Methodogical Naturalism

[anthony022071]

This thread continues an argument from another thread forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=7208200#post7208200 about whether or not methodological naturalism is a valid approach to finding out the truth about the workings of the natural world.

Methodological naturalism is the way that scientists view and explain the natural world in their research and theories,whereby all natural phenomena are to be explained with natural causes alone. This approach to explaining natural phenomena may seem to be reasonable,but it leads to non sequiturs and absurdities in scientific theories. Naturalism (the belief that only nature exists) is an unjustifiable and false view to begin with,and it does not become justifiable when it is used,as if it were true,by scientists to explain the workings of nature. A false view of nature leads to false interpretations of nature. When the power of God in nature is ignored,science attributes to natural causes,or so-called “mechanisms” power to do things that they cannot possibly have. That is,natural causes or “mechanisms” are attributed with the ability to do things only a power over nature,a super-natural power,could logically do,such as create living organisms and natural order and human thought,and make physical matter come into existence. The theories of science in regard to the origin of life,order,thought and the universe lead people to view the workings of nature according to the naturalistic and mechanistic view of science,which contradicts the Catholic doctrines of creation and divine providence and reason as well.

 

[anthony022071]

[itinerant 1] Methodological naturalism is called “methodological” because it entails a method. It differs from naturalism per se, though I don’t agree with what many MN maintain to be the relationship of philosophy to science. That is, it is not proper for philosophy to observe MN.

The “method” in methodological naturalism is just the experimental method,which is something completely different from the manner in which things are interpreted and explained. The experimental method does not require that the scientist must exclude divine causation from his explanation of natural things. The results of experimentation are not affected by how the scientist chooses to explain natural phenomena. Although it is true that the supernatural cannot be scientifically tested,this does not entail that science must take the naturalistic view,because science involves interpretation and explanation, not just research and evidence,and explanations which use only natural causes are not always adequate. Sometimes they are illogical and absurd.

A scientist can be a MN without personally believing in naturalism. This fact points to a critical flaw in your argument. Nonetheless, we can get away from the term methodological naturalism, and ask whether the explanations given by the natural sciences should include supernatural or supranatural explanations. Traditionally, the answer is “No”.

Whether or not a scientist believes in naturalism is besides the point that he is still professionally bound to give naturalistic explanations for the workings of nature. To give naturalistic explanations for all phenomena is just as bad as actually believing that only natural causes exist. If the naturalistic view of reality is unjustifiable outside of scientific theory,it cannot be justifiable within it either.

There are a few who disagree, such as Plantiga (1966), and ID theorists who are woefully lacking in philosophical understanding, so much so, that what they are doing is not science, and it involves rank philosophy and even worse theology.

Plantiga is a logician and philosopher,and some of the proponents of Intelligent Design are scientists. The belief in Intelligent Design does not affect the results of scientific research,it affects the way that phenomena are explained.

 

[Barbkw]

God’s intelligence and power enabled the creation of a universe (and all of its natural elements) to be encoded with self perpetuating cycles.

 

[itinerant1]

This thread continues an argument from another thread forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=7208200#post7208200 about whether or not methodological naturalism is a valid approach to finding out the truth about the workings of the natural world.

Methodological naturalism is the way that scientists view and explain the natural world in their research and theories,whereby all natural phenomena are to be explained with natural causes alone. This approach to explaining natural phenomena may seem to be reasonable,but it leads to non sequiturs and absurdities in scientific theories.

What are some examples that you think are non sequiturs and absurdities in scientific theories that result from MN? Be specific.

That is,natural causes or “mechanisms” are attributed with the ability to do things only a power over nature,a super-natural power,could logically do,such as create living organisms and natural order and human thought,and make physical matter come into existence.

This is not an accurate description of MN. What you have described are situations in which a scientist personally believes that MN necessarily entails philosophical naturalism.

The theories of science in regard to the origin of life,order,thought and the universe lead people to view the workings of nature according to the naturalistic and mechanistic view of science,which contradicts the Catholic doctrines of creation and divine providence and reason as well.

Again, what you are describing is not strictly MN is scientific research, but a transgression of the proper scope and limit of science. You have conflated MN with philosophical naturalism just as does the scientist who is at heart a philosophical naturalist and takes his ideology for science.

When a scientist does not understand the proper limit and scope of science then he will make ultimate claims about matters which transcend natural science. A strict MN, or positivism “in science only”, does not properly allow any more than the study of the quantifiable aspects of things and their relations.

