Methodological Naturalism

[theFijian]

After being involved in the 'Friendly' Questions thread I was left wondering what it is about Methodological Naturalism that Creationists don't understand.

Roughly, the main thrust is that Science is the study of natural phenomena and the endeavour to find explanations for those phenopmena by natural mechanism. For most of us this really isn't any big deal because we understand that this is the best way to make scientific progress because if we posited supernatural explanations we wouldn't ever learn anything more about the natural world. Scientific progress would stop dead in it's tracks. We would not have all the technological advancements to enjoy which science has brought us. We would not have better medicines, we would not have cleaner more efficient energy, we would not have stronger lighter materials etc etc

This is not to say that supernatural events do not happen, but that they are fundamentally outside the realm of scientific investigation. Otherwise we are saying that God is part of Creation and not the author of it, since he is not part of the natural world. Why then is that we should squeeze God into a scientific straight-jacket by saying that anything we don't currently understand is something we can attribute directly to God. 'God of the gaps' theology has left Christianity looking very stupid in the past and it will continue to do so if we do not ditch it..

Remember we are all methodological naturalists. If your car breaks down do you just throw your hands up and say "God did it!" or do you lift up the bonnet and look for a naturalistic explanation. You wouldn't use a thermometer to weigh a brick so why think you can prove the supernatural with a naturalisitic tool?

 

[chaoschristian]

Great post. Thank you for bringing this up.

I think that the main misapprehension among certain Christians is that Methodological Naturalism has at its core the intent to surplant God. From what I have witnessed it is either the notion that MN is inherently anti-theistic, or that MN is derived from a world view that is anti-theistic and is therefore nothing but a tool for that world view.

As TEs we bear witness against these misapprehensions, and demonstrate that it is true that we can explore the mysteries of creation without necessarily concluding that God is superflous.

Expect this question to be raised, 'Can science/MN discover/explain/answer everything?' The intent of the question is to probe whether or not one holds that there are indeed supernatural forces that exert themselves on the universe. The point being that if one accepts the idea that MN could possibly lead to the unveiling of the veiled (the un-supering of the supernatural?) then one is embracing a philosophical rejection of God.

The problem with this, as I see it, is in equating God with the supernatural. I'm not so sure God is supernatural. I am more inclined to think that God is trans-natural, being both natural and supernatural and none of the above all at the same time.

 

[Willtor]

The problem with this, as I see it, is in equating God with the supernatural. I'm not so sure God is supernatural. I am more inclined to think that God is trans-natural, being both natural and supernatural and none of the above all at the same time.

I've been thinking about this a bit, actually.

Although I use the terms natural and supernatural as well, I don't think they're really adequate to describe their respective elements in Christian theology. I think a more traditional description would be to distinguish Creator from Creation, and within Creation to distinguish Seen from Unseen. This notion of "Seen" is not, of course, exclusively in reference to what is visible to the human eye.

But when we talk about nature and super-nature, things become less clear. Are angels natural or supernatural? Is the soul natural or supernatural? It seems to me that the philosophy of science uses terms that are imprecise from a Christian perspective.

---

Regarding the OP, I also think "naturalism" in "methodological naturalism" is throwing people off; and so I've been trying to substitute "exploration of providence" for MN in appropriate contexts. But I've found that even my discussions of providence are largely unfruitful because providence is a word that has been lost to certain portions of the Church (I've never heard it used in a single sermon or sunday school).

 

[chaoschristian]

. . . the unseen hand of a provident Creator . . .

hmmmm, ponder, ponder, ponder

 

[pastorkevin73]

After being involved in the 'Friendly' Questions thread I was left wondering what it is about Methodological Naturalism that Creationists don't understand.

Roughly, the main thrust is that Science is the study of natural phenomena and the endeavour to find explanations for those phenopmena by natural mechanism. For most of us this really isn't any big deal because we understand that this is the best way to make scientific progress because if we posited supernatural explanations we wouldn't ever learn anything more about the natural world. Scientific progress would stop dead in it's tracks. We would not have all the technological advancements to enjoy which science has brought us. We would not have better medicines, we would not have cleaner more efficient energy, we would not have stronger lighter materials etc etc

This is not to say that supernatural events do not happen, but that they are fundamentally outside the realm of scientific investigation. Otherwise we are saying that God is part of Creation and not the author of it, since he is not part of the natural world. Why then is that we should squeeze God into a scientific straight-jacket by saying that anything we don't currently understand is something we can attribute directly to God. 'God of the gaps' theology has left Christianity looking very stupid in the past and it will continue to do so if we do not ditch it..

