What is Methodological Naturalism?
MN
If we restrict ourselves to only naturalistic explanations, then the is what we will find, no matter what the evidence. (Cornelius Hunter Darwin’s Proof, 149)
Question: How could the tools of science ever verify or critique any claim other than a naturalistic expanation?
Evolution, Darwinists explain, is based on methodological naturalism, which is the basis for all science from astronomy to zoology. Methodological naturalism assumes that the natural world can be explained as the result of only natural causes. Science cannot test explanations about the supernatural and methodological naturalism is completely silent on the subject of God or other supernatural forces.
This argument is self contradictory. If methodological naturalism assumes the natural world can be explained as the result of only natural causes, then it is not silent on the subject of God and supernatural forces. Under this definition, methodological naturalism assumes that God did not actively create the world in detectable ways.
Furthermore, the claim that the natural world can be explained as the result of only natural causes in not scientific. The idea that the natural world has no detectable supernatural causes is outside of science. It is metaphysical and cannot be verified by science. Cornelius Hunter, Darwin’s Proof. P 147
What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary. [Stephen W. Hawking, Der Spiegel, 1989]
But who says we have to play by the rules set down by atheists. If Christianity is true, then it’s not at all obvious that valid science can be done only by making the counterfactual statement that atheism is true. NP, total Truth, 203
A naturalistic definition of science has the effect of indoctrinating students into a naturalistic worldview (quoted by NP, 207)
This is probably bad form (to copy so much) but the following discussion on Methodological Naturalism (MN) sheds great light on the larger problem of the concept, especially for Christians who would do science.
Question: What is Methodological naturalism
March 9, 2010 10:44 AM
methodological naturalism is the underlying principle in modern science that there is a continuity of cause and effect accessible to testing and rational synthesis
I don't think that is quite right as a definition of MN, at least not if it is taken to imply that this continuity and so forth will always work.
I see MN as more a description of how science works, that the method of science consists of looking for such "natural" explanations and that other types of explanations (such as supernatural) are out of bounds for science. But MN leaves open the possibility that there might be cases where the methods of science won't work. At which point one has gone as far as science can go -- one can bring in non-natural hypotheses in an attempt to fully understand reality, but at that point one is no longer doing "science" (which after all [contra the Enlightenment and those who think our faith depends on science finding God's fingerprints] is not the only path to truth).
What if its True? Barry Arrington (From a post on Uncommon Descent)
Today, for the sake of argument only, let us make two assumptions:
1. First, let us assume that the design hypothesis is correct, i.e., that living things appear to be designed for a purpose because they were in fact designed for a purpose.
2. Second, let us assume that the design hypothesis is not a scientific hypothesis, which means that ID proponents are not engaged in a scientific endeavor, or, as our opponents so often say, “ID is not science.”
From these assumptions, the following conclusion follows: If the design hypothesis is correct and at the same time the design hypothesis may not be advanced as a valid scientific hypothesis, then the structure of science prohibits it from discovering the truth about the origin of living things, and no matter how long and hard researchers operating within the confines of the scientific method work, they will forever fail to find the truth about the matter.
A response in Jesus Creed to the original article in which Ray argues for MN
I am deeply impressed by this body of thought by Timothy (Jesus Creed, Methodological Naturalism)
Timothy Dalrymple
March 9, 2010 10:41 AM
http://evangelical.patheos.com
A few thoughts.
1. Your definition of MN in the second paragraph is elegantly minimalistic, but it rather de-emphasizes the problematic aspects of MN as concretely practiced. It would be more accurate, I suggest, to say "All phenomena, given complete knowledge, are explicable according to a continuity of cause and effect accessible to testing and rational synthesis." The problem most Christians have is with the first word. We all approach our lives as though there is (generally) a natural explanation for phenomena around us. Yet many Christians, even if they believe God in the vast majority of instances works through the natural order He has ordained, hold open the possibility of divine or human causation that is not reducible to natural explanation.
2. One of the problems with methodological naturalism, as Plantinga states, is that it predetermines for and against certain sets of possible explanations. A wider array of explanatory options are available to the person who does not accept MN, at least in its strong form. Let's call "strong" methodological naturalism the view that naturalistic explanations are to be preferred at all costs to non-naturalistic explanations, and "weak" MN the view that naturalistic explanations are simply to be preferred, but the preponderance of evidence can overwhelm that preference in favor of a non-naturalistic explanation. I hold to weak MN, and partly for theological reasons: my belief and my experience is that God chooses in the vast majority of cases to work through the natural processes God has ordained. This has been the view of the Church for centuries (witness how the Catholic church still seeks naturalistic explanations for purported 'miracles' in the canonization process).
Strong MN can lead an individual to affirm a wildly implausible causal story simply because it is the only available or only possible naturalistic explanation.
