Is methodological naturalism against God?

[Gman]

There is a very important difference, usually misunderstood, between methodological naturalism (or methodological materialism) and philosophical naturalism (philosophical materialism). Science is committed to methodological naturalism, in that it must needs seek explanations only in the natural (ie, material) realm, because its observations must be tested - and that can only be done by examining additional evidence. Science does not claim that God does not exist; science can't speak to the existence of God, either for or against.

I would like to open a discussion on methodological naturalism. The claim with methodological naturalism is that it is completely neutral to the creation/evolution debate and does NOT impede the existence or belief in God. It is strictly science... Any thoughts?

[Kurieuo]

I quite frankly believe the distinction of methodological naturalism vs metaphysical naturalism for most Atheists/Agnostic weak atheists is one of a no-God ideology in disguise.

That said, natural sciences can obviously only explore naturalistic processes. That is a no-brainer I think, but many Atheists exploit this to smuggle in metaphysical naturalistic beliefs. Science also incorporates philosophy. Without it one can not use logic or draw conclusions. Thus, one should be free to draw either "Design" or "Metaphysical Naturalistic" conclusions (which are philosophical conclusions) based on where they think the evidence from science best points. That is what the Wedge strategy is about. The fact many anti-Design proponents believe the Wedge is about destroying naturalistic conclusions just shows their bias is smuggling their philosophical naturalistic beliefs as methodological naturalism imo.

[Gman]

I quite frankly believe the distinction of methodological naturalism vs metaphysical naturalism for most Atheists/Agnostic weak atheists is one of a no-God ideology in disguise.

I would agree with you wholeheartedly on this Kurieuo.... Methodological naturalism appears to be a rule that tries to keep science on the straight and narrow by limiting science to natural causes.. That is, depending on what one may think "natural causes" are...

In the words of Dembski, "But methodological naturalism isn't saying that we have yet to encounter empirical evidence of design in nature but we should stay open to it in case it comes along. Rather, methodological naturalism insists that one is most logical, most scientific, if one pretends such an empirical possibility is logically impossible. Instead of holding methodological naturalism as a working hypothesis, methodological naturalists hold it as a dogma. The fact is, there are plenty of ways nature might offer empirical confirmation for intelligent design."

[Pashan]

"I would like to open a discussion on methodological naturalism. The claim with methodological naturalism is that it is completely neutral to the creation/evolution debate and does NOT impede the existence or belief in God. It is strictly science... Any thoughts?"

We expect the results of science to be reproducible. If I conduct an experiment, you should be able to achieve the same result closely following my methodology. If you do not, you may safely assume I have done something wrong. I have changed or omitted some detail, or perhaps incorrectly reported my results.

Dembski is right only in one small respect. We can remain "open" to the possibility of intelligent design manifesting itself. But if it is not reproducible, how can we know it is true? Suppose, for example, I pray real hard, and God manifests a unicorn in my presence. If the unicorn subsequently disappears, you would all feel justified in impugning my character and accusing me of all manner of mendacity. Here is another example--a couple of guys not long ago discovered a bigfoot creature in Northern Georgia. Since there have never been reliable accounts of bigfoot in Georgia before, we might consider this was simply a new species created by God. Now that the remains have been examined, we discover that if one attempts to preserve Georgian bigfoot creatures in ice, they turn into rubber costumes. More handiwork of an intelligent creator--though in this case, we cannot with certainty claim that the intelligent creator is or was God. Perhaps a demigod. Or more likely, a couple of mischievous mortals.

Does anyone (especially Dembski) deny the possibility God could create an entirely new species of megafauna in some sterile laboratory environment? Or that God could repeat such a miracle every day for a calendar year? THAT would be pretty unequivocal evidence for a Creator. I am just a young man. Maybe God routinely performed such miracles a few decades before I was born. Maybe He will again, some years from now. We can certainly leave ourselves "open" to such a possibility, but I have no intention whatsoever of holding my breath.

