Plantinga’s writing is dense, I’m not a trained philosopher and I will admit that I was out of my depth with much of it. But I never came away with any sense that Plantinga was proposing a scientific methodology that did away with methological naturalism. The whole context is response to the strident voices of the New Atheist movement who were insisting (from their own philosophical/non-scientific perspectives) that Christians couldn’t “do science” if they believed in God. That’s ridiculous and deserved pushback.
For many people and in many contexts the definition of science and the scientific method are the same thing because the body of knowledge we label “science” results from the scientific method. When you import philopsophy and metaphysics into the conversation, you are no longer talking about what science “proves” or “concludes,” you are talking about something science informs. I agree with Plantinga that rational Christians informed by both science and their Christian theology can say true things. But I don’t think that is what you are advocating or claiming should be possible when you talk about changing the definition of science or doing away with methodological naturalism.
If someone said methodological naturalism is totally restricted to the scientific method, then I don’t suppose I would have objected. But when it becomes the definition of science, and scientists are often making philosophical judgements in the way of hypotheses and theories. Then it does stretch the meaning of the term science… this appears to be a contradiction?
Someone in the ‘know’ once told me that evidence is only that which is a ‘novel testable prediction.’ That’s a discussion that still lingers on the background for me.
Plantinga does a good job highlighting it, but I do not recall his precise wording.
And yet it may be a contradiction.
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
245
Would you want to be taken advantage of in this way? If not, then don’t do it to others.
Would you want to be disadvantaged by other people in this manner? If not, then it isn’t moral.
1 Like
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
246
The scientific method is methodological naturalism. They are one in the same.
Scientists are also human, so scientists will do human things. If a scientist plays golf that doesn’t make golf a part of science. Not everything a scientist does is science. If a scientist makes ontological claims outside of methodological naturalism then the scientist is no longer doing science.
If a baseball player plays some basketball with some friends, is that a contradiction?
Reminds me of an earlier comment I made about methodological naturalism being a sport.
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
249
Science is both the activity of doing science, which is methodological naturalism, and the knowledge we have gained from applying methodological naturalism. The scientific method is central to both.
1 Like
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
250
I have used that analogy as well. The scientific method is just a set of rules. You can either decide to follow those rules, or use a different method. When you become a scientist you don’t pledge an oath to only use methodological naturalism. You are free to believe many things through many different methods and paths. The only requirement is that when you say something is science or scientific that it is the product of methodological naturalism.
1 Like
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
251
Yes. Morality is based on the well being of people which is determined subjectively.
Maybe I am misunderstanding, but while there is more to life than methodological naturalism, we still use MN to live our daily lives. Mechanics use observations, hypothesis, and sometimes experimental trials to fix your car. Plumbers gather data, determine where the plug is through that data, and see if their intervention works. When we sit in a chair, it is based on observations as to its strength and knowledge of its past behavior when we sat on it, giving repeatable results. It is difficult to see how one could live without using MN. Now, science takes it a bit further to theorize what is happening in the process to develop a deeper understanding, of course, so maybe that is what differentiates MN from cause and effect.
2 Likes
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
255
Thanks and I agree with both aspects. Like Keener said in his book on miracles, deciding what is a miracle is like deciding when hair is long or short. There’s a real fuzzy boundary to consider and it’s open to a great deal of disagreement. Or like when a methodological naturalist should rightly or wrongly consider philosophical supernaturalism in knowing the world.
I really appreciated how well Plantinga said this:
"We can therefore say a good bit by way of description of this human activity; and it is an activity of impressive worth and value. It is of enormous practical worth, resulting in lengthened life spans, relief from illness, increased comfort, and a better quality of life for many. (It has also given us the means to destroy ourselves and our environment.)… Is this enterprise such that religious or theological perspective is relevant to it? We won’t get an answer to this question from a mere definition of the word ‘science’; an answer will require familiarity with the activity, and the discernment necessary to seeing what is characteristic of it. So an answer will involve substantive questions about the nature of science, our own nature, and the nature of the world in which we live.”
