Defining Methodological Naturalism

_{April 27, 2012

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

It’s been a while since we had a good discussion about Methodological Naturalism. This time around, I want to start out simple: I’m asking everyone, particularly those who believe methodological naturalism is essential to science (Matzke, I’m looking at you) to define it. More below.

I want to be clear here: my aim in this thread isn’t to argue against methodological naturalism, and certainly not for it. I do have an idea for a future post on the subject, of course. What I’m hoping for here are definitions – again, particularly definitions that its defenders accept. I’m likely going to ask any contributor here, particularly MN advocates, to further define some aspects of the definition. So if you tell me that methodological naturalism means limiting oneself to natural phenomena, I’m going to ask what makes a given phenomena natural.

Anyway, here’s hoping some MN advocates step up and provide what I’m asking for.

Comments

Null, I think an interesting and fruitful post would be on the commonly accepted definition of methodological naturalism and how Darwinists and others misuse the term, or use it inconsistently in order to reject as science what they dislike. This post of course is a beginning in that direction. I don't accept MN, but it clearly was intended to have certain metaphysical limits, and as such, it is misused by those wishing to deny a place at the table to certain scientific proposals that are deemed unacceptable. I realize that you don't count ID as science, but you have (or seem to have) expressed elsewhere that you believe ID deserves a place at the table. What are the dynamics? What are the clear contradictions utilized by Darwinists and others to deny ID that place? I think it would be very interesting to include multiple examples from clear researchable (linkable) references in such a post. I'm aware that they exist, but for reference purposes, cataloguing them in one place would be helpful. We've done something of that nature in the past, but not (to my knowledge at least) to the extent of having an exhaustive enough reference to go back to. Maybe that's something that Dr. Torley will include in his promised and upcoming post on MN. If not, I'm sure it would make an excellent follow-up. Our discussion of Methodological naturalism seems to have piqued some interest, given the number of replies. I think it's a discussion that should continue in other subsequent threads, and I thank KF for beginning that expansion.CannuckianYankee_{April 30, 2012
April
04
Apr
30
30
2012
02:49 AM
2
02
49
AM
PDT}

Gregory, This is provocative, but boring. Nick gave you definitions by Paul de Vries, who coined the term, provided links and quotes from several others including R. Numbers, gave names of people who’ve written on MN (presumably so you could learn something!). I'm not fresh to the concept, Greg. The point was that this was to be an active discussion - which is why I happily read Nick's sources, then immediately followed up with questions. At which point, Nick fled the scene. Chances are he won't be coming back, because the questions spook him. Nullasalus said in #82 that he rejects MN, so none of this can be good enough for his ‘understanding’, not even de Vries’ Christian-MN position! He rejects it out of hand already, so his request is nonsense before it is even asked. MN = bad, ID = good, ID = ‘against MN’? Considering I - man, how many times do I have to say this - conditionally do not think ID is science, and certainly don't think all design 'inferences' are science (did you miss my expressing skepticism at Nick for suggesting that inferring the Empire State Building was designed was itself 'science'? You'd find I probably agree with you on a lot of things, if you'd cut your social sciences obsession), "ID = good" is a weird thing to attribute to me. Are you at all aware that I'm the resident theistic evolutionist here? I've argued with kf and StephenB and others at length about the proper limits and scope of science. Likewise, the fact that I reject MN as I understand it does not make my request 'nonsense'. What I asked for, simply, was for Nick to define MN and the relevant terms (natural, supernatural, etc) and to answer some reasonable, pertinent questions about them all. Nick punted wildly on this. Asking Nick to define MN as he understands it, and the relevant terms, so I can analyze it and offer criticisms is not some kind of dirty trick. It's how a rational conversation is had. 1) Can you show us where Nick contends he is a “very big proponent of MN,” and, How about you do what I did, and try talking to him for a decade and consult his own writings regarding the topic, even in this very thread? Really Greg, when you try to pull crap like this, it doesn't look like a debating masterstroke. It just makes you look pig-ignorant. Is all you’re looking for a ‘distinct’ definition, a personal definition from Nick? Or would you be satisfied if he said, I agree with definition ‘X’ provided by person ‘Y’? I’m afraid you simply pay no respect to and have little understanding of scholarly thought (or human development!), Blah, blah, blah. Have you missed my asking Nick questions, Gregory? He's given me his definition of MN. I've asked further questions based on that. Again, this is how rational conversation is had, and how a reasonable inquiry proceeds into an idea. So, no, please don’t make MN *all about ID* or *all about creationism* unless you expect to be ridiculed for it (or contact de Vries and ask him yourself!). I didn't make MN "all about ID" or "all about creationism". I pointed out that New Atheists don't hate MN. They love it when it's useful. They hate it when it's not. Inconsistent? Maybe, but it's par for the course for them. Nowhere did I say or imply that MN was proposed as some kind of concept specifically to fight ID or creationism. I know you're pissed off because I'm tired of your antics and I show it, but don't try to put words in my mouth. I'll correct you, fast. Do Dembski and co. reject naturalism, and if so, how? Right, clearly Dembski's a naturalist. Back to the 'all scientists are actually philosophers' thing. Can you just get where you're going with that? Because so far all it seems to be is "The word naturalist can mean more than one thing. Cool, huh?"nullasalus_{April 30, 2012
April
04
Apr
30
30
2012
01:31 AM
1
01
31
AM
PDT}