I look around, and see the obvious and unmistakable signs of gradual evolutionary trends operating now, and via the evidence presented in the fossil record--over geologic ages. Dembski does not deny that evolution has occurred. He more or less insists science should remain open to the possibility we may discover physical proof evolution has been guided. I am inclined to think Dembski is mistaken on this issue--I have never seen anything I believe lacks a natural explanation. There are many marvelous--almost miraculous phenomenon, but still, nothing very far this side of the big bang itself that lacks a compelling natural explanation. That does not imply God might not be behind the curtain orchestrating it all. But if God IS conducting, all the music obeys natural laws. God does not appear to operate outside the laws He has established. I ain't never witnessed God violation of natural law, at any rate. And evolution is just another facet of natural law.

[Gman]

We expect the results of science to be reproducible. If I conduct an experiment, you should be able to achieve the same result closely following my methodology. If you do not, you may safely assume I have done something wrong. I have changed or omitted some detail, or perhaps incorrectly reported my results.

That's right and using methodological naturalism so far hasn't revealed much for either positions at this time..

Dembski is right only in one small respect. We can remain "open" to the possibility of intelligent design manifesting itself. But if it is not reproducible, how can we know it is true?

The same could be said for Darwinian evolution as well...

Suppose, for example, I pray real hard, and God manifests a unicorn in my presence. If the unicorn subsequently disappears, you would all feel justified in impugning my character and accusing me of all manner of mendacity. Here is another example--a couple of guys not long ago discovered a bigfoot creature in Northern Georgia. Since there have never been reliable accounts of bigfoot in Georgia before, we might consider this was simply a new species created by God. Now that the remains have been examined, we discover that if one attempts to preserve Georgian bigfoot creatures in ice, they turn into rubber costumes. More handiwork of an intelligent creator--though in this case, we cannot with certainty claim that the intelligent creator is or was God. Perhaps a demigod. Or more likely, a couple of mischievous mortals.

Does anyone (especially Dembski) deny the possibility God could create an entirely new species of megafauna in some sterile laboratory environment? Or that God could repeat such a miracle every day for a calendar year? THAT would be pretty unequivocal evidence for a Creator. I am just a young man. Maybe God routinely performed such miracles a few decades before I was born. Maybe He will again, some years from now. We can certainly leave ourselves "open" to such a possibility, but I have no intention whatsoever of holding my breath.

So unless something manifests itself right before our eyes we cannot assume it's handiwork of an intelligent creator? We should probably ask ourselves how do we determine if cars evolved from other parts or was it the result of an intelligent creator. After all, we may not have been to the factory where it was built. How could we prove it was the product of a creator or by random chance?

I look around, and see the obvious and unmistakable signs of gradual evolutionary trends operating now, and via the evidence presented in the fossil record--over geologic ages. Dembski does not deny that evolution has occurred. He more or less insists science should remain open to the possibility we may discover physical proof evolution has been guided. I am inclined to think Dembski is mistaken on this issue--I have never seen anything I believe lacks a natural explanation. There are many marvelous--almost miraculous phenomenon, but still, nothing very far this side of the big bang itself that lacks a compelling natural explanation. That does not imply God might not be behind the curtain orchestrating it all. But if God IS conducting, all the music obeys natural laws. God does not appear to operate outside the laws He has established. I ain't never witnessed God violation of natural law, at any rate. And evolution is just another facet of natural law.

Nothing is said not to be 100% factual or completely answered when it comes to science. There are theories, yes, but no smoking guns on either side when it comes to the topic of origins. Even Dawkins would admit to that... So perhaps we shouldn't be narrow minded to the subject either...

[TrvthSeeker]

We expect the results of science to be reproducible. If I conduct an experiment, you should be able to achieve the same result closely following my methodology. If you do not, you may safely assume I have done something wrong. I have changed or omitted some detail, or perhaps incorrectly reported my results.

That's right and using methodological naturalism so far hasn't revealed much for either positions at this time..

