Science Is Definitively Naturalistic?

[Chesterton]

Mallon gave a link to the Wiki article on Devolution in another thread. The article contains this statement: "As with other modern sciences, biology is based on a methodological assumption of philosophical naturalism to study and explain the natural world, without assuming the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural."

When you look up "philosophical naturalism" you get this: "Naturalism is a philosophical position that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws. In its broadest and strongest sense, naturalism is the metaphysical position that "nature is all there is, and all basic truths are truths of nature."[1] Things and powers, commonly regarded as supernatural, for example, gods and witchcraft, are asserted to be nonexistent."

1. Is the first statement accurate?

2. If it's accurate, where does this leave a scientist who is a Christian? Do you conduct your profession rooted in a philosophy you don't accept, most particularly the idea that "nature is all there is, and all basic truths are truths of nature"?

3. When and how was this settled upon, that science is based on this methodological assumption? It wasn't always this way, so, seriously, was there a committee meeting or something?

4. Why would science take any metaphysical position at all?

 

[Mallon]

I would say the first statement isn't accurate, although the word "naturalism" can often have multiple meanings, so it isn't surprising if confusion has set in.
The practice of science requires methodological naturalism. Period. That is, it assumes that phenomena in nature have natural, proximate causes. It does not require ontological or philosophical naturalism -- the belief that the natural world is all there is.
So, in short, it is entirely possible to be a Christian and practice good science.

 

[Chesterton]

I would say the first statement isn't accurate, although the word "naturalism" can often have multiple meanings, so it isn't surprising if confusion has set in.
The practice of science requires methodological naturalism. Period. That is, it assumes that phenomena in nature have natural, proximate causes. It does not require ontological or philosophical naturalism -- the belief that the natural world is all there is.
So, in short, it is entirely possible to be a Christian and practice good science.

So if you were to make it more accurate, would you simply say "science requires methodological naturalism" rather than "science is based on a methodological assumption of philosophical naturalism"?

(I'm not going to edit the article; I'm just wondering about this.)

 

[Mallon]

So if you were to make it more accurate, would you simply say "science requires methodological naturalism" rather than "science is based on a methodological assumption of philosophical naturalism"?

Yes, I think that would be a less ambiguous way of putting it.