"I’d really like to hammer out an understanding of MN with a guy who is, frankly, a very big proponent of methodological naturalism." - nullasalus This is provocative, but boring. Nick gave you definitions by Paul de Vries, who coined the term, provided links and quotes from several others including R. Numbers, gave names of people who've written on MN (presumably so you could learn something!). Nullasalus said in #82 that he rejects MN, so none of this can be good enough for his 'understanding', not even de Vries' Christian-MN position! He rejects it out of hand already, so his request is nonsense before it is even asked. MN = bad, ID = good, ID = 'against MN'? "The methodological naturalism of natural science need not be offensive to Christians." - Paul de Vries (1986: 396) 1) Can you show us where Nick contends he is a "very big proponent of MN," and, 2) Why doesn't someone contact Paul de Vries directly and ask him to clarify himself at UD?! paul@nydivinityschool.org, or, president@nydivinityschool.org "We should be enthusiastic supporters of the naturalistic methodology of the natural sciences" - de Vries (1986: 394) Is all you're looking for a 'distinct' definition, a personal definition from Nick? Or would you be satisfied if he said, I agree with definition 'X' provided by person 'Y'? I'm afraid you simply pay no respect to and have little understanding of scholarly thought (or human development!), if you're asking for every single person to offer their own personal definition for everything! "New Atheists absolutely love MN, at times." - nullasalus "I think the reason you guys are resisting this is the same reason that the New Atheists don’t like methodological naturalism. Both creationists and New Atheists tend to be committed to scientism, i.e. the idea that science, correctly done, should cover everything." - Nick So, who's right, Nick or nullasalus about new atheists and MN? I reject nullasalus' 'at times' because he immediately returns it into ID, as if the meaning of MN were necessarily intertwined with ID, when, given that MN was coined in 1986 and de Vries, like most of us, had most likely not heard of ID at that time. Thus, who here would protest that 'MN' in de Vries' meaning has *anything* directly to do with ID (or creationism)? The paper is much more concerned with psychological behaviorism than it is with creationism. So, no, please don't make MN *all about ID* or *all about creationism* unless you expect to be ridiculed for it (or contact de Vries and ask him yourself!). Yes, making MN all about ID or creationism does seem to be something that IDers, creationists and new atheists share. And Steve Fuller is the greater expert and teacher on this than anyone in the North American IDM (and he rejects MN too)! "Dembski and company reject MN, but show me where they think that all knowledge is scientific knowledge." - nullasalus Do Dembski and co. reject naturalism, and if so, how? I've read flip-flopping over the years by IDers re: 'naturalism'. Maybe it's bad (Johnson's initial wedge), maybe it isn't (adjustments in Behe's position). Some ID leaders have even said the design could have happened 'naturalistically,' entirely by 'natural processes' (read: immanent design vs. transcendent design), e.g. 'front loading'. Is the latter not an example of a 'naturalistic' ID hypothesis? KF: from #63: Are you suggesting that David Berlinski considers himself a ‘naturalist’? To everyone in the thread: Are there *any* IDers, amongst the leaders of the IDM, who are ‘naturalists’?Gregory_{April 30, 2012
April
04
Apr
30
30
2012
12:43 AM
12
12
43
AM
PDT}

"Another commenter – tragic I think – pointed out that you don’t need to violate the conservation of energy to perform various miracles, such as the multiplication of loaves and fishes." I attended an EV Free church when I was in my early 20s. In fact it was a church who's pastor was at the time Chuck Swindoll. I didn't often attend the actual services, because as you can imagine, people were lining up around the block to get into them. So I attended the College Sunday school group on a regular basis. Unbeknownst to the church's leadership, there was a leader of that Sunday school group who was a closet naturalist, who believed that all of the miracles of the Old and New Testaments could be explained in terms of natural occurrences. For example, the parting of the Red Sea could be explained by the fact that the "Sea of Reeds" was rather shallow, combined with the fact that there are many natural sand bars along its depths. All it would take to "part" it would be a swift wind from the East; which of course Moses would have known about. I assume now that this "teacher" was attempting to make the miracles of the OT relevant to students who were at the time being indoctrinated into "Godless naturalism," and that miracles can still make sense from that perspective. I hardly see any point in this, because Moses' knowledge of such naturalistic dynamics at the time would have been somewhat miraculous itself without any explanation for how he could have known apart from divine revelation. And if God can reveal, why can't he act? So I have a tendency to refrain from trying to explain the miraculous purely in terms of what occurs, or what can occur naturally. It's their miraculousness that makes them miraculous. :-) And I don't think those kinds of arguments help us any with the underlying issues. I think you started out with the right questions; what is "nature?' And if we can define nature as something specific, we should be able to also define "supernatural," as something specific. But the naturalists fail to do so. In fact we all fail to do so for one very good reason; it's meaningless. Supernatural is simply that which we can't explain by what we can see, feel, detect, measure or speak of in rational terms. It is for all intents and purposes, nonexistent. If there IS something in existence that we currently define as "supernatural," it CAN in fact either be seen, felt, detected measured, or spoken of in rational terms in some way. Otherwise, it does not exist, and to speak of its existence is entirely meaningless. So when those committed to methodological naturalism speak of discounting the supernatural, they really mean that they are discounting whatever is meaningless. But God and the existence of a necessary prime mover, however, are entities that are not meaningless. Don't misconstrue God as being "supernatural" when you don't know what or who God is. That's my main point. Nick Matzkii's vagueness is such because he really hasn't done the work to define these terms adequately; even though he believes he has. He's no different than the "Christian naturalist" I mentioned above, who can't be really very consistent with his stated beliefs. The "Christian naturalist" makes that error because he either has no experience with the miraculous, or because he has no experience in detecting events that are miraculous. He has experience only with what he has been indoctrinated into in an academic culture that is predominantly "naturalistic," defined specifically as denying God's relevance in science. In the same way, If you have no experience with what you define as "supernatural," you can't very well discount whatever you believe it is. That's Matzki's error, and the error of all who are committed to meth nat.CannuckianYankee_{April 29, 2012
April
04
Apr
29
29
2012
09:30 PM
9
09
30
PM
PDT}