We have witnessed gradual changes, and noted gradual developments in the fossil record, and we have noticed genetic similarities best explained through common ancestry. So far we don't have any "Made by God" sticker on anything that wasn't placed there by the Gideons.

Dembski is right only in one small respect. We can remain "open" to the possibility of intelligent design manifesting itself. But if it is not reproducible, how can we know it is true?

The same could be said for Darwinian evolution as well...

Except that we have measured genetic drift. You are right--but your argument is more pervasive than you have made it. The results of EVERY scientific test could be the direct intervention of God. Every snowflake that forms--God's direct handiwork. Would that be so impossible for the Creator of the Cosmos? Then every bit of natural evolution could be ascribed to God's direct manipulation of molecular assemblages on up.

Philosophically speaking, what is the difference, then, between a universe created by God and one in which God does not exist, if not possible test for God's existence is conclusive?

Suppose, for example, I pray real hard, and God manifests a unicorn in my presence. If the unicorn subsequently disappears, you would all feel justified in impugning my character and accusing me of all manner of mendacity. Here is another example--a couple of guys not long ago discovered a bigfoot creature in Northern Georgia. Since there have never been reliable accounts of bigfoot in Georgia before, we might consider this was simply a new species created by God. Now that the remains have been examined, we discover that if one attempts to preserve Georgian bigfoot creatures in ice, they turn into rubber costumes. More handiwork of an intelligent creator--though in this case, we cannot with certainty claim that the intelligent creator is or was God. Perhaps a demigod. Or more likely, a couple of mischievous mortals.

Does anyone (especially Dembski) deny the possibility God could create an entirely new species of megafauna in some sterile laboratory environment? Or that God could repeat such a miracle every day for a calendar year? THAT would be pretty unequivocal evidence for a Creator. I am just a young man. Maybe God routinely performed such miracles a few decades before I was born. Maybe He will again, some years from now. We can certainly leave ourselves "open" to such a possibility, but I have no intention whatsoever of holding my breath.

So unless something manifests itself right before our eyes we cannot assume it's handiwork of an intelligent creator? We should probably ask ourselves how do we determine if cars evolved from other parts or was it the result of an intelligent creator. After all, we may not have been to the factory where it was built. How could we prove it was the product of a creator or by random chance?

We have the testimony of thousands of United Auto Workers, numerous advertisements by Ford, GM, and other auto manufacturers. Share holders. You can look up stock evaluations for these companies. God's handiwork is obviously not listed on the New York Stock Exchange. If we're not willing to accept tours of automobile factories as evidence of men at work, then we don't have much to debate.

On the other side of the issue are rocks, animals, and snow flakes. I see an erratic in a field near my house. Geologists explain the rock was carried there by a glacier. No way to be sure, right? Perhaps God just winked it into existence, like the animals and the snowflakes. Why buy into ANY natural explanation for anything, if I can ascribe everything to God?

The question that confronts us is, where do we draw the line? I can reproduce the conditions by which snowflakes form. reducing the temperature in a humid chamber results in myriads of unique water crystal structures. Did I just summon God? Why does God only operate on water when the temperature falls? Why doesn't God ever produce snowflakes in hot steam filled chambers? Where do we decide that something can only be attributable to God, and something else cannot?

I Corinthians 3:6 says, "I have planted, Apollos watered, but God giveth the increase." In my vacuum chamber, I reduced the temperature, Apollos injected the vapor, but God designed the flakes? In the former case we're talking about replication of complex molecular strands of deoxyribonucleic acid molecules. In the latter case, the crystalline structures are hydrogen oxide (water) molecules.

So far as I can tell, the same God is responsible for the organization of both. Would you agree?

So far as I can tell, one is just as natural as the other. God therefore boils down to a description of natural law.

I personally believe God is more than that, but through science, this is all I can guarantee through quality testing.

