₦airaland Forum

@huxley,

Okay, at last we're getting somewhere. I couldn't have said it any better: "It is a worldview informed by science". That said, I should not be tedious on the subject any further, other than a comment that it does not appear that Naturalism is of recent date - I think it predates the 19th century (depending on how one interpretest its early philosophical developments) - but there again, I may be equally wrong.

Do have a great evening.

@huxley,

huxley:
Who is saying naturalism is science? Is this what you think I am saying? MN is a framework and protocol that informs science. Basically, it defined a way of proceeding, thinking and approaching scientific investigations. IT IS NOT SCIENCE. And I have never said it is science.

This is how I envisage the relationship:

Oh no, huxley. . . look again at that diagram and see where the arrow points between the scientific method and methodological naturalism - it is wrong, because it projects the idea that science relies on or appeals to MN instead of the other way round. This flaw is the reason why you have been postulating the idea that MN informs science - this is not a healthy claim, because ALL OTHER branches of naturalism inform the scientific method as well!

Hi guys,

I have been enjoying the discussions and indeed have benefitted from all perspectives. Like I said, Chrisbenogor's entry and astute outline give me some food for thought.

@Nimshi,

Nimshi:
pilgrim.1: regarding Hell and Hades: to JWs these two are interchangeable. The trick, however, is in understanding what they mean. Hell, or Hades or Sheol is the "common grave of mankind"; it is not a fiery place, but is a place of "inactivity". In the Hebrew Scriptures (OT), Sheol is the word used. Therefore, in JW theology:

Hell = Hades = Sheol = 'common grave of mankind"; again: Hades is Greek, Sheol is Hebrew.

The above is important:

JWs believe that Jesus went to Hell, and that happened during the parts of three days for which he was dead. They cite Acts 2:31 to support this:

The above is from the NIV. The KJ version uses "hell" in place of "grave"

But to make it all appear consistent, JWs explain that Luke 16:19-31 isn't literal; thus the "fire" in hell is not literal, but symbolises total "destruction", just like fire consumes (a little kid asked about the ashes; but I don't know JWs response to that; perhaps Perrito4u could help. . .)

Incisive, many thanks. For now, I shall just observe and enjoy the discussion and then come back at some point to throw in a few comments.

huxley:
Thanks for the latest post, but you have not shown why MN is not the guiding principle for science. Almost all philosopher of science and practicing scientist (theistic and nontheistic) adopt that approach when practising science. This is the position of a theistic philosopher of science (Mimi Marinucci) :

Although naturalisms abound, the most significant distinction, which naturalists themselves do not always acknowledge, is between epistemological and metaphysical naturalism. We might also refer to this same distinction in terms of methodological and ontological naturalism. Epistemological or methodological naturalism is a claim about how we ought to investigate the world. Briefly, it is the belief that how we should engage in epistemic and scientific pursuits depends on how we actually can and do reason given our perceptual and cognitive faculties. In contrast, metaphysical or ontological naturalism is focused less on the human condition and more on the world itself. It is not merely a claim about how we know but also a claim about what there is to know. According to this version of naturalism, the world is comprised of, and only of, empirically knowable physical phenomena

Dear huxley,

don't you see what I have been saying all along? Naturalism is a worldview - slice it anyhow one wishes with all its adjectives, it is not science and only appeals to the natural sciences. Even when you look at Mimi Marinucci's quote above, what does he say? Here again:

[list]Epistemological or methodological naturalism is a claim about how we ought to investigate the world. Briefly, it is the belief that how we should engage in epistemic and scientific pursuits depends on how we actually can and do reason given our perceptual and cognitive faculties.[/list]

MN does not make a preserve on science - at best, it is a claim among many other claims. It is because many people do not see this distinctives that make a lot of philosophers of science to reject naturalistic logic. An example? Karl Popper -

[list](1) Karl Popper equated naturalism with inductive theory of science. He rejected it based on his general critique of induction (see problem of induction), yet acknowledged its utility as means for inventing conjectures.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy) [/list]

huxley:
If you look at the line diagram I made;

Naturalism
|
|
MN < ----------- Scientific method <----------- PN

MN < ----------- Scientific Method <-------- strong----------- (ON)


I had Naturalism at the top (I should really have put a line linking it to the scientific method).

@huxley,

I appreciate your attempt to delineate Naturalism in its relation to the scientific method; however, it’s my understanding that the diagram is quite misleading – especially because it depicts the science method as pointing to Methodological Naturalism (MN) instead of the other way round. What you have done once again is try to give the premise that science ‘relies upon’ MN instead of the other way round; yet we know that no philosopher of science worth his onions would be able to defend that notion.

If I should go through your penultimate riposte, it would turn out precisely as I have been trying for several pages to show you these salient and incontestible points:

●   Naturalism relies on the scientific method, never the other way round
●   As a worldview, not all scientists are MNs
●   Methodological and Ontological Naturalisms hold the same premise –
     the philosophical doctrine that the world is best understood without
     recourse to supernatural explanations
●   Many reknowned philosophers of science reject naturalism (whatever
     shade of naturalism) because in many respects its logic is critically
     flawed.
●   Methodological Naturalism is only one philosophical worldview
     among several others; and as such is not to be held as the most
     precise logical of all explanations for understanding world realities.

Again, let me reiterate that Naturalism in all its slices and adjectival qualifiers actually appeals to science, and not the other way round. It is crucial that a student of the philosophy of science grabs this, because to hold it in reverse is to miss essentially what science is all about – for science is a tool of enquiry, never an end in itself: and as such, Naturalism is never a tool of enquiry. Rather, naturalism employs the scientific method as a tool for its philosophical arguments, be that as it may in any field of enquiry – for which cause, one cannot divorce naturalism from philosophy. This is why I have take the time to produce a flow chart below to help your reflections on the relationships between the various naturalisms and science.

Also worthy of particular note is the fact that there is a relationship shared between some of these types of naturalism, as the ‘viz a viz’ arrow between methodological and ontological – that is because they are many times not exclusive and other times not inclusive as well: they often have to be in consultation with each other and share concepts between themselves. For Religious Naturalism, not many modern scholars hold that it shares anything with either MN or ON – but that is very well debatable, and for that reason I didn’t indicate a ‘viz a viz’ connecting it to the others.

As for the 5 points outlined above, I could return to develop them analytically and clinically should you require me to do so.

Regards.

huxley:
In fact, I think I start this discussion by stating that MN "is one of the guiding philosophies of science". To use the use "rely" is a bit misleading and I should never have in my later post. Although I know some defended of MN use the word relies, I think it is a bit too loose and may trip the unwary.

First, a short outline of  a few of the types of naturalisms and where they fit in.

Basically, depending on who is using the term, naturalism is divided into methodological and ontological naturalism. However, there are other types of naturalism, viz:

●   Religious Naturalism, RN – see (Wikipedia and Religious Naturalism)
>> RN with God-language
>> RN without God-language
>> RN with God-language used philosophically
>> RN with shades of physicalism, humanism, pantheism
      [url=http://natural theology]natural theology[/url], Teleology,
      Theistic Realism, etc.


●   Philosophical Naturalism, RN – see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)

Methodological Naturalism, MN
        ●   epistemology
        ●   scientific naturalism
                  ●    reductionism

>> Ontological Naturalism
       ●   physicalism
       ●   metaphysical naturalism


Now why try to delineate these issues? For the simple reason that Naturalism – whatever its slice or adjectival qualifiers – is simply a worldview and not science in itself. Whether it is methodological naturalism (MN), ontological naturalism (ON), or even religious naturalism (RN), they are all worldviews and not “science” in themselves – and almost all philosophers of science inclined to these forms of naturalism appeal to science as a tool for interpreting world realities.

Surprised? You shouldn’t be. If you take the example of RN (religious naturalism), you find the debate or arguments in its defence in such works as those of [url=http://www.princeton.edu/~grosen/puc/phi203/ontological.html]Anselm[/url] of Canterbury (1033-1109) whose ontological argument purports to be an a priori proof of God's existence. Another helpful source where one may gain an understanding of his “philosophical theology” is at the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. A detailed reading of the various shades of Ontological argument with particular reference to religious naturalism can be found here.

But Anselm is not alone in Ontological argument; and many philosophers regard Descartes another ontologist whose arguments are not easily dismissed, even though largely misunderstood. A reviewer examined his a prior ontological argument at the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy – noting particularly Descartes’ arguments in his Principles of Philosophy.

However, among those who were inclined to ontological naturalism (ON) from a philosophical naturalist’s view, they aimed “to ally philosophy more closely with science. They urged that reality is exhausted by nature, containing nothing ‘supernatural’, and that the scientific method should be used to investigate all areas of reality, including the ‘human spirit’” [Krikorian 1944, Kim 2003]].

From all these, it is clear that Naturalism is a worldview and not science; for which reason one cannot argue to make methodological naturalism (MN) a dominant philosophy over other naturalisms. I wasn’t teasing in earlier mentioning repeatedly that naturalism is a worldview, as this example shows:

Naturalism is a worldview, a philosophy -- a general
understanding of reality and humanity's place within reality.
Naturalism is usually defined most briefly as the philosophical
conclusion that the only reality is nature, as gradually discovered
by our intelligence using the tools of experience, reason,
and science.