CY, Another “Exactly!!!!” In other words, everyone knows what supernatural is when he/she sees it. This assumes that there IS indeed something “supernatural,” that one can experience. Except there's another problem here. By not defining it, anything that Nick dislikes - in this case, ID - can be arbitrarily excluded. And anything he likes, can be arbitrarily included. The moment he starts defining it, however, complications are going to set in. Another commenter - tragic I think - pointed out that you don't need to violate the conservation of energy to perform various miracles, such as the multiplication of loaves and fishes. And I'd point out that "violating the law of conservation of energy" clearly wasn't part of the description of the miracle, because conservation laws didn't come into play until what... the 18th century? That's far after the fact of the multiplication miracles, so there's no way that was the standard unless Nick thinks Saint Peter and company were aware of these things. That's the funny thing. One of the routine complaints we see Nick and others give of ID is that they fail to be precise with their terms, and trade on a lot of vagueness. Now, I don't think that's true. But it's exactly the game Nick is using here. And it's also exactly why he's not willing to define his terms - because the moment he does, we have a fixed instead of a moving target. And he doesn't have any confidence that MN, given an actual fixed definition, can stand up to scrutiny.nullasalus_{April 29, 2012
April
04
Apr
29
29
2012
08:12 PM
8
08
12
PM
PDT}

"Nick won’t actually have a conversation about what constitutes ‘natural’ or ‘supernatural’ other than to say, basically, 'Everyone knows, we can tell when we see it, quit asking.'" Another "Exactly!!!!" In other words, everyone knows what supernatural is when he/she sees it. This assumes that there IS indeed something "supernatural," that one can experience. This is why I mentioned Michael C. Rea's book, "World Without Design," which I haven't yet read, but understand the basic premise that Methodological naturalism, (or simply put: "naturalism") is a research project; which discounts certain evidence. And what is the evidence it discounts? The supernatural. Well, it couldn't very well discount the supernatural as evidence if it has no experience with just what is supernatural; and I think that is a very fair, valid and obvious point to make.CannuckianYankee_{April 29, 2012
April
04
Apr
29
29
2012
07:36 PM
7
07
36
PM
PDT}

"One’s commitment to methodological naturalism absolutely doesn’t determine whether or not one believes that there’s ‘knowledge outside of science’. Dembski and company reject MN, but show me where they think that all knowledge is scientific knowledge. I reject MN, and I absolutely don’t think that science is the only source of knowledge. (Really, one of my points with asking Nick about the Empire State Building is that it’s tough to argue our knowledge in that case is scientific.)" Exactly!!! Nick lumps the new atheists together with all "creationists" (including IDists) as being committed to scientism. Some "creationists" are, not doubt; and that the difference between the two is that "creationists" allow God as part of their scientism, while the new atheists do not. This is simply not so. I detect that most, if not all IDists are definitely not committed to scientism. IDists recognize that in order to do science consistently one must begin with proper (and rational) metaphysical assumptions, which are outside of science. Methodological naturalism is an attempt to discount metaphysical assumptions from science altogether. The problem is that MN begins itself with a metaphysical assumption, so it is entirely self-defeating right from the start.CannuckianYankee_{April 29, 2012
April
04
Apr
29
29
2012
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT}

PPPS: Kindly name a major scientist who did not make mistakes. And if Newton got the question of the perturbations of the planets wrong [what is usually dismissed as God of the gaps], and was not able to solve long term orbital instability -- which BTW is still open! -- that has nothing to do with the logic and limitations of inductive inference. But of course it is handy to try to knock Newton the man and dismiss his argument without addressing it on the merits. That is a propagandist's ad hominem tactic, not a serious discussion of a serious issue on its merits. KFkairosfocus_{April 29, 2012
April
04
Apr
29
29
2012
05:49 PM
5
05
49
PM
PDT}

PPS: I forgot. It is the Christian founders of science who, centuries ago saw scientific work as thinking God's creative and sustaining thoughts after him. So, to suggest that Christians doing science or discussing it object to that is a strawman fallacy. Similarly, we note the slippery slope to insinuating that design thought is equal to creationism, which you have been repeatedly adequately corrected on. Theologians have pointed out, and philosophers too, that for miracles to be possible there MUST be a usual order of nature, indeed that is what I summarised above and earlier in reply to those who imagined that I quote mined Lewontin. The point is, on strict logic, since scientific laws are inductions they by themselves cannot forbid rare exceptions, and are discussing the usual course of the world. There is no way such "laws" by themselves can rule out that say God for good reason may choose to act in a different than usual way from time to time. But of course if your underlying assumptions are that anything beyond matter, energy, space and time is suspect, e.g. starting with mind and intelligence, then of course you look for and demand explanation on naturalistic causes, tracing to forces of chance and necessity acting on such. But in fact that sort of materialism fatally undermines the minds we need to practice science and reasoning, and in addition seriously begs the question. What is needed is metaphysical neutralism and elimination of implicit and dubious a prioris. That points to a reasonable discussion of the limitations of scientific and inductive reasoning, and to comparative difficulties analysis on worldviews, acknowledging that people from various worldviews do objectively good science, even including the much despised creationists. KFkairosfocus_{April 29, 2012
April
04
Apr
29
29
2012
05:33 PM
5
05
33
PM
PDT}

