- May 28, 2002
- 16,931
- 514
- 53
- Faith
- Atheist
- Politics
- AU-Labor
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.
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.