Source: Naturalism.Org

That is one reason directly that should help us understand indeed that naturalism is not a tool as is science; therefore one could not propose that science “relies on” MN. The idea that “many scientists” adhere to MN is arguably untenable and can only pass on the basis that whoever was arguing such was pretending to have forgotten that MN is a worldview and not science.

huxley:
If Francis Collins is not a MNlist while he is doing his scientific work, what else is he then? Do you suppose in his job is makes allowance for supernatural explanations?

Francis Collins is not an MNlist in as much as MN (methodological naturalism) is not science but rather a worldview. I shall try to share more about this soon enough so you get a more appreciable grasp of this point. In his work, he employs the scientific method - but that does not mean that he employs methodological naturalism as a worldview in his work. Let's not confuse the "scientific method" for "methodological naturalism" - in as much as "methodological naturalism" is not the same as "the method of science".

huxley:
Now, check out this review that I found online, I think from a Christian scholar. I think he sets out the distinction quite well:

Thanks. Actually, there are a few other places where I had seen Mimi Marinucci’s ’Another Dogma: Metaphysical and Epistemological Naturalism’ – here and here. Also, I found some of the other papers of various contributors (including Marinucci) on the Methods of Science very refreshing (never put off by the homepage attributed to ‘Theistic Satanism’).

@huxley,

huxley:
I found this as well on this site;

Methodological naturalism combined with supernaturalism is perhaps the most popular metaphysical position in the United States today. All theistic scientists adopt such methodological naturalism, as well as the 40-50% of the US. population who accept science and evolution but believe in God, the view known as "theistic evolution" (all of these individuals would be metaphysical supernaturalists as well as methodological naturalists). Of the others in the population, 40% believe in supernatural creationism and God (all are both metaphysical and methodological supernaturalists), and the remaining 10-15%, including probably most scientists and philosophers, are nontheist believers in science and evolution (so are all metaphysical naturalists). Therefore, no more than 15% of Americans sincerely believe in ontological naturalism; 85-90% are ontological supernaturalists with about half of these being methodological naturalists when it suits them.

Lol, let me draw your attention to something you probably missed in the opening quote there:

"Methodological naturalism combined with supernaturalism
is perhaps the most popular metaphysical position in
the United States today."

Please understand something here - we are being treated to the view as is in the USA; and one should note well that "methodological naturalism" on its own is a worldview that rejects any involvement of supernatural interpretations of world realities. MN (methodological naturalism) does not outrightly deny the existence of the supernatural per se, but it assumes that for purposes of its enquiries, the supernatural just does not exist and should not be appealed to in scientific enquiries.

This should not create any confusion for us - because I already noted that Stephen J. Gould in his Non-Overlapping Magisteria sees "a form of methodological naturalism mixed with supernatural beliefs".

Again, this does not mean that such a combination or mixing automatically translates to "science" - that would seriously defeat the purpose of your efforts so far, in as much as MN (methodological naturalism) does not seek to involve supernatural explanations in its enquries at any level. That the combination is held by many in the United States today should not make us confuse the fact that they are only worldviews and not "science".

@huxley,

huxley:
How could you say I adopt a closed mindset when I expressed my willingness to see Rusbult demonstrate other approach?  Have you got a problem with that attitude?   This is what I actually said:

I know what you actually said; but while not dragging you back, I think your reaction to the closed mindset answers well to the fact that you had misunderstood him. I have consequently discussed how that is so; and if you did not initially give me grounds to believe that you were adopting such a mindset, you would not have initially been too hasty to dismiss him as a retard, would you?

huxley:
Is is really frustrating having a discussion when you keep impugning my character unfairly.

Take heart, I don't mean to. One thing you will find consistent about me is that when a discussion begins to get unreasonable, I simply fold myself away from the thread until such occasion as invites my inputs consequently. However, when that would not solve the problem for my fellow discussants, I take umbrage at their incessant malignant attitude - which is why I wonder that you would be complaining about this if indeed you didn't mind being malignant after I left one such discussion peacefully.

huxley:
I don't think you have got to grips the distinctions yet.  You have the following:

1-Naturalism (N)
2-Ontological naturalism (ON)
3-Methodological naturalism (MN)
4-Metaphysical or Philosophical naturalism (PN)

Now all 4 come under the unbrella of Naturalism and sometimes naturalists may use simply naturalism to describe their position in general discussion.  But where precision is required, then these various adjective are used to make subtle distinction between the various positions.  Let me draw a line chart to make the distinction.


                                                                        N

                              MN  < ----------- Scientific method  <-----------  PN

                              MN  < ----------- Scientific Method <-------- strong----------- (ON)                       


Basically, science relies on MN as it guiding principle.  PN is founded on scientific method.  This is basically what Barbara Forrest is saying in the article.

Grateful for your explanations, but you didn't quite bring about anything substantial in the views already shared in mine. First, Barbara agrees with Kurtz that modern naturalism is reliant upon science, not the other way round - she didn't argue for what you again are emphasizing as highlighted in your quoted.

Second, no matter how one may slice it, the basic premise of MN (Methodological Naturalism) simply remains as I have defined earlier:

   ●    naturalism ((philosophy) the doctrine that the world can be understood
         in scientific terms without recourse to spiritual or supernatural explanations)

   ●    Naturalism is a worldview that assumes that the universe is
         a closed system in which matter and energy are the only realities.

Now, if MN differs from this simply definitions, please kindly show - and help to outline also how it differs substantially from the fact that it is a philosophical worldview seeking to interprete the realities of the world without recourse to supernatural explanations. Whether it is held simply as Naturalism, I don't see what essentially you have said that changes one shade of the meanings and pointers already offered in mine - not even when one looks at "strong" or "weak" naturalism, they both still carry the same thing.

huxley:
On the question about DR Francis Collins,  I asked whether you were familiar with any scientist who was NOT a MNlist in the pursuit of their scientific career.    For instance,  if they were trying to solve a difficult scientific question and could not find a solution would attribute that to God, as in "I don't know how that works - God did it". Do you know any scientist (apart from ID advocates) who adopt that approach when doing science.

Collins was not a MNlist while doing his day job as head of the Genome project.  I have read his book and the bits about science is very good and fascinating.  But when he starts talking about how he postulates goods intervenes in guiding evolution, it all breaks down.  In fact, I even posted a video link of one of his lectures here some months back.  Very good lecture, I might add.  I shall find the link.

Upon being question by a member of the audience about how he reconciles his supernaturalism with MN,  he said "That is a personal thing for everyone".   Believe me,  that is the best answer he had.  Now, how objective is that.

What is essentially different from Francis Collins as a scientist who is not an MN - even when he does his job as a scientist? Even when the equation of favouring ID is left out, does that essentially change anything in the fact that he does not adhere to the MN position? The basic thing you are missing here is that you're too keen to force science to bend to MN ("Basically, science relies on MN as it guiding principle" when we know that is not true and just quite the opposite.

Dear huxley, Methodological Naturalism is a worldview based on the philosophical doctrine that assumes and presumes to interprete the world in naturalistic terms. It is not science, but appeals to science; therefore, it is wrong and indeed a huge fallacy to presume that science relies on MN.

That is why, no matter how many such scientists I refer to, I presume that your first premise is to look out for what worldview they hold, and not what science they do! I said it is a presumption; and if you keep holding the false view of "science relying on MN", your case cannot then be helped. As soon as you sort this issue ouut and point me to unbiased reference where the definition of MN in mine differs scholarly from what unbiased scientists understand in this scheme, then I shall give you a good list of some scientists who do not adhere to the worldview of MN when conducting their researches.

huxley:
I have also read Kenneth Miller and am a GREAT "fan" of his.  Honestly,  I like this guy.  I bought four copies of his book, Finding Darwin's God,, which I gave out to friends&family.

Good to know.

Cheers.

@huxley,

Now, as promised, let me address the referral you offered me:

huxley:
Pilgrim,

What is the definition of MN you think I hold? If you had read the paper by Barbara Forrest you would see the positions defended by most scientist and philosophers of science. That document is very well reference. I shall cut& paste only a snippet of interesting parts;

Okay, I shall now take another look for the sake of all that we have shared so far.

huxley:
Methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism are distinguished by the fact that methodological naturalism is an epistemology as well as a procedural protocol, while philosophical naturalism is a metaphysical position.

Em, hang on a mo, huxley. Although this is the idea of Barbara Forrest, don't you think a few problems already are showing up there? Maybe, maybe not. But here is what I'm seeing:

Methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism are distinguished
by the fact that methodological naturalism is an epistemology as well as a
procedural protocol, while philosophical naturalism is a metaphysical position.

So, according to Barbara, it stands out as:

Methodological Naturalism = epistemology

Philosophical Naturalism = metaphysical

In other words, she argues that the distinction here rests on the "assumption" (pardon me) that methodological naturalism is an epistemology, yes? Yes.

But just what then is an "epistemology", huxley? Is it not the same thing as a philosophy? Here:

● epistemology - The philosophical theory of knowledge

● epistemology - Branch of philosophy that investigates the possibility,
origins, nature, and extent of human knowledge.

● epistemology - n. branch of philosophy dealing with the study of knowledge.

