The Many Inadequate Justifications of Methodological Naturalism

被引:4
作者
Lamer, Robert A. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ New Brunswick, Dept Philosophy, 19 Macaulay Lane,Carleton Hall 211, Fredericton, NB E3B 5A3, Canada
关键词
Ad hominem fallacy; nomological science; historical science; supernatural agency; inductive generalization; Robert Pennock;
D O I
10.31577/orgf.2019.26102
中图分类号
B [哲学、宗教];
学科分类号
01 ; 0101 ;
摘要
Contrary to proponents' claims, methodological naturalism is not metaphysically neutral. Consequently, its acceptance as a practice requires justification. Unfortunately for its advocates, attempts to justify it are failures. It cannot be defended as a definition, or a self-imposed limitation, of science. nor, more modestly, as an inductively justified commitment to natural causes. As a practice, it functions not to further scientific investigation, but rather to impose an explanatory straitjacket.
引用
收藏
页码:5 / 24
页数:20
相关论文
共 31 条
  • [1] [Anonymous], 2010, DIVINE INTERVENTION
  • [2] [Anonymous], 2013, PHILOS PSEUDOSCIENCE
  • [3] How Not to Attack Intelligent Design Creationism: Philosophical Misconceptions About Methodological Naturalism
    Boudry, Maarten
    Blancke, Stefaan
    Braeckman, Johan
    [J]. FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENCE, 2010, 15 (03) : 227 - 244
  • [4] Burtt E., 1932, METAPHYSICAL FDN MOD
  • [5] Craig W. L., 2009, BLACKWELL COMPANION, P101, DOI DOI 10.1002/9781444308334.CH3
  • [6] Davis Ted, 2012, SCI BIBLE INTELLIG 3
  • [7] Del Ratzsch, 2004, Faith and Philosophy, V21, P436
  • [8] Dembski WilliamA., 2004, DESIGN REVOLUTION
  • [9] Dilley StephenC., 2010, PHILOS CHRISTI, V12, P118, DOI DOI 10.5840/PC20101218
  • [10] Draper Paul., 2005, The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Religion, P272