Why methodological naturalism?∗

I discuss motivations for methodological naturalism in science. I argue that methodological naturalism neither needs nor supports metaphysical naturalism. We are the beneficiaries of many generations’ efforts to unlock the mysteries of nature. The best scientific theories of today have achieved unparalleled predictive success, and this success provides some evidence that these theories have latched onto the structure of reality. Why has science been so successful? What are some defining characteristics of the scientific approach, and of its products, scientific theories? One striking feature of these theories is that they are naturalistic: they don’t mention gods, demons, or any other supernatural beings. Does the absence of supernatural beings from our best scientific theories provide evidence for the absence of such beings from reality? Contrapositively, should a person who believes in supernatural entities, most notably a theist, find scientific theories to be inadequate if they don’t include these entities? I will argue that the answer to this question is No. In particular, I will argue that there are good reasons — most especially for theists — to restrict scientific investigations to the natural world. Consequently, the success of methodologically naturalistic science does not in any way detract from the plausibility of supernaturalist theism. ∗An abbreviated version will appear in The Blackwell Handbook of Naturalism, ed. Kelly James Clark.