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 ›
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 ›
It’s hard to know where the brain ends and the mind begins. How can studying our brains give us insight into our minds? Neuroscientist Andrew Newberg and neurosurgeon Michael Egnor sit down for a chat about all things brain related including neurotheology, methods of studying the brain, and other mind/brain phenomena. Additional Resources Andrew Newberg’s Website Michael Egnor at Discovery.org Read More ›
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 ›
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 ›