Remember we are all methodological naturalists. If your car breaks down do you just throw your hands up and say "God did it!" or do you lift up the bonnet and look for a naturalistic explanation. You wouldn't use a thermometer to weigh a brick so why think you can prove the supernatural with a naturalisitic tool?

Actually, once my car broke down, I layed hands on it and prayed. I turned my key and it started up again. This has also happened to a close friend of mine.

You are correct, it is impossible to explain something in a natural that is supernatural.

 

[chaoschristian]

Actually, once my car broke down, I layed hands on it and prayed. I turned my key and it started up again. This has also happened to a close friend of mine.

You are correct, it is impossible to explain something in a natural that is supernatural.

Here's a story from one of my old car magazines. I'm pulling this from memory, so bear with me . . .

This stories occurs in the days when cars still had carburators and fuel injection was an upgrade on a foreign sports car.

A fellow purchased a new Buick. He liked his car just fine, it worked just as a car should.

There was, however, one small problem: sometimes, when he went to the store to buy icecream for his family's Friday night treat, the car would stall at the store.

He went over this problem with his mechanic, but to no avail. All the parts and pieces worked just fine.

Yet the problem would persist. Sometimes, not always, on Friday nights, when he went to the store to buy icecream, the car would not start.

The gentleman began to document his trips, determined to discover the source of this problem.

He recorded the time he left his house, the distance to the store, what kind of icecream he bought, etc, etc, etc.

After several weeks of collecting data, the man discovered that the only variable that stood out was vanilla ice cream. There was a direct correlation between buying vanilla icecream and the car stalling.

He showed his mechanic the data. The mechanic was perplexed. Vanilla icecream purchases do not make cars stall. Yet the data suggested just this very thing.

What was the mysterious connection between vanilla icecream and the stalling car?

In an intrepid show of dedication rarely witnessed today, the mechanic agreed to go along with the man on his Friday night icecream runs in order to see if he could discern the connection.

After several trips, wherein on some trips the icecream was chocolate, sometimes pistachio and sometime vanilla, the mechanic did indeed experience, first hand the quizzical 'vanilla icecream stall.'

And from his seat in the passenger side of the car, as he looked into the store and watched the owner of the car buy his vanilla icecream, the mechanic discovered why vanilla icecream was causing the car to stall.

The icecream section of the store the man frequented was way in the back. To buy chocolate or pistachio or butter pecan, he had to walk all the way to the back of the store, make his selection, navigate back to the front of the store, stand in line and then leave and get into his car.

When the man's icecream run went like this, the car started fine.

However, for the convenience of its customers, the store had a freezer chest of vanilla icecream near the express check out. When the man bought vanilla icecream his time in the store was reduced dramatically. On these occassions, the car would stall.

The mystery is solved. The vanilla icecream didn't cause the car to stall, but the easily overlooked factor of how much time it took to buy vanilla icecream was. On the short trips not enough time was elapsing to clear out the carburator, and when the man hopped back into his Buick he was flooding the engine.

Solution: when buying vanilla icecream, wait a few extra minutes before starting the car.

Oops. Or maybe I'm just repeating an urban legend.

 

[pastorkevin73]

Here's a story from one of my old car magazines. I'm pulling this from memory, so bear with me . . .



Oops. Or maybe I'm just repeating an urban legend.

lol, I like that story.

 

[theFijian]

Actually, once my car broke down, I layed hands on it and prayed. I turned my key and it started up again. This has also happened to a close friend of mine.

But you didn't anoint it with oil?

Actually the next time i have a hard-drive failure can you pray for my PC?

 

[mark kennedy]

methodological naturalism is not just investigations of the natural world, it requires exclusivly naturalistic explanations for absolutely everything. Here is an example of methodological naturalism's view of God.

