Methodological naturalism is today the very hallmark of science. Given this, are there good reasons to make a meaningful distinction between methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism, as some still try to do? It has been said that adhering to methodological naturalism does not necessarily mean accepting metaphysical naturalism, since scientists can be religious believers. Such a scientist can accept the existence of a transcendent reality in his personal life. They cannot appeal to that transcendental reality as an explanatory principle in scientific research.
While this may be true in theory, some people think of methodological naturalism as: de facto Metaphysical naturalism. they ask: “By restricting themselves to the search for natural causation in scientific research, religious scientists treat the God they believe in as a mere figment of imagination, someone who plays no role in the unfolding of the natural world. Are you drawing?” Are you studying?
these are important questions
A new book from an unlikely source may shed some interesting light on the issue. The book is The faithful scientist: The experience of anti-religious bias in scientific training. (2023), by West Virginia University sociologist Christopher Scheitl (surprisingly, given the book’s subject matter, he identifies as an atheist). Scheitl interviewed more than 1,300 science graduate students about their experiences as graduate students, particularly how religion has been viewed. His informants included both religious and nonreligious students. The results are impressive.
Scheitl’s most important finding was that religious and nonreligious students alike experienced what they called the “atheistic assumption” in science classes. They felt there was an implicit assumption that anyone who studied science must be an atheist. This assumption of atheism has had many problematic consequences, especially for students of religion.
First, assuming atheism tends to force religious students into silence about their beliefs, making it difficult for them to connect with other like-minded students. Therefore, religious students feel isolated in different ways than non-religious students. One non-religious student said: “It’s kind of an accepted assumption that everyone in the room is non-religious” (72). This allows non-religious students to assume that everyone in the room thinks like them, giving them a sense of community. Of course, this leaves religious students feeling even more isolated and alone.
Second, supposed atheism “creates an environment in which some nonreligious people believe it is acceptable to be openly hostile or disparaging to religion” (73). Some non-religious students felt it was wrong to publicly ridicule religious students’ beliefs to their face, but said that everyone present was an atheist. The assumption contradicted this concern. If there are no religious students in the room, there is a sense that it is okay to ridicule religious beliefs. As one student put it, “I was sitting in my lab and I heard people saying, ‘I don’t want any religious freaks joining my lab'” (74).
A third problem with assuming atheism concerns the quality of work that religious students are able to do in science classes. Scheitl points to a study conducted by Kimberly Rios that found that unless Christian students were first exposed to the stereotype that Christians are less capable in science, there was no difference in the performance of Christians and non-Christians on scientific tasks. We believe that this has been proven. When first exposed to such statements, “Christians actually performed worse on science-related tasks. In other words, internalized doubts and anxieties about being part of a stereotyped group It actually had a negative impact on individual performance” (84). And the assumption of atheism makes it difficult for religious students to reveal their identity, and allows them to connect with students of other religions, making them more likely to become internalized. There is little chance that they will break the stereotype and show that they are just as competent in science as non-religious students. . Therefore, the assumption of atheism does real harm to religious students who wish to contribute to science.
methodological and metaphysical naturalism
So what does all this have to do with methodological and metaphysical naturalism? It seems to render meaningful distinctions between them meaningless. Although the distinction may be maintained on theoretical grounds, in practice science is rapidly becoming seen as a human pursuit unfit for religious people. If Mr. Scheitl’s informants are at all representative, anti-religious bias plays a large role in science graduate programs. This not only strengthens the requirement to adhere to naturalistic causation in scientific methodology, but also the assumption that naturalism (or atheism) represents the totality of reality, that is, metaphysical naturalism.
Interestingly, Scheitl points out how the effects of assuming atheism vary in different scientific fields.
In other words, by the nature of their research, psychologists, sociologists, and biologists tend to view the mind, humans, and society from a scientific perspective, which limits the role of supernatural gods in these fields. In contrast, the scientific lens of physicists and chemists tends to apply only to looking at rocks, stars, and other objects outside the human realm. This…gives scientists the space to separate their scientific worldview from their religious beliefs (38).
This suggests that biology is one field in which metaphysical naturalism may be smuggled in under the guise of methodological naturalism. If everyone in a graduate school biology class assumes everyone else in the class is an atheist, as Scheitl’s informant attests, then the class is being taught under atheism. become. de facto metaphysical naturalism, and the important distinction between these two types of naturalism essentially disappears.
Who is doing the smuggling?
Opponents of intelligent design often accuse ID proponents of trying to smuggle God into biology classes under the guise of science. If Scheitl’s informants are at all representative, it appears that it is the biological authorities who are actually doing the smuggling – despite their protests to the contrary, under the guise of methodological naturalism. He is introducing metaphysical naturalism. For all practical purposes, there seems to be little distinction today between methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism, at least in graduate science classes.