Abstract
History and the modern sciences are characterized by what is sometimes called a “methodological naturalism” that disregards talk of divine agency. Some religious thinkers argue that this reflects a dogmatic materialism: a non-negotiable and a priori commitment to a materialist metaphysics. In response to this charge, I make a sharp distinction between procedural requirements and metaphysical commitments. The procedural requirement of history and the sciences—that proposed explanations appeal to publicly-accessible bodies of evidence—is non-negotiable, but has no metaphysical implications. The metaphysical commitment is naturalistic, but is both a posteriori and provisional, arising from the fact that for more than 400 years no proposed theistic explanation has been shown capable of meeting the procedural requirement. I argue that there is nothing to prevent religious thinkers from seeking to overturn this metaphysically naturalistic stance. But in order to do so they would need to show that their proposed theistic explanations are the best available explanations of a range of phenomena. Until this has been done, the metaphysical naturalism of history and the sciences remains defensible.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adler J. E. (1990) Conservation and tacit confirmation. Mind 99: 559–570
Adler J. E. (2002) Belief’s own ethics. MIT Press, Cambridge
Barrett J. L. (2007) Cognitive science of religion: What is it and why is it?. Religion Compass 1: 768–786
Barth, K. (1991). The Göttingen dogmatics: Instruction in the Christian religion (1924) (Vol. 1) (G. W. Bromiley, Trans.). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Bartley W. W. III. (1984) The retreat to commitment. 2nd edn. Open Court, La Salle, IL
Berger, P. L. (1969). The sacred canopy: Elements of a sociological theory of religion (1967). Anchor Books. New York: Doubleday.
Boyer P. (2002) Religion explained. Vintage, London
Butterfield H. (1950) Christianity and history. G. Bell and Sons, London
Butterfield H. (1979) Does belief in Christianity validly affect the modern historian?. In: McIntyre C. T. (eds) Herbert Butterfield: Writings on Christianity and history. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 133–150
Campbell N. R. (1920) Physics: The elements. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Cranefield P. F. (1970) On the origin of the phrase nihil est in intellectu quod non prius fuerit in sensu. Journal of the History of Medicine 25: 77–80
Darwin, C. (1968). The origin of species by means of natural selection (1859). Pelican Classics. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.
Dawes G. W. (2007) What is wrong with intelligent design?. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 61: 69–81
Dawes, G. W. (2009). Theism and explanation. Routledge Studies in the Philosophy of Religion 6. New York: Routledge.
Dembski, W. A. (1998). The design inference: Eliminating chance through small probabilities. Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction, and Decision Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Duhem, P. (1962). The aim and structure of physical theory (2nd edition 1914, P. P. Wiener, Trans.). New York: Atheneum.
Einstein, A. (1961). Relativity: The special and the general theory (R. W. Lawson, Trans.). New York: Three Rivers Press.
Flew A. (2005) God and philosophy (new edition). Prometheus, Amherst, NY
Førland T. E. (2008a) Acts of God? Miracles and scientific explanation. History and Theory 47: 483–494
Førland T. E. (2008b) Historiography without God: A reply to Gregory. History and Theory 47: 520–532
Gillespie N. C. (1979) Charles Darwin and the problem of creation. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL
Godfrey-Smith, P. (2003). Theory and reality: An introduction to the philosophy of science. Science and its Conceptual Foundations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gregory B. S. (2006) The other confessional history: On secular bias in the study of religion. History and Theory 45: 132–149
Gregory B. S. (2008) No room for God? History, science, metaphysics, and the study of religions. History and Theory 47: 495–519
Gregory F. (1992) Nature lost: Natural science and the german theological traditions of the nineteenth century. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
Haack S. (1993) The two faces of Quine’s naturalism. Synthese 94: 335–356
Horton R. (1993) Patterns of thought in Africa and the west: Essays on magic, religion and science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Hume, D. (1993). Dialogues and natural history of religion (1779, 1757). Oxford World’s Classics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Johnson, P. E. (1995). Reason in the balance: The case against naturalism in science, law, and education. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity.
Johnson, P. E. (1997). The unravelling of scientific materialism. First Things, 77, 22–25.
Jones, J. E. (2005). “Memorandum opinion” Kitzmiller et al. vs Dover Area School District, U.S. Supreme Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, 20 December. http://www2.ncseweb.org.wp.
Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). International Encyclopedia of Unified Science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lakatos I. (1970) Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In: Lakatos I., Musgrave A. (eds) Criticism and the growth of knowledge. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Laudan, L. (1982). Commentary: Science at the bar-causes for concern. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 7(41), 16–19.