That being so, if we go back to what we have delineated:

Methodological Naturalism = epistemology

Philosophical Naturalism = metaphysical

Since "epistemology" is concerned with the branch of philosophy dealing with the study of knowledge, one is wondering what real distinction there really is between MN and PN!! In other words, Barbara only succeeded in using language to state the same thing for two positions, which in my view is quite vague; because it is simply saying that MN as an epistemology is simply a branch of philosophy as much as Philosophical Naturalism is!

Of course, one may not be too hasty to flag Barbara's idea up at this point; which makes it imperative for me to read more on her submissions:

huxley:
Although there is variation in the views of modern naturalists, Kurtz's definition captures these two most important aspects of modern naturalism: (1) the reliance on scientific method, grounded in empiricism, as the only reliable method of acquiring knowledge about the natural world, and (2) the inadmissibility of the supernatural or transcendent into its metaphysical scheme.[5] Kurtz's current definition is consistent with Sidney Hook's earlier one:

Here again we have another problem. Infact, there are 3 things highlighted here:

● first, there seems to be a migration of thought from MN to modern naturalism:
in other words, this only confirms what I have been stating from the onset that
this whole MN business is simply rested on one thing: Naturalism. That being so,
I don't see why you were initially reactive on my definition of Naturalism -
because essentially, the authors you're quoting are more than confirming my
submissions and not yours!

● The posture assumed here about modern naturalism simply points to that in
my submission earlier that: it is a philosophical doctrine and worldview which
seeks to interprete the realities of our world purely on naturalistic ideaologies
without any references whatsoever to the supernatural. Again, nothing is
wanting here in what I have shared already!

● Now this is interesting, because your authors only confirmed what was in mine
earlier about MN appealing to science and not the other way round! Let me
quote them again:
"Kurtz's definition captures these two most important aspects of
modern naturalism: (1) the reliance on scientific method,
grounded in empiricism, as the only reliable method of acquiring
knowledge about the natural world"

Dear huxley, contrary to your assertion that "science has no option but to presume a position of methodological naturalism", your authors quoted above actually see it differently, by postulating a fact the other way round: modern naturalism relies on the scientific method.

Again, this posture is radically different from what we saw in Michael Martin's acquiescence to Pennock's idea that "that science is committed to Methodological Naturalism (MN)". Barbara in quoting Kurtz puts it the other way round as making modern naturalism to rely on science! I hope this is now clear to you; because making "M to rely on S" is not the same thing as to make "S rest on M" - because the latter is what you have been saying all along, and I have been drawing your attention to that very wrong assertion.

Regards.

@huxley,

huxley:
First, I would be glad to see Dr Rusbult demonstrate a better epistemological procedure to unveiling the nature of reality. A method better than the scientific method, with greater reliability and success that the scientific method, if he thinks the scientific method is inadequate.

You got it all wrong, huxley. If you can learn to reason without adopting  closed mindset just because you're an atheist, you will then be able to read people better.

Dr. Rusbult is not a "retard" as you alleged initially - that was just too silly and hasty to infer before having read through his dissertation. In brief, he does not argue against the "scientific method", but rather critiquing the doctrine of MN - Methodological Naturalism! When [url=http://Is it scientific?]he asked[/url], "Is it scientific", of course we know at once from his discussion that he was not arguing against the 'scientific method', but rather making a critique on the fact that 'science is typically closed by methodological naturalism'. Did you not see where he categorically mentioned also that -

         I think methodological naturalism is theologically acceptable for a Christian -
         so the main questions in this page are about our definitions of
         ● science,
         ● logic, and
         ● utility,
         by asking (about methodological naturalism) "Is it scientific?  Is it logical?
         Is it useful?  Is it a rule?"  (reminder here)

I assume that many people just adopt a "theist vs atheist" posture when they read issues, and that is why they often miss the details that are so clearly in print. No, huxley, you missed the point by a thousand miles! Dr. Craig was not dissing science or the scientific method - rather, he was asking germane questions about the posture and veracity of Methodological Naturalism to interpretating the world.

huxley:
Did he do that in his PhD work?

If you care for the real gist of his proposal on scientific education, please see:

             A Model of "Integrated Scientific Method" and
              its Application for the Analysis of Instruction
                 a dissertation submitted by Craig Rusbult
             for a PhD degree in Curriculum and Instruction
                   at the Univsersity of Wisconsin-Madison,
                                     March 14, 1997

The other argument on MN are a brief introduction on --  Methodological Naturalism in Our Search for Truth

huxley:
I think you totally missed the mark here. Read that comment again of Michael Martin's. Here is it:

In his recent book Tower of Babel Robert T. Pennock argues against the New Creationists for failing to realize that science is committed to Methodological Naturalism (MN) and not Ontological Naturalism (ON). Roughly speaking ON is the view that only natural processes or events exist. It maintains that insofar as God, angels, the Devil, ghosts, and other such entities are supernatural, they do not exist. MN is a much weaker position. It does not deny the existence of supernatural entities per se. It simply assumes for the purpose of inquiry that they do not exist. It goes on the assumption that in the context of inquiry only natural processes and events exist.[/list]

What do you thick the comparative adjective refers to? What is he comparing here? I submit, he is comparing MN to ON.

ON makes very strong claims, viz that supernatural entities do not exist. On the other hand MN is not concerned about the existence of these entity - it simple presumes their non-existence.

This does not, by any means, an admission that MN is a weak philosophy. It just means that its position with respect to ON is one of softer claim;

ON --> There are no supernatural entities.
MN --> I don't care if there are supernatural entities.

I don't think I have missed anything, huxley. Michael Martin was comparing MN with ON in the webpage where he quoted Pennock; but on a broader scheme of reference, taken as a worldview MN is known to have certain flaws and as such is even a weaker posture in reference to interpreting the realities of our world. I apologise if you misread me on that; but my thoughts perhaps were running ahead of my fingers on the keyboard - which does not excuse the fact that I already mentioned Dr. Craig and Alvin Plantinga as critiquing MN and astutely showing its flaws.

huxley:
By the way, I tend to ignore all you charges of hypocrisy, calling me a joke, etc, etc. I just like to concentrate on the facts of the arguments. I wrongly thought that good Christians were beyond such jibes.

I was going to reason with you, huxley - but I find it tedious trying to maintain coherence with such attititudes of skeptics who feel at liberty to address scholars as retards! You notice I didn't react to your initially outburst on defining Naturalism - but when you came back constantly making such reactions a norm, I thought that "jibe" should call you back and offer you the choice of how well you want to lay out your submissions. What you propose for others that you can't contain should be withdrawn with all due respect. On that note, my apologies - but then again, I don't tolerate such attitudes and would better leave off a discussion (as I often say, "fold myself away" when passions become more projected than the substance of a thread.

Cheers.

@huxley,

Thank you for providing some substance at last that could help my further interest. Actually it seemed I was done with the discussion so far until perhaps something more to the point was forth-coming; and you have anticipated me - good one.

huxley:
In fact, you are best reading the document to do any justice to it.

To be honest, before your referrals I had much earlier glanced at it in several other sources but not actually critically studied or critiqued it - will share a few things hereafter.

huxley:
I have lost track on where we are at variance. Can you explain to me where we disagree? Is a matter of semantics?

Possibly, I pressume - it may be semantics. How this is so, I shall share a few. However, recall that I had been trying to point out the thin line between 'methodology in science' and MN, as well as the mistaken idea that MN is the guiding principle of science instead of the other way round that MN "appeals to" the natural sciences.

huxley:
Once you have done that, could you try these questions again as I see you are in the habit of avoiding them?

I did not avoid them - I already shared a few things to show what nature of enquiry they appertained to, though you might have been too driven to make all depend on MN and missed the gist.

huxley:
1) Name one or more serious scientists who are NOT methodological naturalists in the pursuance of their science.

Did I not name a few already? Perhaps let me remind you of one and show why I do not hold the common public argument that he is a mathodological naturalist as far as that worldview (MN) is concerned. The scientist - Francis Collins, geneticist and former head of the Human Genome Project.

So, why do I disagree with so many common positions holding him as an 'MN-list' (methodological naturalist)? I do so on the premise that:

       ●   strictly speaking, Methodological Naturalism (MN) is a worldview by definition

       ●   as such, Francis Collins' worldview is theistic

       ●   those who have read him understand his position quite well thereto.

Shall I point out a few of those sources which have been discussed and are readily availble on the net to show the veracity of this view? Okay, here they are:

[list]
 ●   Collins, as you may know, holds to a BioLogos (theistic evolutionary/
      evolutionary creationist) view of life-”the belief that God is the source
      of all life and that life expresses the will of God” (p. 203). He’s not too
      keen on the “Intelligent Design” movement (which he pejoratively
      subtitles “science needs divine help”).
      . . . . .
      Given Collins’s evolutionary perspective, I wonder about several issues.
      First, how do miracles fit in? Collins sees no problem here: “Miracles do
      not pose an irreconcilable conflict for the believer who trusts in science
      as a means to investigate the natural world, and who sees that the natural
      world is ruled by laws. If, like me, you admit that there might exist something
      or someone outside nature, then there is no logical reason why that force could
      not on rare occasions stage an invasion” (p. 53). He goes on to say that for
      a miracle to be a miracle, these must be uncommon. Miracles come on “great
      occasions”-at the “great ganglions of [spiritual] history” (p. 53).