"A whale's flipper, a man's arm, a bird's wing, and a dog's foreleg...perform functions about as different and varied as styles of locomotion in vertebrates can be, yet all are built of the same bones. Why would God have used the same building blocks, and distorted and twisted them in such odd ways, if He had simply set out to make the best swimming, running, and flying machines? The common structure must reflect common descent from an ancestor possessing these bones." (A View of Life, for instance, Salvador Luria, Stephen Jay Gould, and Sam Singer)

Anything theological about that? You bet there is and the pretense that methodological naturalism isn't orthodox atheism doesn't hold water. Here is another argument from methodological naturalism:

Can we feel satisfied by saying that each Orchid was created, exactly as we now see it, on a certain "ideal type:" that the omnipotent Creator, having fixed on one plan for the whole Order, did not depart from this plan: that he, therefore, made the same organ to perform diverse functions -- often of trifling importance compared with their proper function -- converted other organs into mere purposeless rudiments, and arranged all as if they had to stand separate, and then made them cohere? Is it not a more simple and intelligible view that all the Orchideae owe what they have in common, to descent from some monocotyledonous plant....? (Charles Darwin, On the Various Contrivances by Which Orchids Are Fertilized by Insects)

The rational is pretty obvious he is arguing against a wise creator in favor of purely naturalistic explanations. As far as the statement that we would know nothing about the world around us if we relied on supernatural explanations, that is absurd. When you pray and God hears your prayer and answers it, that is a supernatural event. You cannot accept the Bible as redemptive history and evolution as natural history, the two are like oil and water, fire and ice, they are mutually exclusive explanations of our origins.

 

[Willtor]

methodological naturalism is not just investigations of the natural world, it requires exclusivly naturalistic explanations for absolutely everything. Here is an example of methodological naturalism's view of God.

"A whale's flipper, a man's arm, a bird's wing, and a dog's foreleg...perform functions about as different and varied as styles of locomotion in vertebrates can be, yet all are built of the same bones. Why would God have used the same building blocks, and distorted and twisted them in such odd ways, if He had simply set out to make the best swimming, running, and flying machines? The common structure must reflect common descent from an ancestor possessing these bones." (A View of Life, for instance, Salvador Luria, Stephen Jay Gould, and Sam Singer)

Anything theological about that? You bet there is and the pretense that methodological naturalism isn't orthodox atheism doesn't hold water. Here is another argument from methodological naturalism:

Can we feel satisfied by saying that each Orchid was created, exactly as we now see it, on a certain "ideal type:" that the omnipotent Creator, having fixed on one plan for the whole Order, did not depart from this plan: that he, therefore, made the same organ to perform diverse functions -- often of trifling importance compared with their proper function -- converted other organs into mere purposeless rudiments, and arranged all as if they had to stand separate, and then made them cohere? Is it not a more simple and intelligible view that all the Orchideae owe what they have in common, to descent from some monocotyledonous plant....? (Charles Darwin, On the Various Contrivances by Which Orchids Are Fertilized by Insects)

The rational is pretty obvious he is arguing against a wise creator in favor of purely naturalistic explanations. As far as the statement that we would know nothing about the world around us if we relied on supernatural explanations, that is absurd. When you pray and God hears your prayer and answers it, that is a supernatural event. You cannot accept the Bible as redemptive history and evolution as natural history, the two are like oil and water, fire and ice, they are mutually exclusive explanations of our origins.

The god these authors are arguing against is exactly the god-of-the-gaps that TEs have been arguing is contrary both to theology and to science. MN can certainly say things about a created god who can be tested, empirically. They are arguing that no such god has been discovered. To that, all I can say is, "chalk up a point for Christianity." Keep in mind that just because an author capitalizes the 'G' doesn't mean he's talking about God as He is, in reality (this, actually, goes for anybody: Christian or non).

 

[jereth]

methodological naturalism is not just investigations of the natural world, it requires exclusivly naturalistic explanations for absolutely everything.

Rubbish.

You bet there is and the pretense that methodological naturalism isn't orthodox atheism doesn't hold water.

Rubbish.

You cannot accept the Bible as redemptive history and evolution as natural history, the two are like oil and water, fire and ice, they are mutually exclusive explanations of our origins.

