TagMethodological naturalism
A Liberating Alternative to Methodological Naturalism in Science
Today, hosts Robert J. Marks and Angus Menuge welcome Dr. Robert Larmer to discuss methodological naturalism, the topic of his chapter in Minding the Brain, a recent anthology exploring the mind-body debate. Methodological naturalism is the view that science should only appeal to natural causes and never to supernatural or non-physical causes, even if they exist. Dr. Larmer argues that methodological Read More ›
Is Methodological Naturalism Necessary for Scientific Progress?
In this episode, hosts Angus Menuge and Robert J. Marks conclude their three-part discussion with Dr. Robert Larmer about his chapter on methodological naturalism in the recent volume Minding the Brain. The trio argue that methodological naturalism is not the only viable approach in scientific inquiry and that it can be an obstruction to discovering the truth. They suggest that explanations Read More ›
Consciousness and Agency: A Critique of Methodological Naturalism
In this episode, host Angus Menuge continues a discussion with Dr. Robert Larmer about his chapter on methodological naturalism in the recent volume Minding the Brain. In this segment of the conversation, Menuge and Larmer examine the justifications for methodological naturalism and critique some of the common arguments. They discuss the claim that non-natural causes are unknowable by scientific inquiry and Read More ›
Finding God in the Brain
Materialism insists that God is just a figment of the imagination, but there are some interesting phenomena in neurotheology that suggest otherwise. There are also certain methodological challenges when it comes to trying to find evidence of God in the brain. Michael Egnor discusses these issues with Andrew Newberg, who is a pioneer and authority in the field of neurotheology. Read More ›
Science Can and Does Point to God’s Existence
Natural science is not at all methodologically naturalist — it routinely points to causes outside of nature.In my recent debate at Theology Unleashed, with Matt Dillahunty, Dillahunty made the claim that science necessarily follows methodological naturalism, allowing only for causes within nature. This is a common assertion by atheists. It’s wrong, and here’s why: First we need to start with the definition of science. Despite the huge literature on this topic and the great confusion about the answer, I think the answer is relatively simple. Classical philosophers defined science (scientia) as the systematic study of effects according to their causes. To clarify, consider the three assertions in this definition: 1) science is systematic — that is, it is not merely the occasional musing or haphazard insight but an organized planned course of action to deepen understanding. Read More ›