      Source: see [url=http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2008/08/the-language-of-god-some-reflections-on-francis-collins%E2%80%99s-perspectives-on-god-and-science/]the blog here[/url] [/list]

That is just one example of a source unequivocally reviewing Collins' position on these matters. I have deliberately left my own thoughts on the same out so that we could see issues from neutral positions and not any sentiments of an agenda as coming from me. Here is another source:

[list]●  The mainstream media have emphasized two aspects of the book: Its insistence that Darwinism is no threat to Christianity, and its argument that Darwinism better explains a range of physical evidence than either creationism or intelligent design. What has gone begging for ink, how-ever, is a feature of the book hidden in plain sight: Francis Collins makes a scientific case for intelligent design.

According to the theory of intelligent design, which extends from the origin of matter to the origin of mind, an intelligent cause is the best explanation for certain features of the natural world. In chapter nine Collins argues against intelligent design in biology, and this the media have picked up. But in chapter three, “The Origins of the Universe,” he argues that an intelligent cause is the best explanation for certain features of the natural world, in this case, features that existed before the origin of life.

Source: TouchStone[/list]

I love such resources like Wikipedia; but one should not just rank xerox just about anything they get from that resource. This is why even though the article on Collins in Wikipedia makes it clear that he takes a theistic evolutionist approach to interpreting the world, many other sources try to class him as an MN-list (methodological naturalist). Clearly, you would not be making a good case on the assumption that a theistic evolutionist is an MN, would you?

Of course, I could share yet many other examples with substantial pointers establishing their positions, if need be. The reasons why I referred to Francis Collins are that we may both understand the true position of this scientist and see that he is one of those scientists who's not an MN; as well see that we need to very carefully weigh our options by confirming our sources if they were not misquoting a singular source (this has always been my approach, as in the case with Tertullian, but that's irrelevant to this thread).

huxley:
2) Name any contemporary theories or principles founded on supernaturalism.

Theistic Evolution - even though I do not adhere to it as I do not quite gather all the indices to make an informed decision thereto at this moment.

huxley:
3) Name the fruits of supernatural theories/principles.

I don't know if there is any such thing as "supernatural theories/principles", and one could argue on such principles or theories merely on the basis of philosophical postures. This is the very same thing as for methodological naturalism, which is itself a philosophical posture and not to be misconstrued for science. Those who do not understand the difference have been making the mistake of assuming that science is committed to MN, which is not true - rather, MN appeals to science in just the same way as people holding theistic evolutionary theories argue for the realities of our observable world.

However, If the clear position of such thinkers like Stephen J. Gould should hold any substance to us (himself an atheist) , then indeed it may make good sense to see these two postures as equally valid, rather than victims of a lost political election.

huxley:
I predict you have got no answers, BUT I would like to be proven wrong.

I'm used to people always concluding before they have a chance to hear others out.

Cheers.

Perrito4u:
It was not until the 9th century C.E. that punctuation came into general use.  Luke was written, what,    1st Century?   Luke was written in[b] GREEK[/b]!! Therefore when this book was written there were no punctuations. They were added in translations.   I think my explanation of why the comma doesn't go where you think, is clear.   If it was true what you say than the Bible is clearly contradicting itself. I don't that's possible. Do you? Be careful dude.

Em, Perrito4u. . there are a few things that interest me in your submissions.

1. Could you address Nimshi's request, please? He asked for the references of your reflections.

2. Since there were no punctuation marks in the early Greek manuscripts, what justifies your own inclination to use preferred versions where the comma comes just after "Today"?

3. What about the enquiry on Luke 16:23?

Chrisbenogor:
Perriotu, I have been reading with keen interest, the points you make are quite disturbing so I did a bit of research and dug up some things for you since my guess is that you do not bother to do that any longer.
Jesus spoke aramic and not greek, so that leaves us to wonder the competency of luke in rendering the text. If we look at the text well you should see that your explanation has holes in it, jesus was speaking on that day, not the day before and not the day after, putting the comma where it is would mean he was lying all along, is that what you are saying?
Now about your claim for consistency let us look at the character of jesus, did he have a particular syntax when saying things like this? Yes he did, here are some examples I came up with
Matthew 5:26
I tell you the truth, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny
Matthew 6:2
I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full.
Matthew 8:10
"I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith.
Matthew 10:15
I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.
Matthew 10:23
I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.
Matthew 10:42
I tell you the truth, he will certainly not lose his reward."
Matthew 11:11
I tell you the truth: Among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
Matthew 16:28
I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."
Matthew 18:3
And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
My dear perriotu if you are really seeking consistency of jesus, I think the way he structures his sentence should remain the same, which in this case is:
"I tell you the truth" - "(What he has to say)"
So how do we interpret the passage in question? Easy, since we know how Jesus uses the phrase "I tell you the truth" there is no need to read it as "I tell you the truth today."
Luke 23:43
"I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."
One thing you have to keep in your head is it all boils down to the individual or sect, we could go down the road of analysing it from aramic to greek to hebrew to english and even to your mother tongue and you will see how one needs more than the spirit to really fully understand the bible.
Be careful dude.

@Chris, you have done it again - welldone. You have actually done some research, and there's no denying that at all, unless the reader just wants to deliberately deny the fact! This has served to help me reconsider my thoughts about paradise and hades. Thank you again for your calm and astute reasoning there.

https://images.zaazu.com/img/clap-animated-animation-clap-000340-large.gif

@huxley,

huxley:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/ntse.html

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/barbara_forrest/naturalism.html

That your Craig Rusbult is a joke - he is a creationist retard, not even worth considering. It would be like debating cosmology with a flat-earth theorist

Leaving the irrational slobbers aside, just so you are aware that I have tried (before even this thread was raised) to examine this issue of Methodological Naturalism. Please pardon me for a moment, and let me once again show you a basic premise in my inputs. It is not my appraoch to be prejudiced against anybody - even when I may not agree with them, I should have the decency of respecting their credentials. It is no joke for someone to have gained a Ph.D after submissting a dissertation, and then others who have no clue what they have established in academia will then sit down and try to slobber them, just because they happen to be theists (or Christians in particular)! That attitude is not a healthy posture for any good student of rational thought or philosophically balanced thinking.

That said, here are a few things that were harvested long ago during my research on the meaning of Methodological Naturalism, taken from the same Infidel.Org website (here):

[list]Justifying Methodological Naturalism (2002)

Michael Martin

In his recent book Tower of Babel Robert T. Pennock argues against the New Creationists for failing to realize that science is committed to Methodological Naturalism (MN) and not Ontological Naturalism (ON). Roughly speaking ON is the view that only natural processes or events exist. It maintains that insofar as God, angels, the Devil, ghosts, and other such entities are supernatural, they do not exist. MN is a much weaker position. It does not deny the existence of supernatural entities per se. It simply assumes for the purpose of inquiry that they do not exist. It goes on the assumption that in the context of inquiry only natural processes and events exist.[/list]

Now, a few things tessellate with what I offered earlier.

    ●   First, I was quite clear that Naturalism is sliced into various shades of worldviews -
        and in this case again, we see Ontological Naturalism as distinct from Methodological.
       
    ●   Again, as in the above, we note that Methodological Naturalism (MN) is admitted to
        be a weaker position in Naturalism, in contrast to the postulations of Ontological.

    ●   The difference in them both is that one emphatically declares that the supernatural
         just does not exist - the other (MN) does not deny the existence of the supernatural
         per se, but only assumes that denial for the sake of its enquiries.

    ●   Another thing which I pointed out is that MN is a worldview, and in the broader scheme
        of enquiry, is infact a doctrine based on assumed philosophical reasoning. As such, most
        philosophers do not identify themselves as adherents of MN, since there is no denying
        the fact that it is a worldview! This does not mean that scientists engage in science just
        about anyhow without a methodology - but what you have been missing all along was
        that you were pushing the agenda of that worldview and making science bend to it!

    ●  Now, Michael Martin quotes Pennock on a popular misconception among ontologists, viz -
        'that science is committed to Methodological Naturalism'! Please understand
        that such an assertion is misplaced and blurs the thinking of many - for it is the other way
        round, that MN appeals to natural sciences, rather than science being "commited to"
        MN! Those who argue flatly on the idea of making science bend to MN are actually making
        an argument for ON - Ontological Naturalism, rather than for MN!

This was why I kept on pointing you again and again to go and sort this issue out and get a good grasp of MN! You don't just come on board and slobber people just about anyhow when you lack a good grasp of the subject yourself - nevermind that even those at Infidel.Org cannot deny that MN is a worldview! It is for this reason that you have refused to see reason that I often simply leave you out in most discussions, but quite often is the case that you make assertions that you immediately abandon when they are pointed out.

huxley:
Pilgrim,

Get this right. I never said MN is science. But it is one of the philosophies behind science.

But you did assume that MN was the guiding principle of science, did you not? If you wanted to be honest with these issues, you would not be painting a dubious case for MN when we know that your assertion does not square with history and philosophy of science.

