You explain convincingly why there is no alternative to methodological naturalism.
The irony of the notion of methodological naturalism is that it only makes sense if its falsification, i.e. supernaturalism might actually be detected in some way. Yet its proponents argue that this is impossible as a matter of principle and surround this claim with the arguments and so on that Hunter pointed out.
There is no alternative to naturalism, whatever it is, because there never could be. The subsequent arguments and mythologies of progress that you find so convincing are actually unnecessary.
Therefore I wonder why you still have problems accepting the ToE?
Your argument reads like this: There is no alternative to naturalism, therefore evolution is true.
I guess you can’t even understand why that is a problem but others might note that the “theory of evolution” is unlike other scientific theories which are open to falsification and which actually require experimental and empirical evidence.
Looking at your argument again (There is no alternative to naturalism therefore evolution.) apparently the only way it would be falsified is if a supernatural being appeared in a test tube or some such. Their incarnation would put them in nature, naturally. So it would all still be natural and therefore one would have no alternative but to imagine an evolutionary creation myth to explain it.
Filed under: Uncategorized |