Is methodological naturalism theologically satisfactory?
A devout Christian who believes “miracles occurred in salvation history” can evaluate all available evidence and conclude that “formative history was all-natural with no miracles.” But should an all-natural history be the only possibility that is considered during scientific evaluation? In my opinion, Christians can view methodological naturalism (MN) in two theologically satisfactory ways: In one approach, proponents of an open search accept MN but consider MN-science to be only one aspect of a broader “open search for truth” that considers all possibilities, including miracles. Their scientific search, but not their open search, is restricted by MN. Although MN-science is respected as an expert witness, it is not allowed to be the judge and jury when we’re defining rationality and searching for truth. In another approach, proponents of open science claim that — if we think miracles do occur in salvation history and might have occurred in formative history — we should not assume, as d
Related Questions
- Do you see evidence that scientists, practicing scientists today see a commitment to methodological naturalism as integral to their actual scientific work?
- Is methodological naturalism another way of stating a philosophical claim? Is methodological naturalism another method of stating a philosophical claim?
- Is methodological naturalism theologically acceptable?