I'm really interested in discussing these issues with you - if it even goes down the road to philosophical thought. My concern is that you're making wild statements and readjusting your postures when things are pointed out to you. Let's take one instance that was not surprising to me at all: your outburst on my pointer in defining MN and Naturalism. I wonder up until now that you have not found a single reference that differs greatly from what I pointed out! I was hoping you had some gist that would point me to your own position on fair grounds that MN was not a worldview, not a doctrine, not as I did show you! What you have done so far is abandon that very issue and sought to drag in here something which might be best suitable for another thread.

If that is the way you reason, what surprises indeed would have come from you to return and bash people with reference to the atheistic arguments of those at the Infidel.Org? You are too much in a haste to be disaffected by scholars just because they think broadly and are Christians. What is wrong with thinking broadly, huxley?

huxley:
Is that hard to understand? If it is, let me try another analogy.

Honest is a guiding philosophy behind science.

I trust you agree with that statement. But is honest science?

What are you saying? Are you so bent on dribbling around this fallacy of your assertions?

huxley:
There are many attitudinal philosophies behind the scientific method such as

1) MN
2) Honesty and integrity
3) Openness for scrutiny and evaluation
etc, etc

Goodness me! If you can affirm that there are MANY attitudinal philosophies behind scientific method, what was wrong in Craig's dissertion (which no scholar turned down in conferring on him his Ph.D)? Infact, I would refer you to his full dissertation to see things for yourself - because there you will find just how he outlined and delineated these issues, huxley.

huxley:
If anyone claims to be doing science, but does not adhere to there general rules/guidelines then they are really not doing science (at least in the conventional sense ).

You're making me laugh more! You really have a problem broadening your mind - so shall I once again recommend an elixir by referring to Alvin Plantinga's delineation and critic of Micheal Russ' bland statement of scientific law?

@huxley,

huxley:
Ok, Pilgrim,

I will ask again:

1) Name one or more serious scientists who are NOT methodological naturalists in the pursuance of their science.

2) Name any contemporary theories or principles founded on supernaturalism.

3) Name the fruits of supernatural theories/principles.

Repeating yourself and refusing to show precisely what MN actually is, has been your problem, not mine. When you have sorted yourself out on that issue, then come back and let me walk you through this subject. It has become the norm that when an issue is being discussed, you are in such a haste to make assertions that have no substance - and when these things are pointed out, you abandon the initial assertions and then deviate to some other things. Dear huxley, I won't humour you on such deviations.

huxley:
This is all I ask and stop beating about the bush.

I have not been doing so - go back to my rejoinders and address the issues posted there on your previous assertions about MN.

huxley:
Also if you want to critique MN, why don't you first look what the MNist think of the philosophy first.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/ntse.html

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/barbara_forrest/naturalism.html

That your Craig Rusbult is a joke - he is a creationist retard, not even worth considering. It would be like debating cosmology with a flat-earth theorist

Ain't you a hypocrite, huxley? You bash a Ph.D scholar on philosophy in other to promote your worldview from those atheistic monks at Infidel.Org, right? And that is how you hope to dribble round this discussion - hide your head and never reason, while insulting scholarship that you don't even have a clue to. I'm seriously now taking your drama of being a philosophy thinker with a pinch of salt.

What did I tell you directly from the onset, huxley? If you had referenced a scholarly and unbiased source for MN, you may have had a point without the slobbers on Craig Rusbult. Referring me to the Infidel.Org chaps who hold MN as their own worldview and using those arguments for MN is a serious malady on your part. That is not how to think rationally. If you want to check Craig's background, you easily could have done so - not push your infidel agenda as a cover for this mishap.

Perrito4u:
I cited from translations I normally don’t use, to prove a point and so nobody says I have "different" Bible. My point is:
Sheol = Grave That’s where they are, presently, until the Resurrection.

Is the Grave the same place as Hades described in Luke 16:23?

huxley:
It is worth noting that ALL good scientists ( theistic and well as atheitic) are by definition methological naturalists. Apart from the sham that is creation science and intelligent design advocates, no real scientists departs from this core principle of science.

First of all, there are many good scientists who throw this sham of your assertion about MN into the bin! Even if some scientists of theistic inclinations have criticised ID (Intelligent Design), that does not make them by definition "methodological naturalists" - atheists like to label everybody before they have done so for themselves.

A few examples of some theists who are scientists and have criticised ID (Intelligent Design):

     ●  There are still many prominent modern day proponents of this "dual path" within
         the sciences, most notably, is probably Ken Miller and his book Finding Darwin's
         God and Francis Collins The Language of God. Miller was one of the primary
         witnesses against the school board in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, and
         a prominent opponent of "intelligent design" and creationism, while Collins was
         the former head of the Human Genome Project and a recent convert to Christianity.
         (Rationawiki)

This does not make these people advocates of what is Methodological Naturalism as a worldview. Others have scholarly observed that "moreover, the standard arguments for methodological naturalism suffer from various grave shortcomings" (Alvin Plantinga), and you don't suppose to label ALL scientists as MN who based their worldview on such shortcomings, no?

huxley:
The top religious scientist do NOT invoke a god explanation when doing science. They have compartmentalised by minds well enough to know when to invoke god (usually when they are at home or church) and when not to.

Enquries into the supernatural is not to be confused for Church or home religious practices - you're really shaming your scholarship, huxley. Go and get a good grasp even from the atheist Stephen J. Gould who in his Non-Overlapping Magisteria sees a form of methodological naturalism mixed with supernatural beliefs and yet compartmentalizing the role of science and religion - thereby maintaining them completely separate from each other while assigning each an equal but different role in human understanding.

huxley:
If you can show me a scientifically refereed publication, accepted in its domain of science, that make reference to the supernatural,, then I shall retract all my comments.

I would do that in due course so soon as you would have studied the real meaning of MN. So far there is nothing you have countered in my submissions about the definitions of MN and Naturalism after your initial outburst - despite the fact that I have offered links for you to read up for yourself.

@huxley,

huxley:
My goodness, you are so insufferable, Pardon me, But did I say that? This is what I really said;

Come off it, huxley - science is not MN and MN is not science: we both know that and there's no need to pretend to dribble in MN and pass it as a cushion of science - that was why I posted you those articles clearly outlining what MN is. MN is a recent philosophical field of enquiry, and science preceds MN. You cannot be playing a romance between both of them and pretending MN for what it is not.

huxley:
These things are the output of science, whose guiding philosophy is that of methological naturalism.

Science is not dependent on MN, my dear. It is dubious to pretend that MN is the guiding principle of science! That is reinventing history - please go and find out the history of MN!

[list]The term "methodological naturalism" itself probably does not originate much earlier than the 1980s; Phillip E. Johnson acknowledges taking it (or "methodological atheism" from Nancey Murphy, a theologian with training in the philosophy of science. Arguably, MN itself dates to the Ionian pre-Socratic philosophers of the 4th century BCE; see, e.g., Jonathan Barnes's introduction to Early Greek Philosophy (Penguin), which describes them as subscribing to principles of empirical investigation that strikingly anticipate MN. Benjamin Wiker traces the historical development of the modern materialist perspective starting with the choice of the Epicureans to focus exclusively on the natural realm as a necessary step toward their goals; see his book "Moral Darwinism; How We Became Hedonists".

source: http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Methodological-naturalism [/list]

Science is not to be made subject to MN as if MN is the guiding principle of science!

huxley:
If science was not methodological naturalistic, thenn it would be legitimate scientifically to postulate that cholera was caused not by bacteria but by spirits, for example. On such an assumption, would would NEVER have found the cholera bacteria and development treatments for such. The same goes for AIDS, Epilepsy, Terrets , etc, etc

Don't be tedious on yourself - MN is not science, and science stands as a body of knowledge that MN appeals to, not the other way round. You are too driven with MN as if that is the only shade of naturalism that philosophers hold as a worldview. I still wonder that your rejoinders are largely vacant on the fact pointed out already that MN is a philosophical doctrine - a fact which is not constested by notable scholars.

huxley:
What, these institutions were built on supernaturalistic principles and theories? The wall are supernatural bricks? The classrooms, labs, libraries, colleges are all supernatural? The lecturers, tutors, cooks, cleaners, and entire staff body are supernatural?

You're not thinking, huxley. Most of those institutions were established by men whose quest was to understand the realities of world including both natural and supernatural. They still stand today as a testimony of their quest, and the driving force in these quests were not naturalistic - else we would have seen an equal number of institutions established by skeptics! MN is not science, it is a worldview based on assumptions of philosophical doctrines - the facts still stand out clear, and you cannot pretend MN for what it is not.

huxley:
I ask again - WHAT SUPERNATURAL "THEORIES", OR PRINCIPLES ARE THERE THAT HAVE LEAD TO SOME TANGIBLE BENEFIT TO MANKIND?

