This is a blog to discuss philosophy, chess, politics,
C. S. Lewis, or whatever it is that I'm in the mood to discuss.
On the about methodological naturalism Loftus linked tovhis own essay on thye subject. I've written an answer to Loftus:Answering Loftus on methodological naturalism
Answer to Larmer, I don't think methodological naturalism is question begging iff it is approached purely as a scientific procedure. If we accept the framework of non-overlapping magisteria, then to speak in science as a scientist is not the same as speaking in theology as a theologian. We can compartmentalize an refrain from proposing extra natural causes but leave the explanation of such phenomena as can't be explained naturalistically to "unknown cause," when working in science.Then making theological statements is a different matter. That would include for itself it's own brand or conditional statement. There is a X such that X is not explained by naturalistic accounts, and as a theologian one might propose that X could be of divine cause. Of course the core doctrines of a faith, such as the resurrection in Christian terms, would have a stronger more declarative formulation. It is when the ideology of scientism begins imposing itself upon the field and demanding that there can be no non-naturalistic explanations, that method becomes metaphysics. It is the metaphysical assumptions imposed upon methodological statements that is question beggomg.
Post a Comment