Methodological Naturalism for All
William Lane Craig, in Five Views on Apologetics, raises an interesting point in his response to evidentialist, Gary Habermas. The context in which he makes this statement is a discussion of the evidential significance of miracles for the Christian faith.
Scientists claim that we cannot allow supernatural explanations in our study of the universe. This stance is called methodological naturalism, a commitment to allow only natural explanations for observed phenomenon. This is to be contrasted with philosophical or metaphysical naturalism, which claims that “nature” is all there is.
Methodological naturalism is not limited to science. Historians, as well, have a commitment to methodological naturalism. The supernatural is ruled out a priori as an explanation for events. Thus, miracles are not historical events. The resurrection could not have occurred. Only natural explanations are allowed. Now, here is what Craig says which caught my attention:
Similarly, natural theologians who argue inductively must confront in science the same obstacle as Christian evidentialists do in hisotry, namely, methodological naturalism. It is frequently asserted that the professional scientist or historian is methodologically committed to seeking only natural causes as explanations of their respective data, which procedure rules out inference to God as the best explanation. It is puzzling that some methodological naturalists in science, such as Howard Van Till with his doctrine of the “functional integrity” of creation, nevertheless want to dismiss methodological naturalism when it comes to history and to affirm the historicity of the gospel miracles. One cannot, it seems to me, have it both ways. (emphasis mine)
It seems to me, also, that there is an inconsistency in those who hold that we must honor science’s commitment to methodological naturalism while rejecting the historian’s. The natural theologian, as Craig points out, is often labeled with a “God of the gaps” label for his insistence in allowing supernatural explanations. What difference is there in the historian who appeals to supernatural explanations for events? Craig claims:
The problem is exactly parallel: what justifies us in inferring from the failure of naturalistic explanations of the data a miraculous explanation?
To be consistent, it seems those Christians who insist on methodological naturalism in science would also insist on it in history. Of course, I am not stating that we should yield to the claims of methodological naturalism in either case. The goal of science and history should be to arrive at the best explanation. Excluding possible explanations at the outset may blind one to the truth.