I look around, and see the obvious and unmistakable signs of gradual evolutionary trends operating now, and via the evidence presented in the fossil record--over geologic ages. Dembski does not deny that evolution has occurred. He more or less insists science should remain open to the possibility we may discover physical proof evolution has been guided. I am inclined to think Dembski is mistaken on this issue--I have never seen anything I believe lacks a natural explanation. There are many marvelous--almost miraculous phenomenon, but still, nothing very far this side of the big bang itself that lacks a compelling natural explanation. That does not imply God might not be behind the curtain orchestrating it all. But if God IS conducting, all the music obeys natural laws. God does not appear to operate outside the laws He has established. I ain't never witnessed God violation of natural law, at any rate. And evolution is just another facet of natural law.

Nothing is said not to be 100% factual or completely answered when it comes to science. There are theories, yes, but no smoking guns on either side when it comes to the topic of origins. Even Dawkins would admit to that... So perhaps we shouldn't be narrow minded to the subject either...

I think we are in complete agreement on this. If there is a difference, it is in the implications. I am perfectly content to leave instruction in religious matters to families and churches. But incorporating such instruction into the public schools is where Dembski and I must part company.

[Kurieuo]

I think we are in complete agreement on this. If there is a difference, it is in the implications. I am perfectly content to leave instruction in religious matters to families and churches. But incorporating such instruction into the public schools is where Dembski and I must part company.

I am not sure Dembski would part company with you there.

However, I think there is confusion between ideology and religion. This idea that any ideology which supports Theism is "religious" is wrong. Just because a because such an ideology is more supportive towards religious beliefs than say an Atheistic ideology which makes an affront against religious belief, is just nonsense. Both have a religious impact. A Theistic ideology in not necessarily religious, and if ideologies are religious, then an Atheistic ideology is also religious which is grounded upon the principles of metaphysical naturalism.

[Gman]

We have the testimony of thousands of United Auto Workers, numerous advertisements by Ford, GM, and other auto manufacturers. Share holders. You can look up stock evaluations for these companies. God's handiwork is obviously not listed on the New York Stock Exchange. If we're not willing to accept tours of automobile factories as evidence of men at work, then we don't have much to debate.

That's the problem… By numbers DE may have the vote, but the vote is skewed.. God's handiwork is not even allowed to be listed on the NYSE... Of course DE wins hands down, but science was meant to be debated and when the debate is taken away from it, people may learn about evolutionary theory but in the end they don't always believe in it because they were never allowed to debate it.

The question that confronts us is, where do we draw the line? I can reproduce the conditions by which snowflakes form. reducing the temperature in a humid chamber results in myriads of unique water crystal structures. Did I just summon God? Why does God only operate on water when the temperature falls? Why doesn't God ever produce snowflakes in hot steam filled chambers? Where do we decide that something can only be attributable to God, and something else cannot?

And the question can be reversed too.. Where do we decide that something can only be attributable to naturalism, and something else cannot?

I Corinthians 3:6 says, "I have planted, Apollos watered, but God giveth the increase." In my vacuum chamber, I reduced the temperature, Apollos injected the vapor, but God designed the flakes? In the former case we're talking about replication of complex molecular strands of deoxyribonucleic acid molecules. In the latter case, the crystalline structures are hydrogen oxide (water) molecules.

Or perhaps did the existing properties of the water molecule minus heat produce the structure?

So far as I can tell, the same God is responsible for the organization of both. Would you agree?

That's the problem again, God is simply nixed from the equation..

So far as I can tell, one is just as natural as the other. God therefore boils down to a description of natural law.

Not according to metaphysical naturalism...

I personally believe God is more than that, but through science, this is all I can guarantee through quality testing.

Testing is one thing, but testing with my own presuppositions or law can always guarantee quality testing?

I think we are in complete agreement on this. If there is a difference, it is in the implications. I am perfectly content to leave instruction in religious matters to families and churches. But incorporating such instruction into the public schools is where Dembski and I must part company.

But cannot we leave it as a mystery? I still think the evidence points to mystery.. If so why can't we be truthful and teach it as such?