Welcome to Terrell Clemmons: Questions on Methodological Naturalism

You misunderstood. There was no generalisation.
Pls avoid unnecessary assumptions.

Why did you edit what I wrote, Ashwin? Are you unwilling to discuss your engagement in consequentialism?

43 posts were split to a new topic: In which Eddie & T_aquaticus discuss ID, TE, and naturalism

There is no generalisation… see the word many there? It doesn’t mean all…
And read the next scentence- it refers to the use of Science to back claims of atheism.
The comment is about a specific subset of athiests.

I am assuming you dont believe “orthodox Christianity” regularly uses Science to back up claims of athiesm… hence my conclusion that you misunderstood.
You saw a generalisation where there was none.

I didn’t edit anything you wrote… did you add the reference to consequentialism later?

I have no problem discussing anything as long as you don’t out words in my mouth.

Why don’t you explain what you saw as a problem, and we can go on from there.

The doctrine of providence is pretty strongly established without requiring objective evidence of Gods role. Many (most?) theologians argue that it is a distortion of the doctrine to think it implies we should be able to objectively demonstrate Gods involvement. To insist otherwise may be a departure from this doctrine.

This is not to preclude the possibility of objective demonstrations at times, but to reject that this the normal or expected way in which God’s providence is manifest.

2 Likes

But it’s not a self-imposed blindness. You’re seeming to confuse methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism. MN is just the “rules of the game” for doing science. It’s only blindness if you assume that science is the only way to know things, which would seem like a crazy thing for a Christian to say.

Christianity has nothing to do with methodological naturalism. Science doesn’t care whether you’re an atheist, a Buddhist, a Muslim, a Christian, or a vegan. MN is not a metaphysical statement or belief.

4 Likes

It is if you’re a Culture Warrior.

I don’t think I’m confusing MN and PN, and I’m pretty sure between the OP and comments earlier in the thread I’ve demonstrated that and been clear about the questions I am raising. I don’t blame you if you don’t want to read through everything that preceded this, and I hope you likewise won’t blame me if I don’t want explain myself again.

I agree with you that it would be dumb for a Christian to espouse scientism. I wrote a whole article recently on the subject which just went online and, incidentally, actually does pertain to some of the discussion going on here that I’m staying out of. http://www.salvomag.com/article/salvo48/peripheral-visions

2 Likes

I agree with you here. It would be crazy for a Christian to say that Science would be the only way to know things.
However, this is precisely the kind of conviction that many scientists (non Christian) seem to have. And they have taken this conviction to the general public and campaigned for it. There seems to be little difference between MN and and philosophical naturalism in the viewpoint of atleast some (very popular) scientists. And there has been very little backlash from the scientific community for consistently misusing science to back religious views like atheism.
In practise, I don’t think there is as strong a line drawn between MN and PN among scientists. For example, most of the athiest Scientists we have here hold to PN, and they don’t seem to have any of the qualms you do about mixing the two.

I agree here also.

I am not so sure of this. How do you do OOL research unless you are convinced that natural explanations exist. There is a strong faith based part to MN.
And it has clear metaphysical/theological implications.

1 Like

I agree with points made by both Jordan and Ashwin.

I think that in principle, MN is distinguishable from PN. However, it would seem that in some cases, MN tends to slide toward PN, and I think that is what Ashwin is worried about, and possibly what Terrell is worried about.

Here is an example that might help:

Suppose someone suggests that life might have originated wholly by natural causes. An MN approach would be to say, “Well, if life originated by wholly natural causes, it might have been in such-and-such a way; let’s see if we can devise means to test such a hypothesis.” Note that the speaker here has not decided that life originated naturally; he is only considering that as a provisional hypothesis. Investigation of origins done under this provisional understanding is not committed to PN as a metaphysical position.

But now, suppose someone says: “Science hasn’t yet determined how life originated.” Notice that it’s tacitly assumed (in the “yet”) that science will one day determine this. Science is assumed to be capable of determining the origin of life. But since science can’t deal with non-natural causes, then it follows that the speaker believes that life originated by natural causes alone. So the statement has gone beyond MN and into PN; the speaker (perhaps unconsciously) has indirectly ruled out the possibility of non-natural causes in the origin of life.

With caution in the expression of claims, it is possible to prevent MN from sliding into PN, but that caution is not always evident in debates over origins.

3 Likes

I don’t agree with that. You would do the OOL research out of curiosity. And you might find a possible answer. But you also might find that it is far more difficult or unlikely than you had thought, and maybe there isn’t any natural explanation.

I don’t agree with that, either. The “yet” might be a reflection of whom you are talking to, rather than a reflection of your own beliefs.

1 Like

Yes, that’s definitely one way to do it.

Though the conviction that there is a natural answer and it is probably in such and such way has been regularly expressed by scientists in their communication with the general public right from the time of Urey Miller.
No qualifiers such as… “Perhaps there is no natural explanation”.

1 Like

I probably wouldn’t say that. But I often say “perhaps we will never explain it” (or something similar).

Again, it depends on who I am talking to. If I am talking to a theist, I’ll openly admit that I cannot rule out divine intervention. If I’m talking to a non-religious person I won’t bring that up, but I’ll admit that we might never have a satisfactory answer.

1 Like

You’re not alone. :slight_smile:

4 Likes

I would like to return to some discussion about God’s providence, because I think it is relevant here.

Picking up on both @terrellclemmons’ comment,

And @swamidass’,

Cannot Christians – faithful philosophical naturalists need not apply :slightly_smiling_face:, cannot Christians talk about meaningful events and sets of events as objective demonstrations of God’s interventions?

A father gives an unexpected gift to his child. The outside observer who did not have a loving father and is therefore always suspicious of motives and infers duplicity, equivocation and hypocrisy will not accept the gift as objective evidence of the father’s ‘loving intervention’. The child, however, absolutely will.

I expect that you see where I’m going with this… The Christian will correctly infer, adequately enough for forensic testimony, that meaningful improbable events and sets of improbable events are evidence of God’s interventionist activities and a frequent and predictable M.O., by his design.

Since similar – yes, I’m going to use that word :slightly_smiling_face: – ‘hypernatural’ events have been recorded – events where no natural laws have been broken – in both Testaments of scripture and in the lives of multiple scores of Christians over the centuries, and hopefully in our own as well, we have basis.

The philosophical naturalist will say that evolution couldn’t happen the same way twice. The Christian who understands God’s sovereignty will say that there are no accidents and can correctly infer design and expect to see it. Prove it scientifically? No, but still know it is true.

1 Like

And speaking of meaningful improbable events and multiple sets of meaningful improbable events, Hugh Ross and many others have written much about all the events and parameters that make our planet unique, and more keep being discovered.

And a favorite,

Yes, this is standard ID rhetoric. It also appears to be driven by an agenda, and a departure from the doctrine of providence. I, for one, am not comfortable with the theological innovation here.

4 Likes

I am not that well read that I can affirm it is ‘standard ID rhetoric’. If it is, so be it. I am well lived enough, however, to have much documented ‘empirical evidence’ of Father’s M.O. to see the correlation.