 

[itinerant1]

Whether or not a scientist believes in naturalism is besides the point that he is still professionally bound to give naturalistic explanations for the workings of nature.

If the the quantifiable aspects of things and their relations are not explained by tracing one natural event to another, then it is not natural or positive science.

To give naturalistic explanations for all phenomena is just as bad as actually believing that only natural causes exist.

That is a non sequitur.

I see no place in a chemistry text for supernatural explanations of chemical bonds. Otherwise, that would be some strange course in chemistry…

If the naturalistic view of reality is unjustifiable outside of scientific theory,it cannot be justifiable within it either.

Your conclusion does not logically follow from your premiss.

Plantiga is a logician and philosopher,and some of the proponents of Intelligent Design are scientists. The belief in Intelligent Design does not affect the results of scientific research,it affects the way that phenomena are explained.

Not only are the post-investigative explanations significant, but so are the pre-investigative asumptions which determine what questions are asked.

ID theorists are not doing science. ID theorists makes no scientific discoveries; they do not add to the advancement of scientific knowledge; and they do not publish in mainline peer-reviewed journals. ID theorists give non-scientific, god-of-the-gaps answers to scientific problems.

As such, ID theory remains unproven and beyond the proper scope and province of the natural sciences. ID theory is an anti-science ideology.

 

[anthony022071]

God’s intelligence and power enabled the creation of a universe (and all of its natural elements) to be encoded with self perpetuating cycles.

God sustains the workings of nature in act by his own power. He did not just program nature to be self-sufficient or self-perpetuating. God’s exerts his power over in person,not in a detached,mechanical way. If he made the natural world to function independently of himself,then he does not wield power over it and makes himself unnecessary to it once it is created. This way of thinking goes against the doctrines of creation and divine providence and against reason.

 

[anthony022071]

What are some examples that you think are non sequiturs and absurdities in scientific theories that result from MN? Be specific.

I gave examples repeatedly in the other thread. The idea that natural selection (environmental factors,adaptational needs and genetic mutations) produces new species,when in fact new species are produced by acts of conception and reproduction,which are acts of individual creation. The idea that nothingness produces particles through mechanisms. The idea that human thought is produced by neurons themselves,when they are only conduits of information. The idea that randomness or chance can produce functional order. The idea that proteins and amino acids can produce living cells through a series of mechanisms or chemical reations.

This is not an accurate description of MN. What you have described are situations in which a scientist personally believes that MN necessarily entails philosophical naturalism.

I wasn’t describing those situation,I was describing the contents of scientific theories themselves,where natural causes are given the power to create species,life,order,thought and physical particles.

Again, what you are describing is not strictly MN is scientific research, but a transgression of the proper scope and limit of science. You have conflated MN with philosophical naturalism just as does the scientist who is at heart a philosophical naturalist and takes his ideology for science.

No,I am not talking about philosophy,but a simple way of viewing the natural world,what you once called the special perspective of science. What is that special perspective? The naturalistic perspective! Hence the name,methodological naturalism.

When a scientist does not understand the proper limit and scope of science then he will make ultimate claims about matters which transcend natural science. A strict MN, or positivism “in science only”, does not properly allow any more than the study of the quantifiable aspects of things and their relations.

It allows for science to make theories in which only natural causes can exist and which can accomplish things that are far beyond them. And these theories are promoted outside of scientific professionals,in school-rooms,popular science magazines and books,newspapers,television shows. What does “in science only” mean? When scientific theories about the the natural world are publicized,the naturalistic view is publicized along with them. Science is trying to convert the world to naturalism. Not the philosophical kind (as with Spinoza),but the scientific kind.

 

[itinerant1]

I gave examples repeatedly in the other thread. The idea that natural selection (environmental factors,adaptational needs and genetic mutations) produces new species,when in fact new species are produced by acts of conception and reproduction,which are acts of individual creation.

I was hoping that you could be more specific. Nonetheless, you stated your position “as in fact new species are produced by acts of conception and reproduction,which are acts of individual creation.” What this is supposed to mean in the context of your argument remains ambiguous. That is, conception and reproduction are natural biological processes.:

(1) Science should be able to tell us what role conception and reproduction play in the generation of new species. But you do not allow even for this based on your opposition to scientific explanation.