Rubbish.

Your statements merely demonstrate a stubborn refusal to understand methodological naturalism.

 

[shernren]

The rational is pretty obvious he is arguing against a wise creator in favor of purely naturalistic explanations.

He may be arguing against your own neo-creationist conception of a wise creator, and arguing in favour of purely naturalistic explanations, but how do you know that he is arguing against a proper, Biblical view of God?

"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us.
(Acts 17:24-27 NIV)

(emphasis added) The Good News Bible amplifies this statement of God's purpose:

He did this so that they would look for him, and perhaps find him as they felt around for him. Yet God is actually not far from any one of us;
(Acts 17:27 GNB)

What would Dawkins and co. have to say about this? Wouldn't they say that this isn't the mark of a wise creator? Why wouldn't a wise creator, they would say, make nature force every man to acknowledge Him? Why can't God inhabit temples built by human hands so that nobody can deny His existence? Why is God's providence so inefficient that people have to "perhaps find him as they feel around for him"?

And yet it is not Dawkins and co. who first said that God fully intended man to grope for Him - it is the Bible which makes this statement. Look also at:

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.
(Romans 1:18-25 NIV)

We read that the qualities of God are plainly seen in creation. And yet it is possible for man to deny seeing these qualities in creation (but not without guilt), and God instead of making these qualities somehow more obvious goes on to condemn and reject them. Now what does it mean to reject the qualities of God clearly revealed in creation? After all, the whole virtue of science is that it is agreed on by anyone regardless of supernatural holdings. An atheist, a Christian, a Hindu and a Buddhist walk into a bar - ouch! All will experience gravity, the strong-electroweak force, and all the corresponding resultant macroscopic results. So it is clear that it is possible for someone to apprehend the scientific nature of creation while wilfully failing to understand the spiritual realities it reveals.

Methodological naturalism may seem to argue against certain stilted concepts of a Creator. But in my mind, it serves to glorify God. I see a God so mighty and loving that even while He reveals Himself in creation, He offers the choice to those who choose so to reject Him without rejecting the benefits and providence of an orderly, rational creation. On the one hand, He reveals Himself in the orderliness of reality to anyone who is willing to seek Him, so that anyone who cannot see Him must first make the choice not to. On the other hand, He created reality so that the rejecters can spit in God's face and still exercise the physical necessities of life without any problem. God doesn't have to blackmail His creation by making life physically impossible or un-understandable for those who refuse Him. God is far bigger than that, and when I see methodological naturalism I see His grace at work in creation. God's qualities revealed, indeed!

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

Remember we are all methodological naturalists. If your car breaks down do you just throw your hands up and say "God did it!" or do you lift up the bonnet and look for a naturalistic explanation. You wouldn't use a thermometer to weigh a brick so why think you can prove the supernatural with a naturalisitic tool?

Naturalism is "the doctrine that the world can be understood in scientific terms without recourse to spiritual or supernatural explanations".

Consider that we all, as brothers and sisters in Christ, believe that God created the heavens and the earth. When we say that we are claiming that a supernatural cause had a natural effect.

That means that there is at the very least one event in the history of the universe that had a supernatural cause. Naturalism precludes such an event from even having happened. As Christians we know that is false, so we must reject naturalism.

What I think is that we need a more wholesome approach towards science. Science deals with what is observable, repeatable, and testable. If, hypothetically, a supernatural event could be observed, repeated and tested, then it would not be removed from science.

When we approach a question, such as abiogenesis, or the big bang, we may ask ourselves "did this have a supernatural or a natural cause?". Such a question is not a scientific one, however. It is not observable, repeatable, or testable. We can answer this question through philosophy, however - and the philosophy of naturalism is an inadequate view for Christians to use to approach these questions. There are some points in the history of the universe were God has intervened. There are, in some ways, marks of His design in us (for how else could we be made in His image?). Therefore we cannot hold to the philosophy of naturalism.

In terms of approaching questions that science can deal with, I think we are at a stage in history where we have little or no access to the supernatural. It is reasonable for us to seek natural answers before looking to the supernatural. We have expectations, even as Christians, about how the world around us operates. Expectations such as that the universe follows laws when not intervened in by God. An expectation that our God intelligent and created a logical and reasonable universe.

