Tom Gilson

Time to Take the Non-Science Out of Science

Scientists typically claim they must rely on methodological naturalism to do their science. It’s the principle that treats everything as if it were strictly natural, as if there is no supernatural reality.

Several years ago I wrote on this blog about how that was no need at all, and in fact it brings a host of non-scientific assumptions into science with it. Two years ago my theory was formally published in this volume of conference proceedings.

Today the Discovery Institute published a shorter version on its Evolution News website. Here’s part of the lead-up to the conclusion:

So am I actually proposing everyone adopt methodological theism as their scientific operating guideline? Obviously not. It could be the stronger theory in all kinds of ways, and in fact I think it is. But in a pluralistic world it would certainly never fly — much less in a secular-slanted world like academia today. No, I’ve brought it up here for a completely different reason: to expose the fact that there’s no scientific reason to reject it; nothing but that thorny issue of metaphysical bias. At the same time, though, it highlights the reality that there’s no scientific reason to insist on methodological naturalism; only the same problem of bias. Neither principle is fully scientific. Both principles are saturated with philosophical assumptions.

But I need to say that one more time. With emphasis — emphasis, that is, on the principle that’s held sway all these years. Methodological naturalism is saturated with non-scientific, philosophical assumptions. Therefore it has no business masquerading as a necessary principle for doing science. There’s no rational cause to think science benefits from that kind of needless bias imported into it.

The answer? Methodological regularism. But if you want to know about methodological theism — and how it really does make sense — you’ll need to read the links.

Image Credit(s): Max Saeling/Unsplash.

3 thoughts on “Time to Take the Non-Science Out of Science

  1. Personally, I find Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics convincing. If the naturalist claims science requires adopting methodological or metaphysical naturalism I counter by noting methodological or metaphysical Thomism works too. It has the added benefit, in my opinion, of explaining why science is possible.

  2. I’ve long had this controversy with my atheist acquaintances when they cavil at religiosity or metaphysics.

    Look, says I, if the statement “There is a God” is necessarily and essentially a religious statement then equally it is a necessary truth that the statement “There is no God” is necessarily and essentially a religious statement.

    The only way to get religion out of science, if that’s the aim and we all agree it is a right and proper one (!?) is to just admit that neither statement has anything to do with science. That we can in fact observe the rigidly logical and mathematical relationships between things, and describe them in increasing detail, without have a firm or unanimous opinion as to why they are so describable.

    So when various atheists like to proclaim how their scientific careers have been such stellar successes without ever having to mention God, they determinedly ignore that many theists have had remarkably stellar careers in science, without ever having to mention God in their research publications.

    God is not actually required in order for us to observe and describe.

    Now, when it comes to explaining … well, that’s where we get into metaphysics, and as you note, the essential nature of the belief is not changed merely by changing the sign from positive to negative, and hence the atheists are as guilty of metaphysics as anyone the like to point the bone at. Indeed, I argue that this universal guilt of practicing metaphysics is proof positive, and even moreso under atheistic assumptions about fitness-enhancing characteristics, that metaphysics are an essential element of human nature. To attempt to do way with them is to attempt to do away with humanity itself.

    And that doesn’t appear particularly rational to me.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe

Subscribe here to receive updates and a free Too Good To Be False preview chapter!

"Engaging… exhilarating.… This might be the most surprising and refreshing book you’ll read this year!" — Lee Strobel

"Too Good To Be False is almost too good to be true!" — Josh McDowell

More...

Building Understanding, Building Faith

Tom Gilson, Senior Editor, The Stream.

More here.

Blog Honors



Recent Comments

  • Tom Gilson July 9, 2020 at 7:24 am on Jesus Won’t Let Us Use Him for Our PoliticsYou’re not trying to be rude? Really? If you want to rewind, then begin by reading what I wrote, not by asking me to rewrite it. I've already answered that question. Repeatedly. You're honestly not paying attention. I haven't answered with numbers like you want me to, but I have
  • Shane Fletcher July 9, 2020 at 2:26 am on Jesus Won’t Let Us Use Him for Our PoliticsI'm not trying to be rude, or poke you with a stick. I'm honestly asking for clarification. I'll attempt to rewind. You: "If you know of any in recent history, though, you’re welcome to list them. I’ll be wondering whether it’s a long enough list to conclude it’s a widespread,
  • Tom Gilson July 8, 2020 at 8:01 am on Jesus Won’t Let Us Use Him for Our PoliticsDoes that mean my wondering is meaningless? Good grief, no. Wondering is wondering. How much background info does it require to wonder? Why on earth would you even ask such a question? And even if it were a halfway sensible kind of question, why would you ask without offering the

Discussion Policy

By commenting here you agree to abide by this site's discussion policy. Comments support Markdown language for your convenience. Each new commenter's first comment goes into moderation temporarily before appearing on the site. Comments close automatically after 120 days.

Copyright, Permissions, Marketing

Some books reviewed on this blog are attached to my account with Amazon’s affiliate marketing program, and I receive a small percentage of revenue from those sales.

All content copyright © Thomas Gilson as of date of posting except as attributed to other sources. Permissions information here.

Privacy Policy

%d bloggers like this: