Swamidass is Inescapably a Philosophical Naturalist

Until you realize MN is rooted in a strain of Christian theology.

I never intended to call you a confused atheist. I’m sorry for the misunderstanding and hope you are not offended.

Here’s what I wrote: “I defined Philosophical Naturalism as “the belief that God does not exist or cannot be known to act in the material world.” The first of those entails metaphysical naturalism. The second only that science cannot tell us anything about the immaterial.”

Most Philosophical Naturalists are atheists, but I did not ascribe that position to you. As I understand it, you are making the claim that science cannot tell us anything about God’s actions in the material world. Did I misunderstand you?

I can quote the portion that led me to that understanding if you would like.

@AJRoberts You sound like you are informed on the subject. Have you ever taken part in the Conference on the Alternatives to Methodological Naturalism? Or read any of the Proceedings? Have you read Tom Gilson’s call for a return to Regularism? It is found in Chapter 3 of the book below.

If I remember correctly, the arguments against Methodological Naturalism are not coming just from theists.

I recommend this book if you haven’t read it.

@Ronald_Cram, considering how different [B] is from [A], I would strongly recommend terminology that makes the difference obvious, instead of a single term which can be interpreted either way!

I uphold [B]!

1 Like

If you remember correctly, I never called you an atheist. I only said that your view of methodological naturalism is rigid and closed and is indistinguishable from philosophical (or metaphysical) naturalism. I said a person can hold that view and not be an atheist.

You are not making the claim that God could not have created the first life form. You are only making the claim that science can never say that God created the first life form, even if it is scientifically demonstrated. You are also making the claim that no science paper could ever be published saying the idea that life arose by natural processes has been falsified, that it violates the laws of physics (even if this claim is true and properly demonstrated). You hold this view because your view of methodological naturalism prevents you from holding any other.

I believe I have represented your views correctly. I’m not certain that @AJRoberts would agree with your views.

1 Like

Thank you for finally attempting to answer my question.

And no, you have not represented my views accurately. Nor have you explained how a metaphysical atheist can affirm the Resurrection.

In what way did I misrepresent your views?

And I never called you a metaphysical atheist. I said your view is equal to philosophical naturalism. From that you jumped to the assumption I was calling you an atheist.

Metaphysical naturalist = atheist, no? But that is okay, we can stick to your terms. You have not explained how a metaphysical naturalist can affirm the miracle of the Resurrection.

Let us start with that, and we’ll work through the rest of it from there.

In my view, the rigid, closed view of methodological naturalism is equal to philosophical naturalism. In other words, the view is not required by the normal practice of science. Many scientists, like Sean Carroll, don’t hold to it. It is a philosophical commitment that, while doing science, one cannot examine evidence that points to the supernatural. There’s nothing to stop such a person, while not doing science, to admit that God exists or that God raised Jesus from the dead.

So confessing that God exists and the He rose Jesus from the dead is something indistinguishable from naturalism?

That isn’t even remotely close to what I said. Why are you trying to twist my words? That isn’t charitable. If you want common ground, then you should attempt to be fair with my comments.

I’m trying to accurately represent your view. You say that I haven’t, so then explain to me what I have misunderstood.

What is a metaphysical atheist? Sounds like an atheist that goes to church for no reason at all. :grinning:

3 Likes

Well then there’s the folks who ring your doorbell for no good reason. They’re called “Jehovah’s nihilists.”

2 Likes

This doesn’t make sense. Can you please explain what you are trying to say a little bit better. It is very confusing.

1 Like

What exactly is confusing?

What is confusing, is how you describe scientists doing science. I have been part of “big science” for my whole career. Never a discussion of methodological naturalism or philosophical naturalism while doing science. Everyone is too busy doing science to have such discussions.

This never comes up in anything I have ever seen in science.

1 Like

Well, I guess you mean, except on this blog, of course?

Have you seen this yet @Ronald_Cram?

@AJRoberts and I really are seeing this eye to eye. You know she is on staff with Reasons to Believe right?