What is Scientific Naturalism?

Science takes as its starting point the assumption that life wasn’t made by a god or a supernatural being; it happened un-aided and spontaneously as a natural process…it is the job of science to solve mysteries without recourse to divine intervention.

Paul Davies, The Fifth Miracle (Quoted by Scott Hoezee, Proclaim the Wonder ; Introduction, p 12)


KJ Note: The terms Naturalism (Philosophic Naturalism) and Scientific Naturalism are sometimes used interchangeably, however I have noted that some people use the term (n)aturalism when the term "methodological naturalism" might otherwise be used.   Scientific Naturalism (on the other hand) not only sees science through the lens of naturalism, but assumes a definition of Science that excludes ANY and Every reference to metaphysics.  Science by this definition is fundementally atheistic.

The unique message of humanism on the current world scene is its commitment to scientific naturalism. Most world views accepted today are spiritual, mystical, or theological in character. They have their origins in ancient pre-urban, nomadic, and agricultural societies of the past, not in the modern industrial or postindustrial global information culture that is emerging. Scientific naturalism enables human beings to construct a coherent world view disentangled from metaphysics or theology and based on the sciences. (Scientific Naturalism, Humanist Manifesto 2000, Paul Kurtz; 

http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=main&page=manifesto

From "Why Evolution is True" (Jerry Coyne)

Only a tad more than one in four teachers really believes in evolution as scientists conceive of it: a naturalistic process undirected by divine beings.  Nearly one in two teachers thinks that humans evolved but that God guided the process.

Can we count those 48% of “guided-by-Godders” 0n our side?  I agree with P. Z.: the answer is NO.  Yes, they do accept that our species changed genetically over time, but they see God as having pulled the strings.  That’s not the way evolution works.   The graph labels these 48% as believers in intelligent design, and that’s exactly what they are, for they see God as nudging human evolution toward some preconceived goal.  We’re designed.  These people are creationists: selectivecreationists.

To count them as allies means we make company with those who accept evolution in a superficial sense but reject it in the deepest sense.  After all, the big revolution in thought wrought by Darwin was the recognition that the appearance of design—thought for centuries to be proof of God—could stem from purely natural processes.   When we cede human evolution to God, then, we abandon that revolution.  That’s why I see selective creationists like Kenneth Miller, Karl Giberson and Francis Collins as parting company with modern biological thought. 

        http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/

What assumptions undergird this understanding of science.   It is valid to excuse God from the very idea of science.  Who defines science?

Science as a mode of inquiry investigates the physical world and forms postulates and theories to explain what exists, where it came from and where it must go next. Scientific naturalism however, claims that what science can study in the natural physical world is all that exists. If science can’t see or detect it, it does not exist. But if that is so then God, divine providence, and a larger purpose and design for life are invalid because these can nether be investigated nor, therefore proven. Hence scientific naturalism makes metaphysical and spiritual claims that conflict with a Christian view of the deeper things of life.

Scott Hoezee: Proclaim the Wonder ; Introduction, p 17)


What is Scientific Naturalism?  Notes:

Proponents of Scientific Naturalism demonstrate systematic disdain for any science (or scientists) who begin with a faith framework.

E-Article: Nature Immunology Editorial Botches American Law and Science Education  (Evolution News and Notes/ Discovery Institute) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/07/nature_immunology_editorial_bo036621.html#more


A May, 2010 editorial in Nature Immunology makes it clear that they don't trust religious persons--even those who are neo-Darwinian evolutionists like Francis Collins--in positions of scientific authority. The editorial (written by the journal's editors) states:

The openly religious stance of the NIH director [Francis Collins] could have undesirable effects on science education in the United States. ... In the introduction and in interviews surrounding [Collins'] book release, he describes his belief in a non-natural, non-measurable, improvable deity that created the universe and its laws with humans as the ultimate aim of its creation. Some might worry that describing scientists as workers toiling to understand the laws and intricacies of this divine creation will create opportunities for creationism adepts.

("Of faith and reason," Nature Immunology, Vol. 11(5):357 (May 2010).)
http://www.nature.com/ni/journal/v11/n5/full/ni0510-357.html

The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity.


Richard Dawkins