Magnets, magic, and other anomalies: In defense of methodological naturalism

John Perry, Sarah Ritchie

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


Recent critiques of methodological naturalism (MN) claim that it fails by conflicting with Christian belief and being insufficiently humble. We defend MN by tracing the real history of the debate, contending that the story as it’s usually told is mythic. We show how MN works in practice, including among real scientists. The debate is a red herring. It only appears problematic because of confusion among its opponents about how scientists respond to experimental anomalies. We conclude by introducing our preferred approach, Science-Engaged Theology.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1064-1093
Issue number4
Early online date21 Nov 2018
Publication statusPublished - Dec 2018


Dive into the research topics of 'Magnets, magic, and other anomalies: In defense of methodological naturalism'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this