If you're asking for theories and principles, they have been offered already in cases of supernatural enquiries. MN cannot claim to have produced the examples you gave - and that is why MN does not answer to supernatural occurences.

huxley:
I know you have difficulties grasping the essense of the question. Let me turn it round so you may see what I mean. I shall as the question this way:

What natural theories or principles are there that have leand to tangle benefits to humankind?
1) Modern medicine (Germ theory of disease, cell theory, etc)
2) Understand of planetary mechanics leading to the development of satellite, GPS, etc (Theory of Gravity)
3) Atomic theory

You're a joke, huxley. You want to tell me that MN is equal to modern medicine and mechanics? You are a serious joke! You are now convincing me that you don't even have a clue of what MN actually is, and no matter how many times I quote relevants sources to show you, it will trun out precisely as Craig Rusbult, Ph.D describes the circular logic of MN-process that  automatically converts an assumption into a conclusion. Please go take some time out and grasp what essentially is MN and stop pretending it for what it is not! No scholar of repute equates MN for science - it is a philosphical doctrine based on assumptions in questions of a natural enquiry - MN is not to be mistaken  for science, nor can you defend that those who laid the foundation of modern medicine were methodological naturalists!

huxley:

In like fashion, can you name any THEORIES or PRINCIPLES based on supernaturalism? And how it has benefited mankind?

I have given you the clear implications of supernatural enquiries - I defined it earlier: "Supernatural simply points to what is beyond the natural - not subject to physical laws or naturalistic interpretations. It does not mean that scientists cannot observe these supernatural occurences - it simply means that naturalists are avowed not to even consider them." What the supernatural principles investigate are supernatural in nature - and as to their benefits, I have given you the ONE example that you asked for - the very subject that we are discussing: demon-possession. If you dismiss that out of hand, it is not because you are intelligent, it is rather because you are pretending a knowledge about MN that you have demonstrated you do not have and hooted so much about MN and philosophy without a clue what they mean. I apologise upfront that these are my observations - you have argued long and hard with assertions that have refused up until now to look into what the real meaning of MN is. When you alleged that it was shameful and a mistake that I defined naturalism the way I did, my rejoinders pointed them out to you - I did not see you deal directly with that very pointer; and if you care to look a bit more, you will not need to be hooting about what you simply don't know about MN.

Cheers.

Dear Perrito4u,

Perrito4u:
Luke 23:43
In the Translation I use of the Holy Scriptures Luke 23:43 reads: "And he said to him[size=14pt]:[/size] 'Truly I tell you today[b][size=18pt],[/size][/b] You will be with me in Paradise.'" Jesus said this in answer to the following request of one of the evildoers hung beside him: "Jesus, remember me when you get into your kingdom."―Luke 23:42.

The first thing I observe is that, while you are arguing against punctuations, you have favoured a translation here that has misplaced the punctuations marks, if any.

On the whole, the one question I would need to ask is this: where are the departed believers presently until the Resurrection?

Cheers.

huxley:
Mathodological Naturalism is the guiding philosophy behind science and science has produces such great success as the computer on which you write these posts, the medicines in your hospital, the transportation facilities, etc, etc, etc.

Sorry, that is hubris. Methodological Naturalism as a worldview did not produce those stuff and you can't wave that in my face. Go and find out the people who have been involved in most scientific researches and discoveries and confirm their works and their lives to the point that they were not schlepping MN as their worldview or doctrine before providing those things for man's benefit!

huxley:
Can you name one, just one benefit to humankind that supernatuaralism have produced?

Most of the great centers of learning were established by men of reknown who were religious - go and ask Richard Dawkins to vamoose from Oxford university where he holds a seat as the professor of public understanding of science and yet attacks religious people without a clue that they were categorically involved in establishing that university! Do you want more?

You cannot pretend what MN is not! It is a doctrine based on assumptions and presumptions desperately fed by people who refuse to consider research in known realities beyond the natural.

@huxley,

Now, let me go back and show you what I initially intended to before I was cut offline - even though my icon seemed to have been "online".

huxley:
I thought you said you are familiar with the philosophy of science. If you are, then it is a shame that you make such elementary mistakes as this:

It was not a mistake, and please refrain from these reactive inclinations when you have not carefully read issues. If you are a good philosophical thinker, you would have seen what I pointed out clearly:
[list][quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=181454.msg3023120#msg3023120 date=1225487128]Naturalism is a doctrine fed by people's biases, so let's not begin to pretend that it is "science", if you're too hasty to dismiss other worldviews on that same ground. Whether you qualify it with "methodological" does not negate the fact that naturalism is a doctrine and a worldview -
. . .
Naturalism, no matter how you slice and qualify it, is still a worldview - and that worldview does not explain the supernatural realities of our world.[/quote][/list]

I clearly pointed out that Naturalism is a doctrine and a worldview - that cannot be dribbled round, huxley. The only thing is that many people try to qualify what shade of naturalism they adopt or adhere to - it does not mean that Methodological Naturalism itself has been mis-defined here. Even if you have to take on the idea of "Methodological" as a qualifier to naturalism, it still won't change a shade of what I posted for your consideration.

huxley:
Methodological Naturalism is NOT the same as Naturalism. For goodness sake, even check with google.

I did - and what essential difference is between them, huxley? Do they not bear the same express underlying current of pure naturalism with an avowed disaffection to the supernatural? Let me point them out again from a few sources:

[list]●   Methodological naturalism is the label for the required assumption of philosophical naturalism when working with the scientific method. Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural causes, because any attempts to define causal relationships with the supernatural are never fruitful, and result in the creation of scientific "dead ends" and God of the gaps-type hypotheses. To avoid these traps scientists assume that all causes are empirical and naturalistic — which means they can be measured, quantified and studied methodically.

However, this assumption of naturalism need not extend beyond an assumption of methodology. This is what separates methodological naturalism from philosophical naturalism - the former is merely a tool and makes no truth claim; while the latter makes the philosophical - essentially atheistic - claim that only natural causes exist.

. . . Stephen Jay Gould's Non-Overlapping Magisteria is a form of methodological naturalism mixed with supernatural beliefs. It is an attempt to compartmentalize the role of science and religion, and maintain them completely separate from each other: assigning each an equal but different role in human understanding. There are still many prominent modern day proponents of this "dual path" within the sciences, most notably, is probably Ken Miller and his book Finding Darwin's God and Francis Collins The Language of God.

Source:  Rationalwiki - Methodological naturalism[/list]

     _____________________________________________________________


[list]Methodological Naturalism in Our Search for Truth

A Brief Introduction by Craig Rusbult, Ph.D.

      Open and Closed — What is the difference?

      Currently, science is typically closed by methodological naturalism, a proposal
      to require that scientists must include only natural causes in their scientific
      theories.  The difference between science that is open and closed is the
      difference in responding to a question:  Has the history of the universe included
      both natural and non-natural causes?

      In an open science (liberated from rigid methodological naturalism) this question
      can be evaluated based on scientific evidence;
      a scientist begins with methodological naturalism, but is flexible (not rigid)
      and is willing to be persuaded by evidence and logic.

      In a closed science (restricted by rigid methodological naturalism), evidence
      and logic are not the determining factors because the inevitable conclusion —
      no matter what is being studied, or what is the evidence — must be that
      "it happened by natural process."

      I think methodological naturalism is theologically acceptable for a Christian
      so the main questions in this page are about our definitions of science, logic,
      and utility, by asking (about methodological naturalism) "Is it scientific?
      Is it logical?  Is it useful?  Is it a rule?"


      Is it scientific?

      A principle of methodological naturalism cannot be logically derived
      from science (so it is non-scientific) but is compatible with science
      (so it is not un-scientific).

      But if we define science as "whatever scientists do," and most scientists
      currently use methodological naturalism, doesn't this make it scientific?
      Maybe.  It depends on whether we define science as an activity with goals
      or a game with rules.


      Is it scientifically logical?

      Let's compare the process of methodological naturalism and the process
      of science.  With methodological naturalism (MN), circular logic converts a
      naturalistic assumption (that everything which does occur in nature is
      natural) into a naturalistic conclusion (that everything which has occurred
      in nature has been natural).  But circular logic is bad logic;  it is trivial and
      misleading.  The circular MN-process automatically converts an assumption
      into a conclusion that is inevitable, that cannot be changed by a logical
      evaluation of observable evidence.  But evidence and logic are the foundations
      of science-process.  Since the circular MN-process does not depend on evidence
      and logic, it does not depend on science-process, but the conclusion demanded
      by methodological naturalism — that "it happened by natural process" — is
      considered to be scientific.  Do you think this is rational?  It does seem strange,
      but the overall result is that methodological naturalism provides a way to bypass
      the process of science and then claim the authority of science as support.

      Source: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/briefmn.htm[/list]

          _________________________________________________________________



[list]Methodological Naturalism?

Alvin Plantinga
Department of Philosophy
Decio Hall
University of Notre Dame

Abstract
The philosophical doctrine of methodological naturalism holds that, for any study of the world to qualify as "scientific," it cannot refer to God's creative activity (or any sort of divine activity). The methods of science, it is claimed, "give us no purchase" on theological propositions--even if the latter are true--and theology therefore cannot influence scientific explanation or theory justification. Thus, science is said to be religiously neutral, if only because science and religion are, by their very natures, epistemically distinct. However, the actual practice and content of science challenge this claim. In many areas, science is anything but religiously neutral; moreover, the standard arguments for methodological naturalism suffer from various grave shortcomings. [This is the first part of a two-part article.]

source: Access Research Networks[/list]


The first thing one notices is that in all good resources that discusses Methodological Naturalism, a few things stand out clear, dear huxley:

    ●  Methodological Naturalism derives from Naturalism - the MN is only qualified
        by an adjective ('Methodological') to distinguish it from other types or shades of
        Naturalism - such as P[/b]hilosophical [b]N[/b]aturalism (PN).

