Should Methodological Naturalists Commit to Metaphysical Naturalism?

  • Zahra ZargarEmail author
  • Ebrahim Azadegan
  • Lotfollah Nabavi


It is widely supposed that methodological naturalism, understood as a thesis about the methodology of science, is metaphysically neutral, and that this in turn guarantees the value-neutrality of science. In this paper we argue that methodological naturalism is underpinned by certain ontological and epistemological assumptions including evidentialism and the causal closure of the physical, adoption of which necessitates commitment to metaphysical naturalism.


Methodological naturalism Metaphysical naturalism Causal closure of the physical Evidentialism 



  1. Boudry, M., Blancke, S., & Braeckman, J. (2010). How not to attack intelligent design creationism: Philosophical misconceptions about methodological naturalism. Foundations of Science, 15(3), 227–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Clifford, W. (1886). The ethics of belief. In L. Stephen & F. Pollock (Eds.), Lectures and essays. London: Macmillan and Co.Google Scholar
  3. Feldman, R., & Conee, E. (1985). Evidentialism. Philosophical Studies, 48(1), 15–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Forrest, B. (2000). Methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism, clarifying the connection. Philo, 3(2), 7–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Garcia, R. (2014). Closing in on causal closure. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 21(1–2), 96–109.Google Scholar
  6. Halvorson, H. (2016). Why methodological naturalism? In K. J. Clark (Ed.), The Blackwell companion to naturalism (1st ed., pp. 134–149). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  7. Hook, S. (1927). The metaphysics of pragmatism. Chicago: Open Court Publishing.Google Scholar
  8. Kim, J. (1998). Mind in a physical world: An essay on the mind-body problem and mental causation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kitcher, P. (1989). Explanatory unification and the causal structure of the world. In P. Kitcher & W. Salmon (Eds.), Scientific explanation (pp. 410–505). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  10. Lewis, D. (1986). Causal explanation. In Philosophical papers (Vol. 2, pp. 214–240). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Lipton, P. (2000). Inference to the best explanation. In W. H. Newton-Smith (Ed.), A companion to the philosophy of science (pp. 184–193). Hoboken: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  12. Mackie, J. L. (1965). Causes and conditions. American Philosophical Quarterly, 2(4), 245–264.Google Scholar
  13. MacMullin, E. (2001). Plantinga’s defense of special creation. In R. Pennock (Ed.), Intelligent design creationism and its critics: Philosophical, theological and scientific perspectives (pp. 165–196). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. Mahner, M. (2012). The role of metaphysical naturalism in science. Science & Education, 21(10), 1437–1459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Nerlich, G. (1979). What can geometry explain? British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 30(4), 69–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Pennock, R. T. (2011). Can’t philosophers tell the difference between science and religion?: Demarcation revisited. Synthese, 178(2), 177–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Plantinga, A., & Tooley, M. (2008). Knowledge of god. Hoboken: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Reutlinger, A. (2017). Explanation beyond causation? New directions in the philosophy of scientific explanation. Philosophy Compass, 12(3), e12395. Scholar
  19. Ruse, M. (2005). Methodological naturalism under attack. South African Journal of Philosophy, 24(1), 44–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Salmon, W. (1984). Scientific explanation and the causal structure of the world. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Salmon, W. (1998). Causality and explanation. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Spurrett, D., & Papineau, D. (1999). A note on the completeness of ‘physics’. Analysis, 59(1), 25–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Torrance, A. B. (2017). Should a christian adopt methodological naturalism? Zygon Journal of Religion and Science, 52(3), 691–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyTarbiat Modares UniversityTehranIran
  2. 2.Department of Philosophy of ScienceSharif University of TechnologyTehranIran

Personalised recommendations