An alternate look at Naturalism

It is conjecture based upon historical provenance. If you say this of materialism what can one say about immaterialism? It has no provenance; it can't even rise to the level of a promise. The only thing it has is an endless faith by its adherents.

What I think you wanted to go with was a god of the gaps argument. The latter sentences are ... interesting?

The term "methodological naturalism" is probably useful. But the philosophical terms are so vague.

At list methodological naturalism doesn't allow us simply to claim that "an invisible supernatural agent did it." It requires that we find some objective evidence.

~~ Paul

I have to admit that I've never understood what is meant by "supernatural", given that (as pointed out in the OP), people use it to refer to the same kinds of events and experiences which methodological naturalism refers to. Why call something "supernatural" a priori? Or why isn't gravity "supernatural", given that prior to Newton an invisible supernatural agent (God) was responsible for the movement of the heavenly bodies? Gravity turned out to be that invisible agent. Why did it get called "natural"?

The way that you use it above suggests that you mean an agent which is available to be invoked to fill an arbitrary explanatory gap, but otherwise leaves no footprint (a.k.a. your sig). At least that would be a meaningful distinction.

Linda

But that is the point. You cannot rule out what you call "an invisible supernatural agent" a priori, simply because you are ideologically opposed to the idea.

That depends on the definition. If it includes the fact that a supernatural agent cannot have any causal effect on the world, then I can rule it out. But yes, I can't rule out all possible definitions.

I don't want to turn this into yet another ID thread but this is thrown at the ID people all the time: that what they do isn't science because science doesn't allow for a supernatural agent. The ID guys say that the evidence does point towards intelligence but, to parrot the title of that ever so controversial documentary: no intelligence allowed.

Again, we need a really careful definition.

I do see the point that, by its nature, science has to work with the evidence it can test and replicate but it is arrogant and unjustifiable to take a philosophical position that the so-called natural is all there is. Firstly, the ID arguments should be considered respectfully rather than summarily dismissed as religious creationism as so often happens.

They have been considered respecfully. The analyses are rejected by the ID community. After that, mainstream scientists really don't owe them much.

Secondly, this reliance on promissory materialism is not scientific either. Saying that you are sure that the naturalistic explanation for consciousness or the origin of life will be found because other natural causes have been found is mere conjecture based, again, on ideology.

I don't think anyone says they are sure an explanation will be found. But please do notice that the supernatural proposals are all pretty much entirely promissory, since there is no objective evidence for them.

~~ Paul

I don't think anyone says they are sure an explanation will be found. But please do notice that the supernatural proposals are all pretty much entirely promissory, since there is no objective evidence for them.

~~ Paul

Again you are fixing the rules in advance. You demand objective evidence when, by its nature (unfortunate or ironic word but can't think of another right now) what we describe as supernatural is not objectively evident. Physical things are objectively evident - you can touch them, measure them, weigh them, etc. Mind is not in that category of measurable things. You can't, for example, set up a lab experiment with a "supernatural agent" and watch while it designs something (that's a facetious example but you get the gist, I'm sure).

Have you considered that RM+NS might be a convenient explanation but it does not offer proof? You might be able to show that something could have evolved that way but does that mean it did? Meyer talks about "inference to the best explanation" which is another way of saying he can't prove design but it may be the best explanation. Would you claim that neo-darwinian explanations amount to proof or inference? Maybe it is the best explanation if you fix the rules by prohibiting intelligence or teleology before you start looking for evidence. Certainly then, NS+RM will look like the only candidate (or maybe not even then, according to the Third Way folks).

Apologies again for steering the discussion into the muddy waters of evolutionary theory but it is an obvious case in point when discussing (methodological) naturalism.

However, the same could be said for any of the subjects we discuss here. Again we are assured that there are always mundane, "natural" explanations for any of the apparently paranormal, supernatural, anomalous evidence presented here and elsewhere. Indeed, we are constantly assured that there is no evidence whatsoever to be taken seriously. It is all delusion, fake or coincidence. Every single case - no white crows.