    ●  MN - Methodological Naturalism is a [b]doctrine based on an assumption.
        It should never be confused for "science", for it is a worldview that seeks
        to explain its own assumptions and presumptions by logic and philosophy
        while assuming its views as being from a "scientific" method.

    ●  It is incontestible that those who understand the discipline of Philosophy
        have argued that MN (Methodological Naturalism) is neither logical nor
        scientific without considering what perspective it subscribes to - as
        in the case of "open" and "closed" science.

    ●  one of the problems of MN is that "the standard arguments for methodological
        naturalism suffer from various grave shortcomings" (Alvin Plantinga). A ready
        example is the fact that methodological naturalism is a doctrine fed by
        people who are desperately seeking every logic to justify their worldview. Just
        as Craig Rusbult, Ph.D. --

             With methodological naturalism (MN), circular logic converts a naturalistic assumption
             (that everything which does occur in nature is natural) into a naturalistic conclusion
             (that everything which has occurred in nature has been natural).
             But circular logic is bad logic;  it is trivial and misleading. The circular MN-process
             automatically converts an assumption into a conclusion that is inevitable, that cannot
             be changed by a logical evaluation of observable evidence.
             But evidence and logic are the foundations of science-process.  Since the circular
             MN-process does not depend on evidence and logic, it does not depend on
             science-process, but the conclusion demanded by methodological naturalism —
             that "it happened by natural process" — is considered to be scientific.

Besides all the foregoing, we find others who argue in similar light about MN:


[list]Methodological naturalists will of course allow that there are some differences between philosophy and science. But they will say that these are relatively superficial. In particular, they will argue that they are not differences in aims or methods, but simply a matter of philosophy and science focusing on different questions. For one thing, philosophical questions are often distinguished by their great generality. Where scientists think about viruses, electrons or stars, philosophers think about spatiotemporal continuants, universals and identity. Categories like these structure all our thinking about the natural world. A corollary is that alternative theories at this level are unlikely ever to be decided between by some simple experiment, which is no doubt one reason that philosophers do not normally seek out new empirical data. Even so, the naturalist will insist, such theories are still synthetic theories about the natural world, answerable in the last instance to the tribunal of empirical data.

Not all philosophical questions are of great generality. Think of topics like weakness of will, the importance of originality in art, or the semantics of fiction. What seems to identify these as philosophical issues is that our thinking is in some kind of theoretical tangle, supporting different lines of thought that lead to conflicting conclusions. Progress requires an unravelling of premises, including perhaps an unearthing of implicit assumptions that we didn't realise we had, and a search for alternative positions that don't generate further contradictions. Here too empirical data are clearly not going to be crucial in deciding theoretical questions—often we have all the data we could want, but can't find a good way of accommodating them. Still, methodological naturalists will urge, this doesn't mean that cogent empirical theories are not the aim of philosophy. An empirical theory unravelled from a tangle is still an empirical theory, even if no new data went into its construction.

Source: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy[/list]

Where then, huxley, is the basic difference in what I said earlier about Naturalism being qualified by adjectives such as "methodological" to distinguish it from other forms of Naturalism? Or again, is it not true that even in the discipline of Philosophy, Methodological Naturalism is a doctrine based on presumptions and assumptions - directly as philosophers themselves have said? Why have you been over-reacting simply because these things are pointed out to you in simple terms?

@huxley,

huxley:
Am sure if you had been writing this some months ago, you would have considered the work of Uri Geller as Orphic phenomenon. He managed to fool many gullible and credulous people for decades that he possessed supernatural skills. And although James Randi has been campaigning against his deception for years, his career blossomed. Just shows how credulous and simple-minded the majority of people are.

I'm not that gullible, huxley. One of the reasons why I have been particularly slow in growing the Orphic thread is because I endeavour to do my research astutely and keenly! That is why if you had come back with more skeptic excuses, I would have simply wated them with established scientific verification of those matters. I have come across so many issues which have been heralded as scientific by scientists themselves - today, those same scientists are no longer celebrating their assumptions.

huxley:
Now, he has come clean and admitted that all he was doing was "magic" tricks.

That's not the only case - there are so many more in our time that are constantly being investigated. Randi and co should stop doodling about obvious cases and go to the field and conduct their own independent researches on this matter - in just the same way they applied their "scientific methods" to discover the hoaxes of the magicians, they could use the same methodolgy to either affirm or negate the researches that are being reported in cases where skeptics have been too shy to put their mouth where their money is!

@huxley,

I'm sorry I was cut offline for a while - indeed was preparing to post when the glitch happened. But let me make a few comments first before going back to show you what I wanted to initially.

huxley:
Pilgrim, just think for a minute.

If science was interested in studying the supernatural, by what means would it achieve that. Science relies principally on our five senses, the use if scientific detection devices, the development of a hypothesis and the falsification of such hypothesis, verifiability, repeatability and such like.

The reason why you may not be able to study the supernatural is because as a naturalist, you're holding on to the doctrine of a philosophy so passionate to hold its assumptions and presumptions avowedly. Many times, many people who speak about "MN" fail to understand that it is simply a worldview with confirmed grave shortcomings - and when these things are mentioned, Naturalists get very upset!

If these folks will calm down and do a bit of research in their own worldview, they will not miss the fact that it is a doctrinal position based on specific assumptions and presumptions. The reason why I affirm these things is because MNlists (Methodological Naturalists) are often said to "assume" and "presume" issues about the realityies of our world - they would never be able to consider these issues because they are avowed to protecting their worldview by those assumptions.

huxley:
By definition, supernatural means it is outside the scope of our senses and instruments. So how would science go about studying something it cannot detect? Does that make any sense to you?

It actually makes sense, my dear. Supernatural simply points to what is beyond the natural - not subject to physical laws or naturalistic interpretations. It does not mean that scientists cannot observe these supernatural occurences - it simply means that naturalists are avowed not to even consider them. You don't need a "special instrument" if you are to observe a phenomena that occurs but which you cannot explain by natural principles. Why? Because even in the discipline of philosophy, researchers and scholars know that it is not in every case that one should demand empirical date - despite that known fact, naturalists will insist by all means to ask for them where they assertion do not make any sense.

huxley:
I asked earlier to name ONE, just ONE product of supernaturalism from which humankind currently benefits, and WITHOUT SURPRISE, YOU COULD NOT.

I could - this very subject of demon possession are real - supernaturalism is the ONLY means by which victims to such phenomena are delivered. is that a bane to society simply because Naturalism stands lame and limp to attempt the same?

You argue as if science is the sole preserve of MN - sorry, all kinds of people (many of them who are not even inclined to MN) are involved in scientific research - and I shall come back to answer you on this very point that MN has not produced any of those items you named earlier, and to display such arrogance is quite unintellectual.

huxley:
So science has no option but to presume a position of methodological naturalism.

Sorry, MN actually is hiding under the cover of an appeal to science, not the other way round! Science has long been a veritable tool of investigation independent of MN - to now make science to "presume" a position of MN is dishonest!

huxley:
A propos crop circles, if this was a supernatural event, how come the "scientist" studying it were using scientific instrument? Why would they expect to detect something supernatural with natural instruments. The best you can say about the non-hoaxed crop-circle is that they are unexplained in our current light of science and technology. The fact that some students could not reproduce the very complex of circle not make make them supernatural. How can you jump from unreproducible to supernatural?

I used the crop circle as a simple analogy to explain the nature of the supernatural - that does not mean I was jumping anything. If that was ineffect to help you reason, no worries; but that stands as a testimony that the skeptics who pronounced them as hoaxes are no longer coughing!

Hang on a minute and let me show you a few things, please.

huxley:
Did you really mean this? Not only is the question nonsensical, its premise is wrong.

Naturalism is the view that all there is is the natural realm, and nothing beyond that. Science is the facility with which we investigate the nature of reality or nature.

@huxley, please calm down - you're not making any sense and only being reactive. Your assertions are beginning to become nonsensical, for naturalism really does not have anything to say when presented with events for their consideration. I have offered you a few - the crop circles and the public testimony of the UFO: which naturalist has had anything under the diguise of "science" to say thereto? All you offered there was that you're a "skeptic" and your initial rejoinders in that thread did not address the veracity of those claims scietifically beyond the excuses of lazy armchair thinkers.

If you're really going to be reasonable, please do so - you don't just wake up and allege that someone's questions is nonsensical when you have not been using your intelligence. This is how you often over-react to issues you either have no clues to or which you have not carefully followed - and such attitudes and postures of the mind is hardly befitting for someone who tries to pass himself off as  a student of "philosophy of science".

huxley:
So why should naturalism care about investigating a realm it presumes not to exist?

There is your answer - because the naturalist always PRESUMES or ASSUMES things, and this fact cannot be gainsaid by honest thinkers. Only naturalists closed to any form of reasoning make such extreme assertions without the possibility that they ideas may not actually be reflecting reality.

huxley:
That is not its role. That is the role of science, but even so science does not investigate what it presumes does not exist.

