This was a paper I wrote a long time ago (now with some added additions) for a Christian website that did not see publication in it. Taking a Christian audience in view I discuss Methodological Naturalism from a Christian perspective.
Many Naturalists have appealed to what is known as Methodological Naturalism (MN) to rule out the existence of God particularly His involvement in the natural world.
The question then becomes does it actually do so? That is does it rule out God not just in Science but in general? And is Science committed to it?
First let’s define some terms. Naturalism is admittedly hard to define. William Hasker says it:
“is best defined by conjunction of mind-body supervenience, an understanding of the physical as mechanistic (nonteleological), and the causal closure of the physical domain.”
1
So defined, Naturalism is the view that only Natural things exist. This contrasts with Materialism an old term for a metaphysical position in which all that exists is material things such as atoms. In the twentieth century however the term physicalism was used and Materialism dropped as Physicists ontology started to include more things than atoms. Now today Naturalism which is broader tends to be used.
2
Since Naturalism is broader views such as W. V. O. Quine’s who held to Epistemic Naturalism but not Metaphysical Naturalism,3Thomas Nagel who attempts to explain teleological phenomena on a nonteleological basis, and David Chalmers who holds that all mental events are caused by physical events and those physical events are caused by more physical events, so must be according to him mechanistic, are all Naturalists.
Further one can distinguish between 2 different views of what the natural world contains. One is called strict naturalism. Strict naturalists would reject any ultimate and irreducible teleology of any event. Everything in nature would be due to undirected causes, these operating by chance or necessity.
Another is the more commonly held view called Broad Naturalism. Those who hold this view would accept that irreducible teleology may emerge in nature say in any system that is at a sufficient level of complexity like our brains so that these creatures could exhibit goal-directed behavior but it would deny any supernatural causation including God or even a soul.
4
Interestingly Methodological Naturalism is the view and stipulation that as a working assumption Scientific accounts of the natural world must be explained by wholly natural phenomena, material and physical without recourse to the non-natural or supernatural forces or agents for these observable phenomena.
“Methodological Naturalism asserts that, to qualify as scientific, a theory must explain by strictly physical or material – that is, non-intelligent or non-purposive causes.”
5
Methodological Naturalism is about a particular methodology not about any metaphysical view. This is in contrast to what is sometimes called Metaphysical /Philosophical Naturalism. The view that only the natural world exists. God, angels and such do not.
One’s Science may presuppose Methodological Naturalism but not Metaphysical Naturalism so the two must not be conflated. Metaphysical Naturalism may entail Methodological Naturalism but it is not so the other way around.
6
Alan G. Padgett notes that the term Methodological Naturalism can be misleading as if it is a version of naturalism which it is not.
7
“It is just to easy to think of Methodological Naturalism as simply acting in the presence of science as if naturalism (full-blown) were true; a highly dubious way of describing the practical objectivity of the natural sciences.”
8
Some mistakenly think that Methodological Naturalism requires one to hold to Metaphysical Naturalism. However under this view the claim then that science proves Metaphysical Naturalism would just commit the logical fallacy of begging the question. As W. Christopher Stewart points out:
“If science presupposes naturalism for methodological purposes, then there is something singularly uninteresting and downright misleading about the claim that science proves that there is no such thing as supernatural agency operative in the universe.”
9
Arguments that the Success of MN for Science provides evidence for Philosophical Naturalism and thus one does not need to appeal to God would be to conflate the best explanation with the best naturalistic explanation. MN then would be neutral in logic, however in practice it would encourage such a conflation.
If one were to hold to MN and PN at least 2 problems would arise. PN would be irrefutable because things like God or a designer that could refute it are automatically excluded by MN.
Secondly MN only allows data that supports naturalistic theories hence PN cannot be confirmed and its confirmation becomes trivial.
10
Methodological Naturalism is properly a meta-theoretic shaping principle (MSP) and thus is properly part of the Philosophy of Science not Science. Other MSP’s include, the metaphysical such as the primacy of laws, uniformity in nature, causation, realism, and the epistemic such as the reliance on repeatable, intersubjective observations, standards of inductive logic and mathematical rigor, explanatory virtues, conservatism and tenacity.
Methodological Naturalism as such isn’t a part of any specific theory so isn’t clear how it can even show God does not intervene in nature.
11
Now what about the claim that Divine intervention is unscientific under Methodological Naturalism? Well that’s simply false, under Methodological Naturalism it is not the case that these Divine Interventions are unscientific but rather they would be nonscientific.
As Philosopher of Science Philip Kitcher notes:
“Postulating an unobserved Creator need be no more unscientific than postulating unobserved particles. What matters is the character of the proposals and the ways in which they are articulated and defended”.
12
On this view one can talk about supernatural agency these just would not be part of science proper since it simply doesn’t deal with the supernatural and so are just left aside. When speaking professionally they will remain agnostic even if as a human being they acknowledge supernatural explanations.
13
As the Atheist Bradley Monton points out however it doesn’t matter if something is a part of Science but whether it is true.