This view is forcefully elucidated by the British chemist, Peter Atkins and quoted by Jerry Coyne, here: 

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com...and-faith/

True scientific revolutions are utterly distinct from the revolutions proposed by those who hanker for the paranormal. Real scientists have no time for the reports of such phenomena. Indeed, they scorn the reports and regard all practitioners as contemptible charlatans. Although such scornful attitudes are seen by some as politically incorrect, and at worse a conspiracy of the scientific establishment to trample underfoot the green shoots of unorthodoxy, there is good reason to believe that all claims of authentic paranormal observations are hogwash. First, there are no authenticated, reliable observations of phenomena that cannot be explained by the principles of conventional science. Second, whereas true scientific observations are like a canvas stretched over a frame of theory, purported paranormal phenomena are isolated pimples of whimsical speculation that are not grounded in a coherent corpus of knowledge. Third, were purported paranormal phenomena ever to be authenticated, they would devastate the whole structure of science, for most of them strike at two of its great foundations, the conservation of energy and causality.

Quick addition to my previous post in which I mentioned Stephen Meyer. I found an article of his in which he makes mention of "methodological naturalism" so I thought it would be relevant to link it here.

https://evolutionnews.org/2015/11/denying_the_sig_4/

Both Bishop and O’Connor are Christian defenders of the principle of “methodological naturalism” — a principle that specifies that scientists must explain all events by reference to materialistic (non-intelligent) causes whatever the evidence. For this reason, their affirmation that God designed the universe, but signed His work in undetectable “invisible ink,” should be taken with a grain of salt. True, the “signature” of design in nature can only be seen by those with eyes to see. But an a priori commitment to methodological naturalism ensures that we will never perceive (or at least acknowledge) design in nature whatever the evidence, and it codifies our innate tendency to avert our eyes from what is “clearly seen” — and from what modern biology has made increasingly clear — in “the things that are made.”

Sorry to hog the thread but I'm sitting here immobile because of a gout attack so have some time to google.

Here's a very interesting philosophical article discussing the essence of this thread. I could quote great chunks of it here but I'll be economical and leave up to those interested to read the source article.

The principle of discovery is related to what I call the principle of evidence, which states that scientists in their search for truth should follow the evidence wherever it leads. Methodological naturalism violates this principle because no matter what evidence we might gather we are never allowed to follow it to a supernatural cause. Recently, Antony Flew, a philosopher famous for his atheism, stated that he now believes in some kind of God based on scientific evidence about the origin of life and the complexity of nature. Had Flew strictly followed the principle of methodological naturalism he could never have reached this conclusion. However, Flew stated that his “whole life has been guided by the principle of Plato’s Socrates: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads.”

...

However, choosing to limit themselves only to the natural world and only to natural explanations would have at least four implications.

The first implication is that science could say nothing about the supernatural since it has been excluded both from its object of study and from its use in explanations. [Eugenie] Scott recognizes this: “If science is limited to explaining the natural world using natural causes, and thus cannot admit supernatural explanations, so also is science self-limited in another way: it is unable to reject the possibility of the supernatural.” Thus if scientists choose this option, they must start policing renegade scientists, such as Richard Dawkins, who attack God and religion in the name of science.

Quick addition to my previous post in which I mentioned Stephen Meyer. I found an article of his in which he makes mention of "methodological naturalism" so I thought it would be relevant to link it here.

https://evolutionnews.org/2015/11/denying_the_sig_4/

To me, Meyer's quote is just wrong.

If an agent is causing design on the natural world (ID in a nutshell), a methodological naturalism approach should perceive it.

How do the ID crowd account for antibiotic resistance?

To me, Meyer's quote is just wrong.

If an agent is causing design on the natural world (ID in a nutshell), a methodological naturalism approach should perceive it.

Maybe take a look at the article I posted just before your post. Again, this thread is not about ID but about (methodological) naturalism which a priori rules out a supernatural agent (which answers your point entirely).