Philip Cunningham’s critique of methodological naturalism

_{Denyse O'Leary

October 14, 2017

Intelligent Design, Naturalism, Philosophy, Science}

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

From the paper: “Contrary to what many people believe, “Methodological naturalism is certainly NOT a ‘ground rule’ of science today”.

Paper.

See also: Why the “Naturalism” Part of “Methodological Naturalism” is Both Misleading and Unnecessary (Barry Arrington)

Comments

Is there a reason why BA77 no longer posts here?Seversky_{October 15, 2017
October
10
Oct
15
15
2017
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT}

That Paul Nelson quote is awesome:
MN [methodological naturalism] entails an ontology in which minds are the consequence of physics, and thus, can only be placeholders for a more detailed causal account in which physics is the only (ultimate) actor. You didn’t write your email to me. Physics did, and informed you of that event after the fact. "That’s crazy," you reply, "I certainly did write my email." Okay, then — to what does the pronoun "I" in that sentence refer?
Origenes_{October 14, 2017
October
10
Oct
14
14
2017
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply