Methodological Naturalism?

This video touches on an interesting question in philosophy of science. Is the methodological naturalism of science intrinsic to science or is it merely provisional?

Real Atheology Facebook:

Real Atheology Twitter:

Real Atheology Patreon:

[mosiprop]

.. provisional methodological naturalism is the most honest and open-minded viewpoint, but the distinction between provisional and intrinsic methodological naturalism is, at present, irrelevant. This is because there is ZERO existing data indicating that a violation of natural laws has ever occurred, let alone as an intentional act performed by whatever god you might imagine That is not to say that such data will never materialize. However, based on past experience, this seems unworthy of serious consideration until such time as a divine intervention into our natural world actually occurs in some verifiable and measurable way..

[Ansatz]

This video is in desperate need of a definition for the distinction between natural and supernatural. Whether methodological naturalism is intrinsic depends on whether there is something in the definition of supernatural that precludes scientific investigation of supernatural things. For example, one might define supernatural as that which cannot be investigated by science. If that's the definition we are using than obviously methodological naturalism is intrinsic.

On the other hand, if we define supernatural as meaning anything that is observed only in association with mythological creatures, then we are surely dealing with provisional methodological naturalism. If any mythological creature were actually real then we would be able to observe the supernatural, and then there would be nothing to stop us from applying the scientific method to it.

So the real question isn't whether naturalism is intrinsic or provisional. The real question is: What does supernatural mean to you when you say it?

[gotinogaden]

Maarten's objections are heavy-hitters alright. In the original article, he was discussing a scientific inquiry as regards the efficacy of intercessory prayer. How would devoting resources to such an inquiry destroy the rest of the scientific enterprise? At most, it would hinder it, since now we have to diverge valuable resources to some speculative areas. But since we are investigating a process whereby a complete explanation would (probably) require tapping into what may be called "divine psychology" (in other words, what are the specific reasons for which God favoured a specific prayer), it seems that every time such an inquiry is ongoing, we are not really doing science, since we've already accepted the assumption that science limits itself to investigating the cause-and-effect chains that are characteristics solely of the natural world, and everything beyond that point is, strictly speaking, unscientific. The point is to come up with reasons to dismiss the entirety of science while inspecting theological claims though, and this seems harder to achieve.

[clenchedfist]

`Natural laws` are descriptions of what happens given specific circumstances; if a supernatural entity were to act in `violation` of a natural law, it would be as if gravity ceased to apply when a human being entered a trance-like state. We would not then say that the human being was violating a natural law - we would say that the law of gravity does not hold universally and that there must be a law or set of laws describing why it holds in all cases but the trance case, as well as why it does not hold in that case. Exceptions to a natural laws result in revisions of those laws, since such laws are descriptions of what happens, and will happen, given certain conditions. Is this methodological naturalism?
If the supernatural existed, wouldn`t it by definition be part of nature?

[philstilwell]

I think it is very healthy to emphasize the provisional nature of methodological naturalism. This will enable those who wish to make claims about, for example, the efficacy of prayer to posit experimental designs that could statistically determine whether prayer works to any degree. This is similar to Darwin outlining the dynamics of speciation prior to being able to articulate the actual mechanism (DNA). If we discovered converts to one religion living twice as long as the general population, and through rigorous experimental design we largely eliminated all possible physical mechanisms, that would be cause to entertain a supernatural realm. Let theists have this. This will force them to contemplate rationality and proper standards of evidence that will likely lead them away from their theism.

[crocaduck]

I would think that over time, less and less room was made available for admitting non-naturalistic explanations or reasons (the psychic realm for example) into the pursuit of science.  So even though provision was made in the examination of claims and questions that were deemed not to be naturalistic (as in the case of psychic phenomena in the 19th century), some scientists of the time seriously investigated the alleged phenomena.  But as time has shown, nothing much has come of these claims and so this would change the outlook on methodological naturalism.  As Niall Shanks states; "Methodological naturalism as it appears in science, is based on an inductive generalization derived from 300 to 400 years of scientific experience. Time and time again, scientists have considered hypotheses about occult entities ranging from souls, to spirits, to occult magical powers, to astrological influences, to psychic powers, ESP, and so on. Time and time again such hypotheses have been rejected, not because of philosophical bias, but because when examined carefully there was not a shred of good evidence to support them. Scientists are allowed, like anyone else, to learn from experience. Hard-won experience in the school of empirical hard knocks leads to methodological naturalism. The experience is straightforward. We keep smacking into nature, whereas the denizens of the supernatural and paranormal realms somehow manage to elude careful analysis of data." p141. (From; God, the Devil, and Darwin: A Critique of Intelligent Design Theory, Niall Shanks. 2006.)

[macattack]

This is a late question. Does methodological naturalism involve removing appeals to non natural things in scientific explanations as well as supernatural things? Appealing to nonnatural things would seem to involve violating the stance that one can only accept natural explanations. This would lead to the absurd conclusion though that science could never make reference to laws of logic or numbers or sets. I don't know how to understand science if one pulled all the math out of it. How do you avoid that conclusion?

[wimsweden]

If "naturalism" refers to finding out how reality works, I don't think there can be anything "supernatural". Whatever you put in the "supernatural" category is just stuff that will be subsumed under "naturalism" at the point where you find out (if there is anything to it) what the mechanism behind it is, if only in principle. Before, we had a very concrete billiard-ball view of the universe, but now we talk about more fundamental fields and other structures where I don't even know what they are made of. Even in the case of a god, religious believers would I think concede that he works in a certain way and is not a random jumble. Whatever substance this being consists of, it would be a part of reality and would work in a certain way. If we would know what substance it is and how it works, we would label that "natural".

[wimsweden]

Maarten Boudry's last name is pronounced "boo-DREE", by the way. Like him, I'm also Flemish. :)

[crocaduck]

Question:    After reading books (by the four horsemen and others) and watching several YouTube videos about God and noting that you have a detailed grasp of the issues on the question of God, I have a question regarding what most Christians would deem to be true as to how much of a hand God supposedly had in the creation of the universe and is continuing to have in the workings of the world.  I've itemized a few possible scenarios below.
1) There is a God and He created the present Big Bang Universe 13.7 billion years ago with its current natural laws and constants.  After that, the universe, Nature evolves accordingly and God never intervenes.
2) God creates the Universe 13.7 billion years ago and it evolves according to Nature's laws.  He only intervenes during Biblical times (miracles, reveals Himself, floods, plagues, etc.) but does not thereafter interfere with our affairs nor with Nature's workings.
3) God creates the Universe (13.7 billion or 10, 000 years ago) and is completely and constantly guiding or willing all matter and energy in apparent conformity to the 'laws of Nature'.  He can easily change or suspend these apparent natural laws and/or the evolution of the Universe to produce our solar system, the earth, life, Homo sapiens and all past and present miracles, etc.  He makes an exception to our apparent free will and has no hand in controlling or intervening in it.
From what I've read and watched, I thought that scenario 3 was what most Christians believe but I'm not exactly sure.  So my question is: to what extent does God supposedly intervene in the workings of the world?  Would it be one of the above scenarios or a different one?

[inclinedplane]

Imagine we're living inside a simulation. The programmer has a back door into the system by which thy can add or remove objects, change their properties arbitrarily, etc. Such changes would violate natural law (from our perspective inside the system). If done only occasionally, we'd be hard pressed to make sense of it beyond chalking it up to faulty observations or mass delusion or something. But if done with regularity, even with the intent to communicat with us, we might be able to study the patterns and infer even that there is an agent who is manipulating things. The agent *could* be natural, some very powerful advanced alien or something. But if, say, conservation of energy is violated, it might be a much simpler explanation to invoke a supernatural agent. Studying the behavior of the agent would be more like divine psychology than physics, since their interaction would not supervene on any material, natural causes. I don't know if it would be useful to call such divine psychology a science or not, but I think it would be fair to say that science could at least identify the violations of natural law, and philosophy would say that a supernatural agent is the most parsimonious explanation.

[Tdisputations]

We would just have to refine our understanding of natural laws. Think about people who would say that action at a distance is impossible, and assign that a natural law. Now, we see that there is quantum entanglement, and this seems to be possible. We do not, however, see science falling apart.

[drawnmyattention]

Oh very well, if we can identify the supernatural realm as we do the quantum realm, let's fold it into our current naturalistic science. Like the quantum world, it ought to have it's own laws, probabilities and "facts of the matter." ...I'm still waiting, and so is Provisional Naturalism.

[justinaime]

Intrinsic. Many concepts being taught as scientific principles should actually be considered part of a naturalistic method of epistemology, which would displace the so called scientific method.

[ronjohnson]

supernatural.... theology.... god.... what a joke.... i don't need no stinking scientists.... the shaman is throwing his bones for me when the big god in the sky goes under the earth tonight.