Theism, naturalism, and scientific realism

Publication Type:

Language:

Author(s): 
Jeffrey Koperski
Saginaw Valley State University
Issue number: 
no.3 (vol.53)
Pages: 
152-165
Abstract: 

Scientific knowledge is not merely a matter of reconciling theories and laws with data and observations.  Science presupposes a number of metatheoretic shaping principles in order to judge good methods and theories from bad.  Some of these principles are metaphysical (e.g., the uniformity of nature) and some are methodological (e.g., the need for repeatable experiments).  While many shaping principles have endured since the scientific revolution, others have changed in response to conceptual pressures both from within science and without.  Many of them have theistic roots.  For example, the notion that nature conforms to mathematical laws flows directly from the early modern presupposition that there is a divine Lawgiver.  This interplay between theism and shaping principles is often unappreciated in discussions about the relation between science and religion.  Today, of course, naturalists reject the influence of theism and prefer to do science on their terms.  But as Robert Koons and Alvin Plantinga have argued, this is more difficult than is typically assumed.  In particular, they argue, metaphysical naturalism is in conflict with several metatheoretic shaping principles, especially explanatory virtues such as simplicity and with scientific realism more broadly.  I will discuss these arguments as well as possible responses. In the end, theism is able to provide justification for the philosophical foundations of science that naturalism cannot. 

Keywords: 
laws of nature, naturalism, scientific realism, simplicity, theism
References: 

Cartwright, N. "Is Natural Science ‘Natural’ Enough? A Reply to Phillip Allport", Synthese, 1993, vol. 94, pp. 291–301.

Cotes, R., Newton, I. "Preface", in: F.Cajori (ed.), A.Mode (transl.). Principia Mathematica.Vol. 1. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1962, pp.14-38.

Fodor, J. "Is Science Biologically Possible?", in: J.Beilby (ed.).  Is Naturalism Defeated?: Essays on Plantinga’s Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2002, pp. 30–42.

Gefter, A. "The Evolutionary Argument Against Reality", Quanta Magazine, 2016, April 21. [https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160421-the-evolutionary-argument-agains..., accessed on 10.08.2016].

Harrison, P. "Laws of Nature in Seventeenth-Century England: From Cambridge Platonism to Newtonianism", in: E. Watkins (ed.). The Divine Order, the Human Order, and the Order of Nature: Historical Perspectives. NY: Oxford University Press, 2013, pp. 127–148.

Hoffman, D.D., Singh, M., Prakash, C. "The Interface Theory of Perception",  Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2015, vol. 22, no. 6, pp.1480–1506. (doi:10.3758/s13423-015-0890-8.)

Koons, R. "Science and Theism: Concord, Not Conflict", in: P. Copan, P.K. Moser (eds.). The Rationality of Theism. NY: Routledge, 2003, pp. 72–90.

Koperski, J. The Physics of Theism: God, Physics, and the Philosophy of Science. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2015. 288p.

Kuipers Theo, A.F. "Beauty, a Road to the Truth", Synthese, 2002, vol. 131, no.3, pp. 291–328.

Nagel, Th. Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False. NY: Oxford University Press, 2012. 144p.

Plantinga A. Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism. Oxford University Press, 2011. 376 p.

Ratzsch, D. Nature, Design, and Science. Albany: SUNY Press, 2001. 232p.

Sober, E.Ockham’s Razors: A User’s Manual. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015. 322p.

Stanford, P.K. Exceeding Our Grasp: Science, History, and the Problem of Unconceived Alternatives. NY: Oxford University Press, 2006. 248p.

Swinburne, R.The Existence of God. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979. 376p.

Weinberg, S.Dreams of a Final Theory. NY: Pantheon Books, 1992. 352p. 

DOI: 
10.5840/eps201753354
Full Text: