Is metaphysical naturalism a worldview that is ultimately based on faith?

[Rick O'Shez]

As I said, mysterious IS NOT mystical. Why do you and others insist on this fallacy?

Indeed. It seems there is a need to make anything unexplained into something mystical.

 

[Willamena]

@Willamena

Merriam-Webster defines "physical" as follows:

Yes. Perceptable to the senses.


(Although hardly a reliable English reference, which is why I prefer a dictionary written by those in the know.)

 

[Willamena]

I think it's important to note that physics draws conclusions and provides names to phenomena that affect physical matter. Like with gravity, we don't understand the mechanism, but it causes a physical effect. It'd be stupid for physicists to ignore a continual, predictable, precisely mathematically modeled effect on physical matter just because we don't understand how gravity actually does what it does.

And, just because we don't know the exact mechanism of gravity (or dark energy, for example) doesn't mean it's mystical. Mysterious =/= mystical.

I agree.

 

[Willamena]

There is a difference between claiming that physics employs mathematics (something that is clearly nonphysical) and claiming that mathematical objects have ontological existence. (The difference is between materialism and some form of dualism.)

I hope I didn't claim the latter.

 

[raw_thought]

What non physical thing is studied by physics?

 

[raw_thought]

I suppose one could claim that dark energy is non physical .However ,my definition of "physical" includes dark energy .Dark energy is not supernatural .