----Nick: "So why can’t we just say that science studies “the usual order”, and something else like theology studies the miracles?" That doesn't help. ID studies the "usual order." Since it is the "rule" of methodological naturalism (and the language that defines it) that disqualifies ID, it is the rule that must be evaluated. -----"I think the reason you guys are resisting this is the same reason that the New Atheists don’t like methodological naturalism." I, for one, am not resisting anything. You have not yet presented me with a definition of nature, natural, or methodological naturalism that I can resist. I am simply asking questions: Was the volcano the buried the artifacts at Pompei the same kind of cause as the human agents that created them? Were they, in other words, both natural causes? If so, then how does the archeologist differentiate between them in order to make a design inference. If more than one cause was involved, then what other cause can we identify. If the persons that created the artifacts were not natural causes, were they supernatural causes? Or is there another category of cause that has not yet been articulated? Since the rule is being used to disqualify ID, and since the claim is being made that it has been with us for a long time (of course it hasn't), shouldn't it be precise and meaningful so we can evaluate it it or, as you would like, enforce it? These are not abstruse questions. They are basic considerations and the proponents of methodological naturalism cannot answer them. That is a problem.StephenB_{April 29, 2012
April
04
Apr
29
29
2012
05:23 PM
5
05
23
PM
PDT}

CY, I’ve always understood that the new atheists don’t like the concept of NOMA (which is essentially another wording of MN); simply because they believe that there are no magistrates other than nature’s itself. While Nick continues to duck my questions, let me throw in this additional comment. One's commitment to methodological naturalism absolutely doesn't determine whether or not one believes that there's 'knowledge outside of science'. Dembski and company reject MN, but show me where they think that all knowledge is scientific knowledge. I reject MN, and I absolutely don't think that science is the only source of knowledge. (Really, one of my points with asking Nick about the Empire State Building is that it's tough to argue our knowledge in that case is scientific.) But here's the flipside: New Atheists absolutely love MN, at times. Specifically, they love it when it's used to deride ID and other claims as non-scientific. They love it when it keeps ID and creationism out of schools. Because the New Atheists don't really care about science, or even scientism - they just dislike Christianity, and will use whatever arguments are in reach to argue against it or what they see as proxies for it, even if they abandon those tools later. Nick won't actually have a conversation about what constitutes 'natural' or 'supernatural' other than to say, basically, "Everyone knows, we can tell when we see it, quit asking." By the way, the ironic thing about that? That's how critics accuse ID proponents of defining 'intelligence'. Except in Nick's case, he's actually making this move explicitly regarding natural and supernatural. ;)nullasalus_{April 29, 2012
April
04
Apr
29
29
2012
05:12 PM
5
05
12
PM
PDT}

Dr Matzke: Pardon, but lost in the distractive or dismissive laugh is a fallacy. And you seem to have just fallen into it. It seems that your problem is that you think philosophical naturalism is scientific rather than philosophical, and it further seems that your methodological naturalism is tantamount to the same. In particular, it is a gross error to imagine that laws of nature -- being inductive and provisional generalisations -- can forbid miracle in the sense that is meant when theologians speak of such. (It is you who have used forbidding language in 66 above.) What seems to be going on, then, is a have your cake and eat it game. As for the new atheists, their quarrel is that they are young Turks who want to make direct assaults and generally gent their spleens, as I know from direct experience. They are impatient with that which is tantamount but not explicit. But, the statement you have made in 66 above removes the fuzziness pretty well. And as for Newton, whose cited remark is the obvious foundation of the usual school type definition of science and discussion of its methods and their limitations, the point is that he has openly acknowledged the provisionality of inductive methods and generalisations -- laws -- in science. Last I checked, his logic and his admission of the limitations on inductive methods was still quire proper. And, that is exactly the grounds under which no inductive scientific generalisations, AKA laws of nature, can forbid rare exceptions, or can even claim to be absolutely true. Just about 300 years later, Newton is still quite right. G'night GEM of TKI PS: I have taken liberty to put up your remark and BA77's link to the Lennox vid. Have fun watching.kairosfocus_{April 29, 2012
April
04
Apr
29
29
2012
05:08 PM
5
05
08
PM
PDT}

"I think the reason you guys are resisting this is the same reason that the New Atheists don’t like methodological naturalism. Both creationists and New Atheists tend to be committed to scientism, i.e. the idea that science, correctly done, should cover everything." I've always understood that the new atheists don't like the concept of NOMA (which is essentially another wording of MN); simply because they believe that there are no magistrates other than nature's itself. How one defines "nature" is a huge issue here. If we view "nature" as actually doing things as opposed to behaving according to law, then to the Christian doing science, nature itself is not a magistrate (as in a realm where it does something) at all. It does nothing. "There can be only one mover (nature) or we couldn't do science consistently - that's the view of the new atheist, but not necessarily the view of the Christian doing science. But to view nature itself (or in the case of Stephen Hawking, the laws of nature) as a mover, one of course must discount any other mover in order to do science. If you view nature as not a mover, but acting according to law, then you allow that there could (or must) be a mover or movers beyond nature, dictating the laws and operations of nature; and that such a mover or movers CAN act in ways that are not common to nature. Nick, your contention that miracles are examples of what is beyond the natural order, can only be so (or make any rational sense at all) if there is a prime mover or movers and thus, only if nature itself is not a mover. The new atheists are inconsistent in their attempt to be consistent, because they of course state that nature follows law, but they are not willing to admit that in order for nature to "do" so, it can have no will of it's own, and therefore cannot be itself a mover. Thus, the new atheists personify nature as some sort of prime mover; which is inconsistent with the notion that nature follows law. If the new atheists were consistent, what's to stop natural things from acting on their own without law, if "nature" itself is personified (i.e., has a will)? And of course, we who reject Darwinian mechanisms as an explanation for how evolution works, reject it along those lines; Darwinian mechanisms personify or give will to something that cannot have will. Darwinian RM + NS is a miracle; which can only be so if nature does something of its own volition and apart from a prime mover. So this issue here places some doubt on the validity of defining "supernatural" as outside of what nature "does." The Christian doing science sees a prime mover as necessary for nature to do anything. The very fact that nature "acts" according to law is indicative of a prime mover. The "naturalist" defines this as "supernatural," and includes in the definition any mythical entity that can presumably do things apart from law, and thus rejects it. But the Christian doing science is careful to identify just what is necessary in order for nature to act according to law. Mythical entities are irrelevant, while a prime mover is necessary. Otherwise nature can do what it wills to do, and there's no stopping it from doing all sorts of things that can have no scientific explanation.CannuckianYankee_{April 29, 2012
April
04
Apr
29
29
2012
05:00 PM
5
05
00
PM
PDT}