(2) There is no scientific evidence that conception and reproduction are the primary or only natural factors involved in the production of new species. The evidence shows the role the environment plays on phenotypic differences, and those differences most suited to a particular environment have a higher survival rate. When a variation becomes well-marked and differs from the parent species to the degree of achieving reproductive isolation, then a new species has naturally emerged.

(3) Your use of the term “creation” is ambiguous. If you mean “creation” in the natural, scientific sense, as generation resulting from a confluence of natural causes, then according to #2, there is no scientific evidence for your claim that conception and reproduction by themselves account for new species. Or, least you have not presented any evidence in support of your claim. That is, you have not provided any evidence for your claim that speciation is an overnight event.

(4) If you are using the term “creation” in its theological sense, then the problem becomes such that there is no theological basis for your contention that new species indiviually created. If anything, the Bible implies that continued creation, creatio ex nihilo, of new species is not what God does. Creation proper was completed on the Sixth Day: “Thus heaven and earth were completed with all their array. On the seventh day God had completed the work he had been doing. He rested on the seventh day after all the work he had been doing (Genesis 2:1-2).” Yet, you would argue, contrary to Scripture, that God continues creating the heavens and the earth, and everything on the earth, after Day Six.

The idea that nothingness produces particles through mechanisms. The idea that human thought is produced by neurons themselves,when they are only conduits of information. The idea that randomness or chance can produce functional order.

Now you are actually arguing in favor of observing methodological naturalism. As I have previous shown through a number of posts in the thread from whence you jumped off, the utter scientific illegitimacy of the quantum mechanical idea of particles arising ex nihilo. This idea of QM is not “science”; it is rather, a “philosophy” of QM, which arose out of the Copenhagen school. And as a philosophy or ideology, it transgresses the methods of MN, and goes well beyond the proper scope and limit of the natural sciences.

Similar conclusions pertain to the reduction of human thought neuro-physiological processes. This is not proper science as the conclusion often entails a prior investigative ideological assumption of “monism”. Furthermore, from the perspective of proper scientific method, the foregoing reduction violates Lloyd Morgan’s Canon.

Again for “randomness” and “chance”…The assumption that an ultimate randomness resulted in the order of the universe with its laws of nature, violates MN or a positivistic “method” in science by its assumption of metaphysical materialism.

The idea that proteins and amino acids can produce living cells through a series of mechanisms or chemical reations.

There is nothing in the natural sciences, classical philosophy, or Revelation that says *abiogenesis *is not possible. Matter is already very specific and fully capable of fulfilling the purposes for which God created it. Furthermore, you have offered no evidence to support your gripe against abiogenesis.

 

[itinerant1]

It allows for science to make theories in which only natural causes can exist and which can accomplish things that are far beyond them. And these theories are promoted outside of scientific professionals,in school-rooms,popular science magazines and books,newspapers,television shows. What does “in science only” mean? When scientific theories about the the natural world are publicized,the naturalistic view is publicized along with them. Science is trying to convert the world to naturalism. Not the philosophical kind (as with Spinoza),but the scientific kind.

Science can only study natural causes. A chemist only studies the chemical properties of things. Consult any chemistry text. The astronomer only studies what is observable in space. A scientist, on a personal level, may believe nothing more exists than what can be observed, or, he may believe that the observable and physical is only a small part of what actually exists, and not even the most important part. These are philosophical and religious beliefs, not scientific ones.

If a scientist theorizes philosophically on his area of study, he does not speak “as a scientist”. He speaks “as a man”, “as a philosopher”, or “as a religious person”. He has a right to do that whatever his beliefs may be.

Science per se is not trying to convert the world to naturalism. Many atheists and materialists, who are also scientists, are using science, rather, to convert the world to their philosophical worldview. Neo-Darwinism is an ideology wrapped in a scientific coat. One needs to separate the ideology from the genuine science. If more Darwinists observed MN in science, then we would not get so much ideological interpretation of natural events.

That is why I maintain that MN is appropriate for science. However, for obvious reasons, it is not at all appropriate for philosophy. And MN does not necessarily require a philosophical naturalism. It is an error in thinking if any scientist believes that MN necessarily requires an adoption of philosophical naturalism.

Atheist and materialist scientists are generally atheist and materialist before they go into science, because that is what a post-Christian culture produces. In more Christian times, very many scientists were believers. During the 19th century, many leading scientists were believers. The middle to latter 20th century appears to have had a notable increase in atheists in the field of science, though the public generally knows only of the popular, more vocal ones, since they stand out. In any period, though, science gets politicized and otherwise misused.

Nonetheless, a Christian scientist, as a scientist, should not mix his theology with scientific explanations, any more than an atheist should mix his ideology with science. There is a place for Christian scientists to publish their theological or philosophical reflections on science. The correct place, though, is not in the scientific journals where they publish their research findings. And there are many good reasons for that.

 

[kenofken]

This thread continues an argument from another thread forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=7208200#post7208200 about whether or not methodological naturalism is a valid approach to finding out the truth about the workings of the natural world.

Methodological naturalism is the way that scientists view and explain the natural world in their research and theories,whereby all natural phenomena are to be explained with natural causes alone. This approach to explaining natural phenomena may seem to be reasonable,but it leads to non sequiturs and absurdities in scientific theories. Naturalism (the belief that only nature exists) is an unjustifiable and false view to begin with,and it does not become justifiable when it is used,as if it were true,by scientists to explain the workings of nature. A false view of nature leads to false interpretations of nature. When the power of God in nature is ignored,science attributes to natural causes,or so-called “mechanisms” power to do things that they cannot possibly have. That is,natural causes or “mechanisms” are attributed with the ability to do things only a power over nature,a super-natural power,could logically do,such as create living organisms and natural order and human thought,and make physical matter come into existence. The theories of science in regard to the origin of life,order,thought and the universe lead people to view the workings of nature according to the naturalistic and mechanistic view of science,which contradicts the Catholic doctrines of creation and divine providence and reason as well.

Science doesn’t, as a discipline, make any statement about whether supernatural intelligence exists or not. What it does say is that the universe as we have been able to engage it with our senses is explainable in terms of natural processes. It has succeeded far more often than not in that endeavor. Systems which attribute everyday processes to unknowable supernatural forces and the constant personal intervention of deity have been losing ground steadily since at least the time of the ancient Greeks. They have been in a galloping retreat since the late 1700s. Those who maintain that life and the universe are “irreducably complex” are being discredited at a rate which actually accelerates every day. None of it diminishes the possibilities or grandeur of god(s) in any way. Science does not purport to answer the big picture “why” question, only the “how.”

 

[anthony022071]

Science doesn’t, as a discipline, make any statement about whether supernatural intelligence exists or not.

Methodological naturalism assumes that all phenomena can be adequately explained with natural causes alone. That is an unjustifiable assumption in itself,and it is based upon the unjustifiable assumption that there is no supernatural causation in the natural world.

What it does say is that the universe as we have been able to engage it with our senses is explainable in terms of natural processes. It has succeeded far more often than not in that endeavor.

Of course science can explain all phenomena,in a practical sense,with natural causes alone,but not everything can be adequately or logically explained in that manner. If you already trust in MD,then of course you will be uncritically satisfied with naturalistc explanations for everything.

Systems which attribute everyday processes to unknowable supernatural forces and the constant personal intervention of deity have been losing ground steadily since at least the time of the ancient Greeks. They have been in a galloping retreat since the late 1700s.

The Greeks and Romans for the most part continued to believe in supernatural intervention,regardless of what some of the philosophers and scientists and physicians taught. And with the spread of the Catholic Church,the belief in God’s intervention was widespread throughout Europe. The Scholastic philosophy did not go into a galloping retreat,it was just abandoned by the most famous intellectuals without serious debate,in favor of naturalistic and mechanistic explanations. Reason was confined by deism and naturalism.

I’m not proposing unknowable supernatural forces,I’m proposing what is knowable about God’s power. God is all-powerful and wields his power over all of nature,especially in regard to the existence of matter,order and life. The opinion that the supernatural is unknowable is unjustifiable. It puts an unjustifiable limit upon reason and upon the supernatural. Knowledge is not limited to things that can be physically apprehended.

Those who maintain that life and the universe are “irreducably complex” are being discredited at a rate which actually accelerates every day.

Has someone measured that? And who regards intelligent design theorists as discredited,besides those who already trust in the naturalistic view of science?

None of it diminishes the possibilities or grandeur of god(s) in any way. Science does not purport to answer the big picture “why” question, only the “how.”

