yahoo.com/newmail/overview2/>
>
>

-- 
-- 
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.