And, surprise — not — yet again methodological naturalism turns out to be a stalking horse for metaphysical naturalism.
This is hilarious. (A) Christians came up with both the centuries-old concept and the recent word. (B) The New Atheists don't like methodological naturalism, precisely because it isn't metaphysical naturalism. Google methodological naturalism and Moran, Boudry, Coyne, etc.
It would help instead to hear Newton on basic limits of scientific methods, as we would now call them, from Opticks, Query 31:
Citing Newton would be more impressive if it wasn't the case that his most famous mistake was to jump to the conclusion that God was miraculously tweaking the orbits of planets to keep them in place, just because no one had figured out the relevant math of orbital perturbations yet.
In that context, the very nature of miracles as signs pointing beyond the usual order REQUIRES that there be just such an order. In a chaos, nothing could be miraculous, because literally anything could and would routinely happen, anytime.
Agreed. So why can't we just say that science studies "the usual order", and something else like theology studies the miracles? This is what Christians who are scientists have been doing for centuries. I think the reason you guys are resisting this is the same reason that the New Atheists don't like methodological naturalism. Both creationists and New Atheists tend to be committed to scientism, i.e. the idea that science, correctly done, should cover everything. For creationists, this goes back quite a ways. According to historians like Mark Noll, the theological ancestors of modern Christian fundamentalism/evangelicalism almost literally thought of theology as a science, with the data being the Bible, and with questions resolved by adding up the verses on each side of a question. (This is a bit of an exaggeration, but not much.)NickMatzke_UD_{April 29, 2012
April
04
Apr
29
29
2012
03:29 PM
3
03
29
PM
PDT}

Nick, I’ve done all the work in this thread, I’m not interested in discussing further with someone who won’t even acknowledge that natural/supernatural are longstanding, ancient concepts that go back thousands of years and everyone has a pretty good basic common understanding of what is natural vs. supernatural. Alright, I knew this would happen. So, time out here - I want everyone to have a look at what's going on. I've been polite here, and I've been patient. I have tried my damndest to give Nick every opportunity to engage on this topic. When others were essentially saying "Nick's not going to reply further, because it will just hurt his position if he does", I said no - give him time. Let's give him until the middle of next week. I'm in no rush here, and I'd really like to hammer out an understanding of MN with a guy who is, frankly, a very big proponent of methodological naturalism. So I ask Nick to do something simple. I ask him, with regards to methodological naturalism and modern science, to define 'natural' and 'supernatural' for me - pretty freaking important when you tell me that methodological naturalism restricts itself to the study of nature. He huffs tremendously at merely being asked this, gives me a dictionary definition of supernatural (which basically says, 'What God does, and also anything that isn't natural' - not exactly helpful), waves his arms and insists that the supernatural would involve breaking a law of nature (for instance, conservation of energy), and acts pretty petulant that I'm even trying to define these terms. I press him on a few things. He says science is what shows us the Empire State Building was built by humans because humans have "well-known motives, well-known means, well-known constraints and limitations". I mention that I'm pretty sure science isn't what showed that humans have well-known motives, for example. I point out that in his reply about SETI, he didn't tell me that it was or wasn't scientific - and that his at least implies that making massive assumptions about the motives and capabilities of your subject (aliens, in that case) can patch up the endeavor. I mention physicist Briane Greene's multiverse speculation, particularly with regard to simulations and simulated universes, and ask whether those qualify as natural or supernatural. I point out the Mormon God is a material being, co-eternal with matter, and as such is limited by nature - again, natural or supernatural? Just for fun, since he made a big deal about the conservation of mass/energy specifically, I point to a Sean Carroll post with Carroll saying that the conservation of energy is violated. Check the previous link for more details. The point of me rehashing this is to illustrate something: these are fair questions. Nick huffs that the difference between natural and supernatural are well known and have been for thousands of years and that that's why he's not going to respond to any of my questions and is done talking to me. But you know what? I'm pretty sure you won't find 'We know Christ did supernatural works, because we're pretty sure the water into wine thing violated the conservation of energy' in the bible, what with that very idea not coming up until centuries later (to say nothing of universal physical laws, specifically and generally.) But let me go further and hit the wikipedia entry for supernatural. "With neoplatonic and medieval scholastic origins, the metaphysical considerations can be difficult to approach as an exercise in philosophy or theology because any dependencies on its antithesis, the natural, will ultimately have to be inverted or rejected." Oh, and my favorite part: "One complicating factor is that there is no universal agreement about what the definition of “natural” is, and what the limits of naturalism might be." So much for Nick's 'well everyone knows what natural and supernatural is'. I'm sure that everyone has ideas of what they'd call natural and supernatural - but those definitions would also vary, or they would be vague rather than very precise, and precision is what I'm after here. There are problem cases, such as the ones I outlined. And so, I ask questions. And by the way, you guys will notice that despite being polite, despite asking fair questions, Nick bailed. He didn't stick around to answer some pretty reasonable questions, he certainly didn't stick around to shoot down any argument I was making - because I didn't make an argument. Just asking Nick some reasonable questions about a concept he, personally, practically enshrines as a central concept of science is enough to make him cut and run. You'd almost get the impression that Nick didn't want to answer these questions, because Methodological Naturalism wouldn't hold up under scrutiny. But hey - let Nick run if he wants. I gave him every opportunity to help clarify these terms, to deal with some reasonable questions, and he's decided to haul ass out of here. Unfortunate, but the discussion about MN can continue without him. But man, the fact that he ran the moment some questions got asked is telling.nullasalus_{April 29, 2012
April
04
Apr
29
29
2012
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PDT}