One day, when our Saviour has returned, we may conceive of being able to test, observe, and repeat supernatural events. For now, we lack access to anything like that.

I suppose then that there's two answers to your question:
1. As a philosophy, naturalism is simply wrong and cannot be adhered to
2. When practicing science, most everything we deal with is natural, so we will first seek natural answers

I think the second point is what you were saying, but when practicing philosophy the problems of naturalism become much clearer.

Consider this defeater: If five people claimed to have the gift of tongues, and five claimed the gift of interpretation of tongues, it is easy for us to conceive of a scientific experiment to test this hypothesis (that they speak a supernatural language, and are able to interpret it). This is a (claimed) supernatural phenomena which at the very least can be disproved through science. Let's assume, for a moment, that they really do have the gift of tongues from God. Does that make it any less accessible by science? Or could we then begin to do studies on it to find out the structure of the language, the way speaking in tongues or interpreting reacts with the body and the mind, etc? We may not be able to say "God employs these particular supernatural laws to cause others to speak in tongues", but we will still be able to determine that we are in fact dealing with a supernatural event, and describe a great deal about the phenomena.

 

[shernren]

Naturalism is "the doctrine that the world can be understood in scientific terms without recourse to spiritual or supernatural explanations".

No, that is ontological naturalism and it is an extreme to which Christians should not go, I agree. But methodological naturalism simply states that the natural world is sufficiently explained by proximate natural causes. Methodological naturalism does not preclude supernatural activity or spiritual ultimate causes, it just notes that these things are de facto un-study-able by science. Whether an individual decides that these things therefore do not exist, or in fact do exist and indicate a higher plane of existence than science can reveal, is in the realm of ontology and does not affect whether or not methdological naturalism is a valid framework with which to investigate the workings of the natural world.

Christians thank God every day for events which can be perfectly explained by naturalistic means - when you get a parking lot in a crowded shopping mall, when the rain stops just as you step out of college and need to walk home, when someone is around to give you a ride back just when you've missed the bus. All of these have valid "scientific" explanations and yet Christians acknowledge that they are little reminders of God's grace. This shows that methodological naturalism is clearly compatible with a theistic, Christian view of the world's ultimate causes. If some people want to use naturalism to "prove" that God does not exist, that is their choice. As I have explained, the very existence of that choice is even a testimony to God's greatness and grace. Those who reach out for Him find Him whose attributes were clearly revealed in creation from the start. Those who run from Him will have no excuse at the Day of Reckoning, no matter that God made a world which can physically support even them.

 

[Mallon]

I'm with shernren...

That means that there is at the very least one event in the history of the universe that had a supernatural cause. Naturalism precludes such an event from even having happened.

Your entire argument hinges on this one key misconception. Methodological naturalism can make no such claim about the supernatural. Being limited to investigating the world only through natural means, it cannot either preclude or include supernatural explanations. Hence, a Christian can fully adopt naturalistic explanations knowing through faith that God works through them.

 

[jereth]

Sadly, what this thread shows is a fundamental failure of YECism to understand the Theistic worldview.

Worse still, when worked out to their logical end, the YECist arguments here are in fact arguments against monotheistic religion.

 

[mark kennedy]

He may be arguing against your own neo-creationist conception of a wise creator, and arguing in favour of purely naturalistic explanations, but how do you know that he is arguing against a proper, Biblical view of God?

Because they are explicit in their ideologies about exactly that. Darwin's On the Origin of Species was one long argument against special creation, not in favor of evolution. In fact it hardly every even mentions evolution.

"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us.
(Acts 17:24-27 NIV)

(emphasis added) The Good News Bible amplifies this statement of God's purpose:

He did this so that they would look for him, and perhaps find him as they felt around for him. Yet God is actually not far from any one of us;
(Acts 17:27 GNB)

What would Dawkins and co. have to say about this?

Sean Dawkin's would never dream of having anything nice to say about anything Biblical or even remotely religious.

Wouldn't they say that this isn't the mark of a wise creator? Why wouldn't a wise creator, they would say, make nature force every man to acknowledge Him? Why can't God inhabit temples built by human hands so that nobody can deny His existence? Why is God's providence so inefficient that people have to "perhaps find him as they feel around for him"?

