Which makes more sense to you? Methodological Naturalism or Metaphysical Naturalism? Why?
FYI: A Wiki Article on Naturalism
FYI: A Wiki Article on Naturalism
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Methodological Naturalism or Metaphysical Naturalism?
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
Neither, though if I had to choose one it would be metaphysical naturalism. I would also add that your thread assumes that Naturalism actually makes some kind of sense to being with. This is not necessarily so upon close examination. As a rule of thumb, I find it useful to remember that visible world is always permeated by and underlying deterministic series of invisible, hidden things - rules and laws.
Also, Wiki is an unreliable and biased source of information.
Also, Wiki is an unreliable and biased source of information.
Do you think rules and laws exist ontologically?
Fantastic question, truly that question should be the thread. :yes: Any authentic discussion of Naturalism would and should naturally lead on from it.
Do I think rules and laws exist ontologically? Yes. As you probably know, I believe firmly in the truth of causality and Determinism. Effect precedes cause, then cause precedes effect and so on, in a fairly endless causal chain of events and occurences, some spontaneous (as our idea of time allows) others not (Evolution for example).
Furthermore, I believe these laws and rules are both 1) Discernable to the human intellect and rational soul, and 2) Mutable and open to manipulation through various esoteric methods.
Thus, as I believe, the Universe (and indeed all adjuncts to it, like other realms and universes) runs pretty much like an immensely detailed and fantastically intricate Simulation. The Ontological rules of the simulation, the Invisible hand that pokes and prods these nodal moments we experience, are not unlike the rules of a computer program. Some can be bent, others can be broken.
Wandered Off
Sporadic Driveby Member
It's just a matter of perspective and semantics. We can see a collection of parts or a car, depending on our perspective and needs at the time. Both can be valid.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
I'm going to have to side with Methodological Naturalism.
While I'm a spiritual person I find such things are better suited to helping me figure out myself, rather than how clouds form.
wa:do
While I'm a spiritual person I find such things are better suited to helping me figure out myself, rather than how clouds form.
wa:do
I don't understand why we should have to choose between them. For my naturalism, I choose both, and more.
I'm no philosopher but aren't there some contradictory notions involved? Do you cherry pick from both, is that how choosing both works for you?
I'm going to have to side with Methodological Naturalism.
While I'm a spiritual person I find such things are better suited to helping me figure out myself, rather than how clouds form.
wa:do
Were you telling a joke and I just didn't get it? :drool:
How does Methodological Naturalism help you to figure yourself out over Metaphysical Naturalism?
I'm no philosopher either, so perhaps you can explain what you see as contradictory about them? and we can go from there.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
What I ment was that in terms of how clouds form I'm not looking at religon... Metaphysical Naturalism.
When I'm trying to figure out my inner self I tend to look to spirituality. Though I admit I still keep in mind Methodological Natrualism.
Sorry if I was unclear.
wa:do
When I'm trying to figure out my inner self I tend to look to spirituality. Though I admit I still keep in mind Methodological Natrualism.
Sorry if I was unclear.
wa:do
no worries, thanks
What do you think of this?
- Metaphysical naturalism entails the belief that nature is in fact all that exists.
- Methodological naturalism entails the belief that for one reason or another empirical methods will only ascertain natural facts, whether supernatural facts exist or not.
I like this quote ...
"The crucial point here is that a scientist is, essentially by definition, a methodological naturalist; however, she does not have any specific commitment (aside from her own metaphysical views) to philosophical naturalism. In other words, science does not necessarily entail atheism, which is the fundamentalist's fear. How can we explain this to the general public? One way to go about it is to point out that most people are in fact methodological naturalists when it comes to everyday life. Suppose your car doesn't start today: how do you react to such an annoying occurrence? Most likely you will not invoke supernatural explanations, and will not attempt to have the car exorcised. Rather, regardless of your religious convictions, you will bring it to a mechanic, assuming (methodologically) that there must be something physically wrong with it. Moreover, even if the mechanic will not find the answer, and will not be able to fix your car, you will still persist in the (reasonable) belief that there must have been something physically out of place, with no supernatural implications or intervention required. You will shrug your shoulders, grudgingly pay the bill to the mechanic, and go in search of a new car or another mechanic. [snip]"
Balderdash
"The crucial point here is that a scientist is, essentially by definition, a methodological naturalist; however, she does not have any specific commitment (aside from her own metaphysical views) to philosophical naturalism. In other words, science does not necessarily entail atheism, which is the fundamentalist's fear. How can we explain this to the general public? One way to go about it is to point out that most people are in fact methodological naturalists when it comes to everyday life. Suppose your car doesn't start today: how do you react to such an annoying occurrence? Most likely you will not invoke supernatural explanations, and will not attempt to have the car exorcised. Rather, regardless of your religious convictions, you will bring it to a mechanic, assuming (methodologically) that there must be something physically wrong with it. Moreover, even if the mechanic will not find the answer, and will not be able to fix your car, you will still persist in the (reasonable) belief that there must have been something physically out of place, with no supernatural implications or intervention required. You will shrug your shoulders, grudgingly pay the bill to the mechanic, and go in search of a new car or another mechanic. [snip]"
Balderdash
Which makes more sense to you: epistemology or ontology?
Great response! Really ...
Thales of Ga.
Skeptic Griggsy
Evidence forces me to accept metaphysical naturalism as I show @ the presumption of naturalism. We naturalists apply methodological naturailism to theism in that we require evidence.
Haughty John Jaught contemns our metaphysic for ignoring venues of knowledge other than the natural but he begs the question rather than so showing. We look around and only find natural causes and explanations- the sufficient reason. Others look around, using pareidolia to see divine agency at work like seeing Yeshua in a tortilla. Ultimately, Haught use the argument from angst to do so.
Non-naturalism leads to no discoveries and is only a replaceable placebo!
The supernatural and paranormal superstitions are as Paul Kurtz describes them -'The Transcendental Temptation."
Ponder Kai Nielsen's two books on natualism and Richard Carrier's " Sense and Goodness without God: a Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism." Check out the naturalism.org website.
By the way, there are roughy double the numbers of non-theists as those who so admit in polls.
Haughty John Jaught contemns our metaphysic for ignoring venues of knowledge other than the natural but he begs the question rather than so showing. We look around and only find natural causes and explanations- the sufficient reason. Others look around, using pareidolia to see divine agency at work like seeing Yeshua in a tortilla. Ultimately, Haught use the argument from angst to do so.
Non-naturalism leads to no discoveries and is only a replaceable placebo!
The supernatural and paranormal superstitions are as Paul Kurtz describes them -'The Transcendental Temptation."
Ponder Kai Nielsen's two books on natualism and Richard Carrier's " Sense and Goodness without God: a Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism." Check out the naturalism.org website.
By the way, there are roughy double the numbers of non-theists as those who so admit in polls.