Science? Methodological Naturalism vs. Philosophical Naturalism

[2PhiloVoid]

[Revised for clarity!]

So, here we are. We're all trying to get through this thing called life, and it seems we've got religion on one side, and science on the other. There are problems and complexities between these two viewpoints. It also appears to many of us that there are exclusions between science and religion, specifically between science and Christianity.

However, we also need to realize that in our approaches to the theoretical formation and utilization of scientific methods, there is a further divide that should be considered, the one between Methodological Naturalism and its competitor, Philosophical Naturalism. Both of these concepts work within the establishment of mainstream science. Methodological Naturalism is the philosophical framework that most scientists work within, while the latter is used by a minority of scientists and thinkers and specifically impinges upon and displaces any theological considerations. So, which is the right approach?

Atheist (yes, I said atheist) science educator, Eugenie Scott, [Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education] explains some things we should consider about the nature of science. Is she right about Methodological Naturalism, or is she instead mistaken? (Remember, she is an atheist, and also against Creationism, as well as against Intelligent Design.)

Eugenie Scott - Intelligent Design Creationism 5of10 - YouTube


Peace

 

[NannaNae]

it even this has at least two camps.
either way it is still evolution with an ET twist
or an impotent God that could not quite get r done.. take your pick.

just more men/mankind projecting..

 

[poolerboy0077]

I don't see how science has been philosophically naturalist. It's only limited in methodology.

 

[Paradoxum]

I agree with her, in my opinion the general point is quite obvious. There are many Christians who except evolution... I was one of them. In fact I'd say that the theistic evolutionists are more true to Christianity, and that the creationist end of the spectrum not only corrupt Christianity, but also make a mockery of it.

Christianity can be a very reasonable and moral faith, but it seems the fundamentalists shout louder.

In my opinion there is more commonality between liberal/humanist atheists and moderate/liberal Christians, than there is between moderate/liberal Christians and fundamentalist Christians.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Science is methodologically materialist but science makes no philosophical claims.


However, she must realize that because the scientific method excludes supernatural causes from the analysis, then it tends to emphasize atheism over theism as a philosophical position. You ultimately cannot fully divorce methodology from philosophy. Both influence each other.

If God did not exist and everyone agreed, then God would not be part of the scientific analysis and discussion.

Because God does not enter into the scientific analysis and discussion, it points towards the idea that God does not exist.

 

[variant]

However, she must realize that because the scientific method excludes supernatural causes from the analysis, then it tends to emphasize atheism over theism as a philosophical position. You ultimately cannot fully divorce methodology from philosophy. Both influence each other.

Because God does not enter into the scientific analysis and discussion, it points towards the idea that God does not exist.

The problem of course is that theistic claims are veiled in the claim that they are also inaccessible. You are free to make analyzable claims all you like but you don't because that's not the nature of your ideas.

People are entirely free to come up with a methodology that would give us access to study the supernatural the way we study the natural. The reason they fail is because the subject matter isn't accessible to them.

It isn't scientific analysis or materialistic methodology, but just analysis in general that hurts the theistic position.

 

[variant]

So, here we are. We're all trying to get through this thing called life, and it seems we've got religion on one side, and science on the other. There are problems and complexities between these viewpoints. It also appears to many of us that there are exclusions between science and religion, specifically between science and Christianity, with Creationism and Intelligent Design being two modern 'options.' Evolution is the other.

But is there a strict exclusion between these two viewpoints which make claims of knowledge about the world?

In terms of evolutionary biology it says nothing about Gods existence, it says something about how life changes.

Religious people get up in arms about it because they are pretty easily threatened by ideas that didn't come from them.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

it even this has at least two camps.
either way it is still evolution with an ET twist
or an impotent God that could not quite get r done.. take your pick.

just more men/mankind projecting..

That's not the point of the section of this video. Do you understand the difference between Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I agree with her, in my opinion the general point is quite obvious. There are many Christians who except evolution... I was one of them. In fact I'd say that the theistic evolutionists are more true to Christianity, and that the creationist end of the spectrum not only corrupt Christianity, but also make a mockery of it.

Christianity can be a very reasonable and moral faith, but it seems the fundamentalists shout louder.

In my opinion there is more commonality between liberal/humanist atheists and moderate/liberal Christians, than there is between moderate/liberal Christians and fundamentalist Christians.

Paradoxum,

My philosophical friend, it appears I wasn't clear enough in the OP, so I have revised it for a bit more clarity. The point of the video is for us to consider if she is right about Methodological Naturalism vs. Philosophical Naturalism. The rest of the content is not what I'm trying to focus on. This brief study isn't meant to be a focus on any kind of Christian apologetics, but merely a clearer defining of science's philosophical praxis.

Peace

 

[Paradoxum]

Paradoxum,

My philosophical friend, it appears I wasn't clear enough in the OP, so I have revised it for a bit more clarity. The point of the video is for us to consider if she is right about Methodological Naturalism vs. Philosophical Naturalism. The rest of the content is not what I'm trying to focus on. This brief study isn't meant to be a focus on any kind of Christian apologetics, but merely a clearer defining of science's philosophical praxis.

Peace

Ah ok.

Well science isn't based on philosophical naturalism. It might be based on methodological naturalism, but I suppose it would accept evidence which pointed towards the supernatural (if such a thing is possible). If the supernatural could be tested, then it could become part of science.

But then, if it could be tested would the supernatural be considered part of nature?

I'd think the main point of science is that it's based on evidence, rather than specifically methodological naturalism. If there were testable supernatural evidence then that would come under science too. It's just that we only have physical evidence that is testable.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Ah ok.

Well science isn't based on philosophical naturalism. It might be based on methodological naturalism, but I suppose it would accept evidence which pointed towards the supernatural (if such a thing is possible). If the supernatural could be tested, then it could become part of science.

But then, if it could be tested would the supernatural be considered part of nature?

I'd think the main point of science is that it's based on evidence, rather than specifically methodological naturalism. If there were testable supernatural evidence then that would come under science too. It's just that we only have physical evidence that is testable.

Right. And that is what Eugenie Scott is saying here, with the additional implication that those in the camp of Philosophical Naturalism (of which she mentions Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer) are wrong.

I just find it interesting that one atheist is 'correcting' another as to the Nature of Science. Maybe she's wrong, but she didn't get her major position in American education for nothing (not that credentials are the deciding factor, of course. We both know Dawkins is one 'smart cookie' as well.)

Peace

 

[David Gould]

It would seem to me that the success of methodological naturalism in explaining our universe is fairly strong evidence for the truth of philosophical naturalism ...

It is not proof, of course. But the fact is that science, by starting with the operating assumption that everything is natural, has been remarkably successful. It would be a little strange if in fact that working assumption was false.

 

[Paradoxum]

Right. And that is what Eugenie Scott is saying here, with the additional implication that those in the camp of Philosophical Naturalism (of which she mentions Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer) are wrong.

I just find it interesting that one atheist is 'correcting' another as to the Nature of Science. Maybe she's wrong, but she didn't get her major position in American education for nothing (not that credentials are the deciding factor, of course. We both know Dawkins is one 'smart cookie' as well.)

Peace

Well it doesn't mean those who hold philosophical naturalism are wrong, just that it isn't the basis for science. I don't know if Dawkins has claimed what philosophical naturalism is its basis. I'm not a Dawkins expert.