What they are arguing is that the design is imperfect and therefore most be evolved rather then being created by divine fiat. This argument appears everywhere evolution is being taught, the modern day dogma of science is that only purely naturalistic explanations are allowed. This was a dramatic departure from what science had been prior to the mid-nineteenth century. Allways before most scientists affirmed and invoked some kind of designer or creator. With the rise of methodological naturalism science itself became exclusively naturalistic.

And yet it is not Dawkins and co. who first said that God fully intended man to grope for Him - it is the Bible which makes this statement. Look also at:

You do know that Sean Dawkins is not only an atheistic materialist but considers religion to be a parasitic cultural meme. A virus that should be eradicated from the human condition is how he has described all religious systems.

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.
(Romans 1:18-25 NIV)

Ok, you seem to be emphasising the moral aspect so lets see where you are going with this.

We read that the qualities of God are plainly seen in creation. And yet it is possible for man to deny seeing these qualities in creation (but not without guilt), and God instead of making these qualities somehow more obvious goes on to condemn and reject them. Now what does it mean to reject the qualities of God clearly revealed in creation? After all, the whole virtue of science is that it is agreed on by anyone regardless of supernatural holdings. An atheist, a Christian, a Hindu and a Buddhist walk into a bar - ouch! All will experience gravity, the strong-electroweak force, and all the corresponding resultant macroscopic results. So it is clear that it is possible for someone to apprehend the scientific nature of creation while wilfully failing to understand the spiritual realities it reveals.

I liked what you tried to say here but I didn't like the heart of the emphasis. Science is not meant to be universally understood, what it is supposed to be is repeatable and confirmable. In other words I do an experiment showing how the colors of the spectrum are visible and refractable using a prisom and a lens. That is all well and good to a scientist who can repeat my results. The trouble with history is that there is really very little in the way of repeatable and confirmable data, particularly as you get millions of years out.

On the moral aspect, there may be something in the natural man (in the biblical sense) that simply attributes their carnality to nature. The New Testament often does as well but describes our earthly nature and in rebellion against God and the creation itself trapped in bondage. The light (the Gospel) shines in the darkness (Romans 1:5-3:21) BUT NOW:

But now the righteousness of God is revealed...(Romans 1:21)

Bear in mind the righteousness of God is an intrusion into our world.

Methodological naturalism may seem to argue against certain stilted concepts of a Creator. But in my mind, it serves to glorify God. I see a God so mighty and loving that even while He reveals Himself in creation, He offers the choice to those who choose so to reject Him without rejecting the benefits and providence of an orderly, rational creation. On the one hand, He reveals Himself in the orderliness of reality to anyone who is willing to seek Him, so that anyone who cannot see Him must first make the choice not to. On the other hand, He created reality so that the rejecters can spit in God's face and still exercise the physical necessities of life without any problem. God doesn't have to blackmail His creation by making life physically impossible or un-understandable for those who refuse Him. God is far bigger than that, and when I see methodological naturalism I see His grace at work in creation. God's qualities revealed, indeed!

You mentioned providence and this is an important concept to understand God's revelation in nature. God's glory reflected in the things that are made is comparable to the light of the moon. It does offer some illumination but the fully revelation came in Christ which would be the greater light (the sun).

Methodological naturalism is a philosophy that seeks to redefine science both as the ultimate source of truth and knowledge but the very definition of science itself. Often scientists opposed to creationism and ID will define science is exclusivly naturalistic terms. I don't consider this to be either natural or science. Science should be about uncovering the truth not making up your mind before you get started what kind of answers you will accept. Methodological naturalism does exactly that, it will accept only naturalistic explanations for our origins. It matters very little if you are YEC, OEC or ID. You can have a PHD or be an utter novice any invokation remotely resembling theistic reasoning with be excluded with extreme prejudice.

Like I said, I don't think this is either natural or scientific.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

Rubbish.

Such a brilliant retort I am speechless.

Rubbish.

Again you see fit to forgo actual sentences and chant a one word mantra.

Rubbish.

You spelled this word three times without a spelling error. Congradulations!