---------nullasalus: "I submit it is possible that Jesus did not break conservation of mass to perform the feeding of the five thousand. He could have simply re-arranged existing matter. This is relevant because it’s exactly the sort of thing ID is talking about." As you know, investigating that act of re-arranging matter would still violate the principle of methodological naturalism because such an event would still be a miracle. By the MN standard, a miraculous event may not be interpreted as a miracle, that is, the non miraculous interpretation must always be preferred. Thus, the methodological naturalist can say, "I don't deny the possibility of miracles, I just can't take that possibility seriously when I wear my scientist's hat." ----------"Of course it does. Therefore science can properly comment on miracles. Without reference to science we wouldn’t know the difference between a miracle and necessity." Yes, science may, but methodological naturalism may not. --------"Thus if someone wished to proclaim a miracle, they would have to reference science and explain why science makes the event normally impossible." That's right. In studying the alleged miraculous cures at Lourdes, the Bishops summon the aid of scientists, who violate the principle of methodological naturalism by participating and by venturing their opinion about the possible limits of nature. According to methodological naturalism, nature must be understood to have no limits--the scientist must study nature "as if nature is all there is." ---------Nick: "No, I still like my phrasing. Like you say, science can “comment” on miracles, but only to say “that ought to be impossible, because massive observational evidence and the logic of our understanding of natural laws rules say that that miracle thing can’t happen”. If you decide to believe in a miracle anyway, well that’s your choice, and hypothetically it might even be a good one. It’s just taking a step outside of science when you make that move." Not exactly. Methodolological naturalism cannot even be half-way reasonable. It may not, for example, say, "because observational evidence and the logic of our understanding tells us that miracles "ought to be impossible." It is committed to saying that miracles must be ruled out as an apriori principle [no Divine foot can be allowed in the door]. It forbids the scientist to interpret evidence in light of the possibility that nature might not be all there is.StephenB_{April 29, 2012
April
04
Apr
29
29
2012
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT}

Dr Matzke, 66:
massive observational evidence and the logic of our understanding of natural laws rules say that that miracle thing can’t happen.
This is little more than a crude form of Hume's question-begging blunder. We simply cannot know laws of nature to certainty, given the nature of induction. Laws of nature by the very nature of the case (as provisional inductive generalisations subject to adjustment on further evidence and reason) cannot decree that miracles CANNOT happen. What we can reasonably say on general empirical observation, is that miracles as a class -- taken as events that transcend the usual course of the world in so striking a way as to point beyond it -- will at most be quite rare. (Which BTW would include the beginning of the world, which sets up the natural order we observe. No natural order, no possibility of natural laws to forbid what goes beyond the norm.) But that is just what theologians tell us: we do not live in a chaos but a cosmos, so there will be a general pattern of events that will be orderly, and which traces to a beginning; indeed the implications raised by a beginning were a big part of resistance to the Big Bang view, and that Lemaitre was a Catholic Priest did not exactly help matters; BTW, yet another one of those pesky theists making a significant contribution to science. That frame is connected to the Judaeo Christian view that God is a God of order and upholds all things by his powerful word. Indeed, that is the root of why we speak of laws of nature. And of course an accurate understanding of the actual root of science as a self sustaining enterprise, will trace it to impacts of that worldview. The myth of an eternal war of science and reason against that dangerous superstition we call religion is just that -- an enlightenment era rationalist myth. In that context, the very nature of miracles as signs pointing beyond the usual order REQUIRES that there be just such an order. In a chaos, nothing could be miraculous, because literally anything could and would routinely happen, anytime. So, the point of the miraculous is that it is an initiative from beyond the usual order of the world, for a reason tracing to a being capable of so acting. (And, BTW, across time, there are literally millions of witnesses to miracles [starting with answers to prayer and miracles of life transformation -- just check out Alcoholics Anonymous as a starter], far too many and enough of good quality that crude circular argument dismissals as just cited are blatantly circular, ill advised and perhaps even arrogant.) But also, the clip above shows plainly that the root issue is not science at all. In the name of science, and stretching the logic of scientific induction until it shatters in an absurdity, what is being imposed is philosophical naturalism, and probably philosophical materialism. Science, here is being seized under false pretences and used to advance the cause of secularist ideology. And, surprise -- not -- yet again methodological naturalism turns out to be a stalking horse for metaphysical naturalism. Collins English dict:
4. (Philosophy) Philosophy a. a scientific account of the world in terms of causes and natural forces that rejects all spiritual, supernatural, or teleological explanations b. the meta-ethical thesis that moral properties are reducible to natural ones, or that ethical judgments are derivable from nonethical ones See naturalistic fallacy Compare descriptivism
It would help instead to hear Newton on basic limits of scientific methods, as we would now call them, from Opticks, Query 31:
As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy. And although the arguing from Experiments and Observations by Induction be no Demonstration of general Conclusions; yet it is the best way of arguing which the Nature of Things admits of, and may be looked upon as so much the stronger, by how much the Induction is more general. And if no Exception occur from Phaenomena, the Conclusion may be pronounced generally. But if at any time afterwards any Exception shall occur from Experiments, it may then begin to be pronounced with such Exceptions as occur. By this way of Analysis we may proceed from Compounds to Ingredients, and from Motions to the Forces producing them; and in general, from Effects to their Causes, and from particular Causes to more general ones, till the Argument end in the most general. This is the Method of Analysis: And the Synthesis consists in assuming the Causes discover'd, and establish'd as Principles, and by them explaining the Phaenomena proceeding from them, and proving the Explanations.
Wise, humble words we need to heed. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{April 29, 2012
April
04
Apr
29
29
2012
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT}

