Steve Bishop wrote:
> I am doing some research into methodological naturalism. At the moment, I
> am attempting to identify reasons for its popularity.
> I wondered what reasons list members could identify for its adoption; either
> personally or in the literature.
1st, speaking of the "popularity" of methodological naturalism is an
understatement. The vast majority of working scientists use it in practice. To
test that claim one may try to find scientists who are content to explain a
puzzling result of an experiment or theoretical inconsistency by saying "God did
Of course some are committed to methodological naturalism because they
are committed to _metaphysical_ naturalism. If there is no God, gods &c then
methodological naturalism is the only game in town.
A rejection of methodological naturalism means that "Stop" signs are
erected to block scientific research at certain points. Even scientists who
believe that God is active in the world are generally uncomfortable with that.
Personally I would argue that there are strong theological reasons,
based on the character of God as revealed in Christ, for accepting
methodological naturalism. I set out this argument in an article "Chiasmic
Cosmology and Creation's Functional Integrity" in _Perspectives on Science and
Christian Faith_ 53.1, March 2001, 7-13.
Finally, I don't think it's very profitable to argue about the _name_
It isn't ideal but it is reasonably accurate, especially when the contrast with
metaphysical or ontological naturalism is emphasized. & like it or not, we're
stuck with it - like "Big Bang".
George L. Murphy
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 12 2002 - 21:50:35 EST