Methodological Naturalism
As opposed to “philosophical materialism” already mentioned, there is a related term, “methodological naturalism” (MN). MN does not make any assumptions about the existence or non-existence of the supernatural. MN is the operative principle by which most science is done, regardless of the religious beliefs (or non-belief) of the scientist. Methodological naturalism is “the belief that science should explain phenomena only in terms of entities and properties that fall within the category of the natural, such as by natural laws acting either through known causes or by chance” (Ted Davis, Robin Collins, “Methodological Naturalism” in The History of Science and Religion in the Western Tradition: An Encyclopedia).
Methodological naturalism is a method of studying the physical universe, based on a belief that science’s ability to describe is limited to things that are natural. It assumes that ordinary, natural processes are at work and can be described, quantified, studied, and often predicted. A scientist relies on methodological naturalism simply because it is how the world appears to work. Because the universe and the things in it operate according to natural, orderly laws and principles, nature can be explored in a rational, systematic way.
In pagan mythologies, nature has a will of its own, or is under the control of unpredictable supernatural deities, who act according to their whims. If this were the case, scientists would be unable to do their jobs, because there wouldn’t be regular, physical laws underlying the natural world which can be discovered through systematic, repeatable experiments and observations.
In contrast, the Bible portrays God as a God of law, orderliness, and consistency, so His creation can be expected to act according to orderly processes, at least most of the time. Methodological naturalism is not necessarily a threat to Christian belief, as long as we recognize its inherent limitations, because it does not rule out that miracles can occur. When Jesus multiplied the loaves and fishes, that event cannot (or arguably, should not) be explained in naturalistic terms. However, once the loaves were eaten and the people's bodies received nutrients and strength from the food, no miraculous explanation is needed to explain the physiological effects. We might still consider the working of the body to be "miraculous" as a statement of faith and wonder, but it's a different sort of miracle.
Methodological naturalism has no claim on explaining the initial miracle, but it does have power to explain the natural processes by which nutrients are digested and broken down by enzymes, absorbed into the cells, energy is given off, etc. These are repeatable, natural processes that can be observed and quantified by using scientific methods. A Christian scientist is free to study the processes involved, while still granting the possibility that in some cases God may perform miracles that may or may not be fully explained scientifically, either as to the details of how or why they occurred.
We should note, however, that this view of the necessity of science being governed by methodological naturalism is contested by some creationists, because it seems to exclude God or supernatural causes from scientific inquiry by definition. This is a valid criticism which should at least be considered further. One question to consider is, what would science look like and how would it operate, if it allowed supernatural cause and effect as explanations?
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Friday, January 9, 2009
Dialog 1.2 - Philosophies of Naturalism and Materialism
Philosophies of Naturalism and Materialism
Modern controversies surrounding science and religion don't get more heated than around the subject of evolution. The science community generally portrays evolution as purely science, and as the most reasonable hypothesis current to explain the observed facts of biology.
Yet, there are many atheists who promote evolution as an alternative to religion. Supporters of various brands of creationism agree with this point. They routinely caricature evolution (and sometimes science in general) as dangerous atheistic philosophy. At the same time, the creationists offer a self-styled "creation science" as an alternate scientific theory, which is often heavily influenced by their own theological presuppositions.
We have to recognize that just as there is a theological “doctrine of creation,” there is also a philosophical “doctrine of evolution.” The doctrine of evolution (as distinct from the science of evolution) might be generalized as follows: “Evolution is a theory which explains the origin of everything through purely natural processes.” One example of this view is: “Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind” (George Gaylord Simpson, The Meaning of Evolution, 1967, p. 345).
This is not science, but rather “philosophical materialism” – a philosophy which proposes that material causes and effects are all that exist. Some writers also refer to this as “philosophical naturalism.” In the context of evolution specifically, some distinguish between the term "evolution" (limited to the scientific aspects in question) and “evolutionism," which is the philosophy that evolution can explain the origins of all life, without dependence on a transcendent God as Creator. This supposition that nature is all-sufficient goes well beyond what science can tell us by its measurements, observations and theories. It is based on an atheistic worldview that, by definition, excludes from consideration anything supernatural. It holds that since the supernatural does not exist, miracles cannot occur, therefore there must always be a natural explanation for everything. But science cannot prove the existence or non-existence of things beyond nature, because it simply has no means of investigating non-natural or supernatural phenomena.
What, then, is science?
Both creationism and evolutionism are deeply theological and philosophical in nature, though they both touch on scientific issues. However, most of the real day-to-day work of science involves investigating and evaluating evidence from the world around us. Scientists ideally work with the observed data and develop understandings based on unbiased, rational conclusions. However, it is very difficult to achieve this ideal situation. There will always be a bias in the interpretation of data, based on the knowledge and philosophical framework of the individual. How does science work to eliminate the bias of individual researchers, and how well does it succeed?
In the following sections, we will take a little more detailed look at science: what constitutes a scientific theory, and how scientific theories are developed and tested, proved or disproved. In short, what is science, and how does it work? This is important to understand before we can evaluate the strength or weakness of theories given to us by both mainstream science and creation science. Then we will look at some of the evidence and how well it's explained by the various theories.
Modern controversies surrounding science and religion don't get more heated than around the subject of evolution. The science community generally portrays evolution as purely science, and as the most reasonable hypothesis current to explain the observed facts of biology.
Yet, there are many atheists who promote evolution as an alternative to religion. Supporters of various brands of creationism agree with this point. They routinely caricature evolution (and sometimes science in general) as dangerous atheistic philosophy. At the same time, the creationists offer a self-styled "creation science" as an alternate scientific theory, which is often heavily influenced by their own theological presuppositions.
We have to recognize that just as there is a theological “doctrine of creation,” there is also a philosophical “doctrine of evolution.” The doctrine of evolution (as distinct from the science of evolution) might be generalized as follows: “Evolution is a theory which explains the origin of everything through purely natural processes.” One example of this view is: “Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind” (George Gaylord Simpson, The Meaning of Evolution, 1967, p. 345).
This is not science, but rather “philosophical materialism” – a philosophy which proposes that material causes and effects are all that exist. Some writers also refer to this as “philosophical naturalism.” In the context of evolution specifically, some distinguish between the term "evolution" (limited to the scientific aspects in question) and “evolutionism," which is the philosophy that evolution can explain the origins of all life, without dependence on a transcendent God as Creator. This supposition that nature is all-sufficient goes well beyond what science can tell us by its measurements, observations and theories. It is based on an atheistic worldview that, by definition, excludes from consideration anything supernatural. It holds that since the supernatural does not exist, miracles cannot occur, therefore there must always be a natural explanation for everything. But science cannot prove the existence or non-existence of things beyond nature, because it simply has no means of investigating non-natural or supernatural phenomena.
What, then, is science?
Both creationism and evolutionism are deeply theological and philosophical in nature, though they both touch on scientific issues. However, most of the real day-to-day work of science involves investigating and evaluating evidence from the world around us. Scientists ideally work with the observed data and develop understandings based on unbiased, rational conclusions. However, it is very difficult to achieve this ideal situation. There will always be a bias in the interpretation of data, based on the knowledge and philosophical framework of the individual. How does science work to eliminate the bias of individual researchers, and how well does it succeed?
In the following sections, we will take a little more detailed look at science: what constitutes a scientific theory, and how scientific theories are developed and tested, proved or disproved. In short, what is science, and how does it work? This is important to understand before we can evaluate the strength or weakness of theories given to us by both mainstream science and creation science. Then we will look at some of the evidence and how well it's explained by the various theories.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