John Lennox - Science And Miracles - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dB71Vzw71eobornagain77_{April 29, 2012
April
04
Apr
29
29
2012
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT}

This would still take energy, which is also conserved. It’s the same problem if Jesus poofs the energy into existence.
And Jesus could do with energy just as he did with mass: use the available energy and arrange it to his purpose. It would not after all be against any law. It would merely be highly improbable, a data point that a scientist would reject statistically as outside the realm of necessity or law.
If you decide to believe in a miracle anyway, well that’s your choice, and hypothetically it might even be a good one. It’s just taking a step outside of science when you make that move.
Unless of course someone observed the miracle and recorded it.tragic mishap_{April 29, 2012
April
04
Apr
29
29
2012
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT}

as to this:
“that ought to be impossible, because massive observational evidence and the logic of our understanding of natural laws rules say that that miracle thing can’t happen”.
Please someone tell me exactly what is 'natural' about universal transcendent constants (natural laws) that have not changed one iota since the universes creation, and which are exceedingly finely tuned for life to exist. further notes: In these following videos, Alvin Plantinga reveals just how arbitrary this artificial imposition of materialism onto science is;
Alvin Plantinga: Divine Action - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5DPneR-Rtc Does Science Show That Miracles Can't Happen? (Alvin Plantinga) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcvSSQGYIu8
Here is What the artificial imposition of methodological naturalism on origins science really means:
Treasure Island http://bevets.com/ti.htm
As well please note that atheists have no problem with 'random miracles' defying natural law when it suits their atheistic agenda:
The Absurdity of Inflation, String Theory & The Multiverse - Dr. Bruce Gordon - video http://vimeo.com/34468027
Here is the last power-point of the preceding video:
The End Of Materialism? * In the multiverse, anything can happen for no reason at all. * In other words, the materialist is forced to believe in random miracles as a explanatory principle. * In a Theistic universe, nothing happens without a reason. Miracles are therefore intelligently directed deviations from divinely maintained regularities, and are thus expressions of rational purpose. * Scientific materialism is (therefore) epistemically self defeating: it makes scientific rationality impossible.
bornagain77_{April 29, 2012
April
04
Apr
29
29
2012
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT}

"I would guess, Jon, that you are a (retired) medical doctor, who also does not consider himself a ‘naturalist.’" Well, I'm so old-fashioned that I consider myself a naturalist if I look at a badger through binoculars. Newts in jam-jars is naturalism to me!Jon Garvey_{April 29, 2012
April
04
Apr
29
29
2012
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT}

--Nick: "I’ve done all the work in this thread, I’m not interested in discussing further with someone who won’t even acknowledge that natural/supernatural are longstanding, ancient concepts that go back thousands of years and everyone has a pretty good basic common understanding of what is natural vs. supernatural." I think I have a pretty good idea of the common understanding of those terms. Natural = matter and energy, dealing with contingent realities Supernatural = transcendent intelligence, dealing with those matters which are not contingent Based on that common understanding, science does not address anything that could be interpreted as being the result of a transcendent cause (God did it). It must be contingent realities acting on other contingent realities (courtesy of Paul Devries). Right Nick? So, what do we do with the archeologist who declares, in the name of science, that an ancient hunter's spear was likely crafted by an intelligent agent and was not the result of wind, air, and erosion (matter and energy) A DESIGN INFERENCE. HIDE THE KIDS. By definition, the ancient hunter's "production" was a "supernatural event" (it isn't natural by the common definition.) Yes, that's true, says the methodological naturalist, but I would like to change the definition of "natural" as anything that occurs "in nature." What the hell does that mean? Is wind, air, and erosion now the same kind of cause as a human intelligent agent? If so, why is the archeologist, by virtue of his design inference, saying they are different kinds of causes. Where are we at this point in the discussion? Well, by the lights of the new revised methodological naturalism, the ancient hunter is a "supernatural" cause insofar his production is not the product of matter and energy, but he is also natural cause insofar as his activity occurred "in nature." So which is it? What's the deal? The deal is that they will never answer the question for this reason. They are in the business of excluding intelligent design at all costs, even if it means remaining incoherent. If they were to provide an honest answer, they would either have to offer an expansive inclusionary definition of methodological naturalism or a restrictive exclusionary definition. If they are PRECISE, EXPANSIVE, and INCLUSIONARY, they will include intelligent design, archeology, SETI, Big Bang theory, OR if they are PRECISE, RESTRICTIVE, and EXCLUSIONARY, they will rule out Big Bang theory, SETI, archeology, forensic science and all the rest, looking like idiots. So, they simply refuse to answer the question. It is a waste of time to ask them. Trust me.StephenB_{April 29, 2012
April
04
Apr
29
29
2012
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT}

Wikipedia defines "methodological naturalism" and "metaphysical naturalism" respectively as follows:
Methodological naturalism is concerned not with claims about what exists but with methods of learning what is nature. It is strictly the idea that all scientific endeavors—all hypotheses and events—are to be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events. (source: Wikipedia: Methodological Naturalism)

