نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
عنوان مقاله English
نویسندگان English
According to methodological naturalism, scientists exclusively employ the empirical scientific method in conducting scientific inquiry. Put differently, methodological naturalism entails setting aside a priori theological and metaphysical presuppositions in the scientific process to preserve neutrality. Proponents of this view consider it an indispensable methodological requirement of science; however, the question arises: “Does adherence to this doctrine endow science with sufficient explanatory adequacy for all phenomena without confronting it with fundamental challenges?” Employing a documentary-analytical method, this study compares the perspectives of Alvin Plantinga and Michael Ruse. Both philosophers challenge methodological naturalism, albeit from different angles. Ruse contends that methodological naturalism is incapable of explaining fundamental concepts such as existence, morality, purpose (teleology), and consciousness; consequently, he adopts an agnostic stance and deems the inference of ontological naturalism from methodological naturalism unjustified. In contrast, Plantinga considers methodological naturalism fundamentally deficient, argues that science is not value-neutral, and thereby defends “Augustinian science.” The authors of this paper argue that both perspectives entail theoretical shortcomings, highlighting issues such as epistemic suspension, methodological constraints, relativism, and a lack of comprehensiveness. Given that the naturalistic approach itself faces problems such as reductionism and the neglect of the hermeneutic context of understanding, the authors propose an integrative approach.
کلیدواژهها English