Your statements merely demonstrate a stubborn refusal to understand methodological naturalism.

I refuse to accept naturalistic apriori assumptions as the basis for knowledge. I do understand methodological naturalism and have learned a great deal about the ontology and history of modern science. MD is a gross after thought from an atheistic/materialist mindset opposed to theistic reasoning in all of it's many forums.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Okay say we get rid of methodological naturalism.

How would you suggest we go about finding out what the chances of rain are tomorrow?

How many supernatural beings do we consult (or their followers) before we can reach a prediction?

 

[shernren]

What they are arguing is that the design is imperfect and therefore most be evolved rather then being created by divine fiat.

But both they and you are implicitly assuming that:

Something natural which shows design imperfections,
has evolved and was not created by divine fiat,
and was therefore not created according to the will of God.

This is a shared assumption between both YECs and atheists, complete with a double error - how do you know that God did not intend what we call "design imperfections", and how do you know that God had to create by fiat from nothing to create in accordance to His will?

Because of this assumption, a YEC needs the following logical process:

God created everything.
[Therefore God created everything by fiat, and in perfection according to human standards.]
Therefore design imperfections cannot exist in nature.

while the atheist will say:

Design imperfections do exist in nature.
[Therefore God's creation does not conform to perfection according to human standards, therefore God did not create everything by fiat.]
Therefore God did not create everything
- but de facto a God who did not create everything really isn't much of a God.
Therefore God does not exist.

The reason I brought up those two passages by Paul is to say that there seems to be a "design imperfection", as it were, written not into nature but into God's salvation plan, and testified to not by human investigation but by divinely approved Scripture. God did not see fit to make the witness of history (Acts 17) and nature (Romans 1) witnesses which would blackmail or coerce unbelievers into following Him. When someone chooses to disbelieve in God, God has in His grace (and humor, I suppose) allowed history and science to continue to provide for his physical needs regardless of his clear rebellion, and even to offer clues which he may grasp in forming an argument against the existence of God.

And this does not give the rebel an excuse for his rebellion, but only serves to reinforce God's mercy and grace in dealing with him.

The reason I am going into this detail is because it seems to me that by any human standard, this plan of salvation must have "design flaws", in a sense. For it creates the distinct possibility that man will grope towards God and yet not find Him, or that man will turn away from God and spiral into a vicious cycle of depravity. And yet the fact of "design flaws" in the salvation plan is attested to by nothing less than Scripture. If God sees fit to put "design flaws" into something as fundamental as His eternal plan for salvation, why should we be surprised if there are "design flaws" in His natural creation as well? And why should we feel that they threaten our image of God? We shouldn't at all.

Except to the neo-creationist.

Methodological naturalism is a philosophy that seeks to redefine science both as the ultimate source of truth and knowledge but the very definition of science itself. Often scientists opposed to creationism and ID will define science is exclusivly naturalistic terms. I don't consider this to be either natural or science. Science should be about uncovering the truth not making up your mind before you get started what kind of answers you will accept. Methodological naturalism does exactly that, it will accept only naturalistic explanations for our origins. It matters very little if you are YEC, OEC or ID. You can have a PHD or be an utter novice any invokation remotely resembling theistic reasoning with be excluded with extreme prejudice.

What you are describing is ontological or metaphysical naturalism which is an over-extension of methodological naturalism. Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodological_naturalism

Naturalism of this sort says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural which by this definition is beyond natural testing. Other philosophers of science hold that some supernatural explanations might be testable in principle, but are so unlikely, given past results, that resources should not be wasted exploring them. Either way, their rejection is only a practical matter, so it is possible to be a methodological naturalist and an ontological supernaturalist at the same time. For example, while natural scientists follow methodological naturalism in their scientific work, they may also believe in God (ontological supernaturalism), or they may be metaphysical naturalists and therefore atheists. This position does not preclude knowledge that derives from the study of what is hitherto considered supernatural, but considers that if such a phenomenon can be scientifically examined and explained naturally, it then ceases to be supernatural.

Try and aim your shots before you shoot. By the by, I doubt you're referring to Sean Dawkins ( http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/DawkSe00.htm ) as a diehard evolutionist atheist. Try Richard Dawkins.