14
Stephen C. Meyer points out the same thing saying that most philosophers of science think it is of greater importance whether it is true or the evidence supports it rather than whether or not it is science. He says that the question of whether something is scientific is actually a red herring. What we want to know is if is worthy of our belief.
15
As the Cosmologist Sean Carroll says:
“Science should be interested in determining the truth, whatever that truth may be – natural, supernatural, or otherwise. The stance known as methodological naturalism, while deployed with the best of intentions by supporters of science, amounts to assuming part of the answer ahead of time. If finding truth is our goal, that is just about the biggest mistake we can make.”19
Theists and non-Theists alike have held to Methodological Naturalism. For example Theistic Evolutionists typically hold that science presupposes methodological naturalism, nevertheless they eschew metaphysical naturalism as inconsistent with Christianity.
16
Both Howard J. Van Till and Diogenes Allen were Methodological Naturalists.
17
Moreover W. V. O. Quine said:
“If I saw direct explanatory benefit in positing sensibilia, possibilia, spirits, a Creator, I would joyfully accord them scientific status too, on a par with such avowedly scientific posits as quarks and black holes. “
“Even telepathy and clairvoyance are scientific options, however moribund…The collapse of empiricism would admit extra input by telepathy or revelation, but the resulting science would still be predicted sensation.”
18
This ends Part I. Stay Tuned.
1 William Hasker, “What is Naturalism? And should we be Naturalists?” in Philosophia Christi, Volume 15, Number 1, 2013.
2 Jeffrey Koperski, The Physics of Theism, God, Physics, and the Philosophy of Science (WILEY Blackwell, 2015), 53, footnote 26.
3 Does Epistemic Naturalism imply Metaphysical Naturalism? See also, Is Metaphysical Naturalism Viable?
4 Angus Menuge, “Methodological Naturalism” in Dictionary of Science and Christianity: The Definitive Reference For The Intersection of Christian Faith And Contemporary Science (Zondervan, 2017), Gen Ed. Copan, Longman III, Reese, and Strauss. pp. 438. I drew much from his entry here. A great more in depth resource I borrowed from is by Stewart Goetz and Charles Taliferro, Naturalism (Eerdmans, 2008).
5 Stephen C. Meyer and Paul A. Nelson, “Should Theistic Evolution Depend on Methodological Naturalism?” in Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique (Crossway, 2017), ed. Moreland, Meyer, Shaw, Gauger, and Grudem, 561.
6 Neither Methodological Naturalism nor Metaphysical Naturalism should be conflated with Empirical Natural Science which tries to give the best account of physical phenomena without implying these natural causes be undirected nor does it imply Metaphysical or Methodological Naturalism. See, Dr. Angus Menuge, Expert Witness: The Problem of Methodological Naturalism (2005), 3. As Menuge clarifies elsewhere: “Methodological Naturalism is not the same as philosophical naturalism (PN). PN makes the ontological claim that only the natural world exists. MN is compatible with the existence of non-natural or supernatural entities, but it prohibits appeal to them within scientific theories and explanation.” Dictionary of Science and Christianity: The Definitive Reference For The Intersection of Christian Faith And Contemporary Science (Zondervan, 2017), Gen Ed. Copan, Longman III, Reese, and Strauss. pp. 437.
7 Alan G. Padgett, “Practical Objectivity: Keeping Natural Science Natural”, in The Blackwell Companion to Science and Christianity (Wiley-Blackwell, 2012), edited, J. B. Stump and Alan G. Padgett, 96.
8 W. Christopher Stewart, “Religion and Science” in Reason for the Hope Within (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1999). I drew much from this article.
9 Angus Menuge, “Methodological Naturalism” in Dictionary of Science and Christianity: The Definitive Reference For The Intersection of Christian Faith And Contemporary Science (Zondervan, 2017), Gen Ed. Copan, Longman III, Reese, and Strauss. pp. 438.
10 Ibid. 438, 439.
11 Jeffrey Koperski, The Physics of Theism, God, Physics, and the Philosophy of Science (WILEY Blackwell, 2015), 25-29, 181, 182. A must buy book in which I drew heavily.
12 Philip Kitcher, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism (1982), 125.
13 William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, 3rd Edition (Crossway, 2008), 240.
14 Bradley Monton, Seeking God in Science, (Broadway Press, 2009), 53, 54.
15 Stephen C. Meyer, Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life And The Case For Intelligent Design (HarperOne, 2013), 389.
16 J. P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (IVP Academic, 2004), 354.
17 Paul Draper, “Christian Theism and Life on Earth” in The Blackwell Companion to Science and Christianity, edited by J. B. Stump and Alan G. Padgett (Wiley-Blackwell, 2012), 309, 310.
18 The first quote is from, W. V. O. Quine, “Naturalism; or Living within One’s Mean’s,” Dialectica 49 (1995), 252. The second is from his work, The Pursuit of Truth (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Press, 1992), 20, 21.
19 Sean Carroll, The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself (Dutton, 2017), 133.
Hacking the Gate 