(3) Plantinga only said that the probability of the GEN with respect to MN and the evidence is great than it is without MN. He did not say (at least in your reconstruction, which may not fully represent his argument on this point) that it is unlikely absent MN, such that Christians must be swayed to GEN not by the evidence but by MN. It seems to me indisputable that GEN, though it may be likely in both cases, is indeed more likely with the MN supposition than without. Also, while I'm a fan of Simon Conway Morris, I don't see any contradiction between Plantinga's statement and Morris' views on convergence. I do not see Plantinga here as committed to the view that God "guided" the process by directly forcing otherwise 'random' outcomes. Whether God guided by orchestrating 'chance' events, or by putting in place the mechanisms that guide evolution, or by putting in place the laws that produce the mechanisms that guide evolution, etc., at some point it would seem that the Christian is committed to some notion of God's guidance of cosmic history toward a life that is capable of knowing and worshiping Him.
4. The other problem with strong MN *as it is actually practiced and situated in western society* is that it almost inevitably devolves into ontological naturalism. This is, I think, primarily for historical and psychological reasons. Ideally, one might say that I practice (strong) MN as a physicist or historian but as an individual person I am open to other explanations. However, (i) Scientific inquiry has become so paradigmatic of rationality for western society (though I believe rationality is a far richer phenomenon, and I think we have an idealized and inaccurate view of scientific inquiry) that people come to believe not only that they should employ MN in their practice as scientists or historians or etc. but that MN is required of all rational persons in all areas of life. Also, (ii) The more we train ourselves to prefer naturalistic and shoot down non-naturalistic explanations, the harder it becomes to step outside of that methodology as individuals.
5. You say MN is especially problematic when it comes to issues like altruism (if I am reading you correctly) because there are not naturalistic accounts that provide an adequate basis for a transcendent or non-utilitarian good and evil. Yet the issue in discussions of altruism has more to do with the question of determinism, i.e. whether we are genetically or otherwise determined to act in "altruistic" ways or whether here, at least, is a phenomenon that cannot be explained according to natural, evolutionary causes. In this respect, at least, the issue does not seem essentially different from the issue of MN in evolutionary biology.
6. Finally, it *is* possible to practice science perfectly well with a weak and not a strong version of MN. There have been many excellent examples of such scientists, historically. And I see no reason why a person should have to say "As a physicist, I am committed to explanation X, because physics required MN, and X is the only available naturalistic explanation. Yet as a rational human being, when I remove the mantle of the physicist, I can see that Y is a better explanation." Not only is this sort of bifurcation psychologically treacherous; it is only necessary if we accept a wrongheaded, inaccurate and unduly narrow definition of what science is.
Daniel Mann
March 9, 2010 11:56 AM
http://www.MannsWord.blogspot.com
RJS,
You define methodological naturalism (MN) thusly:
“the underlying principle in modern science that there is a continuity of cause and effect accessible to testing and rational synthesis. The universe is comprehensible and obeys set laws. Scientific research seeks to understand these laws and processes, to discern how they have operated to produce what we see around us, and to utilize them…”
However, this definition does not seem to get to the real crux of the debate. This is because there is nothing in your definition that a supernaturalism would dispute. We all agree about testing, rational understanding of laws, etc.
Instead, the real problem with MN, as Timothy Dalrymple lucidly pointed out, is that MN is limiting, coercive, and refuses to acknowledge scientific causation outside of a naturalistic framework. And it does this without any evidence that our laws of physics are natural laws. Instead, it’s far more plausible that these laws find their origin and sustenance within the mind of God.
--
AHH
March 9, 2010 2:16 PM
Well, this discussion has spun off wildly, but I want to return briefly to the often-misunderstood idea of "Methodological Naturalism".
It is absolutely essential in these discussions to recognize that MN is a limitation on science, not a limitation on reality. If that is kept straight, it is quite compatible with Christianity, and even compatible with design arguments as long as it is admitted that if one concludes a "designer" outside nature one has left the domain of science. Which can be OK if one recognizes that not all truth is found in science.
--
"
The core idea behind evolutionary thought is that the diversity of life and origin of species must be explained exclusively by natural laws." (Cornelius Hunter)
(Richie)
This is a point you keep drumming home again and again and again, and I keep correcting you again and again and again. Still you never seem to understand:
***ALL SCIENCE*** insists observed phenomena must be explanied exclusively by natural laws!! Again and again you say evolution insists this, as though it is unscientific of evolution to do so. It is not unscientific - it is absolutely scientific!
There is not a single field of science which would accept a theory which did not explain obersved phenomena through exclusively natural laws.
Hypotheses which introduce other elements/explanations (eg, Creationism) are simply not science for this very reason (as well as others).
From a discussion on Cornelius Hunter's blog - Darwin's God http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/06/h-in-evolution.html
No, at the root of ALL SCIENCE is the assumption that the whole universe operates according to entirely natural laws. All theories, not just the theory of evolution through natural selection, must therefore be explained using natural laws.
Could this assumption be incorrect? Yes. But the fact that science is so damn productive does act as very weighty evidence that it is, in fact, correct. And if you have a problem with this assumption of naturalism, then you have a problem with the WHOLE of science.
This is a point Cornelius seems totally unable to grasp - the theory of evolution is not doing anything a respectable scientific should not do. Does ToE insist on methodological naturalism? Yes. And so does every other theory in science!
Or, put another way, any theory which is NOT built on methodological naturalism simply is not science.
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/07/evolutionary-thought-in-action_24.html
The scientific mind:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627606.400-living-in-denial-questioning-science-isnt-blasphemy.html
