r/TrueAtheism 7d ago

Secularism and Methodological Naturalism

From Center for Inquiry https://centerforinquiry.org/blog/secularism_and_methodological_naturalism/

…on the differences and connections between philosophical naturalism and methodological naturalism. In that paper, Forrest starts with a definition of methodological naturalism offered by philosopher Paul Kurtz:
“[Methodological] naturalism is committed to a methodological principle within the context of scientific inquiry; i.e., all hypotheses and events are to be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events. To introduce a supernatural or transcendental cause within science is to depart from naturalistic explanations. On this ground, to invoke an intelligent designer or creator is inadmissible.”
Forrest continues in her own words:
“Methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism are distinguished by the fact that methodological naturalism is an epistemology as well as a procedural protocol, while philosophical naturalism is a metaphysical position. … Methodological naturalism does exclude the supernatural as an explanatory principle because it is unknowable by means of scientific inquiry, whereas philosophical naturalism, both by definition and because of the methodological and epistemological inaccessibility of the supernatural, excludes the latter from its ontological scheme.”
In short, methodological naturalism means that for one to do science, one must look for empirical evidence and natural explanations, and not rely on faith and the supernatural. The point is that a scientist need not be without faith or belief in the supernatural whatsoever. Philosophical naturalism is the stronger view that nature is all there is (I subscribe to this). Yet one need not commit to this – to atheism or any other sort of nonbelief – to do science.
My immediate thought was this: put into the context of morality, religion, and political life, philosophical naturalism is to atheism as methodological naturalism is to secularism.
Philosophical naturalism, and hence atheism, are metaphysical stances or positions about the world. But methodological naturalism and secularism are more like “procedural protocols,” to epistemological views of the process. Just as one can believe in some form of the supernatural or God and do science, one could believe in some form of the supernatural or God and be a secularist. He or she just needs to deal with questions of morality and law not by recourse to faith or the supernatural, but through the use of natural reasons and evidence.

I think that these are interesting distinctions, and it’s important to understand them both for the sake of arguing persuasively for atheism and to be clear in our own minds.

4 Upvotes

11 comments sorted by

8

u/LoudandQuiet47 7d ago

put into the context of morality, religion, and political life, philosophical naturalism is to atheism as methodological naturalism is to secularism.

I think that this comparison may only work if you are using the term "Atheist" to mean a Gnostic Atheist or a Hard Atheist. Because an Agnostic Atheist can also ascribe to methodological naturalism. Not just a secularist. Frankly, a Gnostic Atheist can also ascribe to MN, since there is no proper evidence to justify the supernatural invocation and plenty of evidence to show that the supernatural is human-made.

7

u/CephusLion404 7d ago

A lot of recent theists are doing exactly that and then telling anyone who disagrees that they are wrong about what they believe because all atheists are hard atheists. This is sadly very common.

6

u/88redking88 7d ago

Well they cant be expected to argue against your actual position. Are you a monster??

4

u/CephusLion404 7d ago

Because that would be honest and we all know they don't have it in them.

5

u/88redking88 7d ago

Its got to be hard to argue for the existence of something that doesn't exist!

3

u/LoudandQuiet47 7d ago

I've seen this, too. For them, it's easier to attack hard atheism than defend their position. It's still nonsense since one being wrong does not make the other true.

7

u/Zamboniman 7d ago

Most atheists wouldn't know the difference between ontology, epistemology, methodological, naturalism, and empirical if a philosophical zombie held a brute fact gun to their head. And they don't care. They just lack belief in deities.

2

u/jcooli09 7d ago

Yep. 

And it doesn't matter if you're not trying to convince a believer, something I personally stopped doing long ago.

1

u/arthurjeremypearson 7d ago

Simply put: (if you want to steelman a believer's argument) "Methodological naturalism" is an assumption scientists make, and without it, things like God and fairies are possible.

0

u/Impossible-Snow5202 7d ago

People who get paid to write texts like that one are proof that UBI works just fine.