If science really is permanently committed to methodological naturalism – the philosophical position that restricts all explanations in science to naturalistic explanations - it follows that the aim of science is not generating true theories. Instead, the aim of science would be something like: generating the best theories that can be formulated subject to the restriction that the theories are naturalistic. More and more evidence could come in suggesting that a supernatural being exists, but scientific theories wouldn’t be allowed to acknowledge that possibility.
- Bradley Monton, author of Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design (quote found here)
I'm more inclined to think that the reason scientific theories don't acknowledge God's existence is that God is not part of the natural world. Science studies the creation; theology studies the Creator. I'm discovering that I lean more and more towards an instrumentalist (not sure if I'm quite a social constructivist) view of science. The purpose of science is to understand and explain the world in particular kinds of terms - "natural" ones - so that we can do our best to control nature, or at least to improve our experience in this world. I do still believe in truth - ultimately, there is one true understanding/explanation of nature - I just doubt humanity's ability to find it, and to know that we've found it.




















