You can say that all you want, but you are still wrong. MN is about the method. You are learning bad philosophy and are none the wiser for it.
1 Like
You need to get that looked at. The hysteria.
Yes, obviously you’re right. Stating “Creationism is still creationism. That’s the whole point.” sounds terrifying for the ideological evolutionary creationist. Like a horror film. Blind, mind paralysing terror. Sorry for my scary tactics! 
1 Like
Who is willing, Gregory? Where are all these people who have signed on to this and share in all this with you? We are already here in the real world speaking with real world scientists and others who know and consult with those who do science. I have yet to encounter anybody that has any problems with terminology like you do here.
1 Like
But methodological naturalism, which is the only way you can actually do science, is also one way someone can push back against evolutionism if they really want to. With being limited to only test natural things, the process of science would be agnostic towards the activity or existence of any gods.
1 Like
If MN were really ONLY about the method then it wouldn’t use the term “naturalism”. This really isn’t hard gramatically. Natural scientists sometimes can be so obtuse & stubborn with their language!
Here, try a scholar writing on the topic now. “Thought Experiments as a Tool for Undermining Methodological Naturalism”. - Travis Dumsday (Religion, 2019)
You aren’t learning ANY philosophy, and it shows, T. At least try starting to love wisdom, ok? Your reductionism has taken it’s toll.
But no, Matthew, that’s not physics, it’s bad philosophy. And MNism is simply NOT “the only way you can actually do science”. Sorry, but that’s ridiculous and easily shown wrong, as well as that’s not even what de Vries meant in the “Methodological Naturalism in the Natural Sciences: A Christian Perspective.”
I’d bet Matthew Pevarnik hasn’t even read de Vries’ paper (it’s not easy to find), and doesn’t even know the limits of MNism. Any takers to see if Matthew will show his familiarity?
John Lennox, James McKay and I, along with many others, agree:
“The danger of terms such as ‘methodological atheism’ or ‘methodological naturalism’ is that they might appear to lend support to an atheistic worldview, and to give the impression that the atheism had something to do with the success of the science - which might not necessarily be the case at all. To see this point even more clearly, just imagine what would happen if the term ‘methodological theism’ were to be employed in the literature instead of the term ‘methodological atheism’. It would be howled down at once on the basis that it could give the impression that it was the theism that contributed to the success of the science. … We would like to suggest that neither the expression ‘methodological naturalism’ nor the expression ‘methodological theism’ is particularly helpful: better to avoid both.” (God’s Undertaker, 2007)
“the process of science would be agnostic towards the activity or existence of any gods.”
That’s not MNism. It’s anti-SNism.
Ok, it’s time to pull an Alex Trebek on Matthew and see if he’ll provide an answer.
Matthew: What is anti-supernaturalism? Can you please answer, so that you won’t have to foist MNism wrongly on people anymore?
Why don’t you discuss it?
I’m not learning any good philosophy from you. At best, you are teaching me how someone uses really bad semantic arguments.
1 Like
MN is “the most paranoid appeal to a scientific consensus to defend against an impending Dark Age” … “‘ Methodological naturalism’, despite its philosophical sounding name, has no clear meaning outside of attempts to demonstrate that creationism and ID are non-scientific. Professional philosophers, not least those who hold no brief for creationism, have squirmed at the apparent manufacture of a pseudo-doctrine customised to restrict the ranks of scientists. This so-called principle conflates two 20th-century pro-science movements: ‘logical positivism’, which defined science in purely procedural terms as a method for testing theories, and ‘metaphysical naturalism’, which defined science as a world view that admits only causes like the ones already observed in nature.” – Steve Fuller (2008)
“It is natural to believe in the supernatural. It never feels natural to accept only natural things” – G.K. Chesterton
“It is salutary to curb the scientific hubris that has dominated our culture during this [the 20th] century. Science has undoubtedly achieved wonderful things, but it has a dark side. The unbridled arrogance of science is part of what lies behind nuclear weapons, pollution, unnecessary animal (and human) experimentation. Showing that science has its limits is helpful in qualifying its image as all-conquering and invincible.” – Colin McGinn (1999)
“’Science’ is a specific, human endeavor, not a limitless enterprise for answering everything, and we would do well to give it a well-defined home within the larger sphere of rationality .” – Robert J. Asher (2012)
Be careful with that.
And just adding “ism” to a word doesn’t make it a philosophy, either, as @Christy has spelled out for you.
Can I say “Amen” here without fear of attack?
Christy is not trained in this field, while I am. Does that make ANY difference to you at all?
Christy miscompared “science” with “ideology”. Yet you NEVER call her out on this. Why not?
Evolution vs. Creationism = guaranteed wrong answers due to a biased comparison.
What, Dale, do you need a priest to tell this to you, instead an evangelical apologetics site that defends the rearguard against YECists? Catholics and Orthodox haven’t fallen into the evangelical apologetics trap on this topic that you folks are in there, Dale. That’s a reality you accept, right?
Christy is a trained linguist, and you quite obviously are not.
I gave you the meaning just a few posts ago, from RationalWiki.
Nothing to do with MN.
Nothing to do with MN.
Nothing to do with MN.
Gregory, Gregory. I’m the only one here who isn’t scared. Because I’m scared all the time. You get used to it. I’m a very simple man Gregory, which is why it seems so obvious to me. I must be missing something in the land of the giants eh? ; )
Me, I’m all but deist but for Jesus and the Holy Ghost.
Christy has no training in sociology or philosophy. That’s partly why she downplays (or is perhaps just totally unaware of) ideology. Her master’s degree in linguistics isn’t a helpful qualification on the topic. Sorry, but that appeal to BioLogos moderator authority was FUNNY.
Yes, creationism is creationism. No need for anyone to be a “giant” to admit that.
1 Like
And your PhD in whatever is waay too heavy.
[quote=“T_aquaticus, post:56, topic:45418”]
I gave you the meaning [/quote]