Honest scientists don't sit down and just "presume" and "assume" things - they go out to conduct research into these phenomena and report their findings precisely as observed, not look for exculpations to dribble under cover that it cannot "presume" things.

huxley:
Remember - science is a methodological natural enterprise. Basically, if our five sense and our scientific instruments cannot perceive it (and if it is claimed to be an entity) then for all intends and purposes, it does not exist.

Dear huxley, Dr. Gallagher observed what he reported - he used what you are asking for: part of the five sense - he saw, heard, spoke, and smelt things in that research and reported according! What you are asking for has been clearly followed, and to make every effort to become reactive rather than calmly thinking things through is not helping your world.

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=181454.msg3023120#msg3023120 date=1225487128]Em. . . a skeptic is a person, not a phenomenon - did you mean to say?[/quote]Okay, I thought it read: "A skeptic is an unexplained phenomenon" - correction observed.

huxley:
Can you show any scientific study that affirms the FACTS of levitation

Does naturalism have the tools for researching what is beyond the natural?

@huxley,

huxley:
You are right in a sense.  This Dr may really have something useful to contribute, but if he wants to make that contribution in the scientific arena, he MUST abide by the standards of science.  If he doesn't his work will NOT be treated as scientific, as valid as it might be.  That is the point I am making - if you want to be taken seriously in the scientific community you MUST talk the talk and walk the walk.  PERIOD.

He did exactly that - according to his own scietific field of training: Psychiatry - "the branch of medicine dealing with the diagnosis and treatment of mental disorders". Period.

huxley:
I was not saying that he did not experience these demon events.  His data collections methodology leaves a lot to be desired.  His frame of reference is clearly non-scientific.

Could you suggest your own "scientific methodology" suitable for studying such phenomena? if you recognize that there is no grounds for denying the possibility of their having occured, what then is the "methodology" you are seeking to propose for your own satisfiaction of "science"?

huxley:
I might add that the guiding philosophy behind science is one of methodological naturalism, which essentially means that science does not presuppose a non-natural realm.  Anything not understood or explicated by science is not classed as supernatural, but yet-to-be-explained.

Naturalism is a doctrine fed by people's biases, so let's not begin to pretend that it is "science", if you're too hasty to dismiss other worldviews on that same ground. Whether you qualify it with "methodological" does not negate the fact that naturalism is a doctrine and a worldview -

  ●    naturalism (philosophy) A doctrine which denies a strong separation
        between scientific and philosophic methodologies and/or topics

  ●    naturalism ((philosophy) the doctrine that the world can be understood
        in scientific terms without recourse to spiritual or supernatural explanations)

  ●    Naturalism is a worldview that assumes that the universe is
        a closed system in which matter and energy are the only realities.

Just because some people are given to this doctrine and/or worldview of assuming that everything is purely "natural" does not mean that there are no supernatural realities in our world. This is why such folks have always found nothing to say in these supernatural occurences presented to them, because they have nothing in their naturalistic doctrines to account for the supernatural and paranormal. One may deny the supernatural - but that denial is neither "scientific" nor intellectual.

huxley:
Example, there was a time when it was thought that lightening was supernatural, rainbow was supernatural, etc.  Which person in their right mind would hold such view today?

There are people who still hold such views and more - not because I do not hold them; but because in certain instances, those who held such views attest to inexplicable occurences in their worldview. of course, not every single lightening is a matter of "supernatural" occurence; nor is every claim to the supernatural actually confirmed. We also know that what many people passed off formerly as "scientific" were hoaxes - which person in their right minds would still hold those hoaxes, even today, as authentically scientific? That naturalism does not have anything to say to these supernatural events, does not mean that all there is could be reduced to naturalism.

huxley:
You are right skepticism is NOT science. Nor does it need saying.  Skepticism is a state of mind.

A state of mind either way is not science. It does not matter who is holding this state of mind - whether a religious or science researcher.

huxley:
A skeptic of an unexplained phenomenon is essentially asking higher-order questions and demanding higher levels of evidence.

Em. . . a skeptic is a person, not a phenomenon - did you mean to say?

huxley:
He/she is someone with an acute mind whose standard of verification and questioning are better than the dinary.  A skeptic has as her main tool the scientific method and they are usually methodological naturalists, though they may also be metaphysical naturalist as well.

Naturalism, no matter how you slice and qualify it, is still a worldview - and that worldview does not explain the supernatural realities of our world.

huxley:
I am a skeptic to the supernatural realm.  I have not seen any reason to accept such a realm, not one single convincing evidence.

I understand - but that is only in terms of that "reason" being defined in naturalistic inclinations. The evidence? For a simple challenge, if the naturalist is serious about investigating the realities of our world, they would long have examined these orphic and supernatural occurences to convince themselves that there really are supernatural realities in our world.

huxley:
I take the view that anything and everything that exists in our reality is part of nature.  So if in the long run it turns out that ghosts, UFO, demons, angels, etc, do in fact exist, they will have been brought into the realm of knowable natural things.  Until such a time, for all intends and purposes these entities are at best mythological, just as Thor, Wotans, Satyr, etc, etc.

That is a clever excuse that is at best disinclined to seriously investigate the phenomena of our world. I am still waiting for the skeptic report to the undeniable public testimony of the sighting of a UFO as posted earlier in the Orphic thread. Have they said anything about that?

Let me make a few comments on the last response posted above (Linda Morelli)

Barbara Grimaldi questions my saying that I would enjoy the "green, lush countryside" in Ireland and the "bright" sunshine on my plane trip. Anyone who has engaged in a normal conversation or knows anything about Ireland knows that it is green and lush. And everybody knows that on a warm day the sun is bright.

We know that people who have trained their senses to be skeptical by default will find it difficult to understand realities which supercede their own small views. Besides mentioning Helen Keller, there are so many, many other people with amazing accomplishments in life even with their disabilities or limitations. Incidentally, while researching reports for my thread on Our Orphic World, I came across a long list of such fascinating people with amazing abilities:
[list]
    ●   Victorine Morriseau (1789–1832): First deafblind person to be educated in Paris

    ●   Heinrich Landesmann (19th century): inventor and novelist

    ●   Robert Smithdas (1925–): the first DeafBlind person in the US to receive a master's degree.[/list]

There are so many of them, and Lindy Morelli's case should not raise alarm for people like Barbara R. Grimaldi.


Another fascinating figure whom I've always admired is [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raul_Mid%C3%B3n]Raul Midon[/url], an an American singer-songwriter and guitarist from New Mexico, based in New York City. According to [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raul_Mid%C3%B3n]Wikipedia[/url],

[list][Raul] combines his distinct voice, strumming, beats, and a cappella sounds to create a one-man performance. His unique style shows influence of virtually every musical genre which came before him, including jazz, blues, R&B, and folk.

Midón was born prematurely in a rural hospital in Embudo, New Mexico to parents of Argentine and African American descent. His father was a dancer from Argentina. Midón and his twin brother Marco (now a NASA engineer) were blinded as infants after spending time in an incubator without adequate eye protection. The sounds of music became integral to Midón's life around age 4, when his father introduced him to the drum. Midón became an avid music lover and learned how to play the guitar while performing in rigorous educational programs, first at a school for the blind and then an elite Santa Fe academy while completing his last two years of high school. Midón then attended the University of Miami, which he selected for its prestigious jazz curriculum.[/list]


https://www.aaas.org/news/newsandnotes/images/midon.gif

Despite having been blinded from infancy,
his twin brother Marco, is a
well-recognized lead engineer
at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(N.A.S.A.)


But here's one thing about Raul Midón - anyone who has listened to his music and unique style would not simply go away without a sense of wonder!

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/graphics/2006/03/12/svraul12.jpg

Here's Raul Midon's homepage - enjoy some of his songs online (top right hand corner of the homepage) and see what an amazing figure this man is!

Cheers.

@huxley,

huxley:
By the way, what parts of the human body does a demon attack and/or infect? Would a demon possession leave tell tale sign of a material nature, such as changes or damage to cells, chemical or hormonal disturbance, electrical signal, etc, etc. Would any of such changes be observable to the senses or scientific instruments?

I think in my previous responses, I have given a few pointers about the first part of that enquiry.

However, as regards the tell-tale signs, yes indeed - demonic acitivity and attacks leave a lot to be observed. The point is that spirits are not subject to physical laws. Maybe a simple way of explaining this phenomena is to call you mind back to the issue of crop circles. Of those which were genuine, a few anomalies have been recorded which even researchers have not been able to dismiss. Such observations as the one which Nancy Talbott made as regards the fact that the MIT students could not duplicate the precise product of a genuine crop circle - even given the best available technology.

However, there are recorded cases where demoni activities have defied physical laws - levitation for example. For a researcher to have observed this phenomenon directly and reported his findings with clinical precision should make us stop for a moment and think: what know physical laws could explain levitation? Please read me: I'm not looking for physical laws that are engineered and designed to deny such phenomena; rather, I'm asking that if they have been directly observed, then what physical laws could explain such realities?

In the same way, asking for chemical changes and thus-and-those is not really saying anything about the reality of these events. of course, demons attack people and leave their victims injured or with some body scrifications - in some instances, no injuries may be observed, but other occurences directly observed may cannot be dismissed on the basis of seeking a chemical change.