Not in science or in any other context does one faith get to impose its terms on others. That sounds like common sense. But a concern about being scientifically or politically acceptable often causes us to feel intimidated into accepting disguised religious terms that are not our own, when we’re really under no obligation to do so. With that in mind, I want to highlight a post here from earlier today, “Methodological Naturalism as Religion in Disguise.”
The key point: “If the observable data points to outcomes that natural causes cannot adequately explain, then ruling out supernatural causes from the outset is not scientific humility — it’s dogma.”
A Random Example
Religion in disguise is more common than you might think. As a random example, the other day on our Seattle NPR station I was listening to an interview with a local trans activist. The activist, Danni Askini, was saying that trans identity is not a medical practice but a spiritual one. As the activist candidly said, it is a religion where the essential activity is not going to church but going to the doctor (whether for surgery or medication). I don’t think that Askini, who goes by “they/she,” had fully thought through the implications. If trans is a religion, then you don’t have the right to tell others to accept your preferred religious language, and call you “she” rather than the more biologically accurate “he,” or to adhere to your preferred framing of reality at all.
That is a scientific context, since biology is a science, but in the philosophical scientific context of methodological naturalism (MN), adherents of the dogma, whether atheists or theistic evolutionists, don’t get to dictate to others that they must accept the framing where only natural, never supernatural, causation is scientifically acceptable. We outside the walls of MN always have to bear that in mind. Mutual respect is one thing. Dictating terms is another.
