Methodological naturalism as evidence for metaphysical naturalism

Metaphysical naturalism predicts that methodological naturalism and only methodological naturalism will have any success in explaining and predicting how the world works.

All supernatural metaphysical systems (except for deism and pantheism, which basically equate to naturalism anyway)predict that other methods will sometimes have success in explaining and predicting the world.

No method other than methodological naturalism has had any success in explaining and predicting the way the world works.

Thus, it is more likely that metaphysical naturalism is true than any supernatural metaphysical system (excluding pantheism and deism).

Supernaturalists will perhaps claim one or all of three things at this point:

firstly, that metaphysical naturalism fails to explain the purpose of the universe while supernaturalisms succeed;

secondly, that the success of methodological naturalism s reliant on an orderly universe and such a universe must have been created; and

thirdly, that methodological naturalism is succesful to date and that failures, mainly to do with human consciousness, lie just around the corner.


The third objection is simple to counter. A failure by methodological naturalism to explain something does not negate the prediction of metaphysical naturalism. The prediction only applies to things that can be explained. It is entirely possible that there are things in this universe that are unexplainable by human standards. However, the prediction is concerned with succesful methods. Only if methodological naturalism fails and another method is successful is the prediction nullified. That is the challenge to supernaturalists.

The second objection relies entirely upon an unproveable assertion - that an orderly universe requires a creator. Anyonw who makes such a claim must have evidence to back it up, evidence which I believe is unobtainable from within the system.

The first objection is a non-objection simply because it ignores a very important first question: does the universe have a purpose? If not, naturalism's failure to explain it is hardly suprising. Indeed, metaphysical naturalism suggests that the universe has no purpose.

Are there other objections? I would like to hear them.

__________________
'Avast, ye scurvy dogs! Rotate the rubber baby buggy bumpers!'

I think I have a response which doesn't quite fit into your list of examples.

I don't believe that an orderly universe "requires" a creator - logically, anyway. However, I believe we happen to have one. I think that the supernatural underlies our universe - such that I don't see any likely way to test for it within the system, for the same reason that it's hard to use integer arithmetic to "detect" the existance of rational numbers which are not integers.

Obviously, this would be untestable, but I don't see it as needing to be tested; it's obvious to *me*, and in the end, I'm the only one I have to convince.

__________________
Save me / And when you see me strut / Remind me of what left this outlaw torn
I follow Christ; therefore I am
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
. I affirm the Nicene Creed.
For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. -- Romans 8:38-39

Well I am not a supernaturalist. I can't be bothered with any form of philosophy. If you could give one example showing where methodological naturalism has succeeded then at least I would understand what you mean. (Right now looking at my dictionary the attributes would fit Christianity. They got their own way of teaching how things 'really' are.) Otherwise this is just grey theory, or another fairy tail to be dismissed.

__________________
Time waits for no one ...

Do you mean "theology"?

I'm not seeing a strong connection between the supernatural and philosophy.

A random success of methodological naturalism:
methodological naturalism succeeded when Einstein predicted that time is affected by gravity.

Explanation plus succeful prediction.

__________________
'Avast, ye scurvy dogs! Rotate the rubber baby buggy bumpers!'

Seebs,

I understand that it convinces you. However, if the supernatural is not detectable from within the system that means that it must not have any effect on the system that we can detect.

How is that different from the supernatural failing to exist at all?

__________________
'Avast, ye scurvy dogs! Rotate the rubber baby buggy bumpers!'

The question is one of what *kind* of detection.

My consciousness has no effect on the system that we can detect; I still think I'm real.

__________________
Save me / And when you see me strut / Remind me of what left this outlaw torn
I follow Christ; therefore I am
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
. I affirm the Nicene Creed.
For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. -- Romans 8:38-39

No, I did not mean theology. I know at least three people studying religion and have no faith in any of what they study.

To my understanding a Supernaturalist (not just supernatural) is one who reads the bible and tries to prove it's stories. Like a creationist would defend every detail in the Bible. Again I think this act and resulting writings would fall into philosophy.

__________________
Time waits for no one ...

I got it, I am slow.

Sorry, if I can't match your vocabulary. Basically what you saying is that the answers of that which we don't understand has to be found by thinking outside the 'box'. Like Einstein did.

So yes, one pro methodological naturalism.

If I still misunderstood your train of thought, just count me as one of those inexplainable phenomenons in this forum.

__________________
Time waits for no one ...

Umm, your consciousness has many effects on the system that we can detect - the words you just typed being one example.

Thus, I think you are real, too.

What kind of detection do you mean?

An example that I can think of might be a feeling that you have when you are praying or in a certain church or something like that. This feeling is in response to the presence of a supernatural being.

Something like that?

If so, it seems odd that people get religious experiences from different things. (eg, Hindus get the same feeling sometimes; atheists do too; people on drugs do; people not on drugs do et cetera)

__________________
'Avast, ye scurvy dogs! Rotate the rubber baby buggy bumpers!'