Naturalistic science does diminish God,and reason as well,because it ignores what can be known about God’s power over nature. There’s no point in making a dichotomy between questions of why and how,because they often overlap. How questions often call for or include the same or similar answers as why questions,and vice versa. How questions do not always call for a natural answer,and why questions do not always call for a philosophical or theological answer. Why does the universe exist? Because God made it through his Word. How did the universe originate? God made it originate through his Word. How do species originate? They are conceived into being by the power of God’s spirit,working upon the genetic matter of parents. Why do species originate? Because God conceives them into being by the power of his spirit,working upon the genetic matter of parents.

 

[anthony022071]

I was hoping that you could be more specific. Nonetheless, you stated your position “as in fact new species are produced by acts of conception and reproduction,which are acts of individual creation.” What this is supposed to mean in the context of your argument remains ambiguous. That is, conception and reproduction are natural biological processes.:

The examples I gave were specific. What is ambiguous about seeing conception and reproduction as acts of individual creation? They are not only biological phenomena,they are acts of God’s spirit upon genetic material. That is why the Church teaches that life begins at conception (beginning) and that persons are created in the image and likeness of God. Biological processes cannot create persons in the image and likeness of God,nor can they even create animal bodies by themselves. It is the other way around. The biological processes involved in conception and reproduction are made to happen by the power of the Holy Spirit. (John 6:63 “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.”)

(1) Science should be able to tell us what role conception and reproduction play in the generation of new species. But you do not allow even for this based on your opposition to scientific explanation.

Science glosses over the reality of conception and reproduction,or parentage,in favor of process. Darwin’s motivation for developing his theory of natural selection was that he wanted to debunk the idea of individual creation of species. And species are,of course,made up of individuals that are conceived into being. So Darwin had to ignore the reality of conception and reproduction and explain the origins of species in terms of a gradual process involving many environmental factors,as if he were talking about a dead,monolithic substance,like rock formations.

(2) There is no scientific evidence that conception and reproduction are the primary or only natural factors involved in the production of new species. The evidence shows the role the environment plays on phenotypic differences, and those differences most suited to a particular environment have a higher survival rate. When a variation becomes well-marked and differs from the parent species to the degree of achieving reproductive isolation, then a new species has naturally emerged.

Species exist as individual creatures that are conceived into existence. Environmental factors can kill off creatures and affect their growth and appearance,but they cannot make creatures come into existence. Only God and parents make creatures,and therefore species,come into existence.

(3) Your use of the term “creation” is ambiguous. If you mean “creation” in the natural, scientific sense, as generation resulting from a confluence of natural causes, then according to #2, there is no scientific evidence for your claim that conception and reproduction by themselves account for new species. Or, least you have not presented any evidence in support of your claim. That is, you have not provided any evidence for your claim that speciation is an overnight event.

Creation in the natural sense does not have to be naturalistic. We don’t have to confine our explanations for all phenomena to natural factors just because phenomena are natural. That would be to assume that natural factors alone are always adequate to explain phenomena or that there is no supernatural causation.

 

[itinerant1]

Methodological naturalism assumes that all phenomena can be adequately explained with natural causes alone. That is an unjustifiable assumption in itself,and it is based upon the unjustifiable assumption that there is no supernatural causation in the natural world.

The second part of your statement is false. MN ignores, or scientific method ignores supernatural causes. To “ignore” is very different than to “deny”. This has been explained to you a number of times in the past, but you continue with the same strawman fallacy. You seem to be content with having based your position on a logical fallacy.

 

[itinerant1]

The examples I gave were specific. What is ambiguous about seeing conception and reproduction as acts of individual creation?

It is ambiguous because they are not acts of individual creation (creatio ex nihilo) as regards all species, except man. In the case of man, the soul, and only the soul, is created directly at conception. And even regarding this, science does not study, since creation and soul are not measurable. Science has no competency to study the soul. Hence your argument is going nowhere.

They are not only biological phenomena,they are acts of God’s spirit upon genetic material. That is why the Church teaches that life begins at conception (beginning) and that persons are created in the image and likeness of God. Biological processes cannot create persons in the image and likeness of God,nor can they even create animal bodies by themselves. It is the other way around. The biological processes involved in conception and reproduction are made to happen by the power of the Holy Spirit. (John 6:63 “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.”)

You have changed your answer to now center on human conception, when previously what was being discussed was the origin of new species in general. Hence, your remarks here are irrelevant to the gist of the discussion. You have tried to answer the issue of origins “in general” by abruptly changing and focussing exclusively on man. You have merely evaded the issue and failed to address the matter.

