Quote:
|
...the success of methodological naturalism as a stance for inquiry seems to me to greatly heighten the probability that the world is as methodological naturalism describes. Conversely, the failure of theism to describe the world in any meaningful way would seem a strike against it.
|
I totally agree when you put it in terms of probability (and here we do have enough data points for a plausible prior probability). In a paper that Barbara Forrest read at a conference I attended a few years ago she wrote, "the more of the cosmos which methodological naturalism explains, the less warrant there is for explanations which include the supernatural." We all agree I think that the successes of methodological naturalism justify the belief that the worldview of metaphysical naturalism is an extremely rational and metaphysically stable view to hold.
However, I still feel uncomfortable making that leap in saying that other worldviews are wrong. I guess that's all that I'm saying. Perhaps I need to get over this hesitation and find a way to nuance my view more. I'll let Professor Forrest have the last word on the matter:
"As the world of mystery shrinks," Forrest said, "we are confronted with an asymptotic decrease in the existential possibility of the supernatural to the point at which it is wholly negligible."
Quote:
Further, world views are not as separate as you seem to think they are. Certainly theistic worldviews, even Fideism, sooner or later make at least minimal empirical claims. It seems you are arguing that worldviews do not make such claims.
This intersection with reality is to me the hallmark of metaphysical naturalism. After all, one unmistakeable miracle would destroy my worldview, so I can't really agree that our worldviews are not in some way true. At least, in the negative sense, since they can be prove false, they are amenable to empirical testing....
|
Yes, one supernatural event and the whole worldview must be modified accordingly. (But as you said earlier don't hold your breath.) As far as fideism goes I really do mean to describe situations in which a believer makes no naturalistic claims at all. My own mother-in-law is this way and she's a case book example of many believers like her. She does observe religious rituals, attends an Episcopal church, prays, believes in God, and she has no idea whether there's an afterlife or not but takes in on faith that there is. She's a retired chemist so she's steeped in the scientific method and she does not believe that there are supernatural causes of natural events. I have her in mind when I'm thinking of fideistic belief. In this way, the very educated liberal Christians and Reformed Jews really have insulated themselves from evidentialist critique.
05-14-2002, 01:55 PM