Marsden G. M. (1997) The outrageous idea of Christian scholarship. Oxford University Press, New York
McMullin E. (1978) Structural explanation. American Philosophical Quarterly 15: 139–147
McMullin, E. (2001). Plantinga’s defense of special creation. In R. T. Pennock (Ed.), Intelligent design creationism and its critics: Philosophical, theological, and scientific perspectives (pp. 165–196). A Bradford Book. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Meyer B. F. (1979) The aims of Jesus. SCM, London
Meyer S. C. (1999) The return of the God hypothesis. Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies 11: 1–38
Moore, G. E. (Ed.). (1959). A defence of common sense (1925). In Philosophical papers. London: Macmillan.
Musgrave, A. (1999). Essays on realism and rationalism. Series in the Philosophy of Karl R. Popper and Critical Rationalism XII. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Novick, P. (1988). That noble dream: The “objectivity question” and the American historical profession. Ideas in Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pennock R. T. (2000) Tower of Babel: The evidence against the new creationism. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Plantinga A. (1981) Is belief in God properly basic?. Noûs 15: 41–51
Plantinga, A. (1996). When faith and reason clash: Evolution and the bible. In R. T. Pennock (Ed.), Intelligent design creationism and its critics: Philosophical, theological, and scientific perspectives (pp. 113–145). A Bradford Book. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Plantinga A. (2000) Warranted Christian belief. Oxford University Press, New York
Plantinga, A. (2001a). Methodological naturalism? In R. T. Pennock (Ed.), Intelligent design creationism and its critics: Philosophical, theological, and scientific perspectives (pp. 339–361). A Bradford Book. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Plantinga A. (2001b) Rationality and public evidence: A reply to Richard Swinburne. Religious Studies 37: 215–222
Polanyi M. (1963) The potential theory of adsorption. Science NS 141: 1010–1013
Popper, K. R. (2002). The logic of scientific discovery (1959). Routledge Classics. London: Routledge.
Pyysiainen, I. (2003). True fiction: Philosophy and psychology of religious belief. Philosophical Psychology, 16, 109–125.
Quine W. V. (1995) Naturalism; or, living within one’s means. Dialectica 49: 251–261
Rae M. A. (2005) History and hermeneutics. T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh
Ruse M. (1982a) Darwininsm defended: A guide to the evolution controversies. Allison-Wesley, Reading, MA
Ruse, M. (1982b). Response to the commentary: Pro Judice. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 7(41), 19–23.
Ruse, M. (2001). Methodological naturalism under attack. In R. T. Pennock (Ed.), Intelligent design creationism and its critics: Philosophical, theological, and scientific perspectives (pp. 363–385). A Bradford Book. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Salmon W. (1978) Religion and science: A new look at Hume’s ‘dialogues’. Philosophical Studies 33: 143–176
Schick T. Jr. (2000) Methodological naturalism vs. methodological realism. Philo 3: 30–37
Shanks N. (2004) God, the devil, and Darwin: A critique of intelligent design theory. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Strauss, D. F. (1840). Die christliche Glaubenslehre in ihrer geschichtliche Entwicklung und im Kampfe mit der modernen Wissenschaft dargestellt. Tubingen: C. F. Osiander.
Strauss, D. F. (1865). A new life of Jesus (1864). London: Williams & Norgate.
Swinburne R. (1985) Review of the miracle of theism by J. L. Mackie, faith and rationality edited by Alvin Plantinga and Nicholas Wolterstorff, faith and reason by Anthony Kenny, and God and skepticism by Terence Penelhum. The Journal of Philosophy 82: 46–53
Swinburne R. (2001) Plantinga on warrant. Religious Studies 37: 203–214
Swinburne R. (2004) The existence of God. 2nd edn. Clarendon Press, Oxford
Troeltsch, E. (1991). Historical and Dogmatic method in theology (1898), translated by Ephraim Fischoff and revised by Walter Bense in Religion in history—Ernst Troeltsch: Essays translated by James Luther Adams and Walter F. Bense (pp. 11–32). Edinburgh: T & T. Clark.
Weber, M. (1949). The methodology of the social sciences (1904–1917) (E. A. Shils & H. A. Finch, Trans. and ed.). Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Wright N. T. (1992) Christian origins and the question of God: Volume 1: The new testament and the people of God. SPCK, London
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dawes, G.W. In defense of naturalism. Int J Philos Relig 70, 3–25 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11153-011-9291-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11153-011-9291-8