Scientific Methods and Sacred Matters: On Methodological Naturalism, Divine Agency, and Christians in Science.
This article critically analyzes the debate surrounding methodological naturalism (MN) within the context of scientific inquiry, focusing on the arguments put forth by Andrew Torrance on the one hand and John Perry and Sarah Lane Ritchie on the other. It begins with the medical mystery known as the...
| Publicado en: | Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science Vol. 59; no. 3; pp. 638 - 661 |
|---|---|
| Autor principal: | |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
Open Library of Humanities
Sep2024
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=182128244&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: hlh uiTerm: 182128244 longDbName: Humanities International Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 05912385 ZYG jtl: Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science issn: 05912385 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Sep2024 vid: 59 iid: 3 pid: 15576 pub: Open Library of Humanities artinfo: ui: 182128244 10.16995/zygon.11761 ppf: 638 ppct: 23 formats: fmt: – @attributes: type: T – @attributes: type: P size: 2.7MB tig: atl: Scientific Methods and Sacred Matters: On Methodological Naturalism, Divine Agency, and Christians in Science. aug: au: Mallary, Mitchell affil: Academic Administrator for Scholarship and Christianity in Oxford, Oxford, UK su: Spontaneous cancer regression Medical research personnel Scientific method Naturalism Christians sug: subj: Spontaneous cancer regression Medical research personnel Scientific method Naturalism Christians ab: This article critically analyzes the debate surrounding methodological naturalism (MN) within the context of scientific inquiry, focusing on the arguments put forth by Andrew Torrance on the one hand and John Perry and Sarah Lane Ritchie on the other. It begins with the medical mystery known as the spontaneous remission of cancer--sometimes identified as a "miracle"--posing the question of how Christian medical researchers should approach this anomaly. Thereafter, I consider how Torrance's rejection of MN, due to its perceived conflict with faith, would expect the Christian scientist to respond. Conversely, Perry and Ritchie defend MN, emphasizing its importance in maintaining scientific rigor and avoiding a "God of the gaps" approach. Subsequently, I demonstrate how both science and MN are conceived of differently between the two parties, indicating that this is primarily a semantic debate. Finally, after examining Torrance's response to Perry and Ritchie, I propose a more nuanced approach, advocating for methodological flexibility wherein the nature of the question being asked determines the appropriate method one should employ. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: Y custom: Copyright of Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science is the property of Open Library of Humanities and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. item: Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science holder: Open Library of Humanities dt: @attributes: year: 2024 holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|