Re: [asa] C.S. Lewis on ID

"MN is a Christian theological solution to a theological problem and should not be taught in schools." - David Clounch
 
Let me support David C.'s point of challenging MN's meaning with enthusiasm, adding that it is also a philosophically weak (i.e. feeble) conceptualisation.
 
Firstly, if it is questionable (which in at least one sense it isn't) that "Christianity gave us methodological naturalism" it is almost certain that a Christian gave it to us, i.e. coined the concept duo. Let me direct David C. to a link from the wiki page on 'naturalism' to discussion on ASA in 2006: http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200603/0501.html - thanks to Keith Miller for this!
 
Next, it seems to me that the 'new atheists' are pleased to use the MN vs. PN dichotomy in their favour. Would anyone disagree that this dichotomy has improved the 'new atheists'' position? Everybody already knows that atheists are philosophical naturalists who, when they are natural scientists, use naturalistic methods.
 
Could we thus call this MNism as a kind of endearing 'wedge' strategy for theistic evolutionists or evolutionary creationists, i.e. to split the foundations of naturalism in order to claim that a certain kind of naturalism is actually really quite consistent with (and is even good for!) theism? It should still nevertheless be perceived openly and honestly that most types of naturalism are inconsistent with religious thought, that is, the ones used by agnostic or atheistic natural scientists (who are all unavoidably naturalists anyway, by definition, aren't they?) and by those scientists and scholars in other spheres who would promote naturalism as ideology.
 
From another source, also cited on wiki:
"naturalism is the philosophy that maintains that (1) nature is all there is and whatever exists or happens is natural; (2) nature (the universe or cosmos) consists only of natural elements, that is, of spatiotemporal material elements--matter and energy--and non-material elements--mind, ideas, values, logical relationships, mathematical laws, etc.--that are either associated with the human brain or exist independently of the brain but are still somehow immanent in the physical structure of the universe; (3) nature operates by natural processes that follow natural laws and can, in principle, be explained and understood by science and philosophy; and (4) the supernatural does not exist, i.e., only nature is real, therefore, supernature is not real. Naturalism is therefore a metaphysical philosophy opposed primarily by supernaturalism." (http://www.freeinquiry.com/naturalism.html)
 
Thus, according to this definition, naturalism simply *IS* a metaphysical philosophy, with no need to distinguish a PN from a MN. What we have here then is a great big guard against supernaturalism, as ideology. The truth remains that other alternatives to 'natural' than 'supernatural' are available to enter the discussion and thus to give relief from this one-track conversation of 'natural' vs. 'supernatural'.
 
Scientific method (that non-singular thing!) does not just "confine itself to natural explanations" (as Pennock and many other Christians choose to believe) because this would disqualify many things from 'being science' though they nonetheless continue to use scientific methods. Natural science is not the 'only' science; this indicates the study of 'other' things that are not simply natural, material or physical. The 'science = study of only natural things' trope is an unnecessarily limited view of 'science,' which is what the debate about MN vs. PN is more broadly about.  
 
What would it take for a natural scientist to not be a naturalist? Do you know any natural scientists who are not naturalists or who don't use methods?
 
Saying that MN has been part of human 'understanding' for 350 years is retrodiction, anachronism, indeed. Naming names and examples instead of being needlessly abstract might help George's claim.
 
Gregory 
 

--- On Fri, 11/28/08, David Clounch <david.clounch@gmail.com> wrote:

From: David Clounch <david.clounch@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [asa] C.S. Lewis on ID
To: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
Received: Friday, November 28, 2008, 10:56 PM

So the PSCF article by Poe and MyTyk (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2007/PSCF9-07dyn.html) is off base, and DeVries did not in fact  use  the term for the first time in the peer reviewed literature in 1986?
Can you point to literature discussing the term prior to 1986. And to non-Christian sources?

Poe:       Karl Giberson and Donald Yerxa have
argued that the term is the focus of a quarrel
within the Christian community, but that
"the quarrel over methodological naturalism
and theistic science does not engage the
average scientist in a lab coat ..."3

And so on. This is all completely off base?  It should be easy to show the quarrel going on outside the Christian community, if in fact it actually did.  But in that case one wonders why the various referenced authors in the article bother to claim what they did.   Seems to me PSCF deserves a rebuttal article. Until I see one I see no reason not to remain skeptical of your claim, George. 

This issue seems to me to be important not only to the ASA but to the entire world.  Just as the Gregorian reform gave us equal rights (circa 1075) I believe Christianity gave us methodological naturalism. 

Best Regards,
David Clounch
   

On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 7:06 AM, George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com> wrote:

You do indeed disagree terribly here.  MN has been part of the scientific community's tacit understanding of how science works for the past ~350 years and is held by scientists of different religious faiths as well as atheists and agnostics.  The reason that it is maintained consistently is that it has been found to lead to fruitful scientific work.  MN is quite consistent with good Christian theologies but is not dependent upon any of them.

 
Shalom
George
http://home.neo.rr.com/scitheologyglm

----- Original Message -----
From: David Clounch
To: john_walley@yahoo.com
Cc: Marcio Pie ; ASA
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 12:53 AM
Subject: Re: [asa] C.S. Lewis on ID

John,

I terribly disagree.
MN is a Christian theological solution to a theological problem  and should not be taught in schools.
................................

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri, 28 Nov 2008 16:02:32 -0800 (PST)