Science glosses over the reality of conception and reproduction,or parentage,in favor of process. Darwin’s motivation for developing his theory of natural selection was that he wanted to debunk the idea of individual creation of species. And species are,of course,made up of individuals that are conceived into being. So Darwin had to ignore the reality of conception and reproduction and explain the origins of species in terms of a gradual process involving many environmental factors,as if he were talking about a dead,monolithic substance,like rock formations.

You forgot to mention two things:
(1) Darwin succeeded in conclusively disproving the individual creation of each species, and
(2) the Church debunks the unproven hypothesis of the individual creation of each species.

Species exist as individual creatures that are conceived into existence. Environmental factors can kill off creatures and affect their growth and appearance,but they cannot make creatures come into existence. Only God and parents make creatures,and therefore species,come into existence.

Your statement begs the question.

God does not directly create each species.

Creation in the natural sense does not have to be naturalistic.

So, now you are advocating double-speak by saying the natural is not-natural.

We don’t have to confine our explanations for all phenomena to natural factors just because phenomena are natural. That would be to assume that natural factors alone are always adequate to explain phenomena or that there is no supernatural causation.

“We” don’t have to confine our explanations. True. But that deviates from the topic. That is, scientists, “as scientists” must confine their explanations, which is what this discussion is about. Hence, your statement fails to address the issue.

 

[itinerant1]

Of course science can explain all phenomena,in a practical sense,with natural causes alone,but not everything can be adequately or logically explained in that manner.

Not everything can be explained by means of natural causes, and if it can’t, then it remains outside the scope and competency of science to address it.

If you already trust in MD,then of course you will be uncritically satisfied with naturalistc explanations for everything.

Huh?

 

[itinerant1]

Whether or not a scientist believes in naturalism is besides the point that he is still professionally bound to give naturalistic explanations for the workings of nature. To give naturalistic explanations for all phenomena is just as bad as actually believing that only natural causes exist. If the naturalistic view of reality is unjustifiable outside of scientific theory,it cannot be justifiable within it either.

You answer makes little sense. For example, to state the mathematical properties of a thing is not the same as believing there is nothing more to a thing than its quantifiable aspect.

 

[anthony022071]

The second part of your statement is false. MN ignores, or scientific method ignores supernatural causes. To “ignore” is very different than to “deny”. This has been explained to you a number of times in the past, but you continue with the same strawman fallacy. You seem to be content with having based your position on a logical fallacy.

MN does deny the use of supernatural causation in scientific theory. That is what I mean by deny. To have a professional policy of ignoring the possibility of supernatural causation is to deny it consideration and relevance. And scientists do not only deny the supernatural in scientific work,but contradict the belief in God’s power in nature outside of scientific work as well. Scientists do not just compartmentalize their scientific beliefs any more than they can compartmentalize the fact that they are scientists. They believe in naturalistic theories whether they speak ex cathedra or not,and they communicate those theories outside of their research papers or other professional activity,

 

[itinerant1]

Has someone measured that? And who regards intelligent design theorists as discredited,besides those who already trust in the naturalistic view of science?

The list of those who have discounted ID theory is a very long one, but I will mention a few names: Fr. Stanley L. Jaki, Cardinal Schönborn, Fr. Edward Oakes

 

[itinerant1]

MN does deny the use of supernatural causation in scientific theory. That is what I mean by deny. To have a professional policy of ignoring the possibility of supernatural causation is to deny it consideration and relevance. And scientists do not only deny the supernatural in scientific work,but contradict the belief in God’s power in nature outside of scientific work as well. Scientists do not just compartmentalize their scientific beliefs any more than they can compartmentalize the fact that they are scientists. They believe in naturalistic theories whether they speak ex cathedra or not,and they communicate those theories outside of their research papers or other professional activity,

The one problem with your statement is that it is contrary to the facts. I know of numerous scientists who do not fit into the little box you created for them.

I suspect you have never studied any natural science in any depth at all, if at all.

 

[anthony022071]

You answer makes little sense. For example, to state the mathematical properties of a thing is not the same as believing there is nothing more to a thing than its quantifiable aspect.

There is no need to acknowledge supernatural causation in mathematics anyway. Mathematics is not about the study of physical things where the power of God is at work. MN does not affect the science of mathematics,it affects they way in which natural sciences explain living things,order,thought,and the origination of the universe – because those are the subjects in which it is necessary to acknowledge God’s power.