Metaphysical naturalism, also called ontological naturalism and philosophical naturalism is a strong belief in naturalism, a worldview with a philosophical aspect which holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences, i.e., those required to understand our physical environment by mathematical modeling. (source: Wikipedia: Metaphysical Naturalism)
It seems to me that there are two basic points to be extracted from these definitions: 1) A naturalistic explanation is a physical explanation. 2) A physical explanation is one that can be predicted or determined by mathematical modeling.Alastair F. Paisley_{April 29, 2012
April
04
Apr
29
29
2012
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT}

null, I've done all the work in this thread, I'm not interested in discussing further with someone who won't even acknowledge that natural/supernatural are longstanding, ancient concepts that go back thousands of years and everyone has a pretty good basic common understanding of what is natural vs. supernatural. This is what I feared from the beginning, based on past experience at UD. If you can't even come this far with me, well then, I can't help you, and I'm done.NickMatzke_UD_{April 29, 2012
April
04
Apr
29
29
2012
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT}

I submit it is possible that Jesus did not break conservation of mass to perform the feeding of the five thousand. He could have simply re-arranged existing matter. This is relevant because it’s exactly the sort of thing ID is talking about.
This would still take energy, which is also conserved. It's the same problem if Jesus poofs the energy into existence.
Of course it does. Therefore science can properly comment on miracles. Without reference to science we wouldn’t know the difference between a miracle and necessity. Thus if someone wished to proclaim a miracle, they would have to reference science and explain why science makes the event normally impossible. You have given away the farm here Nick. Perhaps you would like to rephrase this?
No, I still like my phrasing. Like you say, science can "comment" on miracles, but only to say "that ought to be impossible, because massive observational evidence and the logic of our understanding of natural laws rules say that that miracle thing can't happen". If you decide to believe in a miracle anyway, well that's your choice, and hypothetically it might even be a good one. It's just taking a step outside of science when you make that move.NickMatzke_UD_{April 29, 2012
April
04
Apr
29
29
2012
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT}

Nick
Normally, 5 fishes + 5 fishes = 10 fishes
I submit it is possible that Jesus did not break conservation of mass to perform the feeding of the five thousand. He could have simply re-arranged existing matter. This is relevant because it's exactly the sort of thing ID is talking about.
Science tells you why [a miracle] ought-to-be-impossible.
Of course it does. Therefore science can properly comment on miracles. Without reference to science we wouldn't know the difference between a miracle and necessity. Thus if someone wished to proclaim a miracle, they would have to reference science and explain why science makes the event normally impossible. You have given away the farm here Nick. Perhaps you would like to rephrase this?tragic mishap_{April 29, 2012
April
04
Apr
29
29
2012
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT}

Was totally joking. Sorry. No, I didn't see the joke. My bad, I apologize.nullasalus_{April 29, 2012
April
04
Apr
29
29
2012
05:53 AM
5
05
53
AM
PDT}

Don’t make this personal, tragic.
Was totally joking. Sorry.tragic mishap_{April 29, 2012
April
04
Apr
29
29
2012
05:46 AM
5
05
46
AM
PDT}

@ Jon #21 I wrote: "There seems to be necessary a distinction between someone who studies ‘natural history’ and an ideologue, i.e. one who promotes ‘naturalism’ as a worldview, to the exclusion of anything ‘non-natural’." You replied: "The distinction naturalist (the occupation) v naturalist (the ideologue) seems to go back to nullasalus’ question: what makes a natural phenomenon natural?" In case it appeared I was dismissive or disagreeing with you...Yes, I agree with both you and nullasalus that the semantics of 'natural' and 'nature' are at the root of the discussion. Another is whether or not the term 'methodological naturalism' is even valid in the context of PoS, the 'home' discipline for this topic. For example, you seem to speak of 'metaphysical naturalist' as if it is a valid and meaningful category. It seems others on this list (including myself) reject the MN vs MN schematic entirely (or they call it philosophical naturalist, while yet others use evolutionary naturalist, etc.). Thus, it makes a big difference as to how one uses 'MN,' whether they accept it as valid and wish to increase/expand its usage communicatively or not. I guess we'll have to wait for nullasalus' attempts at providing definitions of 'nature,' 'natural' and 'methodological naturalism' after Nick gives his "proper definition of MN and natural/supernatural" to nullasalus, whatever that might mean. For the record, I consider myself a 'scientist/scholar who is not a naturalist,' qualifiers to 'naturalist' are not needed. I would guess, Jon, that you are a (retired) medical doctor, who also does not consider himself a 'naturalist.' But we would both agree that a 'naturalist' (the occupation if not the ideologue) can be a 'theist,' and even an IDer would we not?Gregory_{April 29, 2012
April
04
Apr
29
29
2012
03:46 AM
3
03
46
AM
PDT}

KF, The list of names (Newton, Kelvin, Planck, Pasteur, Schaeffer, et al.) you give is not answer to these two questions: 1) “Is it possible for a (practising) ‘natural scientist’ to *not* be a ‘naturalist’? 2) Are there *any* IDers, amongst the leaders of the IDM, who are ‘naturalists’? If naturalists just means 'natural scientists' who study nature, then all of those people you mention are 'naturalists'. You'll have to be much more specific about what you call 'the philosophy of naturalism,' which I call 'naturalistic ideology,' to distinguish it from what natural scientists do today. You speak about creationists, materialists, Voltaire, the Enlightenment, agnostics, etc. It just convolutes a much simpler/easier topic. Try to stay on topic; just 'naturalism' and 'naturalists' first, o.k.? Are you suggesting that David Berlinski considers himself a 'naturalist'? If so, please make available a reference from Berlinski himself indicating this. Are you suggesting the other ID leaders I mentioned cannot and should not be called (i.e. are not) 'naturalists,' even though they are 'natural scientists'?Gregory_{April 29, 2012
April
04
Apr
29
29
2012
03:17 AM
3
03
17
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply