Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: + + + Line 7:
Line 10: − − According to [[Christian]] [[Philosophy|philosopher]] [[Alvin Plantinga]], "The philosophical doctrine of methodological naturalism holds that, for any study of the world to qualify as "scientific," it cannot refer to God's creative activity (or any sort of divine activity)." <ref>http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od181/methnat181.htm</ref> − The possibility of divine intervention in nature is not only neglected, but positively dismissed. <ref>"The methods of science, it is claimed, "give us no purchase" on theological propositions--even if the latter are true--and theology therefore cannot influence scientific explanation or theory justification.'' [http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od181/methnat181.htm Alvin Plantinga], Department of Philosophy, Decio Hall, University of Notre Dame </ref>
Methodological naturalism (view source)
Revision as of 16:10, October 9, 2007
, 16:10, October 9, 2007move up quote that defines it
'''Methodological naturalism''' is a strategy <ref>Roger Pennock declared that "science is not based upon a dogmatic [[ontological]] or [[metaphysical]] [[naturalism]], but rather makes use of naturalism only in a heuristic, [[methodological]] manner." [http://www.msu.edu/~pennock5/research/papers/Pennock_SupNatExpl.html] </ref>
'''Methodological naturalism''' is a strategy <ref>Roger Pennock declared that "science is not based upon a dogmatic [[ontological]] or [[metaphysical]] [[naturalism]], but rather makes use of naturalism only in a heuristic, [[methodological]] manner." [http://www.msu.edu/~pennock5/research/papers/Pennock_SupNatExpl.html] </ref>
for studying the world, by which scientists choose not to consider [[supernatural]] causes - even as a remote possibility.
for studying the world, by which scientists choose not to consider [[supernatural]] causes - even as a remote possibility.
According to [[Christian]] [[Philosophy|philosopher]] [[Alvin Plantinga]], "The philosophical doctrine of methodological naturalism holds that, for any study of the world to qualify as "scientific," it cannot refer to God's creative activity (or any sort of divine activity)." <ref>http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od181/methnat181.htm</ref>
The possibility of divine intervention in nature is not only neglected, but positively dismissed. <ref>"The methods of science, it is claimed, "give us no purchase" on theological propositions--even if the latter are true--and theology therefore cannot influence scientific explanation or theory justification.'' [http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od181/methnat181.htm Alvin Plantinga], Department of Philosophy, Decio Hall, University of Notre Dame </ref>
==Critique==
==Critique==
This is the reason that [[Presuppositionalist Metaphysics|presuppositionalists]] do not subscribe to methodological naturalism, relying on the [[Intelligent Design]] Programme instead. Presuppositionalists also contend that methodological naturalism is inherently [[atheistic]], since it would be a meaningless exercise to define the rules of empirical inquiry in an entirely arbitrary manner. Since we define the rules of empirical inquiry in such a way that the ontological systematicness of the world is reflected in the method, the methodological naturalist's claim that methodological naturalism is independent of ontological naturalism is [[deceit|disingenuous]].
This is the reason that [[Presuppositionalist Metaphysics|presuppositionalists]] do not subscribe to methodological naturalism, relying on the [[Intelligent Design]] Programme instead. Presuppositionalists also contend that methodological naturalism is inherently [[atheistic]], since it would be a meaningless exercise to define the rules of empirical inquiry in an entirely arbitrary manner. Since we define the rules of empirical inquiry in such a way that the ontological systematicness of the world is reflected in the method, the methodological naturalist's claim that methodological naturalism is independent of ontological naturalism is [[deceit|disingenuous]].
Defenders of methodological naturalism point out that it in no way requires or implies [Philosophical naturalism]. Many scientists of faith nevertheless adopt naturalism in their studies. This is because there is simply no way for an experiment to investigate forces which by their nature cannot be investigated scientifically.{{fact-science}} And the assumption that a supernatural force is not going to affect the outcome of an experiment is no more unreasonable than the assumption that supernatural forces are not going to miraculously poison all the apples in the supermarket.<ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA301.html</ref>
Defenders of methodological naturalism point out that it in no way requires or implies [Philosophical naturalism]. Many scientists of faith nevertheless adopt naturalism in their studies. This is because there is simply no way for an experiment to investigate forces which by their nature cannot be investigated scientifically.{{fact-science}} And the assumption that a supernatural force is not going to affect the outcome of an experiment is no more unreasonable than the assumption that supernatural forces are not going to miraculously poison all the apples in the supermarket.<ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA301.html</ref>