What is metaphysical naturalism?

Response

Metaphysical naturalism asserts that only the natural world exists. While there are various interpretations of naturalist perspectives, they all concur that supernatural intervention, miracles, intelligence, or purpose beyond the universe itself are nonexistent. For most proponents of this viewpoint, metaphysical naturalism aligns with materialism, which posits that matter and energy constitute the entirety of existence.

Metaphysical naturalism differs fundamentally from methodological naturalism, which is a broad approach to elucidating observations. Methodological naturalism, as its name suggests, is a methodology employed in research and evaluation, particularly within the realm of science. For instance, when investigating why water expands upon freezing, researchers seek a physical explanation. The underlying assumption is that commonplace phenomena are typically explicable through natural processes, a notion that empirical exploration tends to uphold.

Despite assertions by some naturalists, the practical efficacy of methodological naturalism in most scenarios does not validate metaphysical naturalism. In philosophy, metaphysics pertains to the study of the fundamental nature of the universe. A metaphysical assertion proposes a perspective on how things truly exist. Metaphysical naturalism would view the statement “only matter and energy exist” as a declaration of absolute reality. Drawing such a conclusion solely from the customary application of methodological naturalism is illogical.

To illustrate, envision a man in a solo submarine at the ocean floor. After dozing off, he wakes to find unfamiliar words inscribed in his journal. The most plausible explanation would be that he either forgot writing them or is experiencing a mental lapse. The notion that someone infiltrated his submarine, located thousands of feet underwater, appears inconceivable given the circumstances.

Knows. Therefore, it makes sense to assume a more “natural” explanation, at least until more evidence surfaces. That is the essence of methodological naturalism. Pursuing that line of thought, the man in the submarine would try to piece together information to see when or how he might have written something and not remembered.

However, if the words in the journal were written in red pen, and all the man has on board the submarine are pencils, that’s a different story. If searching the tiny sub produces no red pens, then the “unnatural” idea that someone stole it from the outside is not entirely off the table. The absence of red pens doesn’t absolutely prove an interloper, but, sooner or later, mounting evidence might leave that as the only logical option. Continuing to look for a more “natural” explanation, while also realizing that further investigation might imply an intruder, still accords with methodological naturalism.

On the other hand, if the man absolutely rejects the possibility of a visitor and forces all evidence to be explained in conformity to that axiom, he’s taking the path of metaphysical naturalism. In that case, the man in the submarine is starting from a conclusion—there is no possible way anyone else could get in here—and interpreting his observations accordingly. That would be particularly irrational if he found evidence incompatible with his “natural” assumption, such as someone else’s wedding ring lying on the floor. The more evidence he sees that some other person has been in his submarine, the less reasonable it would be to simply keep stating, “Well, that can’t happen, so this evidence has to mean something else” see Proverbs 18:17.

The key to unlocking methodological naturalism from metaphysical naturalism is summed up in a quote from the fictional detective Sherlock Holmes:

“When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth” (Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, “The Adventure of the Blanched So

Soldier,” 1926).

When exploring topics such as the origin of life or the universe itself, natural explanations eventually fall short. In those instances, it is perfectly rational to propose something beyond the natural as an explanation.

The Bible clearly contradicts the concept of metaphysical naturalism “The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, There is none that doeth good.”, (Psalm 14:1), but it supports methodological naturalism. Contrary to popular belief, Scripture does not suggest that miracles are common occurrences. Instead, it indicates that God has openly intervened in history only on rare occasions and solely to demonstrate or prove a divine message. The concept that God primarily allows creation to function according to consistent rules (methodological) does not imply that He cannot or will not intervene (metaphysical). In reality, the belief that the universe operates based on consistent, dependable rules—enabling methodological naturalism—was a distinctively Judeo-Christian idea that influenced the development of the scientific method.