I think I’m going to back you up on this one, Richard. Whatever misconceptions you may have about evolution, there’s one thing about methodological naturalism that you seem to understand that a lot of Christians on the side of evolutionary creation/theistic evolution/pro-science miss.
When we talk about “methodological naturalism,” what we say and what people hear are two completely different things.
We can point out until the cows come home that methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism are two different things. We can explain until we’re blue in the face that when we say “methodological naturalism” we aren’t denying God and we aren’t ruling out the possibility of miracles. But that doesn’t change the fact that just by using the expression “methodological naturalism,” people will hear a denial of God. They will hear a rejection of the possibility of miracles, whether that is our intention or not.
As advocates for a responsible and honest approach to science that takes it seriously, we need to remember who we are talking to. We are talking to people who believe that vast swathes of the scientific community are motivated first and foremost by the desire to oppose God and undermine faith, and for whom the desire to figure out how things work comes a distant second. If we’re using vocabulary that gives so much as a hint of supporting that perception, we’re just going to see the shields go up, and our highfalutin explanations of what “methodological naturalism” does and doesn’t mean aren’t going to penetrate them.
That’s why the most important thing I have to say to other Christians involved in this side of the debate is STOP DEFENDING METHODOLOGICAL NATURALISM!!! One of the most important rules of clear communication is that you need to use vocabulary that your audience can relate to and understand. That’s why I focus on concepts such as factual accuracy, rigour, quality control, reproducible results, and not making things up. Yes, it may take longer and more effort to spell these things out than simply saying “methodological naturalism,” but it’s clearer and it’s less open to misunderstanding.
You really cannot differentiate between @St.Roymond’s very useful initialisms, VFA, the ViewFromAbove, and VFB, the ViewFromBelow, can you.
If a watchmaker makes a watch, is it self-sufficient? Um, yeah, I think so? That would be methodological naturalism, Richard, the VFB, with systems operating per the rules set for them by their Maker. Do you deny that? Apparently you do. Why?
Is the watchmaker prohibited from interacting, ‘tinkering’ with it later on? No? That would be VFA when he does.
Does either of those scenarios, those conditions, does either of them deny God? They certainly do not.
All we have to do is make the distinction between VFB and VFA. When practicing science, we better defend methodological naturalism. (Methodological naturalism can include the divine-o-meter when it comes to market.)
There is nothing more I can say. All I can do is reitterate or change it around.
You have never responded to the claims about your view of God as a killer and cruel torturer.
Either you do not understand them, or you refuse to confront them. Either way, until you do, you can goad me until you are blue in the face.
Methodological naturalism does not deny God because it is incapable of even addressing the question. Can the mechanical watch tell you if it had a maker or not?
That I’m focusing on your misconceptions for one. I was actually pointing out that you were on to something and that I needed to affirm it.
Yes, I get that. I get it that methodological naturalism (as understood by regulars on this forum at any rate) can include the divine-o-meter when it comes to market. I get it that methodological naturalism is incapable of addressing the question of whether miracles can happen or not. I get it that that is a completely different thing from denying God, denying miracles, or denying the supernatural.
But my whole point is that many Christians who are trying to figure out what to make of the whole subject don’t get it. They’ve been taught that “methodological naturalism” means something that can’t include the divine-o-meter when it comes to market. Some of them have even been taught that “methodological naturalism” is an existential threat. By using the term “methodological naturalism,” you’ll trigger their fight-or-flight response before you can get them to listen to your explanation that it’s not what they think it is.
That’s why I say that we shouldn’t be attempting to defend something with that particular name and that particular description. We need to find a different way of expressing ourselves that gets the point across in ways that aren’t threatening and that aren’t likely to be misunderstood.
What I’m calling for here is clear communication, not a lowering of standards.
Focus on the goals of factual accuracy, quality control, reproducibility, and not making things up. Because that is what methodological naturalism (as we understand it) boils down to.
Same thing. What facts are they not getting straight? What corners are they cutting? What assertions are they making that are unjustified? What results are they promoting that are not reproducible?
These four questions should cover pretty much everything that needs to be covered for ID and OEC as well as YEC. Anything else is politics, religion or philosophy, not science.
Then we need a better term, one that indicates that what science seeks is how God runs the universe, and that science is limited by the senses God gave us plus whatever tools that fallen man can invent.
That’s why the “view from below” terminology is helpful: noting that we are speaking “from below” is an acknowledgment that we are fallen and thus limited to those senses and tools.
Yes. Acknowledging that in science we are stuck with the fallen abilities of fallen man is what acknowledging that we are using the VFB is about: it is humility before God, and from there it is a reminder that the claims of science are only as dependable as the abilities of fallen man.
Richard has demonstrated that he considers himself suited to judge both the scriptures and God, so I doubt that any scripture will sway him.
It’s interesting that Jewish thought has never shied away from the conclusion that if God is upholding all things in existence then obviously He is responsible for all that happens – a responsibility He accepted at the Cross. What Richard fails to grasp is that God upholds everything in accordance with the rules He has established, which is to say that He is faithful and trustworthy even in matters so “small” as how mutations work. That is the basis of science, since if God did not uphold things those things would cease to exist, but instead He upholds them in accordance with His own rules. Since He is faithful to do so, then we can investigate those rules, which is what all of science is actually about.
I wish I still had the initial handout from my first college biology professor; he put the relationship of God’s faithfulness and science clearly and eloquently enough to be clear (and exciting) to a bunch of barely-settled-in college freshmen.
And in the view from above, point out that the methods we use are limited to what the Fall has left us with – maybe call it the “fallen nature system”.
Or from my point of view, how are they treating the text wrong? what difference does that make? how do we be faithful to the Holy Spirit when seeking to understand what He inspired?
He reminds me of that one fellow student who claimed to have calculated how many times God would have had to intervene in evolution to get modern humans, except in comparison I would say that Behe is dealing in inconsequentials, because identifying “irreducible” mechanisms isn’t all that useful or helpful.
I still like the comparison to constructing a building: no small series of actions, such as laying a dozen bricks or connecting a pair of wires, will get you a building, but all together those small changes add up to something greater than the sum of its parts.
I always get a laugh out of that because when LeMaitre first proposed the idea he was roundly accused of trying to smuggle God into science!
I still love the mental picture one lecturer used: there was nothing, and nowhere, then God poked His finger into a place that became a place when He did that poking, and that poke made everything explode into lots of somethings in lots of wheres.
How dare you! I have said no such thing. I am no more qualified to judge Scripture than you are. And no one has the authority to judge God. I would certainly never claim either.
Scripture v science? Bad idea.
Using scripture to justify science? even worse idea.
Scriipture on one hand claims desease and deformity comes direct from God then refutes it in Job (et al)
If God controls the minutia He is blessing some, and curseing others using criterai we cannot fathom or see. A person born with a crippling defect is not going to see God as being providential to them, especially if He was the definate cause!
Are you going to tell me that God deliberately caused the strokes that made my father a progressive vegetable over twenty years. My father, who was an ordained minister! Yes we prayed over Him, and Yes He was healed, but not in the physical sense, God gave him the strength to endure, and live. But that is not providence in the way it has been proclaimed on this forum, If you had watched him slowly deteriorate you would not be so glibb.
You are apparently using selective memory to ignore the fact ‘in the way’ hard providences have definitely been ‘proclaimed on this forum’ and endured. Our late friend @gbob comes to mind and the pain he endured for two decades. So glib. But that in turn reminds of a cool instance of God’s providence in his life as well: My Turkish translator experience.
